Approaches

Sustainable development of olive groves II [Greece]

approaches_2429 - Greece

Completeness: 78%

1. General information

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

Key resource person(s)

SLM specialist:
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
Agricultural University of Athens (AUA) - Greece

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 Reference(s) to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Technologies

2. Description of the SLM Approach

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Sustainable development of olive groves by applying no tillage operations and plastic nets on the soil surface

2.3 Photos of the Approach

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Approach has been applied

Country:

Greece

Region/ State/ Province:

Chania and Heraclion prefectures of Crete

Further specification of location:

Crete

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

Indicate year of initiation:

20

2.7 Type of Approach

  • recent local initiative/ innovative

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused on SLM only

To promote conservation of natural resources

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Facing problems in convincing farmers to apply no tillage operations but the technique of using nets permanently on the soil surface is applied traditionally in extensional form.

2.9 Conditions enabling or hindering implementation of the Technology/ Technologies applied under the Approach

social/ cultural/ religious norms and values
  • hindering

traditional mechanic cultivation of olive groves

Treatment through the SLM Approach:

knowledge about SLM, access to technical support
  • hindering

loss of water

Treatment through the SLM Approach:

3. Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

  • local land users/ local communities

The majority of land users are men. The approach concerned mainly producers located in less favourable areas

  • SLM specialists/ agricultural advisers
  • national government (planners, decision-makers)
3.2 Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach
Involvement of local land users/ local communities Specify who was involved and describe activities
initiation/ motivation interactive
planning interactive
implementation self-mobilization
monitoring/ evaluation none
Research none

3.3 Flow chart (if available)

Description:

Organization chart showing the steering structure concerning the implementation of agricultural policy

3.4 Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology/ Technologies

Specify who decided on the selection of the Technology/ Technologies to be implemented:
  • SLM specialists alone
Explain:

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by land users supported by SLM specialists. Due to low farm income they did not cultivate the land, but they realise that no tillage operations were positive for the growth of the olives

4. Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:
  • land users
If relevant, specify gender, age, status, ethnicity, etc.

mainly men aged from twenties to sixties, Greeks

Form of training:
  • public meetings
Subjects covered:

conservation of natural resource

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Describe/ comments:

Name of method used for advisory service: analysis of production; Key elements: cost production, total production

Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?
  • yes, a little
Specify the level(s) at which institutions have been strengthened or established:
  • local
Specify type of support:
  • financial

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Comments:

There were no changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation

There were no changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:
  • economics / marketing
  • ecology
Give further details and indicate who did the research:

ISPOT, AUA

Research was carried out both on station and on-farm

5. Financing and external material support

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:
  • voluntary

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

No

6. Impact analysis and concluding statements

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

Did the Approach help land users to implement and maintain SLM Technologies?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

decrease in soil loss and increase in water conservation

Did the Approach empower socially and economically disadvantaged groups?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

mainly men old aged, Greeks

Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

land users in Pelloponese

Did the Approach lead to improved livelihoods / human well-being?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

increase in farmers income by reducing labour work despite the cost of nets

Did the Approach help to alleviate poverty?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

increasing income

6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM

  • reduced workload
  • environmental consciousness

6.3 Sustainability of Approach activities

Can the land users sustain what has been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?
  • yes
If yes, describe how:

there is a small cost in applying the technology

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
cc 2 (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: 33)
bb 3 (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: 22)
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
aa 1 (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: 11)

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

  • field visits, field surveys
  • interviews with land users

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules