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

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

University of Haifa (uhaifa)

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

Comments:

This intervention is explicitly designed to reverse and restore previously degraded soils (monoculture exhaustion, fertility decline, low biodiversity).

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Converting conventional monoculture farmland into a food forest-based agroforestry system restores soil health, increases vegetation cover, enhances biodiversity while diversifying production. The intervention improves soil organic matter and ecological resilience through multi-storey planting, reduced soil disturbance, and nature-based land management.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

The development of a “food forest” was in response to visible soil degradation caused by years of wheat-based monoculture in Bethlehem of Galilee. The previous land use consisted of annual wheat production, tractor-powered deep ploughing, and routine use of herbicides and pesticides. Over time, these practices depleted soil organic matter, reduced microbial activity, and increased vulnerability to erosion, compaction, and moisture loss. The current food forest, covering approximately 1.5 acres (0.6 hectare), represents a transformative shift from this intensive, extractive system toward a sustainable, perennial, multi-strata agroforestry model.
The primary purpose of this site is research and education. It is not intended to be a commercial enterprise, but to demonstrate principles and practices of sustainable land management. The income generated is not from crops but from research grants, workshops and community activities.
The site has been under continuous restoration for approximately eight years, during which it has gradually developed into a multi-layered food forest. The upper canopy includes species such as ficus, tipa, mulberry, pecan, plane trees, and nitrogen-fixing “ice-cream bean” (Inga edulis), which together generate shade, biomass, and structural diversity. The productive mid-storey contains fruit-bearing species including lemon, plum, pomegranate, avocado, and additional deciduous trees. Beneath these layers, aromatic shrubs such as lavender and rosemary provide perennial cover, habitat complexity, and year-round biomass production. A dedicated lower layer supports seasonal vegetables: carrots, radishes, turnips, lettuces and other greens, interplanted within tree alleys and cultivated using organic methods.
Production follows a diversified model typical of food forests. Tree crops currently yield modest but consistent quantities of lemons, plums, mulberries, pomegranates, and herbs, primarily for consumption by visitors, volunteers, and workers on site rather than large-scale commercial sale. The adjoining vegetable-growing area produces additional crops for small-scale marketing, providing a modest revenue stream while maintaining ecological integrity. As the system is still maturing, productive output is expected to increase over the coming years.
The project is privately managed by a couple in their thirties, who own and oversee all aspects of the site. Labour requirements were most intensive during the establishment phase of planting, mulching, earth-shaping, and infrastructure setup. As the food forest enters a more stable successional stage, labour demands have gradually decreased, with current activities centred on pruning, biomass recycling, vegetable cultivation, and occasional enrichment planting. No chemical inputs are applied at any stage.
Irrigation was originally supported by a drip system installed to establish young trees and early perennial layers. Today, irrigation needs have significantly decreased due to higher soil organic matter, increased shade, and improved microclimate regulation. Drip irrigation is now used only minimally and mainly within the annual vegetable plots, while most perennial components rely primarily on natural rainfall.
Overall, this food forest demonstrates a replicable nature-based solution for Mediterranean environments, showcasing how degraded wheat monoculture fields can be restored into resilient, biodiverse, and ecologically functional agroforestry systems. The long-term transition highlights substantial gains in soil health, water retention, and landscape diversity, while supporting small-scale production and community-oriented engagement.

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

Indicate year of implementation:

2017

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:

• less than 10 years ago (recently)

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• through land users' innovation
• during experiments/ research
• through projects/ external interventions

Comments (type of project, etc.):

The landowners developed the site as part of a holistic environmental vision and continue to refine it through ongoing learning, experimentation, and renewal. They actively initiate collaborations with research institutions in Israel and abroad to support long-term monitoring of the site and to advance the food-forest practice within a scientific and evidence-based framework.

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• conserve ecosystem
• preserve/ improve biodiversity
• adapt to climate change/ extremes and its impacts
• create beneficial social impact

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

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

Yes

Specify mixed land use (crops/ grazing/ trees):

• Agroforestry

3.3 Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?

Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?

• Yes (Please fill out the questions below with regard to the land use before implementation of the Technology)

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

No

3.4 Water supply

Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:

• mixed rainfed-irrigated

Comments:

Irrigation was originally supported by a drip system installed to establish young trees and early perennial layers. Today, irrigation needs have significantly decreased due to higher soil organic matter, increased shade, and improved microclimate regulation. Drip irrigation is now used only minimally and mainly within the annual vegetable plots, while most perennial components rely primarily on natural rainfall.

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• agroforestry
• improved ground/ vegetation cover
• minimal soil disturbance

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

For this pilot, the technology primarily addresses soil degradation (chemical + physical + biological) that resulted from long-term monoculture and herbicide-based management.

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

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

• reduce 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

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

• per Technology area

Specify currency used for cost calculations:

• USD

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Initial site assessment and mapping of soil condition and exposure	Late winter / early spring
2.	Discontinuation of tillage and herbicide applications	Immediately prior to establishment
3.	Soil preparation without deep tillage (light loosening, mulching base layer)	Early spring
4.	Planting of trees in primary layout (skeleton layer)	Spring
5.	Planting of shrubs and understory companion species	Late spring / early summer
6.	Installation of organic mulch cover to protect soil and retain moisture	After planting (early summer)
7.	Enrichment planting / filling gaps with additional groundcover species	Late summer / following spring
8.	Protection of young trees/shrubs if needed (guards, shading, temporary watering)	First growing season
9.	Establishment of biomass cycling (chop-and-drop, composting on-site)	After vegetation takes root
10.	Transition into maintenance phase (reduced intervention, natural succession)	Once canopy begins forming

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
Labour	Manual labour	Person-days	139.0	158.2	21989.8	100.0
Equipment	Tools and maintenance equipment		1.0	5000.0	5000.0	100.0
Equipment	Tractor (for construction)		1.0	7200.0	7200.0	100.0
Plant material	Seedlings, cuttings, and seeds		1.0	14000.0	14000.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Compost		1.0	10500.0	10500.0	100.0
Construction material	Irrigation system		1.0	14500.0	14500.0	100.0
Construction material	Pruned biomass mulch		1.0	6500.0	6500.0	100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					79689.8
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					79689.8

If land user bore less than 100% of costs, indicate who covered the remaining costs:

Land user bore all costs: but note the primary purpose of this site is research and education. It is not intended to be a commercial enterprise, but to demonstrate principles and practices of sustainable land management. The income generated is not from crops but from research grants, workshops and community activities.

Comments:

No chemical fertilizers or pesticides are used; fertilization is based solely on compost

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Mulching with organic biomass (leaf litter, pruning residues, woodchips, etc.)	2–3 times per year, mainly after rainy season and mid-summer
2.	Selective pruning of trees and shrubs to maintain structure and light balance	Annually / as needed (late winter or autumn)
3.	Enrichment planting and succession planting of understorey species	Seasonally, as ecosystem matures or gaps appear
4.	Weeding by ecological suppression (groundcover strengthening) rather than removal	Continuous, low-intensity maintenance
5.	Soil moisture conservation (biomass renewal / occasional supportive watering in drought years)	Seasonally during dry periods (as needed)
6.	Monitoring soil condition and vegetation health	Ongoing, at least once per season
7.	Replacement of failed or weak young plants	Annually during early growth seasons
8.	Maintenance of biodiversity guilds / companion planting structure	Continuous, adaptive to natural succession

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
Labour	Manual labour	Person-days	110.0	158.2	17402.0	100.0
Equipment	Equipment renewal and maintenance		1.0	5000.0	5000.0	100.0
Plant material	Cuttings and seeds		1.0	4000.0	4000.0	100.0
Other	Water bills		1.0	5500.0	5500.0	100.0
Other	Products selling kits		1.0	2000.0	2000.0	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					33902.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					33902.0

Comments:

The establishment costs refer to the initial food forest area of approximately 1.5 acres, while the annual maintenance costs refer to the forest in its current state, covering about 3 acres. Land user bore all costs: but note that the primary purpose of this site is research and education. It is not intended to be a commercial enterprise, but to demonstrate principles and practices of sustainable land management. The income generated is not from crops but from research grants, workshops and community activities.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

The most significant cost factor, both during establishment and ongoing maintenance, is labour. All work is carried out manually using hand tools, and apart from the initial establishment phase, no heavy machinery is used

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• not relevant

5.3 Soils

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

No

Is flooding of the area occurring?

No

5.5 Biodiversity

Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:

Both species diversity and habitat diversity have transformed due to the establishment of the food forest, and are now both high. This is a very agrobiodiverse system.

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

5.7 Average area of land used by land users applying the Technology

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

Land ownership:

• individual, titled

Land use rights:

• individual

Water use rights:

• individual

Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?

No

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Income and costs

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Climate and disaster risk reduction

Specify assessment of on-site impacts (measurements):

The assessment of on-site impacts combines both social-cultural learning processes and quantitative biophysical measurements. On the social, cultural, and economic side, the site hosts workshops, guided learning sessions, and community activities designed to understand the meaning, role, and value of the food forest for local stakeholders. These engagements provide qualitative insights into cultural benefits, community strengthening, and the educational function of the place. For the more tangible biophysical parameters – soil health, vegetation condition, biodiversity, and ecological recovery – the monitoring relies on analytical laboratory tests and systematic long-term sampling. Soil samples collected at different stages of the establishment process were analyzed for organic matter, nutrients, structure, and biological activity, providing a clear picture of soil improvement over time. In addition, the site is monitored through remote-sensing-based indicators developed in collaboration with the University of Haifa, which track temporal changes in vegetation cover, biomass, soil moisture proxies, and overall ecological function. Together, these qualitative and quantitative assessments offer a comprehensive understanding of the site’s development, documenting both the ecological restoration underway and the parallel social and educational impacts generated by the food forest.

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

Specify assessment of off-site impacts (measurements):

Off-site impacts were assessed through a combination of qualitative and quantitative indicators that capture how the food-forest system influences the surrounding landscape and community beyond the plot boundaries. Hydrological effects were inferred from reduced surface runoff and improved infiltration within the site, which collectively lower downstream sedimentation and erosion risks; these implications were evaluated using rainfall records, soil-moisture trends, and comparison of runoff behavior between the restored area and adjacent conventionally managed fields. Vegetation development and canopy expansion – monitored through Sentinel-2 time-series and UAV imagery – provide additional evidence of landscape-scale improvements such as enhanced microclimatic buffering and habitat connectivity. Social and cultural off-site impacts were evaluated through participation in workshops, educational programs, and community events, which extend ecological knowledge and stewardship beyond the site itself. Together, these measurements and observations offer a coherent picture of how the food forest contributes to broader environmental and community benefits outside its physical boundaries.

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	moderately
annual rainfall		decrease	well

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
local rainstorm	moderately

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
heatwave	well
drought	well

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:

The slightly negative short-term balance does not reflect external subsidies but rather the intentional design and purpose of the site. The food forest is not a commercial enterprise and was never intended to generate profit from agricultural production. Its primary function is research, education, and community engagement, and therefore its revenues come from workshops, collaborations, and research grants rather than crop sales. The short-term financial deficit simply reflects the fact that the landowners invest in a long-term ecological and educational project whose value is measured in environmental and social outcomes rather than immediate economic returns. It should not be interpreted as dependence on agricultural subsidies or market-based support.

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• single cases/ experimental

If available, quantify (no. of households and/ or area covered):

One household: 1.5 acres

Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?

• 0-10%

6.6 Adaptation

Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?

Yes

If yes, indicate to which changing conditions it was adapted:

• climatic change/ extremes

Specify adaptation of the Technology (design, material/ species, etc.):

The design and composition of the food forest are continuously adapted as the system matures and as new insights emerge from ongoing learning by the landowners and collaborating researchers. Species selection, spatial arrangement, and management practices have been refined over time in response to observed ecological dynamics - such as canopy development, soil improvement, microclimatic changes, and species performance. Additional trees, shrubs, and groundcovers have been introduced to enhance diversity, strengthen ecological functions, and address emerging needs such as shade regulation, soil enrichment, or habitat creation. This adaptive approach reflects the core principle of the technology: the food forest is a living system that evolves through observation, experimentation, and evidence-based adjustments informed by both practical experience and scientific collaboration.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Restores soil fertility and structure without relying on chemicals and reduces weed pressure naturally through permanent groundcover
Improves moisture retention and reduces drought stress over time and supports biodiversity and creates a healthier farm ecosystem
Transformational: turns degraded land into a productive long-term asset

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Demonstrates a replicable nature-based solution for restoring degraded agricultural soils in Mediterranean climates
Increases soil organic matter and biological activity, improving long-term soil function and carbon sequestration
Serves as a living demonstration site with high educational and upscaling potential for regenerative farming in the region

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?
Slow establishment phase before benefits become visible	Patience + phased planting; choose fast-growing pioneer species to accelerate canopy formation
Requires knowledge and ecological management skills	Ongoing guidance from experts / capacity building / training
Young plants vulnerable to drought during first summers	Supplemental irrigation in the first years and thicker mulching to reduce evaporation

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Long ecological recovery timeline before system reaches full functionality	Use succession planning and pioneer/perennial nurse species to accelerate canopy closure and soil regeneration
Success depends on appropriate species selection for local microclimate and soil	Improve site-specific design using adaptive planting trials, monitoring, and locally adapted cultivars
Knowledge-intensive management compared to conventional systems	Provide technical training, extension support, and farmer-to-farmer learning
Restoration outcomes may vary with drought years and extreme heat events	Increase biomass cover, soil shading, and water retention strategies in early establishment years

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Zbedat, G., & Brook, A. (2025). Land Restoration Effectiveness Assessed by Satellite-Based Remote Sensing Technologies as A New Monitoring Approach. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, 48, 149-155.

Available from where? Costs?

Google Scholar

Title, author, year, ISBN:

T. A. Cohen, A. Brook and G. Zbedat, "Long-Term Land Restoration Assessment Using Remote Sensing in Mediterranean Ecosystems," 2024 IEEE International Workshop on Metrology for Agriculture and Forestry (MetroAgriFor), Padua, Italy, 2024, pp. 179-183, doi: 10.1109/MetroAgriFor63043.2024.10948855.

Available from where? Costs?

Google Scholar

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

React4Med site

URL:

https://react4med.eu

Title/ description:

Bethlehem of Galilee Food Forest Collection

URL:

https://haifa.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/collectionDiscovery?vid=972HAI_MAIN:HAU&inst=972HAI_MAIN&collectionId=81263109080002791