1.2 Технологийг үнэлэх, баримтжуулах ажилд хамаарах мэдээлэл өгсөн хүмүүс, байгууллагуудын холбоо барих мэдээлэл

Технологи баримтжуулах/үнэлэх ажилд дэмжлэг үзүүлсэн төслийн нэр (шаардлагатай бол)

Catastrophic shifts in drylands (EU-CASCADE)

Технологи баримтжуулах/үнэлэх ажилд дэмжлэг үзүүлсэн байгууллага(ууд)-ын нэр (шаардлагатай бол)

Centro de Estudios Ambientales del Mediterraneo (CEAM) - Испани

1.3 ВОКАТ-аар баримтжуулсан өгөгдлийг ашиглахтай холбоотой нөхцөл

Эмхэтгэгч болон гол мэдээлэгч хүн(хүмүүс) WOCAT аргачлалаар баримтжуулсан мэдээллийг ашиглахтай холбоотой нөхцлийг хүлээн зөвшөөрсөн:

Тийм

1.4 Технологи тогтвортой гэдгийг баталгаажуулах

Энэ технологийг газрын доройтлыг бууруулж, газрын тогтвортой менежментийг хангахад тохиромжтой гэж үзэж болох уу?

Үгүй

2.1 Технологийн товч тодорхойлолт

Технологийн тодорхойлолт:

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

2.2 Технологийн дэлгэрэнгүй тодорхойлолт

Тодорхойлолт:

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 Технологийн гэрэл зураг

2.5 Энэ үнэлгээнд хамрагдсан технологийг хэрэгжүүлсэн улс орон/ бүс нутаг/ байршил

2.6 Хэрэгжсэн хугацаа

Байгуулсан тодорхой оныг мэдэхгүй бол баримжаа хугацааг тодорхойл:

• 10-50 жилийн өмнө

2.7 Технологийн танилцуулга

Технологийг хэрхэн нэвтрүүлснийг тодорхойл:

• Гадны төсөл/хөтөлбөрийн дэмжлэгтэйгээр

Тайлбар (төслийн төрөл г.м.):

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 Технологийн үндсэн зорилго (ууд)

• газрын доройтлыг бууруулах, сэргийлэх, нөхөн сэргээх
• экосистемийг хамгаалах

3.2 Технологи нэвтрүүлсэн газрын одоогийн газар ашиглалтын хэлбэр(үүд)

Тайлбар:

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 Технологи ГТМ-ийн аль бүлэгт хамаарах вэ

• таримал ойн менежмент

3.6 Технологийг бүрдүүлэх ГТМ арга хэмжээ

Тайлбар:

Type of vegetative measures: aligned: -linear

3.7 Технологид харгалзах газрын доройтлын төрөл

Тайлбар:

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 Газрын доройтлоос урьдчилан сэргийлэх, сааруулах ба нөхөн сэргээх

Газрын доройтолтой холбоотойгоор Технологи ямар зорилго тавьсан болохыг тодорхойл:

• газрын доройтлоос урьдчилан сэргийлэх
• Хүчтэй доройтсон газрыг нөхөн сэргээх/ сайжруулах

4.1 Технологийн техник зураг

4.2 Материал болон зардалд хамаарах ерөнхий мэдээлэл

бусад/үндэсний мөнгөн нэгж (тодорхойл):

Euro

Хэрэв боломжтой бол үндэсний валютын Америк доллартай харьцах харьцааг бичнэ үү (тухайлбал, 1 ам.дол. = 79,9 Бразил реал): 1 ам.дол. =:

0.74

4.3 Бий болгох үйл ажиллагаа

	Үйл ажиллагаа	Хугацаа (улирал)
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 Бий болгоход шаардагдсан зардал, хөрөнгийн өртөг

	Зардлын нэр, төрөл	Хэмжих нэгж	Тоо хэмжээ	Нэгжийн үнэ	Зардал бүрийн нийт өртөг	Нийт дүнгээс газар ашиглагчийн төлсөн %
Тоног төхөөрөмж	machine use	ha	1.0	4857.0	4857.0
Технологи бий болгох нийт үнэ өртөг					4857.0
Технологи бий болгох нийт үнэ өртөг, ам.доллар					6563.51

Тайлбар:

Duration of establishment phase: 4 month(s)

4.5 Арчилгаа/ урсгал үйл ажиллагаа

	Үйл ажиллагаа	Хугацаа/ давтамж
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 Арчилгаа/урсгал ажилд шаардагдсан зардал, хөрөнгийн өртөг (нэг жилд)

	Зардлын нэр, төрөл	Хэмжих нэгж	Тоо хэмжээ	Нэгжийн үнэ	Зардал бүрийн нийт өртөг	Нийт дүнгээс газар ашиглагчийн төлсөн %
Тоног төхөөрөмж	machine use	ha	1.0	2428.0	2428.0
Технологийн арчилгаа/урсгал үйл ажиллагаанд шаардагдах нийт үнэ өртөг					2428.0
Технологи арчилах ба урсгал ажлын нийт үнэ өртөг, ам.доллар					3281.08

Тайлбар:

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 Зардалд нөлөөлж байгаа хамгийн чухал хүчин зүйл

Өртөг, зардалд нөлөөлөх гол хүчин зүйл:

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 Уур амьсгал

5.2 Гадаргын хэлбэр

5.3 Хөрс

5.4 Усны хүртээмж ба чанар

5.5 Биологийн олон янз байдал

5.6 Технологи нэвтрүүлсэн газар ашиглагчдын тухай мэдээлэл

Газар ашиглагчдын бусад шинж чанарыг тодорхойл:

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 Газар эзэмшил, газар ашиглах эрх, ус ашиглах эрх

Газар өмчлөл:

• төрийн
• хувь хүн, өмчийн гэрчилгээтэй

Газар ашиглах эрх:

• хувь хүн

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

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

Тайлбар:

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 Технологийн талбайд үзүүлсэн нөлөө

Нийгэм-эдийн засгийн үр нөлөө

Үйлдвэрлэл

Нийгэм-соёлын үр нөлөө

Экологийн үр нөлөө

Усны эргэлт/ илүүдэл

Хөрс

Биологийн олон янз байдал: ургамал, амьтан

Уур амьсгал болон гамшгийн эрсдлийг бууруулах

6.2 Технологийн талбайн гадна үзүүлсэн үр нөлөө

6.3 Технологийн уур амьсгалын өөрчлөлт, цаг агаарын гамшигт үзэгдэлд өртөх байдал ба эмзэг байдал (газар ашиглагчийн бодлоор)

Уур амьсгалын аажим өөрчлөлт

Уур амьсгалын аажим өөрчлөлт

	Улирал	Өсөх эсвэл буурах	Технологи түүний нөлөөг хэрхэн бууруулж байна?
жилийн дундаж температур		Өсөлт	сайн

Уур амьсгалаас хамаарах аюул (гамшиг)

Цаг уурын гамшигт үзэгдэл

	Технологи түүний нөлөөг хэрхэн бууруулж байна?
орон нутгийн аадар бороо	сайн
орон нутгийн салхин шуурга	мэдэхгүй

Уур амьсгалын гамшиг

	Технологи түүний нөлөөг хэрхэн бууруулж байна?
ган гачиг	муу

Усзүйн гамшиг

	Технологи түүний нөлөөг хэрхэн бууруулж байна?
усны үер (гол)	мэдэхгүй

Уур амьсгалд хамаарах бусад үр дагавар

Уур амьсгалд хамаарах бусад үр дагавар

	Технологи түүний нөлөөг хэрхэн бууруулж байна?
цргалтын хугацаа багасах	муу
fires	муу

Тайлбар:

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 Өртөг ба ашгийн шинжилгээ

Бий болгох зардалтай харьцуулахад ямар ашиг өгсөн бэ (газар ашиглагчийн бодлоор)?

Арчилгаа/урсгал зардалтай харьцуулахад ямар ашиг өгсөн бэ (газар ашиглагчийн бодлоор)?

Тайлбар:

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 Технологи нэвтрүүлэлт

Тайлбар:

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 Технологийн давуу тал/боломжууд

Газар ашиглагчдын тодорхойлсон давуу тал/боломжууд
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

Эмхэтгэгч, бусад мэдээлэл өгсөн хүмүүсийн өнцгөөс тодорхойлсон давуу тал/боломжууд
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 Технологийн дутагдалтай/сул тал/аюул болон тэдгээрийг хэрхэн даван туулах арга зам

Газар ашиглагч нарын тодорхойлсон сул тал/ дутагдал/ эрсдэл	Тэдгээрийг хэрхэн даван туулах вэ?
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

Эмхэтгэгч, бусад мэдээлэл өгсөн хүмүүсийн өнцгөөс тодорхойлсон сул тал/ дутагдал/ эрсдэл	Тэдгээрийг хэрхэн даван туулах вэ?
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 Мэдээлэл цуглуулсан арга/эх үүсвэр

7.2 Ном, хэвлэлийн ишлэл

Гарчиг, зохиогч, он, 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.

Гарчиг, зохиогч, он, 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.

Гарчиг, зохиогч, он, 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.

Гарчиг, зохиогч, он, 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.

Гарчиг, зохиогч, он, 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.