S ustaina b le B A C K G R O U N D

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this

information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever
on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
(FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city
or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or
boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers,
whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have
been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar
nature that are not mentioned.

The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the views of FAO.

ISBN 978-92-5-000000-0

All rights reserved. FAO encourages reproduction and dissemination of

material in this information product. Non-commercial uses will be authorized
free of charge, upon request. Reproduction for resale or other commercial
purposes, including educational purposes, may incur fees. Applications for
permission to reproduce or disseminate FAO copyright materials, and all
queries concerning rights and licences, should be addressed by e-mail to
[email protected] or to the Chief, Publishing Policy and Support Branch,
Office of Knowledge Exchange, Research and Extension, FAO,
Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy.

© FAO 2011

Layout_Part_1_2.indd 2 24.05.11 11:12

 Sustainable Land Management in Practice
Guidelines and Best Practices for Sub-Saharan Africa

Authors: Hanspeter Liniger, Rima Mekdaschi Studer, Christine Hauert, Mats Gurtner
Under FAO coordination
Technical Editor: William Critchley
Charts and Maps: Ulla Gämperli, Simone Kummer, Chris Hergarten
Layout: Simone Kummer
Citation:  Liniger, H.P., R. Mekdaschi Studer, C. Hauert and M. Gurtner. 2011. Sustainable Land Management
in Practice – Guidelines and Best Practices for Sub-Saharan Africa. TerrAfrica, World Overview of
­Conservation Approaches and Technologies (WOCAT) and Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations (FAO)
Cover photo: Sustainable Land Management practiced on small-scale farms in Machakos, Kenya: Protection of
erosion-prone slopes through hand-dug terraces in combination with agroforestry (Hanspeter Liniger)

Layout_Part_1_2.indd 3 24.05.11 11:12

 Table of Contents
Foreword 7
Acknowledgments 9
Abbreviations and acronyms 10
Executive summary 11

Part 1: Guiding principles

Introduction 16
Setting the frame 16
Aims and audience 17
Structure and sources 17
Focus on Sub-Saharan Africa 18
Focus on Sustainable Land Management 18

Principles for best SLM practices 21

Increased land productivity 21
Water use efficiency 22
Soil fertility 28
Plants and their management 30
Micro-climate 32
Improved livelihoods 32
Costs and benefits 33
Input challenges for land users 33
Improved ecosystems: being environmentally friendly 34
Prevent, mitigate and rehabilitate land degradation 34
Improve biodiversity 36
Climate change: a fresh challenge – a new opportunity? 37
Triple-win solutions 41

 doption and decision support for upscaling best practices

A 43
Adoption - uptake and spread 43
Institutional and policy framework 44
Participation and land use planning 46
Promotion and extension 47
Monitoring, assessment and research 48
Decision support - upscaling SLM 50
Knowledge management: building the basis 50
Selection and fine-tuning of SLM practices 51
Selection of priority areas for interventions 51
Conclusions for adoption and decision support 52

The way forward 53

Layout_Part_1_2.indd 5 24.05.11 11:12

 C O N T. T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

Part 2: Best SLM practices for Sub-Saharan Africa

Overview of SLM practices 58

SLM technology groups and case studies 61
Integrated Soil Fertility Management 62
Conservation Agriculture 76
Rainwater Harvesting 88
Smallholder Irrigation Management 100
Cross-Slope Barriers 114
Agroforestry 126
Integrated Crop-Livestock Management 142
Pastoralism and Rangeland Management 156
Sustainable Planted Forest Management 170
Sustainable Forest Management in Drylands 182
Sustainable Rainforest Management 192
Trends and New Opportunities 202
SLM Approaches and case studies 215
SLM Approaches 216
Annex: Best SLM practices compared 235

6 Sustainable Land Management in Practice

Layout_Part_1_2.indd 6 24.05.11 11:12

 F O REW O R D

Land is the true of wealth of Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). The region is characterized by a very rich diversity of natural
­ecosystem resources, including soils, vegetation, water and genetic diversity. Together, these constitute the region’s
main natural capital. It is from these assets that the provision of food, water, wood, fibre and industrial products, and
essential ecosystem services and functions are derived. And they must be maintained in order to support African
populations into the future. Simultaneously, it is from the land that 60 percent of the people directly derive their livelihoods
- from agriculture, freshwater fisheries, forestry and other natural resources (FAO 2004).

However, African land and water resources in some areas are seriously threatened through overuse although per capita
availability is one of the highest in the world. This is a direct result of the increasing needs of a growing population,
combined, often, with inappropriate land management practices. Thus, on the one hand, the African population is
growing at over two percent a year (FAO 2008), requiring a doubling of food production by 2030 to keep pace with
demand; on the other hand, productivity of natural resources is in general in decline. Additionally, the number of natural
disasters has increased and climate change is already taking its toll.

A new system of management and governance of land resources is urgently needed; one that is able to respond in
a systematic and integrated manner to this key development challenge. Sustainable land management (SLM) is a
comprehensive approach, with the potential of making very significant and lasting differences in the near future, and
over the long-term. But what is sustainable land management exactly? What are the principles, and above all, the
practices that people can use? How can it make a real difference and provide concrete solutions for Africa? These are
the key questions that this book wishes to address - and answers are provided through the case studies and analyses.

These guidelines have been developed based on FAO’s and WOCAT’s extensive experience. The book draws, in particular,
on WOCAT’s network and its database of SLM knowledge - as well as on WOCAT’s first overview book entitled ‘Where
the land is greener’. These guidelines were implemented in the framework of the TerrAfrica partnership, whose main
objective is to mainstream and upscale SLM in SSA, through the leveraging and harmonising of multisectoral investments
at the local, country, subregional and regional levels.

This book is aimed at giving a strong boost to the adoption of SLM on the African continent. It is based on scientific and
technical as well as practical and operational knowledge. It was written to provide clear guidance to countries, regional
institutions and programmes, development partners and land users organizations that are ready and eager to change
present investments towards a more sustainable direction.

The book presents 13 major groups of SLM technologies and approaches in a user-friendly manner, exemplified by 47 case
studies from all over the region. It should be emphasized that, although comprehensive, these practices are not intended to
be prescriptive or top-down, and in most cases can be improved and tailored to different situations. Users are therefore
encouraged to adapt and modify them, based on specific conditions, integrating local knowledge and ingenuity.

Furthermore, the book addresses environmental issues that are the most pressing for SSA: thus not just combating land
degradation, but also preserving ecosystem functions, ensuring food security, securing water resources within the land
and confronting the climate change issues of adaptation and mitigation. Typical situations in SSA are addressed, and the
potential for major contributions to improved livelihoods is emphasized.

Foreword 7

Layout_Part_1_2.indd 7 24.05.11 11:12

 It is expected that on-going major initiatives, such as country programmes and investment operations supported
by TerrAfrica, national action plans and sector investment strategies, the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development
Programme (CAADP) planning, as well as forest, water resources and climate change initiatives will facilitate
­operationalization and upscaling of these practices through multi-stakeholder partnerships. It is hoped that all
­stakeholders will benefit from the invaluable information contained in this guide and participate in the TerrAfrica
partnership to expand and document the state of the knowledge.

Jacques Diouf
FAO Director-General

8 Sustainable Land Management in Practice

Layout_Part_1_2.indd 8 24.05.11 11:12

 A C K N O W LEDGM ENTS

This volume is a core knowledge product for the TerrAfrica platform, prepared under the Food and Agriculture Organi-
sation’s (FAO) leadership, and financed by the multi-donor TerrAfrica Leveraging Fund, the World Bank, FAO, Swiss
Development Cooperation (SDC) and World Overview of Conservation Approaches and Technologies (WOCAT). These
guidelines were prepared by Hanspeter Liniger, Rima Mekdaschi Studer, Christine Hauert and Mats Gurtner, initiated and
coordinated by Dominique Lantieri of FAO, edited by William Critchley, CIS, VU-University Amsterdam and received sup-
port, technical contributions and reviews from Steve Danyo of the World Bank and Sally Bunning of FAO. The guidelines
are based largely on an iterative process that tapped into the collected experiences of people and institutions both inside
and outside Africa and could only be realised through the guidance, cooperation, and assistance of many contributors
who champion SLM as a way to secure environmentally friendly and climate resilient livelihoods.

The SLM groups as they stand now could not have been realised without the review and technical inputs from the follow-
ing resource persons: Integrated Soil Fertility Management: Jacqueline Gicheru, FAO; Stephen Twomlow, UNEP; Wair-
imu Mburathi, FAO; Conservation Agriculture: Amir Kassam, FAO; Josef Kienzle, FAO; Maimbo Malesu, ICRAF; Ric Coe,
ICRAF; Theodor Friedrich, FAO; Rainwater Harvesting: Bancy Makanya Mati, ICRAF; Christoph Studer, Swiss College
of Agriculture; Maimbo Malesu, ICRAF; Sally Bunning, FAO; Smallholder Irrigation Management: Bernard Keraita, IWMI;
Chris Morger, Intercooperation; Pay Drechsel, IWMI; Sourakata Bangoura, FAO; Wairimu Mburathi, FAO; Cross-Slope Bar-
riers: Hans Hurni, CDE; Jan De Graaff, WUR; Kithinji Mutunga, FAO; Agroforestry: Aichi Kityali, ICRAF; Chin Ong; Hubert
de Foresta, Institute for Research and Development (IRD); Jeremias Mowo and Ric Coe, ICRAF; Integrated Crop-Livestock
Management: Jonathan Davies, IUCN; Pastoralism and Rangeland Management: Eva Schlecht, University of Kassel;
Jonathan Davies, IUCN; Pierre Hiernaux, CESBIO; Sustainable Planted Forest Management: Walter Kollert, FAO; Sustain-
able Natural Forest Management in Drylands: Anne Branthomme, FAO; Nora Berrahmouni, FAO; Sustainable Rainforest
Management: Alain Billand, CIRAD; Carlos de Wasseige, projet FORAF, CIRAD; Nicolas Bayol, ‘Forêt Ressources Manage-
ment’ (FRM); Richard Eba’a Atyi, projet FORAF; Robert Nasi, CIFOR; Trends and new Opportunities: William Critchley, CIS,
VU-University Amsterdam; SLM Approaches: William Critchley, CIS, VU-University Amsterdam; Ernst Gabathuler, CDE

The authors are deeply indepted to the following persons who were either authors or contributed to the updating of the in
the ­WOCAT database already existing case studies: Jens Aune, Norwegian University of Life Science, Norway; Sourakata
Bangoura, FAO Central África; Jules Bayala, CORAF; Sally Bunning, FAO; Carolina Cenerini, FAO; William Critchley, CIS,
VU-University Amsterdam; Daniel Danano, MoARD, Ethiopia; Etienne Jean Pascal De Pury, CEAS Neuchâtel, Switzerland;
Toon Defoer, Agriculture R&D consultant, France; Friew Desta, Bureau of Agriculture, SNNPR, Ethiopia; Lopa Dosteus, CARE
International, Tanzania; Deborah Duveskog, Regional FFS Advisor, FAO Kenya; Mawussi Gbenonchi, Université de Lomé,
Togo; Paolo Groppo, FAO; Abraham Mehari Haile, UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education, The Netherlands; Andreas
Hemp, University of Bayreuth, Germany; Claudia Hemp, University of Würzburg, Germany; Verina Ingram, CIFOR-Cameroon;
Ceris Jones, Agronomica, UK; Franziska Kaguembèga, NGO newTree, Burkina Faso; Zeyaur R. Khan, ICIPE, Kenya; Fred-
erick Kihara, Nanyuki, Kenya; Christian Kull, Monash University, Australia; Lehman Lindeque, Department of Agriculture,
Forestry and Fisheries, South Africa; Maimbo Malesu, ICRAF; Joseph Mburu, MoA, Kenya; John Munene Mwaniki, Kenya;
Kithinji Mutunga, FAO Kenya; James Njuki, MoA , Kenya; Adamou Oudou Noufou, Niger; Ahmed Oumarou, Ministry of
Environment, Niger; Dov Pasternak, ICRISAT, Niger; Jimmy Pittchar, ICIPE, Kenya; Tony Rinaudo, World Vision, Australia; Eva
Schlecht, University of Kassel, Germany; Abdoulaye Sambo Soumaila, GREAD, Niger; Déthié Soumaré Ndiaye, Centre de
Suivi Ecologique, ­Senegal; Adjimon Souroudjaye, Volta Environmental Conservation Organization; Jacques Tavares, INIDA,
Cape Verde; ­Donald Thomas, MoA, Kenya; Fabienne Thomas, Switzerland; Stephen Twomlow, UNEP; Larissa Varela, INIDA,
Cape Verde; Flurina Wartmann, Biovision Foundation for ecological development, Switzerland; Marco Wopereis, Africa Rice
Center, Benin; Lazare Yombi, Helvetas, Burkina Faso; Julie Zähringer, ETH Zürich, Switzerland; Iyob Zeremariam, MoA, Eri-
trea; Urs Scheidegger, Swiss College of Agriculture, SHL; Martin Dyer, Kisima Farm, Kenya; Bereket Tsehaye, Toker
Integrated Communitiy Development, Eritrea

Acknowledgments 9

Layout_Part_1_2.indd 9 24.05.11 11:12

 A BB R E V I A T I O N S AND ACR ONYM S
AfDB African Development Bank
AU-NEPAD African Union - New Partnership of African Development
CABI Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux International
CC Climate Change
CDE Centre for Development and Environment
CEAS Centre écologique Albert Schweizer
CESBIO Centre d’Etudes Spatiales de la BIOsphère
CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
CIFOR Centre for International Forestry Research
CIRAD La recherche agronomique pour le développement; Agricultural Research for Development
CIS Centre for International Cooperation (VU University Amsterdam)
CTA Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation
FAO Food & Agricultural Organization of the United Nations
FFS Farmer Field School
FORAF African Forest Observatory
GHG Greenhouse gases
GREAD Groupe de Recherche d’Etude et d’Action pour le Développement, Niger
ICIPE International Centre for Insect Physiology and Ecology – African Insect Science for Food and Health
ICRAF World Agroforestry Centre
ICRISAT International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics
IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
ILEIA Centre for Learning on Sustainable Agriculture
INIDA National Agrarian Development Institute, Cape Verde
ISRIC World Soil Information
IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature
IWMI International Water Management Institute
LADA Land Degradation Assessment in drylands by FAO
M&A Monitoring and Assessment
na not applicable
NGO Non Governmental Organisation
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
PES Payment for Ecosystem Services
PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal
R&D Research and Development
SDC Swiss Development Cooperation
SLM Sustainable Land Management
SOC Soil Organic Carbon
SOM Soil Organic Matter
SSA Sub-Saharan Africa
SWC Soil and Water Conservation
UN United Nations
UNCCD United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNECA United Nations Economic Commission for Africa
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
UN-REDD United Nations Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degardation
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
WB World Bank
WOCAT World Overview of Conservation Approaches and Technologies
WUR Wageningen University & Research Centre

10 Sustainable Land Management in Practice

Layout_Part_1_2.indd 10 24.05.11 11:12

 E X EC U T I V E S U M M A RY

PA RT 1: GU IDIN G PRIN C IPLES degradation, and both low yields and high post-harvest
yield losses. On top of this can be added sensitivity to
Introduction climate variability and long-term climate change,

Aims and structure In SSA concerted efforts to deal with land degradation
through SLM must address water scarcity, soil fertility,
Production of guidelines for best sustainable land man- organic matter and biodiversity. SLM seeks to increase pro­
agement (SLM) technologies and approaches in Sub- duction through both traditional and innovative systems, and
Saharan Africa (SSA) has been part of TerrAfrica’s pro- to improve resilience to the various environmental threats.
gramme during 2009-2010. These guidelines and case
studies are intended to help create a framework for invest-
ment related to SLM in SSA. The particular aim of these Principles for best SLM practices
guidelines is to identify, analyse, discuss and disseminate
promising SLM practices - including both technologies Increased land productivity
and approaches - in the light of the latest trends and new
opportunities. The focus is, in particular, on those prac- In order to increase production from the land, water use
tices with rapid payback and profitability and / or other efficiency and productivity need to be improved. This can
factors that drive adoption. be achieved by reducing high water loss through run-
off and unperceived evaporation from unprotected soil,
This document is targeted at key stakeholders in SLM harvesting water, improving infiltration, maximising water
programmes and projects at the design and implementa- storage - as well as by upgrading irrigation and managing
tion stages, including practitioners, managers, policy- surplus water. The first priority must be given to improv-
makers, planners, together with, financial and technical ing water use efficiency in rainfed agriculture; here lies the
institutions, and donors. The guidelines are divided into greatest potential for improved yields with all the associ-
two main parts. Part 1 highlights the main principles ated benefits. For irrigated agriculture, conveyance and
behind SLM, and what considerations are important for distribution efficiency are key water-saving strategies.
technologies and approaches to qualify as ‘best practic- Each of the best practices presented in Part 2 of these
es’ suitable for upscaling. Part 2 presents twelve groups guidelines include improved water management and water
of SLM technologies as well as a section on SLM ap- use efficiency; some of them are particularly focused on
proaches. These are supported by specific case ­studies. coping with water scarcity - such as water harvesting in
Key resource persons and experts on SLM in SSA were drylands or protection against evaporation loss and runoff,
asked to assist in finalising the SLM groups and to de- through conservation agriculture, agroforestry or improved
scribe specific case studies. This strives to be a ‘state of grazing land management.
the art’ product.
Soil fertility decline due to unproductive nutrient losses
Focus on Sustainable Land Management in (through leaching, erosion, loss to the atmosphere) and
­S ub-Saharan Africa ‘nutrient mining’ is a major problem in SSA. An improve-
ment to the current imbalance between removal and
Sub-Saharan Africa is particularly vulnerable to threats supply of nutrients can be achieved through various
of natural resource degradation and poverty. This is due means. These include cover improvement, crop rotation,
to various factors including a high population growth rate fallow and intercropping, application of animal and green
and increasing population pressure, reliance on agriculture manure, and compost through integrated crop-livestock
that is vulnerable to environmental change, fragile natural systems, appropriate supplementation with inorganic
resources and ecosystems, high rates of erosion and land fertilizer and trapping sediments and nutrients e.g. through

Executive summary 11

Layout_Part_1_2.indd 11 24.05.11 11:12

 E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y

yields in small-scale agriculture. Further increases in pro-

ductivity can also be achieved by intensification and / or
diversification of production.

Improved livelihoods

Despite the constraints and problems land users have,

they are willing to adopt SLM practices if they provide
higher net returns, lower risks or a combination of both.
Cost efficiency, including short and longterm benefits, is
the key issue for adoption of SLM. Land users are more
willing to adopt practices that provide rapid and sus-
tained pay-back in terms of food or income. Assistance
for establishment of certain measures may be needed for
small-scale subsistence land users if costs are beyond
their means and if quick benefits are not guaranteed.
Maintenance costs need to be covered by the land users
to ensure self-initiative. This implies an accurate assess-
ment of costs and benefits in monetary and non-monetary
terms: herein lies a significant challenge.
Integrated land use system with maize-bean intercropping and grass strips for
fodder production in a high potential area (Hanspeter Liniger).
Land users may require additional inputs to take up SLM
practices. These are related to materials (machinery,
bunds, vegetative or structural barriers / traps. All these seeds, fertilizers, equipment, etc.), labour, markets, and
are part of an integrated soil fertility management leading knowledge. Labour and inputs are of concern, especially
to an improvement in soil organic matter and soil struc- in areas affected by, for example, outmigration. In these
ture. Improved agronomy is an essential supplement to cases especially, SLM practices such as conservation
good SLM practices. Strategic choice of planting materials agriculture, with the advantages of reduced labour and
that are adapted to drought, pests, diseases, salinity and inputs, will stand a better chance of being adopted.
other constraints, together with effective management is a Changes towards SLM should build on – and be sensi-
further opportunity. tive to - values and norms, allow flexibility, adaptation and
innovation to improve livelihoods. Most appropriate is the
Major potential to improve land productivity also lies in promotion of SLM practices that are easy to learn and
improving micro-climatic conditions. A favourable micro- thus require minimal training and capacity building.
climate in dry and warm areas can be created by reducing
winds through windbreaks and shelterbelts, protecting Improved ecosystems: being environmentally friendly
against high temperature and radiation (using agroforestry
and multistorey cropping) and by keeping conditions as Practices, to be truly sustainable, must be environmen-
moist as possible. Mulch and plant cover are important in tally friendly, reduce current land degradation, improve
this context. In humid areas the emphasis is on protecting biodiversity and increase resilience to climate variation
soils against intensive rainfall. and change. Given the current state of land in SSA, SLM
interventions are vital to prevent, mitigate and rehabili-
Thus to increase land productivity it is essential to fol- tate land degradation. The main efforts should address
low and combine the principles of improving water use the problems of water scarcity, low soil fertility, organic
efficiency and water productivity, increasing soil fertility, ­matter and reduced biodiversity. Priority should be given
managing vegetation and attending to the micro-climate. to low-input agronomic and vegetative measures, and only
These synergies can more than double productivity and then consider the application of more demanding struc-

12 Sustainable Land Management in Practice

Layout_Part_1_2.indd 12 24.05.11 11:12

 tural measures. Combinations of measures that lead to by limiting deforestation, reducing the use of fire, better
integrated soil and water, crop-livestock, fertility and pest livestock management, and better agronomic practices.
management are promising. Spreading of local successes In summary, the principles of improved water use effi-
in combating degradation leads to compound impacts – ciency, soil fertility, plant management and micro-climate
the whole being greater than the sum of the parts - at the underpin the best land management practices and they
watershed, landscape and global levels. constitute win-win-win solutions for SSA. The SLM prac-
tices presented in Part 2 are based on these principles
A key concern in SLM and protecting ecosystem function and contribute to the improvement of land productivity,
in SSA is conservation of biodiversity. Plant and animal livelihood and ecosystems.
biodiversity are central to human well-being, most nota-
bly in supporting food production, but also as a source
of fibre, wood, and medicines. They also have cultural, Adoption and decision support for upscaling
recreational and spiritual significance. Because African best practices
farming depends, still, very largely on local landraces of
a wide variety of crops, the wealth of its agro-biodiversity Despite continuous efforts to spread SLM practices adop-
must not be underestimated. In the protection of agro- tion is still alarmingly low. Successful adoption of SLM de-
biodiversity the precautionary principle needs to be ap- pends on a combination of factors. All must be addressed.
plied: maintain as many varieties of plants and domestic
animals as possible for their future potential. Adoption - uptake and spread

Of immediate importance to people across SSA are the Setting up institutional and policy frameworks to create an
opportunities that SLM practices offer to help adapt to enabling environment for the adoption of SLM involves the
and mitigate climate change (CC). Adaptation to climate strengthening of institutional capacities as well as collabo-
change can be achieved by adopting more versatile and ration and networking. Rules, regulations and by-laws need
CC-resilient technologies – but also through approaches to be established, but must be relevant to be accepted and
which enhance flexibility and responsiveness to change. followed. Resource use rights and access are key entry
Some practices increase the amount of rainfall that infil- points that give people individual and / or collective security
trates the soil (e.g. mulching, improved plant cover) as well and motivation for investment. Access to markets, where
as improving its capacity to store water (e.g. increased prices can change quickly, require flexible and adaptable
soil organic matter content) - while simultaneously helping SLM practices, open to innovation. These practices also
protect the soil from extremes of temperature and more need to be responsive to new trends and opportunities
intense rainfall. Thus the most appropriate SLM prac- such as ecotourism or payment for ecosystem services.
tices for SSA are characterised by tolerance to increased
temperatures, to climate variability, and to extreme events. A key aspect in adoption and spread of SLM is to ensure
If the SLM principles of improved water, soil fertility and genuine participation of land users and professionals
plant management, and micro-climate are considered, the during all stages of implementation to incorporate their
result will be better protection against natural disasters views and ensure commitment. At the same time off-site
and increased resilience to climate variability and change. (e.g. downstream) interests may restrict freedom at the
Diversification of production is an additional way to in- local level, such as the free use of water for irrigation. But
crease resilience. it may equally provide an opportunity for collaboration,
resulting in win-win solutions upstream and downstream.
Land users in SSA can also contribute to global efforts in
mitigation of climate change primarily by adopting SLM that Extension services need to be based on appropriate train-
sequesters atmospheric carbon in the soil and in peren- ing and capacity building. These activities should involve
nial vegetation. These technologies include afforestation, individual land users (e.g. through farmer field schools,
agroforestry, reduced tillage, improved grazing land man- farmer–to-farmer exchange, support of local promoters)
agement. Greenhouse gas emissions can also be reduced and communities, and not just depend on government

Executive summary 13

Layout_Part_1_2.indd 13 24.05.11 11:12

 E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y

agents. Access to credit and financing schemes can be of local and scientific knowledge. However all developments
vital help for rural people starting new SLM initiatives - but must take into consideration markets, policies and insti-
may also create dependency if incentives are not used tutional factors that can stimulate widespread smallholder
judiciously. Financial support needs to be enhanced for investment.
institutions providing advice, plans and decision support
to land users.
The way forward
Monitoring and assessment of SLM practices and their
impacts is needed to learn from the wealth of knowledge Part 1 of the guidelines ends by acknowledging the com-
available. This embraces traditional, innovative, project plexity of sound natural resource management and clearly
and research experiences and lessons learnt – both suc- shows the need for major shifts in emphasis to overcome
cesses and failures. Major efforts are required to fill knowl- bottlenecks and barriers to the spread of SLM in SSA.
edge gaps and shed light on where and how to invest in These shifts concern various aspects, at different levels,
the future. While donors request more and better quality including technologies and approaches, institutional,
data related to spread, impacts and benefit-cost ratios policy, governance, economy, knowledge management
of SLM, there are still too few efforts in assessment and and capacity building.
harmonised knowledge management.
Investments in spreading SLM practices in Sub-Saharan
Decision support – upscaling SLM Africa have great scope and can provide multiple benefits
not only locally, but also regionally nationally and globally.
Given the challenge of finding best SLM practices for Consolidated action towards better use of valuable knowl-
diverse local conditions, it is essential to provide decision edge at all levels is needed and will be beneficial in the
support for local land users and the specialists who advise future, as it can be anticipated that change will be even
them - as well as for planners and decision-makers. This more pronounced with respect to global markets, climate
requires sound procedures, tapping into existing knowl- change, demands on ecosystem services, etc. In short,
edge and weighing criteria that are important at all levels investment in SLM and a sound knowledge management
of scale. A first step is to raise awareness of the impor- pays now - and will continue to do in the future.
tance of, and the need for, investments in knowledge
management and decision support mechanisms.
PART 2: B EST SLM PRACT ICE S FO R
The building up of a common and standardised pool of SU B -SAHARAN AF RICA
knowledge related to SLM technologies and approaches
for implementation and dissemination provides the basis Twelve groups of SLM technologies backed up by 41 case
for successful upscaling. Making this information avail- studies and a section on SLM approaches, with 6 case
able, and providing tools for comparing, selecting and studies, are presented in Part 2 of the guidelines. The SLM
fine-tuning SLM practices for different environments, groups follow the principles of best practices: increasing
ecological, economic, social and cultural conditions is a productivity, improving livelihoods and improving ecosys-
further requirement. Proper mapping of SLM practices and tems. The approaches illustrated were proven successful
their impacts, and comparison of these with areas of land in implementing and spreading of SLM in SSA. All groups
degradation, provides the foundation for deciding where and case studies are presented according to the stand-
to locate SLM investments that are cost-efficient and have ardised WOCAT format for documenting and disseminat-
the highest on-site and off-site impacts. Given the limited ing SLM. There is no one miracle solution (‘silver bullet’)
resources for SLM, decisions must be aimed at maximis- to solve the problems which land users in SSA face. The
ing impact with the least input. choice of the most appropriate SLM practice will be deter-
mined by the local context and particular situation of local
Future interventions need to promote the development of stakeholders.
joint or ‘hybrid’ innovation that ensures making the best of

14 Sustainable Land Management in Practice

Layout_Part_1_2.indd 14 24.05.11 11:12

 Hanspeter Liniger

IN T R O DU C T I O N

Setting the frame to focus on increasing productivity of agro-ecosystems

while adapting to the socio-economic context, improving
Land degradation, resulting from unsustainable land resilience to environmental variability, including climate
management practices, is a threat to the environment in change and at the same time preventing degradation of
Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), as well as to livelihoods, where natural resources.
the majority of people directly depend on agricultural
production. There is a potentially devastating downward These guidelines provide important guidance to assist
spiral of overexploitation and degradation, enhanced by countries to design and implement SLM technologies
the negative impacts of climate change - leading in turn and approaches to scale up sustainable land and water
to reduced availability of natural resources and declining management, at either the national program level or at the
productivity: this jeopardises food security and increases level of projects on the ground. The guidelines are one of
poverty. Sustainable land management (SLM) is the anti- a suite of products that falls under the TerrAfrica Country
dote, helping to increase average productivity, reducing Support Tool, which offers a customisable approach for
seasonal fluctuations in yields, and underpinning diversi- task teams and clients to build land management pro-
fied production and improved incomes. grams, either within investment operations or as stand-
alone technical assistance. The guidelines build up on the
Sustainable land management is simply about people experiences of the book ‘where the land is greener’ and
looking after the land – for the present and for the future. have drawn from the expertise within the global WOCAT
The main objective of SLM is thus to integrate people’s programme. They have been financed by the World Bank’s
coexistence with nature over the long-term, so that the Development Grant Facility 2008 as part of the 2009-2010
provisioning, regulating, cultural and supporting services TerrAfrica Work Programs and co-funded by the Swiss
of ecosystems are ensured. In SSA, this means SLM has Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC).

16 Sustainable Land Management in Practice

Layout_Part_1_2.indd 16 24.05.11 11:12

 TerrAfrica involves many Sub-Saharan countries and is The target group of this document constitutes key stake-
led by the Planning and Coordination Agency (NPCA) of holders in SLM programmes and projects, involved at the
the African Union’s New Partnership for Africa’s Develop- design and implementation stages. These thus include
ment (AU-NEPAD). TerrAfrica is a global partnership to ­policy-makers, planners, programme managers together
mainstream and upscale sustainable land management with practitioners, international financial and technical insti-
(SLM) in SSA by strengthening enabling environments for tutions, as well as other donors. The guidelines are intended
mainstreaming and financing effective nationally-driven also to raise further awareness and understanding among a
SLM strategies (www.terrafrica.org). Learning from past broader public interested in poverty alleviation, protection of
experiences, it endorses the principles of partnership, the environment and mitigation of land degradation.
knowledge management and harmonised, aligned and
scaled-up investment at the country level. The guidelines
were developed in coordination with another TerrAfrica Structure and sources
resource guide publication on ‘Using sustainable land
management practices to adapt to and mitigate climate These guidelines build on WOCAT’s book ‘where the land
change in Sub-Saharan Africa’ (Woodfine, 2009). is greener’ (WOCAT, 2007), and are divided into two main
parts.
These guidelines do not pretend to be exhaustive in terms
of data and information collection, or to cover all aspects of Part 1 highlights the main principles behind SLM, and
SLM. A deliberate and strategic choice was made to show what considerations are important for technologies and
the potential of SLM in the context of SSA. A further func- approaches to qualify as ‘best practices’ suitable for
tion of these guidelines is to act as a prototype for national upscaling. Information is based on literature and WOCAT’s
and regional compilations of SLM practices: thus show- expertise.
ing how field knowledge can be made available in a way
that can be followed by future publications covering other Part 2 presents twelve groups of SLM technologies and a
aspects of SLM. The focus here is on SLM practices in SSA section on SLM approaches, supported by specific case
which draw directly on WOCAT’s extensive database, and studies. This section is based on the WOCAT global data-
take into account the experience of TerrAfrica’s partners: in base, the TerrAfrica Knowledge Base, a literature review
a rapidly changing environment every effort has been made (publications, papers, project documents and manuals)
to review and assimilate the latest trends, threats and op- and interactive contact with SLM specialists in SSA. The
portunities (Crepin, et al., 2008; Woodfine, 2009). compilation of SLM groups and case studies focuses first
on SLM interventions in order to identify factors of suc-
cess / failure, good practices and lessons learnt. It deter-
Aims and audience mines the effectiveness and cost-efficiency of the various
SLM interventions used to-date with the aim of identifying
The overall aim of these guidelines is to identify, describe, the best practices for scaling-up.
analyse, discuss, and present for dissemination SLM prac-
tices, both technologies and approaches that are appro- The best practices that are presented:
priate to Sub-Saharan Africa – and based in solid science. l cover major land use systems;
Materials are drawn from experience and representative l represent solutions to various degradation types in
case studies; these focus in particular on those practices ­different agro-ecological zones;
with rapid paybacks and profitability and / or other factors l cover a broad variety of technologies and approaches;
likely to drive adoption. The direct objectives thus are: l have potential for upscaling, in terms of both production
l Knowledge synthesis and dissemination of ‘best’ SLM and conservation;
practices; l capture local innovation and recent developments as
l Alignment of stakeholders for improved decision sup- well as long-term project experience;
port in SSA; l strike a balance between prevention, mitigation and
l Promotion of standardised documentation, evaluation, rehabilitation of land degradation.
sharing and use of SLM knowledge for decision-making.

Introduction 17

Layout_Part_1_2.indd 17 24.05.11 11:12

 I N T R O D U C T I O N

All groups and case studies are presented according to It is clear from the foregoing that Sustainable Land
the familiar and standardised WOCAT format for docu- Management (SLM) is crucial for SSA, and that there are
menting and disseminating SLM. special circumstances that pose particular problems and
challenges for the successful implementation of SLM.
Particular efforts were made to show impacts of SLM and
their potential to address current global issues such as
desertification, climate change, water scarcity, and food Focus on Sustainable Land Management
security. Key resource persons and experts on SLM in SSA
were asked to review and assist in finalising the SLM groups Land degradation is simply defined, within the ‘FAO-LADA
on technologies and approaches, to provide figures on costs Approach’ as a decline in ecosystem goods and serv-
and benefits, and to describe specific case studies. This is ices from the land. Land degradation negatively affects
thus a product that brings together all the available, impor- the state and the management of the natural resources
tant information about SLM in SSA: it strives to be a ‘state of – water, soil, plants and animals - and hence reduces
the art’ product. Thus, the guidelines are founded on a body agricultural production. Assessments in SSA show the
of solid practical experience - and underpin the benefits of severity of land degradation and the urgency of improving
investing in SLM and the potential for building on success. natural resource use through sustainable land manage-
ment (SLM). Land degradation occurs in different forms on
various land use types:
Focus on Sub-Saharan Africa l On cropland: soil erosion by water and wind; chemical
degradation - mainly fertility decline - due to nutrient
Sub-Saharan Africa is particularly vulnerable to the twin mining and salinisation; physical soil degradation due to
threats of natural resource degradation and poverty owing compaction, sealing and crusting; biological degrada-
to the following factors: tion due to insufficient vegetation cover, decline of local
l High population growth and pressure; crop varieties and mixed cropping systems; and water
l Dependency of livelihoods on agriculture, with 65-70% degradation mainly caused by increased surface runoff
of the population depending directly on rainfed agri- (polluting surface water) and changing water availability
culture and natural resources. Industry and the service as well as high evaporation leading to aridification.
sector also depend heavily on land management (Es- l On grazing land: biological degradation with loss of
waran et al., 1997); vegetation cover and valuable species; the increase of
l Agriculture is highly sensitive to variability and change alien and ‘undesirable’ species. The consequences in
in climate, and markets / prices; terms of soil physical degradation, water runoff, ero-
l Multiple severe impacts are likely to result from climate sion are widespread and severe. Low productivity and
change (IPCC, 2007; Stern, 2007): these include higher ecosystem services from degraded grazing lands are
temperatures, water scarcity, unpredictable precipi- widespread and a major challenge to SLM.
tation, higher rainfall intensities and environmental l On forest land: biological degradation with deforestation;
stresses; removal of valuable species through logging; replacement
l The phenomenon of El Niño Southern Oscillation of natural forests with monocrop plantations or other land
(ENSO) exerting a strong influence on climate variability, uses (which do not protect the land) and consequences for
particularly in Eastern and Southern Africa; biodiversity, and soil and water degradation.
l Abundance of fragile natural resources and ecosystems
including drylands, mountains, rainforests, and wetlands; Land uses addressed
l High rates of land degradation (erosion and declining Cropland: Land used for cultivation of crops (annual and perennial)
soil fertility, increasing water scarcity and loss of biodi- e.g. field crops, vegetables, fodder crops, orchards, etc.
versity) and sensitivity to climate variability and change; Grazing land: Land used for animal production e.g. natural or semi-
l Low yields and high post-harvest losses due to poor natural grasslands, open woodlands, improved or planted pastures.
land management and storage practices and limited Forests / woodlands: land used mainly for wood production, other
availability of, and access to, inputs. forest products, recreation, protection e.g. natural forests, planta-
tions, afforestations, etc. (WOCAT, 2008)

18 Sustainable Land Management in Practice

Layout_Part_1_2.indd 18 24.05.11 11:12

 Concerted efforts to deal with land degradation through
SLM must address water scarcity, soil fertility, organic
matter and biodiversity. Improving the water productivity
and water cycle, soil fertility and plant management are
important in raising land productivity.

Land degradation is exacerbated by climate change and

climate variability. Africa’s climate has long been recognised
as both varied and varying: varied because it ranges from
humid equatorial regimes, through seasonally-arid tropical
and hyper-arid regimes, to sub-tropical Mediterranean-type
climates; and varying because all these climates exhibit
differing degrees of temporal variability, particularly with
regard to precipitation (Nkomo et al., 2006). The complexi-
ties of African climates are attributable to a number of fac-
tors, many of which are unique to the continent, including Degradation of vegetation, soils and water along river banks (Hanspeter Liniger).
the size of the tropical land mass, the expanse of arid and
semi-arid lands, diverse vegetation, complex hydrology, SLM also includes ecological, economic and socio-cultur-
incidence of dust exported from land surface to the atmos- al dimensions (Hurni, 1997). These three are not separate:
phere – and highly varied terrain including snow-capped in reality they are interconnected (Figure 1). They are also
mountains on the Equator, extensive low-lying swamp referred to as the ‘3 Es’ of sustainable development -
lands, huge inland lakes, rift valleys and two major deserts Equality, Economy, and Ecology (UNESCO, 2006).
in the northern and southern sub-tropics (Crepin, et al.,
2008; Woodfine, 2009). Ecologically, SLM technologies – in all their diversity –
­effectively combat land degradation. But a majority of
Climate change is a major concern for SSA bringing new agricultural land is still not sufficiently protected, and SLM
challenges. However, there is huge potential for SLM in needs to spread further.
climate change mitigation and adaption.
Socially, SLM helps secure sustainable livelihoods by
SLM best practices and their upscaling in Sub-Saharan maintaining or increasing soil productivity, thus improving
Africa is essential for a variety of reasons – but the most food security and reducing poverty, both at household and
basic is to sustain and improve livelihoods while protect- national levels.
ing the land’s resources and ecosystem functions. SLM
thus seeks to increase production including traditional Economically, SLM pays back investments made by land
and innovative systems and to improve resilience to food users, communities or governments. Agricultural produc-
insecurity, land degradation, loss of biodiversity, drought tion is safeguarded and enhanced for small-scale subsist-
and climate change. ence and large-scale commercial farmers alike, as well as
for livestock keepers. Furthermore, the considerable off-
Sustainable Land Management has been defined by site benefits from SLM can often be an economic justifica-
­TerrAfrica as: tion in themselves.
‘the adoption of land use systems that, through appropriate
management practices, enables land users to maximise
the economic and social benefits from the land while
In TerrAfrica’s Background Note 1 SLM’s definition is more complex, it is ‘the combination
maintaining or enhancing the ecological support functions
1

of technologies, policies and activities aimed at integrating socio-economic principles with

of the land resources’1. environmental concerns so as to simultaneously maintain or enhance production, reduce
the level of production risk, protect the potential of natural resources and prevent soil and
SLM includes management of soil, water, vegetation and water degradation, be economically viable and be sociable acceptable’ which is drawn
originally from Dirk Kloss, Michael Kirk and Max Kasparek. World Bank Africa Region SLM
animal resources. Portfolio Review, Draft 19 Jan 2004.

Introduction 19

Layout_Part_1_2.indd 19 24.05.11 11:12

 I N T R O D U C T I O N

Best practices are basically the ‘best’ known to us at

present: in the view of TerrAfrica ‘best’ implies those prac-
tices that increase production and are profitable, cost-effi-
cient with primarily rapid, but also long-term payback, are
easy to learn, socially and culturally accepted, effectively
adopted and taken up, environmentally friendly and are
appropriate for all stakeholders including socially margin-
alised groups (FAO, 2008a).

Scaling-up of SLM ‘leads to more quality benefits to more

people over a wider geographic area more quickly, more
equitably and more lastingly’ (ILEIA, 2001). Investments in
scaling-up of best SLM practices in SSA are essential to
have a significant impact. Too many best practices remain
isolated in pockets. The challenge is to gain significant
spread, not just to help an increased number of fami-
lies, but to achieve ecosystem impacts that can only be
realised on the large scale. In this context it is important to
note that SLM covers all scales from the field to water-
sheds, landscapes and transboundary levels. Beyond
field level, on-site and off-site as well as highland-lowland
interactions need special attention. The simultaneous
challenge and opportunity is to find best SLM practices
which are win-win solutions leading to sustainability at the
local, national and global scales.

Health
Social
Gender Tradition Social

Culture
tra rcial n and

of rsifie
l fo n

Re ditio land
div
ods
ona zatio

tra
co na
e
io

gn l a use

Economic
i
com ltivat

itio nd
d

Food
n
e
dit
Cu

Income production Soils

of

Water
Marketing
Valuation of Climate
environmental
Trade services Biodiversity

Ecological

Figure 1: The 3 dimensions of sustainability. (Source: IAASTD, 2009a).

20 Sustainable Land Management in Practice

Layout_Part_1_2.indd 20 24.05.11 11:12

 Hanspeter Liniger

PRINCIPLES FOR BEST SLM PRACTICES

For all major land use systems in Sub-Saharan Africa The primary target of SLM for SSA is thus to increase land
(SSA) including cropland, grazing land, forest and mixed productivity, improve food security and also provide for
land, the focus of SLM is on increased land productivity other goods and services. There are three ways to achieve
and improved livelihoods and ecosystems. this: (1) expansion, (2) intensification and (3) diversification
of land use.
Table 1: Land use in SSA (2000)
Land use Percentage cover
Expansion: Since 1960, agricultural production in Sub-Sa-
Permanent pasture 35
haran Africa has been increased mainly by expanding the
Arable and permanent cropland 8
area of land under farming (Figure 2). Limited access and
Forested 27
affordability of fertilizers and other inputs (e.g. improved
All other land 30
planting material) has forced African farmers to cultivate
Total 100
less fertile soils on more marginal lands; these in turn
(Source: WRI, 2005 and FAO, 2004)
are generally more susceptible to degradation and have
poor potential for production. There is very limited scope
for further expansion in SSA without highly detrimental
Increased land productivity impacts on natural resources (e.g. deforestation).

African cereal yields, particularly in the Sudano-Sahelian Intensification: The last 50 years have witnessed major suc-
region, are the world’s lowest. For SSA, increasing agricul- cesses in global agriculture, largely as a result of the ‘Green
tural productivity for food, fodder, fibre and fuel remains Revolution’ which was based on improved crop varieties,
a priority given the fast growing demand, widespread synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, irrigation, and mechanisa-
hunger, poverty, and malnutrition. tion. However, this has not been the case for SSA (Figure 2).

Principles for Best SLM Practices 21

Layout_Part_1_2.indd 21 24.05.11 11:12

 P R I N C I P L E S F O R B E S T S L M P R A C T I C E S

Diversification: This implies an enrichment of the produc- Expansion, intensification and diversification to increase
tion system related to species and varieties, land use agricultural productivity imply:
types, and management practices. It includes an adjust- – increasing water productivity (water use efficiency),
ment in farm enterprises in order to increase farm income – enhancing soil organic matter and soil fertility (carbon
or reduce income variability. This is achieved by exploit- and nutrient cycling),
ing new market opportunities and existing market niches, – improving plant material (species and varieties), and
diversifying not only production, but also on-farm process- – producing more favourable micro-climates.
ing and other farm-based, income-generating activities
(Dixon et al., 2001). Diversified farming systems (such as
Agricultural production and food security in SSA
crop–livestock integration, agroforestry, intercropping, today and in the future
crop rotation etc.) enable farmers to broaden the base of – Population growth is 2.1% per annum: doubling of the
agriculture, to reduce the risk of production failure, to at- ­population expected within 30-40 years.
tain a better balanced diet, to use labour more efficiently, – In 1997-99, 35% of the population had insufficient food to
to procure cash for purchasing farm inputs, and to add lead healthy and productive lives.
value to produce. – Average cereal yields: of 1 tonne per hectare.
– Cereal availability per capita decreased from 136 kg/year in
1990 to 118 kg/year in 2000.
– 73% of the rural poor live on marginal land with low
­productivity.
Sub-Saharan Africa
– Approximately 66% of Africa is classified as desert or
­drylands; 45% of the population lives in drylands.
– In 2000, US$ 18.7 billion were spent in Africa for food im-
ports and 2.8 million tonnes of food aid: this represents over
(% change)

a quarter of the world’s total.

Area

– 83% of people live in extreme poverty; the number of people

and thus their demands on food, water and other resources
are increasing.
– Energy needs and the demand for firewood and biofuel are
growing even faster than food needs. This increases defor-
estation and pressure on vegetation, crop residues and on
Yield
(% change) manure (which is often used as fuel). In many countries 70%
of energy comes from fuelwood and charcoal.
– Climate change, with increased variability and extremes, puts
an extra constraint on food security.
Asia
– Land is the source of employment for 70% of the population.
– Agriculture will remain the main engine of growth at least for
the next few decades.
– Land degradation is severe and ongoing.
(% change)
Area

– Land productivity, food security, poverty reduction / human

development and wellbeing are strongly linked
(Sources: Henao and Baanante, 2006; Castillo et al, 2007; FAO, 2007; IAASTD,
2009b TerrAfrica, 2009; WB, 2010)

Water use efficiency

Yield
(% change)

Water use efficiency is defined as the yield produced per

Figure 2: Comparison of changes in cereal production in SSA (above) due to
changes in area and yield (1961=100) with those in Asia (below). unit of water. Optimal water use efficiency is attained
(Source: Henao and Baanante, 2006) through minimising losses due to evaporation, runoff or

22 Sustainable Land Management in Practice

Layout_Part_1_2.indd 22 24.05.11 11:12

 drainage. In irrigation schemes, conveyance and distri-
bution efficiency addresses water losses from source
to point of application in the field. Often the term water
productivity is used: this means growing more food or
gaining more benefits with less water. Commonly it is
reduced to the economic value produced per amount of
water consumed.

In the drylands of the world, water is – by definition - the

most usual limiting factor to food production due to a
­mixture of scarcity, and extreme variability, long dry sea-
sons, recurrent dry spells and droughts, and occasional
floods. Water scarcity and insecure access to water for
consumption and productive uses is a major constraint to
enhancing livelihoods in rural areas of SSA (Castillo et al.,
2007; FAO, 2008b). Hence, improving water use efficiency
to minimise water losses is of top-most importance.

Under the principle of the water cycle, all water remains

within the system. However, at local and regional level, water
can follow very different pathways and losses may be high,
depending on land (and water) management. In relation
to agriculture, water is often referred to as being ‘blue’ or
‘green’. Blue water is the proportion of rainfall that enters into
streams and recharges groundwater – and is the conven-
tional focus of water resource management. Green water is
the proportion of rainfall that evaporates from the soil surface
or is used productively for plant growth and transpiration Expansion to steep slopes, intensification and diversification all combined in the
Uluguru Mountains of Tanzania (Hanspeter Liniger).
(Falkenmark and Rockstöm, 2006; ISRIC, 2010).

Figure 3 illustrates three major sources of water loss in ag-

Rainfall Evaporation Transpiration
ricultural production, namely surface runoff, deep percola- 100% 30-70% 25-40%
tion and evaporation from the soil surface. Surface runoff
can, however, sometimes qualify as a gain when it feeds
rainwater harvesting systems. Similarly, deep percolation
of water can be a gain for the recharge of groundwater
or surface water. However, the main useful part (‘produc-
tive green water’) is the soil water taken up by plants and
transpired back to the atmosphere.
Runoff
Many land users in developing countries could raise water 10-25%
productivity and water use efficiency by adopting proven
agronomic and water management practices. There is
considerable potential especially under low yield condi- Drainage 0-10%
tions where a small increment in water translates into a Figure 3: Productive water (transpiration) and water losses (evaporation and
significant increase in yield (Figure 4). runoff) without water conserving measures in dry lands.

Principles for Best SLM Practices 23

Layout_Part_1_2.indd 23 24.05.11 11:12

 P R I N C I P L E S F O R B E S T S L M P R A C T I C E S

Millet Maize Sorghum A Sorghum B Wheat Regression curve

10,000
Water productivity
(cubic meters of evapotranspiration per metric ton)

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Local practice combining deep tillage and ridging stops runoff but increases
Yield (metric tons per hectare) evaporation from the bare soil surface; under the plants the protected soil
remains moist (Hanspeter Liniger).

Figure 4: Water productivity and cereal yield under various management and
climatic conditions: for cereal yields of less than 1 t/ha four to eight times more
Example of water saving potential
water is used per tonne compared to yields above 3 t/ha as the proportion
used for grain (cf vegetative production is much less). (Source: Rockström et 100%
al., 2007)
90%
Wastage of scare and precious water – the disturbed 27
water cycle 80%
– Depending on land management practices, between 30 and
70% of the rainfall on agricultural land in semi-arid areas is 70% 55
lost as non-productive evaporation from the soil surface or
from intercepted rainfall. 60%
– An additional 10-25% of that rainfall is lost as direct runoff
without being harvested. 50%
– As a result of these losses, only 15% to 30% of rainfall is 65
40%
used for plant growth.
– This low water use efficiency is closely linked to low or 30%
degraded soil cover, leaving soils exposed to solar radiation, 44
wind and heavy rain storms and subsequent aridification and 20%
land degradation. Soil organic matter has major effects on
water infiltration and nutrient availability. 10%
(Sources: Liniger, 1995; Rockström, 2003; Molden et al., 2007; Gitonga, 2005)
8 1
0%
Deep tillage Mulch and
Water use efficiency in rainfed agriculture: In Sub-Sa-
minimum tillage
haran Africa, some 93% of farmed land is rainfed (Rock-
available water
ström et al., 2007). The water challenge in these areas is
to enhance low yields by improving water availability for evaporation loss

plant growth: that is to maximise rainfall infiltration and the runoff loss
water-holding capacity of soils - simultaneously reducing
Figure 5: Water use efficiency in a semi-arid to subhumid environment compar-
surface erosion and other land degradation. Full response ing a local practice (deep tillage) with conservation agriculture comprising
to water investments is only achievable if other produc- minimum tillage for weed control, mulching and intercropping of maize and
tion factors, such as soil fertility, crop varieties, pest and beans. Under the local practice, total water loss was over 70%, with evapora-
tion being the main contributor to this. Under mulch, the loss was reduced to
disease control, and tillage and weeding practices are
45%.The productive use of the water was doubled, and yields in some seasons
improved at the same time (Figure 5). even tripled (Gitonga, 2005).

24 Sustainable Land Management in Practice

Layout_Part_1_2.indd 24 24.05.11 11:12

 Given the large water wastage through inappropriate land Each of the best practices presented in Part 2 of these
use practices there are significant opportunities to raise guidelines include improved water management and water
yields under rainfed agriculture and improve degraded use efficiency; some of them are ­particularly focused on
ecosystems through better water management. All best coping with water scarcity - such as water harvesting in
practices in this regard fall under the five strategies listed drylands or protection against evaporation loss and runoff,
in the box below. Management of rainwater is a main entry through conservation agriculture, agroforestry or improved
point into SLM. grazing land management.

Different strategies for improved rainwater management

Divert / drain runoff & runon
Where there is excess water in humid environments, or at the
height of the wet seasons in subhumid conditions, the soil and
ground water can become saturated, or the soil’s infiltration
capacity can be exceeded. Thus safe discharge of surplus water is
necessary. This helps avoid leaching of nutrients, soil erosion, or
landslides. It can be achieved through the use of graded terraces,
cut-off drains and diversion ditches etc.

Impede runoff (slow down runoff)

Uncontrolled runoff causes erosion - and represents a net loss of
moisture to plants where rainfall limits. The strategy here is to slow
runoff, allowing more time for the water to infiltrate into the soil and
reducing the damaging impact of runoff through soil erosion. It is
applicable to all climates. This can be accomplished through the use
of vegetative strips, earth and stone bunds, terraces etc.

Retain runoff (avoid runoff)

In situations where rainfall limits plant growth, the strategy is to avoid
any movement of water on the land in order to encourage rainfall
infiltration. Thus water storage is improved within the rooting depth
of plants, and groundwater tables are recharged. This is crucial in
subhumid to semi-arid areas. The technologies involved are cross-
slope barriers, mulching, vegetative cover, minimum / no tillage etc.

Trap runoff (harvest runoff)

Harvesting runoff water is appropriate where rainfall is insufficient
and runoff needs to be concentrated to improve plant performance.
Planting pits, half moons etc. can be used. This can also be applied
in environments with excess water during wet seasons, followed by
water shortage: dams and ponds can further be used for irrigation,
flood control or even hydropower generation.

Reduce soil evaporation loss

Water loss from the soil surface can be reduced through soil cover
by mulch and vegetation, windbreaks, shade etc. This is mainly ap-
propriate in drier conditions where evaporation losses can be more
than half of the rainfall.

Principles for Best SLM Practices 25

Layout_Part_1_2.indd 25 24.05.11 11:12

 P R I N C I P L E S F O R B E S T S L M P R A C T I C E S

Water use efficiency in irrigated agriculture: Irrigated Table 2: Irrigation efficiency of different irrigation systems.
agriculture consumes much more water than withdraw- Irrigation System Irrigation efficiency Installation costs
als for industrial and domestic purpose. The demand for Flooded fields (e.g. rice) 20–50% low
irrigation water by far exceeds water availability. Due to Other surface irrigation 50–60% and higher low
(furrows etc.)
water scarcity in SSA, the potential demand for irrigation
Sprinkler irrigation 50–70% medium-high
water is unlimited and causes competition and sometimes
Drip irrigation 80–90% high
conflicts. This is not just a question of drinking water
supplies for people, livestock and wildlife but also envi- (Source: Studer, 2009)

ronmental water requirements – which keep ecosystems

healthy. Currently, only 4% of the agricultural land in SSA Given water scarcity and widespread water wastage and
is irrigated - producing 9% of the crops (IAASTD, 2009b). poor management, best practices for irrigated agriculture
Many irrigation schemes suffer from water wastage, and include the following:
salinisation is also a common problem.
1. Increased water use efficiency: in conveying and distrib-
uting irrigation water as well as applying it in the field.
Irrigated Agriculture in SSA
Conveyance and distribution can be improved through
– The agricultural sector is by far the biggest user of water
well maintained, lined canals and piping systems –
resources worldwide; around 70% of annual water withdraw-
als globally are for agricultural purposes. and above all avoiding leakages. In the field, reducing
– In SSA, 87% of the total annual water withdrawals in 2000 evaporation losses can be achieved by using low pres-
were for agriculture, 4% for industry and 9% for domestic sure sprinkler irrigation during the night or early morn-
use. ing, and avoiding irrigation when windy. Additionally,
– In SSA less than 4% of agricultural land is irrigated, com- deep seepage of water beyond rooting depth needs to
pared to 37% in Asia and 15% in Latin America. be avoided.
– The irrigated area in SSA is concentrated in South Africa
(1.5 million ha), and Madagascar (1.1 million ha). Ten other 2. Spread of limited irrigation water over a larger area,
countries (Ethiopia, Kenya, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal,
thereby not fully satisfying the crop water requirements
Somalia, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe) each have more
i.e. deficit irrigation. It allows achieving considerably
than 100,000 irrigated hectares.
higher total crop yields and water use efficiency com-
– About half of the irrigated area comprises small-scale
systems. In terms of value, irrigation is responsible for an pared to using water for full irrigation on a smaller area
estimated 9% of the crops produced in SSA. (Oweis and Hachum, 2001).
– Inappropriate irrigation can result in soil salinisation. Tanzania
for example has an estimated 1.7–2.9 million hectares of sa- 3. Supplementary irrigation by complementing rain dur-
line soils and 300,000–700,000 hectares of sodic soils, some ing periods of water deficits, at water-stress sensitivity
of it now abandoned. This has not only detrimental effects on stages in plant growth. Supplementary irrigation is a
agriculture but also on water supply and quality.
key strategy, still underused, for unlocking rainfed yield
(Sources: World Resources Institute (WRI), 2005; Falkenmark et al., 2007;
potential and water productivity / water use efficiency.
Zhi You, 2008; IAASTD, 2009b)

Supplementary irrigation
Water use efficiency in irrigation systems needs to be – Yields of sorghum in Burkina Faso and maize in Kenya were
­disaggregated into conveyance, distribution and field increased from 0.5 to 1.5–2.0 metric tonnes per hectare with
application efficiency. Improved irrigation water manage- supplementary irrigation plus soil fertility management
ment requires considering the efficiency of the whole (Rockström et al., 2003; Molden et al., 2007).
­system. Figure 6 illustrates the sequences of water – A cost-benefit study of maize-tomato cropping systems using
losses, and Table 2 indicates the efficiency of different supplementary irrigation found annual net profits of US$ 73
in Burkina Faso and US$ 390 in Kenya per hectare. In com-
irrigation systems.
parison traditional systems showed net income losses of
US$ 165 and US$ 221, respectively (Fox et al., 2005).

26 Sustainable Land Management in Practice

Layout_Part_1_2.indd 26 24.05.11 11:12

 Water losses 8 7
1 Evaporation from water surface
2 Deep percolation in water canals
3 Seepage through canal bunds / walls
4 Overtopping
5 Surface runoff / drainage
6 Deep percolation below root zone
7 Evaporation loss
8 Productive transpiration by plants

6
1

Figure 6: Water losses in irrigation systems: from source to plant illustrating the small fraction of water used productively for plant growth compared to the total
water directed to irrigation systems (based on Studer, 2009).

4. Water harvesting and improved water storage for ir- Improving water productivity in rainfed and irrigated
rigation during times of surplus and using the water for agriculture (Principles)
(supplementary) irrigation during times of water stress. ‘More crop per drop’ by:
Small dams and other storage facilities as described in – reducing water loss
the SLM group of rainwater harvesting, which are com- – harvesting water
bined with community level water management, need – maximising water storage
to be explored as alternatives to large-scale irrigation – managing excess water
projects (IAASTD, 2009b).
Any efforts towards better water management must be com-
bined with improved soil, nutrient, and crop management, and
5. Integrated irrigation management is a wider concept these synergies can more than double water productivity and
going beyond technical aspects and including all yields in small-scale agriculture (Rockström et al, 2007).
dimensions of sustainability. It embraces coordinated There is need for a ‘green water revolution’ to explore the
water management, maximised economic and social potential of increasing water use efficiency for improved land
welfare, assured equitable access to water and water productivity. First, priority must be given to improved water use
efficiency in rainfed agriculture; here is the greatest potential for
services, without compromising the sustainability of
improvements not only related to yields but also in optimising
ecosystems (Studer, 2009). all round benefits. Practices that improve water availability relate
to soil cover and soil organic matter improvement, measures to
reduce surface runoff (see ‘Cross-Slope Barriers’) as well as to
collect and harvest water.
For irrigated agriculture, conveyance and distribution efficiency
are key additional water saving strategies. The emphasis should
be on ‘upgrading’ rainfed agriculture with water efficient sup-
plementary irrigation.

Principles for Best SLM Practices 27

Layout_Part_1_2.indd 27 24.05.11 11:12

 P R I N C I P L E S F O R B E S T S L M P R A C T I C E S

Soil fertility
Nutrient deficit in SSA’s soils
Healthy and fertile soil is the foundation for land produc- Nutrient depletion in African soils is serious:
tivity. Plants obtain nutrients from two natural sources: – Soils on cropland have been depleted by about 22 kg nitrogen
(N), 2.5 kg phosphorus (P), and 15 kg potassium (K) per hectare
organic matter and minerals. Reduced soil fertility under-
per year.
mines the production of food, fodder, fuel and fibre. Soil
– Nutrient losses due to erosion range from of 10 to 45 kg of
organic matter, nutrients and soil structure are the main
NPK/ha per year.
factors influencing soil fertility. Many of Africa’s soils are – 25% of soils are acidic with a deficiency in phosphorus,
heavily depleted of nutrients, and soil organic matter is calcium and magnesium, and toxic levels of aluminium.
very low: below 1.0% or even 0.5% in the top soil (Bot – Main contributing factors to nutrient depletion are soil erosion
and Benites, 2005). by wind and water, leaching and off-take of produce.
Low use of fertilizer:
Soil organic matter is a key to soil fertility. Organic matter – With an average annual application of 8-15 kg/ha, the use of
includes any plant or animal material that returns to the fertilizer in Africa compares very poorly to an average global
soil and goes through the decomposition cycle. Soil or- value of 90 kg/ha.
ganic matter (SOM) is a revolving nutrient fund: it contains – Land users in Niger use manure on 30-50% of their fields at
all of the essential plant nutrients, and it helps to absorb a rate of 1.2 tonnes/ha, which results in a production of only
about 300 kg grain/ha.
and hold nutrients in an available form (Bot and Benites,
2005). Soil organic matter has multiple benefits; it is also Nutrient amount removed is higher than input:
fundamental for good soil structure through the binding of – Negative nutrient balance in SSA’s croplands - with at least 4
times more nutrients removed in harvested products compared
soil particles, for water holding capacity, and it provides a
with the nutrients returned in the form of manure and fertilizer.
habitat for soil organisms.
– Current annual rates of nutrient losses are estimated to be
4.4 million tonnes of N, 0.5 million tonnes of P, and 3 million
Soil texture also influences soil fertility. The presence of tonnes of K. These losses swamp nutrient additions from
clay particles influences the soil’s ability to hold nutrients. chemical fertilizer applications, which equal 0.8, 0.26, and 0.2
Very sandy soils usually have a lower nutrient holding ca- million tonnes of N, P, and K, respectively.
pacity than clay soils, and hence need particular attention – Negative nutrient balance: 8 million tonnes of NPK/year.
in terms of soil fertility management. (Sources: Sanchez et al., 1997; Sanchez, 2002; FAOSTAT, 2004; McCann,
2005; Henao and Baanante, 2006; Verchot, et al, 2007; Aune and Bationo,
2008; WB, 2010)
Declining soil fertility: The reason for a decline in SOM
and the closely linked nutrient content is simply that the
volatilisation
biomass and nutrient cycle (Figure 7) is not sustained,
meaning more material in the form of soil organic matter biomass
and / or nutrients (especially the macro-nutrients of nitro-
gen, phosphorous and potassium) leaves the system than mulch
residues
is replenished. This results from various causes:
l removal of crop products and residues (plant biomass),
l loss through soil erosion, erosion soil formation

l leaching of nutrients (below the rooting depth),

l volatisation of nutrients (e.g. nitrogen),
l accelerated mineralisation of SOM through tillage. mineralisation

The gains or replenishments are derived from residues of

plants grown or nutrient accumulation (e.g. nitrogen fix-
ing), external input of organic matter, manure and fertilizer, leaching

and nutrients through the weathering and formation of the Figure 7: The nutrient and carbon cycle showing the main losses and gains /
soil. replenishments of soil organic matter, biomass and nutrients.

28 Sustainable Land Management in Practice

Layout_Part_1_2.indd 28 24.05.11 11:12

 Enhancing and improving soil fertility through SLM:
SLM practices should maintain or improve a balanced
SOM–nutrient cycle, meaning that net losses should be
eliminated and organic matter and / or nutrients added to
stabilise or improve the soil fertility.

Replenishment of soil nutrients is a major challenge for

SSA. As illustrated in the box on page 28, SSA soils have
a significantly negative nutrient balance. Replenishment
and reduced loss of soil nutrients can be achieved through
the following options:

1. Improved fallow-systems: The deliberate planting of

fast-growing species - usually leguminous - into a fallow
for rapid replenishment of soil fertility. These can range
from forest to bush, savannas, grass and legume fal- Composting, manuring and mulching in a banana plantation, Uganda.
lows. The case study on ‘Green Manuring with Tithonia’ (William Critchley)

in Cameroon presented in Part 2 shows the importance

of nutrient fixing plants planted either in sequence, 5. Application of inorganic fertilizer: Inorganic fertilizers
intercropped or in rotation. are derived from synthetic chemicals and / or minerals.
However there is a debate around the use of fertilizer in
2. Residue management: A practice that ideally leaves 30% SSA. The mainstream view is that fertilizer use needs to
or more of the soil surface covered with crop residues be increased from the current annual average of about 9
after harvest. It requires residue from the previous crop kg/ha to at least 30 kg/ha. The other side points
as the main resource (thus burning is discouraged) – it towards undesirable environmental impacts, such as
also helps reducing erosion, improving water infiltration soil acidification, water pollution and health problems
and therefore moisture conservation. There are positive (IAASTD, 2009b). However, without a combination of
impacts also on soil structure and surface water quality organic matter application and inorganic fertilizer, soil
(see SLM group ‘Conservation Agriculture’). fertility is unlikely to meet production demands: thus the
concept of ‘Integrated Soil Fertility Management’ should
3. Application of improved compost and manure: Compost be supported. The examples of ‘Microfertilization’ in
(mainly from plant residues) and manure (from domestic Mali and ‘Precision Conservation Agriculture’ in Zimba-
livestock) help to close the nutrient cycle by ensuring that bwe presented in Part 2 show that it is possible to
these do not become losses to the system. By building substantially increase millet and sorghum yields and
up SOM they help maintain soil structure and health, as profitability by using micro-doses of inorganic fertilizer
well as fertility. Furthermore they are within the reach of in combination with techniques that conserve and
the poorest farmers (see case studies on: ‘Night Coralling’ concentrate soil moisture and organic matter.
in Niger and ‘Compost Production’ in Burkina Faso).
6. Minimum soil disturbance: Tillage systems with mini-
4. Tapping nutrients: This takes place through the roots mum soil disturbance such as reduced or zero till-
of trees and other perennial plants when mixed with age systems leave more biological surface residues,
annual crops (e.g. in agroforestry systems). Trees act as provide environments for enhanced soil biotic activity,
nutrient pumps: that is they take up nutrients from the and maintain more intact and interconnected pores
deep subsoil below the rooting depth of annual crops and better soil aggregates, which are able to withstand
and return them to the topsoil in the form of mulch and raindrop impact (and thus reduce splash erosion). Water
litter. This enhances the availability of nutrients for an- can infiltrate more readily and rapidly into the soil with
nual crops. reduced tillage, and this also helps protect the soil from

Principles for Best SLM Practices 29

Layout_Part_1_2.indd 29 24.05.11 11:12

 P R I N C I P L E S F O R B E S T S L M P R A C T I C E S

erosion. In addition, organic matter decomposes less ‘Improved’ varieties have potential advantages but their
rapidly under these systems. Carbon dioxide emissions additional demands on applications of fertilizers, pesti-
are thus reduced. No tillage, as described in the case cides or herbicides need to be taken into account – as
studies on large and small scale conservation tillage in does costs and supply of seeds. They often create de-
Kenya presented in Part 2, has proven especially useful pendency on seed producers.
for maintaining and increasing soil organic matter.
Organic agriculture and low external input agriculture
Improving soil fertility and the nutrient cycle have emerged in response to these concerns – but also
­(Principles) because they relate more closely to the traditions and
values of African agriculture. Organic agriculture improves
– Reduce ‘unproductive’ nutrient losses: leaching, erosion, loss
production by optimising available resources, maximising
to atmosphere.
nutrient recycling and water conservation. According to
– Reduce mining of soil fertility: improve balance between
removal and supply of nutrients - this is achieved through: IFOAM (2009) organic agriculture is based on the prin-

– cover improvement (mulch and plant cover), ciples of health, ecology, fairness and care. In Part 2 an
example on ‘Organic Cotton’ in Burkina Faso is presented.
– improvement of soil organic matter and soil structure,
All the strategies involved seek to make the best use of
– crop rotation, fallow and intercropping,
local resources.
– application of animal and green manure, and compost
(integrated crop-livestock systems),
– appropriate supplementation with inorganic fertilizer, Some advancements and drawbacks of the ‘Green
Revolution’ in SSA
– trapping sediments and nutrients (e.g. through bunds;
vegetative or structural barriers / traps). Cereal yields have remained largely stagnant at around 1 tonne/
ha from the 1960s to 2000 in the SSA region. This is in stark
These should be enhanced through improved water manage-
contrast to the experience of the ‘original’ Green Revolution in
ment and an improved micro-climate to reduce losses and
Asia during the 1960s and 70s. Here, intensified production
maintain moisture.
of cereals (especially wheat and rice) led to large produc-
tion increases due to the introduction of new, high-yielding
varieties. The new varieties however required irrigation and
Plants and their management large amounts of chemical fertilizers and pesticides to produce
their high yields. This then raised concerns about costs and
Improved agronomy is an essential supplement to good potentially harmful environmental effects. It led to a loss of
SLM practices. The Green Revolution in Asia made great agro-biodiversity and the genetic pool through dependence on
monocultures and replacement of land races (FAO, 2008a).
advances in increasing agricultural production in the
Agricultural intensification in SSA has largely failed because
1960s and 70s based on improved agronomic practices.
it has not addressed (1) depletion of organic matter through
As illustrated in figure 2, Africa has, over the last 50 years, removal of crop residues for fodder and fuel, insufficient return
increased its agricultural production mainly through ex- of organic matter to the soil – causing low response to fertiliz-
pansion of agricultural land. The ‘original’ Green Revolu- ers; (2) degradation of soil structure through reduced organic
tion has largely failed in Africa (see next box) although matter combined with destructive tillage practices – leading
achievements in crop breeding have been made and to compaction, sealing, crusting, decreased infiltration and
increased erosion; (3) adverse changes in the soil nutrient bal-
efforts are still ongoing to achieve the following:
ance due to failure to replace essential nutrients removed from
l higher yielding varieties, the soil and / or imbalanced fertilizer application – e.g. pushing
l early growth vigour to reduce evaporation loss, production with nitrogen application but not replacing other es-
l short growing period and drought resilience, sential nutrients, which become the limiting factor; (4) pollution
l better
 water use efficiency / water productivity in water of soil and water though inappropriate application of fertilizers,
scarce areas, pesticides and herbicides.
l tolerance to salinity, acidity and / or water logging, (Source: IAASTD, 2009b)

l disease and pest resistance.

30 Sustainable Land Management in Practice

Layout_Part_1_2.indd 30 24.05.11 11:12

 A major limiting factor to plant productivity are weeds.
Good SLM practices can reduce the weed infestation
considerably by providing cover by crops, residues and
mulch, and by minimum soil disturbance. On grazing land
the control of undesirable species should be a key focus.
In forests the problem of invasives is also a concern.

Adverse impacts of pest and diseases are various and a

major threat to agricultural production. One way forward
that resonates with SLM is to select more resistant spe-
cies and varieties and follow the principles of integrated
pest management (IPM) using biological and natural
mechanisms as far as possible. IPM is an ecological
approach with the main goal of significantly reducing or
even eliminating the use of pesticides, through managing
pest populations at an acceptable level as described in
the case study ‘Push-pull integrated pest and soil fertility
management’ from Kenya presented in Part 2.

However, improved agricultural production does not help

if the post harvest management is lacking. Given the high Screening for drought tolerance of pigeon peas and lablab. (Hanspeter Liniger)

rates of post harvest losses (reaching 30-100%), major ef-

forts are needed to secure the harvest from damage. There is still huge potential to increase plant productivity
through a ‘new’ green revolution. The major challenges are
A ‘new’ green revolution? The aim of a ‘new’ green the following:
revolution in SSA is to promote rapid and sustainable l Using breeding advances while increasing diversity:
agricultural growth based on the smallholder farmer sector more productive and resilient varieties of crops, adapted
with minimal resources (and minimal government support), to thrive in a variety of environmental conditions;
to ensure that smallholders have good seeds and healthy l Capitalising
 on the enormous plant genetic resources in
soils, access to markets, information, financing, storage SSA by including local land races and wild varieties into
and transport and last, but not least, policies that provide breeding schemes. Exchange of seeds among small-
them with comprehensive support (TerrAfrica, 2009). In scale farmers is an efficient way to release and spread
contrast to the ‘original’ green revolution in Asia, the ‘new’ plant varieties. This includes not only crops but also im-
green revolution intends to be both pro-poor and pro- proved fodder production on grassland / grazing land as
environment. well as fibre and fuel production in agroforestry systems
and on forest land;
Statement by Kofi A. Annan l Recognising
 that integrated soil fertility management
Chair of the Board of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in and IPM are key;
Africa (AGRA) l Developing
 more effective partnerships and networks
‘…..To feed the continent’s 900 million people, Africa needs for an interactive research system - making indigenous
its own food security. This can only be achieved through an knowledge and local innovation available;
uniquely African Green Revolution. It must be a revolution that l Stressing
 the role of gender in agriculture: the recogni-
recognises that smallholder farmers are the key to increasing tion that the majority of smallholders in SSA are women
production, promotes change across the entire agricultural
must be brought into all supporting policy and practice;
system, and puts fairness and the environment at its heart….. ‘
l Marketing of produce (including value chain development)
(AGRA, 2010)
and procuring basic inputs are often critical constraints.

Principles for Best SLM Practices 31

Layout_Part_1_2.indd 31 24.05.11 11:12

 P R I N C I P L E S F O R B E S T S L M P R A C T I C E S

Improving planting materials and plant management 3. Balancing temperature extremes and radiation: Exces-
(Principles) sive soil and air temperatures and radiation during hot
seasons or spells can be reduced to favour plant (and
Improve planting material and minimising impact of weeds,
animal) production through increased cover and shade.
pest and diseases, and post-harvest losses
This is preferably achieved through increased vegetative
Through supporting:
cover as the evapotranspiration has a cooling effect,
– selection and experimentation with local germplasm and
creating a favourable micro-climate. In highlands and
exchange of seed materials;
mountains in SSA the constraint is high fluctuations
– nutrient and water management of improved plant species
with low minimum temperatures. This is particularly an
and varieties based on locally available inputs (such as ma-
nure, compost and micro-dosed application of fertilizers); issue in the highlands of Ethiopia, and in eastern and
– optimising planting dates, planting geometry etc.; southern Africa where crops are grown over 3,000 m

– mixed plant systems to benefit from synergies between differ- altitude. In southern Africa cold is an issue in winter. In
ent plants (intercropping, relay planting, rotations etc); these environments trees and cover can protect again
– weed management; cold winds - but the shading may slow down the warm-
– IPM (Integrated Pest Management); ing up of the soil.

– post harvest management.

Creation of a favourable micro-climate (Principles)
In dry and warm areas:
– reduce strong winds and storms (avoid drying out and me-
chanical damage);
Micro-climate – protect against high temperature and radiation;
– keep conditions as moist as possible;
Micro-climate conditions can be substantially influenced
In humid areas:
by land management, particularly by practices reducing
– protect against storms (mechanical impact and soil
wind and improving shade. Ground cover, be it vegetative degradation).
or through mulching, is the key factor in determining the
All of these improvements can be achieved through windbreaks,
micro-climate. Improved micro-climates have the following shelterbelts, agroforestry, multistorey cropping and good soil
positive impacts: cover through vegetation or mulch.
In cold highlands and southern Africa with winter seasons land
1. Improve soil moisture and air humidity: Higher produc- management may need to protect crops against cold winds or
tivity per unit of water is achievable under humid rather frost.
than under dry air condition (Tanner and Sinclair, 1983).
Evaporation (unproductive water loss from the soil sur-
face) can be minimised by protecting the soil either with
crops or mulch material. Practices including mulching, Improved livelihoods
cover cropping, intercropping, agroforestry, shelterbelts,
as well as no or minimum tillage protect the soil from There would be little importance attached to SLM - and
excessive heating, exposure to wind and moisture loss, its uptake - if the livelihoods of millions were not at stake.
favour moist conditions around plants and improve per- Increased and sustained agricultural production, the provi-
formance and productivity. sion and securing of clean water and maintaining a healthy
environment are essential for improved livelihoods in SSA.
2. Protect from mechanical damage: To protect plants Despite the constraints and problems land users have, they
from mechanical impact of heavy rain, storms and wind, are willing to adopt SLM practices that provide them with
dust and sand storms a ‘protective’ micro-climate can higher net returns, lower risks or a combination of both.
be created through the improvement of cover, for exam-
ple establishing trees as shelterbelts and windbreaks.

32 Sustainable Land Management in Practice

Layout_Part_1_2.indd 32 24.05.11 11:12

 Costs and benefits 4 High initial returns but poor or no returns in the long-
term: These options are tempting for land users but will
For improved livelihoods and for adoption and spread- lose attractiveness in the long-run as the returns are
ing of SLM, costs and benefits play a central role. Given not sustained. This has occurred where high yielding
the urgent needs in SSA, investments in SLM should varieties and inorganic fertilizers were applied but yield
aim at both short-term (rapid) and long-term (sustained) responses fell away after a few years (see box ‘Green
paybacks. Thus inputs for both initial establishment and Revolution’ page 30).
continued maintenance afterwards need to be compared
with benefits. Figure 8 illustrates the different positive While establishment costs can be partly funded by aid and
paybacks from SLM interventions: external sources, maintenance costs must be covered lo-
cally by land users to avoid the ‘dependency syndrome’ of
Benefit-cost ratio continuous aid and to ensure self-initiative and ownership.
Establishment phase Maintenance phase
3 Experiences with implementation of SLM, show the need
2
1 for accurate assessment of benefits and costs (in mon-
etary and non-monetary terms) and short- and long-term
+
gains. However, this is seldom done and data are few. As-
sessments of benefits and costs are very site specific and
therefore pose a great challenge for the spread of SLM in
4
0 Time SSA. Without proper assessments, land users and devel-
opment agencies cannot make informed decisions about
which technologies and approaches are the most viable
Positive paybacks long-term but not short-term
Positive paybacks long-term and breaking even in the short-term options for a particular natural and human environment -
Positive paybacks short as well as long-term
and where incentives for land users are needed.
High initial returns but poor or no returns in the long-term

Figure 8: Benefits and costs of SLM over time, short-term establishment phase Inputs challenges for land users
and long-term maintenance phase.

Land users may require additional inputs to take up SLM

1 Long-term but not short-term: many land users in SSA practices. These are related to materials (machinery,
might be constrained to make these long-term invest- seeds, fertilizers, equipment, etc.), labour, markets, and
ments, thus might need a kick-start, where the estab- knowledge. Some of the SLM practices require few extra
lishment costs are partly funded by aid and external or different inputs and little change compared to current
sources. The maintenance costs however would need to practices; others mean a complete change in machinery,
be covered by local sources and direct paybacks. inputs and management. Some considerations are:

2 Long-term and breaking even in the short-term: thus l Small-scale

 land users in subsistence agriculture have
increased benefits but also higher inputs. Depending on fewer options and resources to invest than commercial
the wealth of the land users, the initial investments are or large-scale farmers with a high level of mechanisation.
not possible without external assistance (see scenario 1).
l A
 clear distinction between initial investment for the

3 Short as well as long-term: This is the ideal case, where establishment and the maintenance of SLM practices is
land users receive rewards right from the beginning. The essential. Initial investment constraints need to be over-
question remains whether they need some initial support come and may require external assistance especially
for investments (micro-credit, loans, access to inputs when benefits mainly accrue in the long-term. Thus any
and markets etc). However, due to the rapid and con- material and financial support should build on currently
tinuous returns, land users have the possibility of paying available resources. Special attention needs to be given
back loans and credits quickly. to poor and marginalised land users.

Principles for Best SLM Practices 33

Layout_Part_1_2.indd 33 24.05.11 11:12

 P R I N C I P L E S F O R B E S T S L M P R A C T I C E S

Improving livelihoods (Principles)

– provision of short (rapid) and long-term (sustained) benefits

– assistance for establishment might be needed for small-scale
subsistence land users if costs are beyond land users’ means
– assistance for establishment if short-term benefits are not
guaranteed
– maintenance costs need to be covered by the land users to
ensure self-initiative
Changes towards SLM should build on – and be sensitive to -
values and norms, allow flexibility, adaptation and innovation to
improve the livelihoods of the land users.

High labour costs for ridging and low returns (left) compared to less demanding
mulching with high benefits (right). (Hanspeter Liniger)
Improved ecosystems: being environmentally
friendly
l Labour
 availability is a major concern and depends on
the health of people and competition with other income The principles of increased production presented above,
generating activities. Malaria, HIV-AIDS and water-borne to be truly sustainable should also aim at improving eco-
diseases significantly affect labour productivity. Conflicts system functions and services. Best practices must be
with off-farm work, including the seasonal migration of environmentally friendly, reduce current land degradation,
labour force (often men) can be a major constraint for improve biodiversity and increase resilience to climate
SLM. Single (often female) headed rural households variation and change.
need practices with reduced labour inputs.
Prevent, mitigate and rehabilitate land d­ egradation
l Access
 to inputs and equipment such as machinery,
seeds / seedlings, fertilizers, etc. is essential. Introduc- Assessments in SSA show the severity of land degrada-
tion of SLM is only possible if markets for inputs and tion and the urgency to improve natural resources and
products are secured. their use through SLM (see box page 35).

l Access
 to knowledge related to SLM practices and their Depending on what stage of land degradation has been
introduction is a prerequisite for all land users. Practices reached, SLM interventions can be differentiated into pre-
that are easy to learn, and build on existing experiences vention and mitigation of land degradation or rehabilitation
and knowledge, have the best chance of being taken up. of already degraded land (Figure 9) (WOCAT, 2007).

Apart from the costs, benefits, access to inputs, markets Prevention implies employment of SLM measures that
and knowledge, there are other elements related to im- maintain natural resources and their environmental and
proved livelihoods such as the need for practices to be: productive function on land that may be prone to deg-
l socially and culturally acceptable: aesthetics (a non-
 radation. The implication is that good land management
linear contour may be visually unacceptable for example) practice is already in place: it is effectively the antithesis of
and beliefs (some areas are ‘untouchable’ because of human induced land degradation.
spirits) norms and values;
l flexible enough to allow (and even encourage) local Mitigation is intervention intended to reduce ongoing deg-
­adaptation and innovation; radation. This comes in at a stage when degradation has
l clearly seen to add value to the land and to the quality already begun. The main aim here is to halt further degra-
of life. dation and to start improving resources and their ecosys-

34 Sustainable Land Management in Practice

Layout_Part_1_2.indd 34 24.05.11 11:12

 Land Degradation in Africa: Biological degradation: reduction of vegetation cover, loss of
– 67% of Africa’s land is already affected by land degradation. habitats, quantity / biomass decline, detrimental effects of fires,
4 - 7 % of SSA is severely degraded – the highest proportion quality and species composition / diversity decline, loss of soil
of any region in the world. life, increase of pests / diseases, loss of predators.
– The cumulative loss of productivity is: 25% of cropland, – Although the continent hosts only 17% of the world’s forests,
6.6% of pasture land. Africa accounted for over half of global deforestation during
– Soil degradation in Africa is attributable to: overgrazing 1990-2000.
(50%); poor agricultural management practices (24%); – In most parts of Africa, deforestation rates exceed planting
­vegetation removal (14%); and overexploitation (13%). rates by a factor of 30:1. The rate of 0.6 per year for the last
15 years is among the highest globally (largely in humid and
Soil erosion by water and wind: mainly loss of topsoil / sub-humid West Africa).
­surface erosion, gully erosion and offsite degradation effects. – 89% of deforestation is attributed to clearing for agriculture.
– Annual yield losses due to soil erosion estimated as ­ Of these, 54% are attributed to subsistence agriculture and
averaging 6.2 %. the other 35% to intensive agriculture.
– Erosion by water: 46% of land area. – In South Africa and Lesotho, alien plants cover about 10
– Erosion by wind 38% of land area mainly in drylands. million ha (more than 8 percent of total land area), and are
spreading at 5% per year
Chemical soil degradation: mainly fertility decline and re-
duced organic matter content, salinisation. Water degradation: aridification, change in quantity of surface
– Four times the amount of nutrients removed in cropland water, change in groundwater / aquifer level, decline of surface
compared to the amount returned with manure and fertilizer. water quality, decline of groundwater quality, reduction of the
Africa loses an equivalent of 4 billion USD per year due to buffering capacity of wetland areas.
soil nutrient mining. – 70% of Africa’s soils suffer from periodic moisture stress.
– 30% of irrigated land lost due to salinisation: Kenya (30%), Na- – Some 86% of African soils are under soil moisture stress.
mibia (17%), Nigeria (34%), Sudan (27%) and Tanzania (27%). – Water tables have dropped in many regions and many wells
– Losses of irrigated land due to waterlogging: DR Congo have dried up.
(20%), Mauritania (50%) and Gambia (10%). – More fluctuations in river, stream and spring flows, with more
frequent flooding in the rainy season and longer periods of
Physical soil degradation: compaction, sealing and crusting, water shortage in the dry season.
waterlogging.
Sources: Oldeman 1994 and 1998; Versveld et al, 1998; Reich et al. 2001; FAOSTAT, 2004; FAO, 2007; SARD, 2007; WOCAT, 2008a; WB, 2010)

Prevention Mitigation / ‘Cure’ Rehabilitation

Figure 9: Prevention, mitigation and rehabilitation of land degradation less than half a kilometre apart. (Hanspeter Liniger)

Principles for Best SLM Practices 35

Layout_Part_1_2.indd 35 24.05.11 11:12

 P R I N C I P L E S F O R B E S T S L M P R A C T I C E S

tem functions. Mitigation impacts tend to be noticeable ­addition, structural measures should be combined as
in the short to medium term: this then provides a strong much as possible with vegetative or agronomic measures
incentive for further efforts. to protect the structures and make them directly pro-
ductive (e.g. fodder grass on earth bunds). Frequently,
Rehabilitation is required when the land is already degrad- measures can be implemented together, combining dif-
ed to such an extent that the original use is no longer pos- ferent functions and creating synergies. Combinations of
sible, and land has become practically unproductive and measures that lead to integrated soil and water, crop-
the ecosystem seriously disturbed. Rehabilitation usually livestock, fertility and pest managements are promising as
implies high investment costs with medium- to long-term they increase both ecosystem - and livelihood - resilience.
benefits.
Improve biodiversity
Major efforts and investments have been made in the
implementation of structural measures. They are con- A key concern in sustainable land management and pro-
spicuous in showing efforts made towards SLM. However tecting ecosystem functions in SSA is conserving biodiver-
they are input intensive and often could be substituted by sity. Sub-Saharan Africa has both remarkable richness and
less demanding agronomic, vegetative and management abundance of biological diversity. The world’s second larg-
measures. As a rule of thumb priority should be given first est area of rainforest after South America’s Amazon Basin
to agronomic and / or vegetative measures with as little is found in Central Africa. It shelters some of the greatest
outside input as possible and only then apply structural biological diversity of Africa in terms of vegetation and wild-
measure if the ‘cheaper’ options are not adequate. In life and plays a vital role in worldwide ecological services

Categories of SLM Measures

The measures for prevention, mitigation and rehabilitation of land degradation and restoration of ecosystems services can be classi-
fied into four categories (WOCAT, 2007):

Agronomic measures: measures that improve soil cover (e.g. green

cover, mulch); measures that enhance organic matter / soil fertility (e.g.
manuring); soil surface treatment (e.g. conservation tillage); subsurface
treatment (e.g. deep ripping).

Vegetative measures: plantation / reseeding of tree and shrub species

(e.g. live fences; tree crows), grasses and perennial herbaceous plants
(e.g. grass strips).

Structural measures: terraces (bench, forward / backward sloping); bunds

banks / level, graded); dams, pans; ditches (level, graded); walls, barriers,
palisades.

Management measures: change of land use type (e.g. area enclosure);

change of management / intensity level (e.g. from grazing to cut-and-
carry); major change in timing of activities; control / change of species
composition.

Any combinations of the above measures are possible, e.g.: Terrace (structural) with grass strips and trees (vegetative) and contour
ridges (agronomic).

36 Sustainable Land Management in Practice

Layout_Part_1_2.indd 36 24.05.11 11:12

 (Owen, 2004). Furthermore, dryland biodiversity has distin-
guishable features that are often overlooked. These include
heterogeneity, diversity of micro-organisms, presence of
wild relatives of globally important domesticated species,
and traditionally adapted land use systems (pastoralism,
parklands, mixed farming, mixed seed cropping, etc.)
(Bonkoungou, 2001; Mortimer, 2009). Sustainable manage-
ment of natural forests, woodlands, wetlands, grasslands,
savannas and deserts results in the protection of biodiver-
sity and environmental quality and at the same time offers
opportunities for food security and poverty alleviation. SSA
has of the world’s most attractive and rich national parks
and reserves, which apart from their intrinsic value, offer
employment and revenue from tourism.

Women are guardians of West Africa’s crop diversity

Women play a dominant role in every part of West Africa’s
food systems. Often they are responsible for managing small
parcels of land on the family farm or for growing food in small
gardens around the home. At a time when diets are becoming Giraffes in the Amboseli Nationalpark, Kenya. (Hanspeter Liniger)
increasingly simple, and nutritious traditional foods are being
replaced by refined carbohydrates and fat, the role of women
in promoting diversified diets rich in traditional crops is of vital Sub-Saharan Africa is the cradle of vitally important
importance (Smith, 2008). international agro-biodiversity. It is the centre of origin of,
for example sorghum (Sorghum vulgare) and both bulrush
millet (Pennesetum typhoides) and finger millet (Eleusine
Plant and animal biodiversity are central to human coracana), as well as the cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) vari-
well-being, most notably in food production but also ous yams, and coffee (Harrison et al., 1969,1985). There
as a source of fibre for clothing, wood for implements, are important endemic species also, such as rooibos
shelter, and fuel, and for natural medicines, as well as tea, which is restricted to South Africa. Because African
having strong cultural and spiritual significance. Agri- farming depends, still, very largely on local landraces of
cultural biodiversity encompasses domesticated crop a wide variety of crops, the wealth of its agro-biodiversity
plants, livestock and fish (etc.), wild crop relatives, wild must not be underestimated. In the protection of agro-­
food sources, and ‘associated’ biodiversity that supports biodiversity the precautionary principle needs to be applied:
agricultural production through nutrient recycling, pest maintain as many varieties of plants and domestic animals
control and pollination. Agro-biodiversity is the result as possible for their future potential.
of the careful selection and inventive development of
land users whose livelihood depends on the sustained Climate change: a fresh challenge – a new
management of this biodiversity. Land users value hav- ­o pportunity?
ing agricultural biodiversity in their farming systems and
small-scale farming is far less of a threat to biodiversity Climate change is a major concern for SSA, bringing with
than large-scale mechanised systems (Mortimer, 2009). it various new challenges. Without doubt, there is huge
Promotion of crop genetic diversity is part of their coping potential and opportunity for SLM in climate change
strategies for mitigating weather unpredictability; it also mitigation and adaptation. Climate change science shows
spreads availability of food products over time (Bonk- how important the land is, in terms of a carbon source
oungou, 2001). and a carbon sink. SLM practices not only contribute to
building up carbon in the land but can also give protec-
tion against climate variability. There is evidence of current

Principles for Best SLM Practices 37

Layout_Part_1_2.indd 37 24.05.11 11:12

 P R I N C I P L E S F O R B E S T S L M P R A C T I C E S

to maintaining productive land and ecosystem function.

SLM is good for farmers: it is helpful in the challenges
posed by climate change also. Climate change acts as a
spur to encourage better SLM – and it provides new fund-
ing windows for the reasons set out above.

Mitigation of climate change: Land users in Sub-Saharan

Africa can contribute to global efforts to mitigate climate
change by adopting SLM technologies that sequester
carbon both above and below ground and avoid emissions
of greenhouse gases. Various SLM technologies presented
in this document can make major contributions, and need
to be acknowledged as such. While mitigation of climate
change is not a priority for poor farmers, the same SLM
practices that benefit them directly, can help sequester
carbon and reduce emissions.

Afforestation around Mt. Kenya. (Hanspeter Liniger) Sequestering carbon above and below ground can be
achieved through:
adaptations and innovation in SLM technologies and ap- l afforestation, reforestation and improved forest manage-
proaches, demonstrating response to climate change: this ment practices;
experience needs to be acknowledged, investigated and l agroforestry and silvopastoral systems, integrated crop-
tapped (Woodfine, 2009). livestock systems which combine crops, grazing lands
and trees;
The concept of dealing with environmental (including l improved management of pastures and grazing prac-
climate) change is not new to land users. Traditional SLM tices on natural grasslands, including optimising stock
practices can serve as an entry point for efforts to en- numbers and utilising rotational grazing to maintain
hance system resilience, but will not be enough on their ground cover and plant biodiversity;
own, in the medium to long-term, for coping with climate l improved
 tillage practices – such as conservation
change (FAO, 2009b). Strong transdisciplinary research ef- ­agriculture – to increase soil organic carbon (SOC) con-
forts are needed, and additional emphasis should be given tent through permanent soil cover with crops and mulch,
to monitoring and assessment (M&A) of off-site impacts of minimum soil disturbance, fallows, green manures, and
land degradation and SLM. Increased occurrence of ex- crop rotations; and
treme climatic events leading to disasters such as floods, l micro-dosing with fertilizer to increase biomass produc-
land slides, mud flows and droughts also have national, tion, yields and SOC.
and global, impacts. The role of SLM to prevent and / or
reduce disasters must be acknowledged and investigated. Reducing emissions of carbon dioxide through:
l reduced land degradation and deforestation, loss of
Mitigation and adaptation are discussed in the following biomass and OM;
section. Mitigation in the context of climate change means l reduced use of fire in rangeland and forest management;
reducing greenhouse gases and thus their impacts, while l reduced machine hours for agriculture by adoption of
adaptation means amending practices to cope with the conservation tillage practices / conservation agriculture
impacts of changing climate (FAO, 2009b). SLM is con- systems; and
cerned with both. With respect to mitigation, SLM prac- l practices requiring lower doses of agrochemicals.
tices can help sequester carbon in the vegetation as well
as in the soil; in terms of adaptation suitably versatile and
‘climate proof’ SLM technologies and approaches are key

38 Sustainable Land Management in Practice

Layout_Part_1_2.indd 38 24.05.11 11:12

 Climate change in Africa
Africa’s climate ranges from humid equatorial regimes, through – 30-50% of savanna is burnt annually in Africa accelerating the
seasonally-arid tropical and hyper-arid regimes, to sub-tropical release of GHG and the loss of organic matter. Carbon stocks
Mediterranean-type climates. All these climates demonstrate in the soil are more than twice the carbon in living vegetation.
various degrees of variability, particularly with regard to precipi- – Above ground carbon stock has been reduced through
tation. Africa is especially vulnerable to climate change because deforestation and replacement of land use systems with less
of its geographic exposure, low incomes, and greater reliance permanent biomass. Afforestation and reduced deforestation
on climate sensitive sectors such as agriculture. in Africa have the potential to reduce global GHG emissions
by about 6.5%.
Climate change: – Soil organic carbon in most of SSA’s drylands has been
– Africa is considered at more risk from climate change than reduced in the topsoil - due to land degradation - to less than
other regions. 1%, whereas SLM can increase SOC to a level of 2-3%.
– During the 20th century, most of Africa already experienced
a warming of approximately 0.7°C and large portions of the Climate change adaptation:
Sahel experienced a rainfal decrease: East and Central Africa – Adaptation to climate variability and extremes is not new to
an increase in precipitation. land users in SSA. Yet traditional coping strategies are not
– Droughts and floods have increased in frequency and severity sufficient, additional and innovative efforts are required.
across Africa over the past 30 years, particularly in southern – Adaptation to high climate variability and more extreme
and eastern Africa (around the coast of the Indian Ocean e.g. events are a major concern in SSA especially on marginal
Mozambique). agricultural prone to desertification.
– Predictions regarding climate changes are uncertain but
scenarios indicate additional temperature increase of 3-4°C Environmental impacts of climate change:
and rise of sea level by 15-95 cm by 2100, and an increase in – physiological effects on crops, pasture, forests and livestock
the frequency of extreme weather events – droughts, floods (quantity, quality)
and storms. The length of growing period is likely to decrease – changes in land, soil and water resources (quantity, quality)
in many parts of SSA. – changes in and shifts of vegetation
– The general trend of currently marginal areas becoming more – increased weed and pest challenges
marginal is apparent. In aggregate, Africa will be left worse-off. – sea level rise, changes to ocean salinity

Climate change mitigation: Socio-economic impacts of climate change:

– Most African countries contribute little to the world’s total – decline in yields and production
greenhouse gas emissions. – increased number of people at risk of hunger and food insecurity
– Land use change and deforestation in Africa account for 64% – reduced marginal GDP from agriculture
of its greenhouse gas emissions. – fluctuations in world market prices
– migration and civil unrest

(Sources: Desanker and Magadza, 2001; Desanker, 2002; Stern, 2007; FAO, 2009a; FAO, 2009b; Pender et al., 2009; Woodfine, 2009; WB, 2010)

Reducing emissions of methane and nitrous oxide through: grazing land management) as well as permanent cover on
l improved nutrition for ruminant livestock; crop land (see SLM group on ‘Conservation Agriculture’).
l more efficient management of livestock waste (manure); Carbon markets for funding the spread need to be further
l more efficient management of irrigation water on rice
 explored and are emerging opportunities (refer to page 45)
paddies; and for land users to implement SLM.
l more efficient nitrogen management on cultivated fields,
reducing volatile losses through better agronomic prac- Soil organic carbon (SOC) increase can be achieved by
tices (rotations, fallows, manuring and micro-dosing). implementing SLM practices which add biomass to the soil,
cause minimal soil disturbance, conserve soil and water,
To increase carbon stocks above ground, afforestation, improve soil structure, enhance activity and species diversity
reforestation and agroforestry systems are important, but ad- of soil fauna – increasing ‘biological tillage’ and strengthen
ditional attention must be given, and efforts made, to restore mechanisms of carbon and nutrient cycling (see SLM group
biomass and ground cover on grasslands (through improved on ‘Integrated Soil Fertility Management’) (FAO, 2009a).

Principles for Best SLM Practices 39

Layout_Part_1_2.indd 39 24.05.11 11:12

 P R I N C I P L E S F O R B E S T S L M P R A C T I C E S

Adaptation to climate change: Adaptation to climate into account all ecosystem services and human wellbe-
change means dealing with its impacts and this can be ing is more likely to succeed than one focused exclusively
achieved by adopting more versatile and climate change on climate change mitigation and adaptation. SLM is not
resilient technologies – but also through approaches limited to smallholder land users; many SLM practices can
which involve flexibility and responsiveness to change. In make medium to large-scale commercial land use more
this latter context land users need to be aware of alterna- sustainable and resilient to climate variability and can
tive SLM practices. contribute to climate change mitigation.

Implementing SLM practices which increase soil organic Yet, some mitigation responses may conflict with food se-
matter will be beneficial in adapting to climate change. curity – and vice-versa. For instance, plant production for
These will increase ‘the resilience of the land’, and thus biofuels leads to competition for land and water resourc-
‘climate proofing’ through enhanced fertility, soil structure, es. Adaptation and mitigation synergies or antagonisms in
water infiltration and retention, soil life and biomass pro- agriculture, forestry, and fisheries at the global, regional,
duction (Scherr and Sthapit, 2009). and local levels are poorly documented. Therefore further
research and efforts related to knowledge management
Surface mulch or plant cover established under several are needed to identify locations and conditions where food
SLM practices generally protect soil from wind, excess security adaptation and mitigation benefits intersect in a
temperatures and evaporation losses, reduce crop cost-effective way (FAO, 2009a; FAO, 2009b).
water requirements and extend the growing period. This
could prove critical in many areas of SSA affected by Climate change mitigation and adaptation (Principles)
climate change. All practices improving water manage-
Mitigation:
ment increase resilience to climate change. This can be
achieved through reducing water losses and harvesting – Increase carbon stock above and below ground: improve
plant cover, increased biomass, mulch, organic and green
of rainwater to improve water storage in the soil but also
manure, minimum soil disturbance, water and soil conserva-
in reservoirs. tion – e.g. through forestation, agroforestry, conservation
agriculture, residue management.
Practices diversifying incomes and reducing risks of – Reduce emissions of greenhouse gases: reduce vegetation and
production failure, for example integrated crop-livestock soil degradation, reduce fire, reduce machine hours, improve
systems and improved or more appropriate plant varie- livestock and irrigation management, more efficient use of
ties provide additional opportunities for adaptation. fertilizers and manure

Adaptation:
Thus avoiding or reversing any form of land degradation, Identify and promote versatile and resilient technologies
thereby improving the ecosystem health as well as im-
– improve soil cover and microclimatic conditions: through
proving the micro-climate, increases resilience to climate mulch, crops, grass, trees
variability and change, and results in improved agricul- – improve soil fertility: through soil organic carbon, soil struc-
tural production. There is no one silver bullet solution to ture, nutrient cycling
solve the problems which land users face due to climate – improve water harvesting, storage (in soils, reservoirs etc),
change. However, the following generalisation can be and distribution
made: Virtually all of the SLM practices identified in these – reduce water losses: evaporation, uncontrolled runoff, leak-
guidelines contribute (in varying degrees) both to climate age in irrigation systems
change mitigation and adaptation strategies.
Encourage adaptation approaches and strategies
– give land users SLM options
Synergies between adaptation and ­mitigation: Syn-
– encourage local innovation
ergies between reduced land degradation, conserved
biodiversity, food security, poverty reduction and climate
change mitigation and adaptation through SLM generate
multiple benefits. A multifocal approach to SLM that takes

40 Sustainable Land Management in Practice

Layout_Part_1_2.indd 40 24.05.11 11:12

 Triple-win solutions
Soi
it y l
org fert
tiv
For food security and overall development in SSA, in- d uc le an ilit
ic
o cy c m

y: atter
Wa pr
creased land productivity for food, fodder, fibre and fuel is rsification

N
Dive

r
te
ter

ut
rie cle
Wa
the urgent priority. This can be achieved by:

cy
nt &
l Intensification of agricultural production: which still has
great potential, yet there remain challenges in finding

Intensifi
sustainable practices to continued improvements.

ion
Diversification of agricultural production: which can help Yields

ans
l

cat
xp

& pPlan
io
n
strengthening resilience to changes (be it induced by
E

ate

lan tin
tm
m
climate, markets or policies). g anag

cli
- m em
cro ate e
Mi
l Expansion of the agricultural area: though this has very rial nt

limited potential. In most regions good and suitable land

has already been used. Figure 10: Key to improved land productivity and food security.

For intensification, diversification, and / or expansion, four

land productivity principles guide the way towards SLM in
SSA, namely (Figure 10):
1. improved water productivity and water use efficiency on Productivity Ecosystem concerns
• 4 Fs: food, fodder, • Water, nutrient, organic
rainfed and irrigated land; fibre, fuel matter, biomass cycle
• Water quantity • Combating land degradation
2. improved soil fertility; and quality • Improving micro-climate
3. improved plant management: plant material and control • Other products WIN WIN • Adaptation and mitigation
of climate change
of weeds, pest and diseases;
WIN
4. improved micro-climate.

This underlines the fact that good cover conditions,

improved soil organic matter, water saving or harvest-
Livelihood and human well-being
ing, nutrient recycling, and improved management of • Economic returns
plants, livestock and control of pests and diseases are • Poverty reduction
• Food security
key entry points for best SLM practices. SLM practices • Improving health
are related to maximum soil cover, minimum soil distur-
Figure 11: Win-win-win solutions for livelihood, ecosystem and productivity.
bance, ­enhancement of biological activity, integrated plant
nutrition management, development of integrated crop /
livestock / agroforestry systems, flexible management of
traditional pastoral systems and reduced use of burning
(Woodfine, 2009).

Best land management practices are win-win-win solu-

tions. All SLM practices presented in Part 2 aim at tripple
win: improving productivity, livelihood and ecosystems.
Figure 11 summarizes the issues related to productivity,
ecosystem concerns, livelihood and human well-being.
Table 3 lists principles, strategies and practices to improve
land productivity and yields.

Principles for Best SLM Practices 41

Layout_Part_1_2.indd 41 24.05.11 11:13

 Table 3: Strategies and practices to improve land productivity and yields
Principles Aim Strategies SLM practices (Case studies see Part 2)
minimise run-off; maximise rainfall soil cover, composting, contour cultivation, conservation agriculture, life
infiltration and storage in the soil barriers, soil / stone bunds, terracing, fanya juu, etc.

Increase plant water availability reduce non-productive evaporation good plant cover, intercropping, mulching, windbreaks, agroforestry, etc.
in rainfed agriculture
Water use efficiency and productivity

harvest & concentrate rainfall through planting pits, semi-circular bunds, microbasins, contour bunds, stone
runoff to crop area or for other use lines, vegetative strips, trash lines, runoff and floodwater farming, small
dams, etc.

minimise water losses from irrigation lining of canals, deep and narrow instead of shallow and broad canals,
system good maintenance, pipes, etc.

efficient and effective application of watering can irrigation, drip irrigation, micro sprinklers, low pressure
Increase plant water availability water irrigation system, improved furrow irrigation, supplemental irrigation, deficit
in irrigated agriculture irrigation, etc.

recharge aquifer / groundwater; water small dams, farm ponds, subsurface tanks, percolation dams and tanks,
collection to enable off-season irrigation diversion and recharging structures, etc.

increase productive transpiration afforestation, agroforestry, optimum crop rotation, intercropping, improved
crop varieties, planting date, etc.;
Increase plant water uptake vigorous plant and root development through soil fertility and organic
­matter management, disease and pest control, weed management, etc.

reduce nutrient mining and losses composting and manuring (e.g. corralling) integrated fertility management
(organic combined with inorganic), microfertilization, green manuring,
Soil fertility

rotations including legumes, improved fallows with leguminous trees and

Improve nutrient availability bushes, enrichment planting of ­grazing land, rotational grazing, etc.
and uptake
improve soil nutrient holding capacity minimum to no till, improve soil biotic activity, increase soil organic ­
and plant nutrient uptake capacity matter, mulching, manage avoid burning (residue management), etc;
adapted varieties, etc.

use best suited planting material and choice of species, varieties, provenances, etc.;
Plants & their

optimise management short season varieties, drought tolerant varieties, pest and disease resistant
­management

varieties, etc.;
Maximise yields planting dates, plant geometry, fertility and water management, etc.

reduce evapotranspiration windbreaks, agroforestry, hedges, living barriers, parklands, good soil
Micro-climate

cover, dense canopy, etc.

Create favourable growing
­conditions optimise temperature and radiation agroforestry, vegetative and non vegetative mulch, etc.

reduce mechanical damage of plants windbreaks, barriers, vegetative and non vegetative mulch, etc.

42 Sustainable Land Management in Practice

Layout_Part_1_2.indd 42 24.05.11 11:13

 Hanspeter Liniger

A D O P T I O N A N D DECIS ION S UP P ORT

F O R U P S C A L I NG BES T P R A CTICES

According to FAOSTAT 2008 it is estimated that less than followed by short establishment time, and practices that
3% (5 million ha) of total cropland in SSA are under SLM were ‘easy to learn’ (Stotz, 2009). An IWMI study analys-
using low-cost productivity enhancing land management ing a number of technology information sheets underlines
practices (WB, 2010). This involves only about 6 million these findings (Drechsel et al., 2005). In that study, the
small-scale land users (Pender, 2008) and shows that most important adoption drivers for conservation, water
adoption of SLM is alarmingly low, obviously excluding harvesting and rangeland technologies in SSA were yield
indigenous technologies. increase and accessibility to information, followed by se-
cured land tenure. Additional important influential factors
were improved nutrient availability on cropland and labour
Adoption - uptake and spread demand on rangeland.

Success in adoption of SLM depends on a number of fac- When adapted to suit local contexts, there is potential for
tors. It depends primarily on the availability and suitability the best practices presented in Part 2 of the guidelines to
of best SLM practices that increase yields and at the same be upscaled and replicated across SSA. However, this is
time reduce land degradation (as discussed in the chapter not enough. For upscaling, an enabling environment is of
on ‘increasing land productivity’). paramount importance; this includes institutional, policy
and legal framework, local participation as well as regional
A study based on the WOCAT database showed that in planning (landscape or watershed), capacity building,
SSA the single most important factor for adoption of SLM monitoring and evaluation, and research.
practices was increased short-term land productivity,

Adoption and decision support for upscaling best practices 43

Layout_Part_1_2.indd 43 24.05.11 11:13

 A D O P T I O N A N D D E C I S I O N S U P P O R T

Improvement of national policy frameworks: There

Institutional, policy and market bottlenecks in the are clear opportunities to improve national policy frame-
context of SLM adoption
works in support of SLM and to overcome bottlenecks
Institutional: that hinder the spread of SLM (see also box left):
– Inappropriate national and local political agendas
– Lack of operational capacity Creating an enabling institutional environment:
– Overlapping and unclear demarcation of responsibilities
l strengthening institutional capacity
– Ineffective decentralisation
– Lack of good governance
l clarifying roles and responsibilities
l furthering collaboration and networking between institu-
Policy / Legal framework:
tions involved in implementation as well as research
– Often there are laws in favour of SLM, but they are not followed l enhancing collaboration with land users
– Enforcement is difficult, costly and can create adverse rela-
tionships between government and land users
l strengthening and integrating farmer-extension-research
linkages
Land tenure and user rights:
l securing finances (budgetary provision for extension)
– Inappropriate land tenure policies and inequitable access to
land and water
Setting-up a conducive legal framework:
– Insecurity about private and communal rights
– Modern laws and regulations not considering traditional user l creating acceptance of rules and regulations or setting
rights, by-laws and social and cultural norms which may up mechanisms of control and enforcement
enhance conflicts and insecurity l defining meaningful laws for local land users to support
Market and infrastructure: compensation mechanisms
– Insecure prices of agricultural products (crop, animal, timber,
l recognising customary rights in the local setting
fuel / firewood, …)
– Increasing input prices and costs for the inputs (materials, Improving land tenure and users’ rights is a key entry point:
equipment, labour, …) l providing basic individual and collective security of re-
– Access to markets for inputs and output
source use (mainly for small-scale land users)
(Sources: TerrAfrica, 2007 and 2009; Drechsel et al., 2005) l clarifying tenure and user rights to private and com-
munal land, including locally negotiated tenure systems,
regulations and land use. Protecting the rights of land
Institutional and policy framework under customary tenure
l looking for pragmatic and equitable solutions in cases
While natural resources and climatic factors define the where land tenure reforms are ongoing
possible farming systems, national and international poli- l increasing land title registration and linking this to land
cies and institutional changes will continue to determine use planning through a cadastral system
the socio-economic factors that underscore the continua- l promotion of women’s land rights in land registration and
tion of land degradation or alternatively create an enabling customary land tenure systems
environment for SLM to spread.
Improving access to markets for buying inputs and selling
Policies in support of SLM are needed to promote and agricultural products and other outputs:
­address the complexity of sustainable land use, in par- l developing and strengthening local informal markets
ticular policies providing incentives for SLM investments l securing accessibility by improving infrastructure (espe-
at household, community, regional and national level cially access roads)
­(TerrAfrica, 2008). Policies must address the root causes l better understanding of the impact of macroeconomic,
of land degradation, low productivity and food insecurity liberalisation and trade policies on prices
and simultaneously establish socially acceptable mecha- l facilitating markets for raw and processed products
nisms for encouragement or enforcement. derived from SLM

44 Sustainable Land Management in Practice

Layout_Part_1_2.indd 44 24.05.11 11:13

 l exploring and promoting access to regional, national as is a relatively new source of funding with considerable
well as international markets, including niches for SLM potential for expansion. New PES related markets for
products such as fair trade, organic, environmentally- greenhouse gases, carbon, water and biodiversity are
friendly, certification of origin labels as well as ecotour- emerging globally (see case study on ‘Equitable Pay-
ism (see next paragraphs) ments for Watershed Services’).
l develop favourable and fair international trade regulations
The most promising PES opportunities are:
Land users and communities are likely to invest in im-
proving the land and its natural resources given good l Carbon sequestration and GHG reductions: These of-
institutional support, a conducive legal framework, access fer payment possibilities for mitigating climate change.
to markets, and clarity about land tenure and user rights Many PES-projects (‘carbon offsetting’) have been
(TerrAfrica 2008 and 2009). started in SSA, paying for carbon storage in forest
plantations. Forests-based transactions for the cost of
Trends and new opportunities: To make SLM and its emissions reductions can range between 1 to 15 US$
products, impacts and services more valuable or to con- per tonne of carbon sequestered (Envirotrade, 2010).
nect SLM with emerging global environmental issues,
emerging trends and opportunities need to be further l Payment for biodiversity and protection of natural
explored. These may include: resources: By environmental interest groups through
international support for protection (e.g. establishment of
l Processing of agricultural products: This can reduce parks, reserves) or through enhancing ecotourism, where
post-harvest losses and produce higher value products local communities are the main beneficiaries. Ecotour-
where the market exists. It also generates additional ism in preserved natural habitats is becoming increas-
income and job opportunities. ingly popular in parts of SSA. Though agro-ecotourism is
poorly developed as yet. Environmental interest groups
l Certified agricultural products: Look for opportunities can solicit considerable funds and goodwill for SLM,
under ‘Fair Trade’ with its focus on social criteria, equi- and there is a strong consumer demand for ecotourism.
table and just remuneration of producers; and ‘Organic’ However, there can be no ecotourism business without
with a focus on environmental health (production without sustainable managed ecosystems and biodiversity.
chemical inputs, namely pesticides, herbicides, inorganic
fertilizers). For forest products there exists a certification l Payment by downstream users, watershed management
for sustainably managed forests (FSC – Forest Stew- payments for protection and sustainable management of
ardship Council), with a growing global demand. For upper catchments resulting in clean water, reduced sedi-
‘SLM-grown’ produce a certification label could also be mentation of reservoirs, increased hydro-power genera-
introduced ( see case study on ‘Organic Cotton’). tion, and reduced floods (ISRIC, 2010).

l Market for bio-energy / fuel: Although heavily debated by PES is not yet widely used in developing countries – and
the public and scientific communities due to the trade-off there are various constraints to its implementation, for
with food security and ecoystems, biofuels are gaining in- example to establish fair and trustworthy distribution
creased commercial attention. Driven by factors such as oil mechanisms down to the local level. However, it presents
price spikes and the need for greater energy security, there a promising and flexible approach to enhancing and rec-
are rapidly developing markets for bio-energy products. ognising the role of land users in sustaining and improving
the ecosystem.
l Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES): PES is the
mechanism of offering incentives to farmers or land New financing mechanisms - such as PES - are emerging
users in exchange for managing their land to provide especially in relation to sustainable forest management,
ecological services. Through PES, those who benefit pay restriction of deforestation and exploitation of natural
for the services and those who provide, get paid. This forests. Today, almost one-fifth of global carbon emis-

Adoption and decision support for upscaling best practices 45

Layout_Part_1_2.indd 45 24.05.11 11:13

 A D O P T I O N A N D D E C I S I O N S U P P O R T

sions come from deforestation. Preventing forest loss is Rural women have been involved in agricultural production
the cheapest method of limiting carbon dioxide emissions. since the invention of agriculture. Their work in ‘smallhold-
However, since the market lacks a well-functioning system er agriculture’ has become more visible over the last few
for compensating farmers, it is currently more economi- decades. They continue to increase their involvement in
cally beneficial for farmers to clear forests than to keep two types of agricultural production, smallholder produc-
them. As far as the developing world is concerned, natural tion and agro-export agriculture - a trend called ‘feminisa-
forests are, ironically, more valuable to the international tion of agriculture’ (Lastarria-Cornhiel, 2006).
community than to the local inhabitants.
As presented in more detail in Part 2, current promising
The emergence of these financial mechanisms implies approaches underlie the following principles:
that regional / national and global community are begin-
ning to take responsibility for protecting the world’s for- 1. People-centred approaches: People and their actions
ests, and are willing to pay / compensate the rural people are a central cause of land degradation, and thus need
for putting aside the axe. If there is no global shift in the to be at the centre of SLM. There must be genuine
readiness to pay for services including better climate, involvement of land users throughout all phases.
clean air, good water, greater biodiversity (etc.), we will
continue to lose valuable ecosystems and their services. 2. Multi-stakeholder involvement: This includes all actors,
All possible efforts need to be made to quantify services with their various interests and needs, with respect to
and to show consequences on global human wellbe- the same resources. It includes local, technical and sci-
ing. Local communities need to be recognised as - and entific knowledge and mechanisms to create a negotia-
renamed as - stewards and custodians of natural forests tion platform.
and their services.
3. Gender consideration: Gender roles and responsibilities
The UN-REDD, a collaborative partnership between FAO, need to be considered seriously, since in smallholder
UNDP and UNEP, supports countries in developing capac- agriculture women are taking over more of the agri-
ity to Reduce Emissions from Deforestation and forest cultural tasks once done only by men such as land
Degradation (REDD) and is a first step in taking these preparation, and they are investing more work in cash
responsibilities (UN-REDD, 2009). crop production.

Participation and land use planning 4. Multi-sectorial approaches: Successful SLM implemen-
tation brings together all the available knowledge in
SLM technologies need approaches that enable and different disciplines, institutions and agencies including
empower people to implement, adopt, spread and adapt government, non-governmental and private sectors.
best practices. Over the last 50 years the involvement and
role of local land users has changed, with a swing from 5. Multi-scale integration: This unifies local, community but
top-down, to bottom-up, to a multilevel-multistakeholder also the landscape, watershed or transboundary level,
(multi-dimensional) approach. In the top-down approaches and up to the national and international level also. It
there was little or no involvement of land users in plan- implies that not only are local on-site interests consid-
ning and decision-making. They worked through pay- ered, but off-site concerns and benefits also. This means
ments or coercion during the implementation phase. In the that the concept of ‘freedom of local land users’ might
‘farmer first’, bottom-up approaches local land users were be narrowed down in the interest of a larger community.
empowered, though this sometimes led to inequalities. However, it also opens up possibilities for additional mar-
This happened typically with river water abstraction where kets, as well as compensation or funding mechanisms.
downstream users found themselves deprived of water. While local benefits from investments in SLM already
Empowerment must be for all, not just favoured groups. might be a sufficient incentive for land users, off-site
Furthermore gender-related aspects need to be taken into concerns and benefits need to be negotiated.
account while developing an approach to stimulate SLM.

46 Sustainable Land Management in Practice

Layout_Part_1_2.indd 46 24.05.11 11:13

 6. Integrated land use planning: This assesses and as-
signs the use of resources, taking into account de-
mands from different users and uses, including all
agricultural sectors - pastoral, crop and forests - as well
as industry and other interested parties also.

Promotion and extension

In order to facilitate the adoption, adaptation and spread

of SLM best practices, enhancing incentives are needed:
these include awareness raising, promotion, training
and financial or material support. In many countries in
SSA ­existing extension and advisory services have been
reduced or weakened over the last decades: these need
reviving and revitalising due to their vital roles.

Capacity building and training: Many actors and

stakeholders must be involved and work together towards
successful planning, decision making and implementa-
Training of farmers in the layout of contour barriers. (Hanspeter Liniger)
tion of SLM. Extension of SLM practices has much to do
with empowering land users. And they must be supported
better through capacity building, knowledge management innovation and farmer-to-farmer extension have proven to
and training. be widespread, effective and appropriate strategies, but
they are not yet sufficiently recognised.
Two forms of extension and training especially need to be
strengthened: Recent developments in information and communication
technologies (ICTs) and the media provide new opportuni-
l Institutional capacity building: projects, extension serv- ties in awareness-raising and knowledge dissemination.
ices, research initiatives and community based grass- The use of local radio, TV, video, mobile phones and the
roots organisations (e.g. user groups) to access better internet, has increased the avenues for timely and wider
means for knowledge management, awareness raising delivery of useful information (AfDB, UNECA, and OECD,
and training, but also for advice and decision support 2009) such as weather forecasts, farm inputs, market
towards land users and planners; increased investments information and also development of SLM practices.
in extension services for small-scale land users, with a
clear focus on sustainable techniques. Financial and material support (incentives & subsidies):
Incentives for SLM should not exclusively be seen as
l Land user capacity building and empowerment: people- financial or material support, but as the intangible stimulus
centred learning and capacity building through training- (or ‘internal incentive’) that a land user experiences through
the-trainers initiatives, Farmer Field Schools, farmer- higher production, or through saving time and money.
based extension using local promoters and innovators,
from farmer-to-farmer. Judicious use of financial and material support implies
various considerations:
There has been a general move to more participation, de­
volution of powers and less authoritarianism. But empow- l The possibilities of removing some of the root causes of
erment requires enhanced capacity. Investment in training land degradation such as an inappropriate land policy
and building up of the capacity of land users and other framework, land tenure security and market access,
local and national stakeholders must be a priority. Local should be assessed (WOCAT, 2007).

Adoption and decision support for upscaling best practices 47

Layout_Part_1_2.indd 47 24.05.11 11:13

 A D O P T I O N A N D D E C I S I O N S U P P O R T

l If fertilizers, agro-chemicals, seed or seedlings are subsi-

dised, the support should aim to be one element that
helps build up a more integrated approach towards soil
fertility, and pest and disease management.

The lower the degree of outside financial or material sup-

port, the greater the level of genuine land user self-initi-
ative and participation, and thus the probability that the
interventions are sustainable.

Access to credit and financing schemes can be vital help

for rural people to start new SLM initiatives. Thus well-
functioning financial services and mechanisms (such as
micro-credit) need to be established, enabling land users
to take the initiative for self-financing SLM interventions.

Financial support needs to be maintained or even en-

hanced for institutions providing advice, plans and deci-
sion support at all levels, to ensure sufficient and effective
support to land users.

Monitoring, assessment and research

Monitoring and assessment – improve SLM and justify

investments: Monitoring and assessment (M&A) of SLM
practices and their impacts is needed to learn from the
wealth of knowledge available including traditional, in-
novative, project and research experiences and lessons
learnt – both successes and failures. M&A can lead to
Monitoring of river flow: Nanyuki River (Mount Kenya region) during the wet
season (above) and during the dry season (below). The river started to dry up
important changes and modifications in approaches and
only as of the 1980s. (Hanspeter Liniger) technologies (WOCAT, 2007). SLM is constantly evolving,
which means M&A must be ongoing and responsive.
Land users have to take an active role as key actors in
l There is often a need for material and financial support M&A: their knowledge and judgement of the pros and
in the SLM sector in developing countries. Direct sup- cons of SLM interventions is crucial. More investment in
port to land users depends on the amount of investment training and capacity building is needed for M&A generally,
needed for SLM interventions. In view of this, financial and specifically to improve skills in knowledge manage-
support is more likely to be justifiable in expensive ment and decision support.
rehabilitation exercises, or SLM requiring heavy initial
investments. However support for maintenance should Although several countries and regions have prepared
be avoided, as it creates dependency. land degradation maps, mapping of SLM efforts and areas
under SLM has been badly neglected. M&A through such
l Before considering the use of direct financial and mapping can contribute to raising awareness of what has
material support for input-intensive measures, alterna- been achieved, as well as justifying further investments
tive approaches should be explored, such as adapting and guiding future decision-making (Schwilch et al. 2009).
existing technologies, or choosing ‘simple and cheap’
technologies.

48 Sustainable Land Management in Practice

Layout_Part_1_2.indd 48 24.05.11 11:13

 mm m 3/s
300 0.6

Rainfall (Dec. -Feb.)

250 0.5
River flow (Feb.)
200 0.4

150 0.3

100 0.2

50 0.1

0 0
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
1984
1982
1962

1966

1970

1974

1978
1960

1964

1968

1972

1976

1980

Figure 12: Monitoring of rainfall and river flow in February (dry season) document changes related to climate and impacts of land use. Timau River, Mount Kenya region
(Liniger H.P., 2005)

Complexity and knowledge gaps – the role of­ l mapping and monitoring of land degradation and the
­research: The problems of land degradation are com- extent and effectiveness of SLM practices; and
plex and so are the answers: there is a real danger of l use
 of knowledge about SLM for improved decision-
simplification. Blueprint solutions for the implementation making at all levels (developing tools and methods
of SLM do not take account of this complexity. Effective for improved knowledge management and decision
SLM depends on both suitable technologies and closely ­support).
matched approaches for their promotion. They need to be
flexible and responsive to changing complex ecological The above challenges imply that further research and ca-
and socio-economic environments. An urgent and specific pacity building in SLM – as well as spreading and adapt-
area for further investigations and research is quantifica- ing SLM practices and innovations – are urgently needed.
tion and valuation of the ecological (e.g. Figure 12), social This also requires further development of decision support
and economic impacts of SLM, both on-site and off-site, methods and tools for the local and national level (see
including the development of methods for the valuation of ­following chapter).
ecosystem services. SLM research should seek to incor-
porate land users, scientists from different disciplines and
decision-makers.

The major research challenges are:

l M&A of the local impacts of SLM and land degradation
(ecological, economic and social);
l proper cost and benefit analysis of SLM intervention
measures;
l M&A of regional impacts at watershed and landscape
levels (including off-site and transboundary effects);

Adoption and decision support for upscaling best practices 49

Layout_Part_1_2.indd 49 24.05.11 11:13

 A D O P T I O N A N D D E C I S I O N S U P P O R T

Decision support - upscaling SLM Questions that need to be addressed for informed
decision-making are: Where are the hot spots / priority
Land users, agricultural advisors and decision makers are areas for interventions? Where are the green spots? These
faced with the challenge of finding the best land manage- require answers in order to make decisions on spreading
ment practices for particular conditions. Thus they have best SLM practices. In the following, a 3-step decision
the same questions to answer (see Figure 13): support method is proposed to help answer these ques-
l Which SLM technology and approach should be chosen? tions based on improved knowledge management and a
l Where to apply them? selection mechanism involving relevant stakeholders at
l How to apply them? different levels (Schwilch et al. 2009).
l Who plays what roles?
l What are the costs? Knowledge management: building the basis
l What are the impacts?
l Do they improve food security, and alleviate poverty? Step 1 – Identification of SLM best practices involv-
l Do they combat land degradation / desertification? ing all stakeholders: The first step for better decision
l How well are they matched to a changing climate? support is the initial involvement of all stakeholders in
SLM (e.g. through a stakeholder workshop). The aim is
Another fundamental question is where and when to in- to identify existing prevention and mitigation strategies
vest: prevention before land degradation processes start, against land degradation and desertification. The method-
or rather mitigation / ‘cure’ after degradation has started ology brings together scientific and local knowledge while
- or rehabilitation when degradation is most severe? The simultaneously supporting a co-learning process oriented
costs vary considerably depending on the stage of SLM towards sustainable development. The objectives are: (1)
intervention (Figure 13). to reflect on current and potential problems and solutions
related to land degradation and desertification; (2) to cre-
Inputs and achievements depend very much on the stage ate a common understanding of problems, potentials and
of degradation at which SLM interventions are made. The opportunities; (3) to strengthen trust and collaboration
best benefit-cost ratio will normally be achieved through among concerned stakeholders; (4) to identify existing
measures for prevention, followed by mitigation, and then and new SLM practices; and (5) to select a set of these
rehabilitation. In prevention, the ‘benefit’ of maintaining the identified strategies for further evaluation and documen-
high level land productivity and ecosystem services has to tation in the next step.
be measured compared to the potential loss without any
intervention. While the impacts of (and measures involved Step 2 – Documentation and assessment of exist-
in) rehabilitation efforts can be highly visible, the related ing SLM practices: There are many unrecognised SLM
achievements need to be critically considered in terms of practices which constitute a wealth of untapped knowl-
the cost and associated benefits. edge. Knowledge related to SLM often remains only a
local, individual and institutional resource, unavailable
Land quality /
Ecosystem services to others. Therefore, existing SLM practices need to be
documented and stored in a database using a standard-
+ Prevention
ised methodology - for example the WOCAT method and
++ + tools (Liniger and Critchley, 2008). The aim of standardised
Degradation

Mitigation
knowledge management is to accumulate, evaluate, share
SLM

++ ‘Cure’
+
and disseminate experience; not just within countries but
+ + + + Rehabilitation across the world. Several attempts to build up a global
No intervention knowledge base on SLM have been made, but they use
Time different formats which cannot be integrated nor compared,
+ Low input needed to reduce degradation
++ Medium input needed to reduce degradation
thus a globally accepted methodology is proposed. The
+ + + High input needed to reduce degradation main asset of this is to have a common and growing pool
+ + + + Very high input needed to reduce degradation
of SLM knowledge and with tools to share and access,
Figure 13: Stage of intervention and related costs.

50 Sustainable Land Management in Practice

Layout_Part_1_2.indd 50 24.05.11 11:13

 and use the knowledge for better decision-making. In Part Selection of priority areas for interventions
2 of the guidelines a standardised format for documenting
SLM practices is presented. It is a shortened version of the So far there are only few maps covering land degradation;
standardised WOCAT 4 page presentation of SLM Tech- but there are none covering SLM – nor the impacts either
nologies and Approaches (WOCAT, 2007). of land degradation or SLM. This makes sound decision-
making very difficult, but likewise it is also impossible to
A standardised knowledge base allows thorough assess- demonstrate the needs and benefits of SLM interventions.
ment and evaluation of the impacts and benefits of the
various SLM practices. It also facilitates the comparison of There is not only need to assess and monitor the differ-
different options. ent SLM practices but also the impacts of multiple SLM
interventions at the larger scale. This would permit the
Selection and fine tuning of SLM practices assessment of off-site impacts and effects of upstream
interventions on downstream areas. The design and the
Once documented, SLM experiences need to be made costs of downstream interventions can be reduced due
widely available and accessible in a form that allows all to upstream investments. This does not only apply to
stakeholders to review existing practices, understanding impacts caused by the flow of water downstream, but
their particular advantages and disadvantages – and thus also impacts from wind affecting off-site areas (e.g. dust
to make appropriate decisions. New SLM efforts should storms). Showing benefits of linking upstream (on-site)
first try to build on existing knowledge from within a loca- with downstream (off-site) would help in setting priorities
tion and region itself or, alternatively, from similar condi- for intervention and investments.
tions and environments elsewhere.
A mapping methodology jointly developed by WOCAT
Step 3 – Participatory decision-making for selec- and FAO-LADA generates information on degradation
tion and ­implementation of SLM best practices: After and SLM, and highlights where to focus investments.
documentation and assessment of existing SLM practices, The mapping tool focuses on areas with land degrada-
the challenge is to decide on best practices and where to tion (‘red’ spots) and on identifying where existing SLM
implement them. This again involves all stakeholders (e.g. practices (‘green’ spots) could be expanded. It further
in a second stakeholder workshop) and recently devel- facilitates judgement of whether to rehabilitate, or to pre-
oped decision support tools to evaluate the best options vent land degradation and what the impacts on ecosystem
and set priorities. These tools allow selection of SLM services might be.
options, comparison and ranking of them, negotiation and
finally a decision regarding which is (or are) the best-bets For different land use systems the type, extent and degree
for specific conditions (Schwilch et al. 2009). of land degradation and the causes are assessed. For areas
covered with SLM practices, the extent and effectiveness
Whether such SLM practices are accepted or not depends is recorded and for both land degradation and SLM the
on cost-effectiveness, severity of degradation, knowledge, impacts on ecosystem services are listed. The data is com-
enabling framework conditions (e.g. policies and subsidies) piled through a participatory expert assessment involving
and on other socio-cultural and economic issues. local land users, supported by documents and surveys.
The key to success lies in a concerted effort by all, where Given this information from mapping degradation and con-
special attention needs to be paid to the participatory servation, land users, advisors and planners can set priorities
process of selecting potential SLM interventions. Other- for interventions, and judge where the benefits for invest-
wise land users will neither accept nor properly imple- ments made are likely to be highest or the most needed.
ment the practice, and project success will be threatened.
Stakeholder involvement is crucial at all stages. The combined assessment of SLM practices and map-
ping allows not only the expansion of SLM, but also points
towards necessary adjustments and adaptations to local
conditions.

Adoption and decision support for upscaling best practices 51

Layout_Part_1_2.indd 51 24.05.11 11:13

 options need to be considered such as contracting
extension services to NGOs and other third parties.

l Links
 need to be drawn between local and regional impli-
cations (e.g. off-site effects, highland /lowland, mountains).

l Regional
 / national and global communities must take
responsibilities for protecting the world’s forests and
should be willing to pay / compensate local rural people,
otherwise valuable ecosystems and services such as
better climate, clean air, good water, and improved
biodiversity will be lost. All possible efforts need to be
made to quantify the valuable services and to show the
consequences on global human wellbeing if we fail. Lo-
cal communities need to be acknowledged as stewards
and custodians of natural forests and their services.

Where to intervene and where to spread already well proven SLM technologies. l M&A
 and research is key for improved decision support
(Hanspeter Liniger)
and upscaling.

l Capacity
 building is needed at all levels for land users,
Conclusions for adoption and decision ­support extension workers, planners and decision-makers. Major
efforts are needed for knowledge management and deci-
l All issues discussed under institutional and policy frame-
 sion support for local selection and fine-tuning of best
work, have a strong influence on the implementation of SLM practices but also for regional priority setting within
SLM but are difficult / impossible to address at single a watershed or landscape.
project or local level. However, through the creation of
coalitions of implementing programmes and investment Future interventions need to promote the development of
frameworks (e.g. TerrAfrica) changes favourable for SLM joint or ‘hybrid’ innovation that ensures making the best
can be induced. of local and scientific knowledge. In this respect, cur-
rent farmer experimentation – including the adaptation of
l To make an impact SLM needs to be integrated within na-
 traditional technologies – blended with scientific research
tional and regional priorities through policies, strategies, offers real hope for the future. Local innovation has, after
and action plans (WOCAT, 2007). SLM policies must be all, been the driving force behind the traditions that have
mainstreamed into broader sectorial policy frameworks. shaped farming, and SLM, over the millennia (Critchley,
2007). However all developments must take into consid-
l Recognition
 that different approaches are needed in eration markets, policies and institutional factors that can
different contexts is important, and acknowledgement stimulate widespread smallholder investments.
that not all land management problems can be solved by
government intervention or donor investments. A greater
engagement of civil society and empowering stakehold-
ers at grassroots is required (TerrAfrica, 2008).

l Cutbacks
 in government extension services and farm
credit, as a result of liberalisation policies, have deprived
land users of important sources of knowledge and ad-
vice. Hence innovative extension and advisory services

52 Sustainable Land Management in Practice

Layout_Part_1_2.indd 52 24.05.11 11:13

 Hanspeter Liniger

THE WAY FORWARD

Recognising the contribution of SLM to food security, SLM experiences presented in this book clearly show the
improved livelihood, mitigation of widespread land deg- need for major shifts in emphasis to overcome bottlenecks
radation and climate change adaptation and mitigation, and barriers for spreading SLM in SSA. These shifts con-
best SLM practices need to be scaled-up and SLM main- cern various aspects at different levels including technolo-
streamed as a priority at all levels. gies and approaches, institutional, policy, governance,
economy, knowledge management and capacity building.

General shifts

From simplicity To complexity (ecosystem)

From narrow and single sector views To holistic, multi-level, multi-stakeholder views

Technology shifts
From providing rigid ‘blueprint’ or ‘silver bullet’ To offering a basket of options of best practices, flexible to be adapted to local
technologies c­ onditions and needs
From individual single measures To integrated / combined measures

From focus on structural and expensive practices To focus first on cheap and easy agronomic, vegetative and management measures

To identifying and building on existing practices and local innovations - if needed supple-
From introducing new ‘exotic’ SLM technologies
mented with new elements derived from experiences elsewhere with similar conditions

To improved water use efficiency in rainfed and irrigated agriculture and improved
From high losses of water through runoff and evaporation
water harvesting

To ‘new’ green revolution: reduced reliance on external inputs (fertilizers and

From ‘old’ green revolution
p­ esticides), pro-poor, women

The way forward 53

Layout_Part_1_2.indd 53 24.05.11 11:13

 T H E W A Y F O R W A R D

Policy, Institutional, Governance shifts

From looking at impacts of land degradation, treating

To looking at root causes of land degradation, curing
symptoms

To focus on preventing and mitigating land degradation and enhancing ecosystem

From focus on rehabilitation of degraded land
services
From isolated successful SLM technologies and
To scaling-up best practices (technologies and approaches)
approaches
From local planning and interventions To multi-stakeholder planning and treatment at landscape or watershed level

From top-down transfer of technology To people-centered learning approach

From limited consideration for the concerns of women, To adoption of approaches sensitive to cultural aspects, gender, youth and marginal
youth and marginal groups groups

From contradictory or uncoordinated policies that

To effective cross-sector policies that address cures
address symptoms

From insecure land and water user rights (hindering

To locally negotiated tenure systems, regulations, land use plans, and user rights
SLM investments)

To an incentive-oriented legislation which recognises ecological problems and

From inadequate laws, regulations and control mecha-
opportunities, supports effective land and ecosystem management, and establishes
nisms to implement SLM and land degradation control
socially acceptable mechanisms for their enforcement

Knowledge management and capacity building shifts

From focus on land degradation and desertification To focus on SLM

From scattered and poorly documented SLM traditions To building common, easily accessible and standardised knowledge platforms to
and innovations as well as project experiences share and use information for decision-making
To concerted action for monitoring and assessment of land degradation and SLM,
From poor knowledge on impacts of land management
and on-/offsite impacts on ecosystem services
From weakened advisory services To major reinvestments in rebuilding rural advisory services
From poor awareness raising and capacity building
To major efforts in awareness raising, training, education and capacity building
related to SLM
From poor use of SLM knowledge To informed decision support at local and landscape / watershed level

Investment shifts

From inadequate or contradictory economic and pricing To the development of financial and market incentives that facilitate and encourage
policies that discourage investment in SLM private investment in SLM

From inadequately monitored national and private sector To traceable budgets on well defined SLM activities built within dedicated invest-
budgets on SLM related issues ment frameworks

From few / scattered project funding coming from poorly To specific budgets pooled around SLM programmes, according to Paris Declara-
coordinated development partners tion principles (budget support, basket funding etc.)
(Source: Elaborated by authors and based on TerrAfrica, 2009)

54 Sustainable Land Management in Practice

Layout_Part_1_2.indd 54 24.05.11 11:13

 The final conclusions are that investment in spreading
SLM practices in Sub-Saharan Africa has great scope and
can deliver multiple benefits not only locally, but also re-
gionally (e.g. in watersheds), nationally as well as globally.
SLM concerns all, at all levels, and pays in many more
ways than recognised. Many of the global issues such
as food security, poverty, water scarcity, desertification,
climate change mitigation and adaption, and biodiversity
are closely related to SLM.

Additionally consolidated efforts are needed for knowl-

edge management concerning SLM technologies and
approaches and their spreading, not only to document
and monitor valuable experiences for their own sake, but
for dissemination and use in improved decision-making
at the field and planning level. Given rapid changes,
many adaptations and innovations concerning SLM will
continue but will be untapped and unused. Consolidated
action towards better use of valuable local, regional and
global knowledge is needed and will be greatly beneficial
in the future, as it can be anticipated that change will be
even more pronounced (global markets, climate change,
demands on ecosystem services, biofuel, etc.). Investment
in SLM and knowledge management pays.

The way forward 55

Layout_Part_1_2.indd 55 24.05.11 11:13

 OVERVIEW OF BEST SLM PRACTICES

MALI
CAPE VERDE 13
NIGER
31 8
29 ERITREA3214
15 11 28
12 1 34 33 23 21
SENEGAL BURKINA FASO 41 24
22
3
38 45
19
26 10
ETHIOPIA
GHANA TOGO
6 36 25
2
17
CAMEROON
37
UGANDA 43 KENYA
5 7
39 44 20
47
16

27 18

TANZANIA
40

ZAMBIA
46
9
MADAGASCAR
ZIMBABWE
4 35

30

SOUTH AFRICA

58 Sustainable Land Management in Practice

Layout_Part_1_2.indd 58 24.05.11 11:13

 SLM Group and definition Case studies
Integrated Soil Fertility Management benefits from positive interaction and (1) Seed Priming and Microfertilization – Mali p. 68
complementarities of a combined use of organic and inorganic plant nutrients in
crop production. (2) Green Manuring with Tithonia – Cameroon p. 70

(3) Compost Production – Burkina Faso p. 72

p. 62 (4) Precision Conservation Agriculture – Zimbabwe p. 74
Conservation Agriculture combines minimum soil disturbance (no-till), (5) Small-Scale Conservation Tillage – Kenya p. 82
perma­nent soil cover, and crop rotation, and is very suitable for large- as well as
small-scale farming. (6) Minimum Tillage and Direct Planting – Ghana p. 84
p. 76 (7) Conservation Tillage for Large-Scale Cereal Production – Kenya p. 86
Rainwater Harvesting is the collection and concentration of rainfall to make it (8) Tassa Planting Pits – Niger p. 94
available for agricultural or domestic uses in dry areas where moisture deficit is
the primary limiting factor. (9) Small Earth Dams – Zambia p. 96
p. 88 (10) Runoff and Floodwater Farming – Ethiopia p. 98
Smallholder Irrigation Management aims to achieve higher water use efficiency (11) African Market Gardens – Senegal p. 106
through more efficient water collection and abstraction, water storage, distribution
and water application. (12) Low-Pressure Irrigation System ‘Californian’ – Senegal p. 108
(13) Irrigated Oasis Gardens – Niger p. 110
p. 100 (14) Spate Irrigation – Eritrea p. 112
Cross-slope barriers are measures on sloping lands in the form of earth or soil (15) Aloe Vera Life Barriers – Cape Verde p. 120
bunds, stone lines, or vegetative strips, etc. for reducing runoff velocity and soil
erosion. (16) Grassed Fanya Juu Terraces – Kenya p. 122
p. 114 (17) Konso Bench Terrace – Ethiopia p. 124
Agroforestry integrates the use of woody perennials with agricultural crops and / (18) Chagga Homegardens – Tanzania p. 132
or animals for a variety of benefits and services including better use of soil and
water resources, multiple fuel, fodder and food products, habitat for associated (19) Shelterbelts – Togo p. 134
species. (20) Grevillea Agroforestry System – Kenya p. 136
(21) Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration – Niger p. 138
p. 126 (22) Parkland Agroforestry System – Burkina Faso p. 140
Integrated Crop-Livestock Management optimises the uses of crop and live- (23) Night Corralling – Niger p. 148
stock resources through interaction and the creation of synergies.
(24) Rotational Fertilization – Niger p. 150
(25) Grazing Land Improvement – Ethiopia p. 152
p. 142 (26) Smallstock Manure Production – Togo p. 154
Pastoralism and rangeland management (27) Ngitili Dry-Season Fodder Reserves – Tanzania p. 162
Grazing on natural or semi-natural grassland, grassland with trees and / or open
woodlands. Animal owners may have a permanent residence while livestock is (28) Couloirs de Passage – Niger p. 164
moved to distant grazing areas, according to the availa­bility of resources. (29) Improved Well Distribution for Sustainable Pastoralism – Niger p. 166
p. 156 (30) Rotational Grazing – South Africa p. 168
Sustainable planted forest management
(31) Casuarina Tree Belt for Sand Dune Fixation – Senegal p. 176
The purpose of planted forests can be either commercial or for environmental /
R protective use or for rehabilitation of degraded areas. The sustainability of new (32) Afforestation and Hillside Terracing – Eritrea p. 178
planted forests depends on what they replace, e.g. the replacement of a natural
forest will hardly be sustainable. p. 170 (33) Sand Dune Stabilisation – Niger p. 180
Sustainable Forest Management in drylands encompasses administrative, (34) Assisted Natural Regeneration of Degraded Land – Burkina Faso p. 188
legal, technical, economic, social and environmental aspects of the conservation
and use of dryland forests. p. 182 (35) Indigenous Management of Tapia Woodlands – Madagascar p. 190
Sustainable Rainforest Management encompasses administrative, legal, (36) Forest Beekeeping – Cameroon p. 198
technical, economic, social and environmental aspects of the conservation and use
of rainforests. p. 192 (37) Community Forests – Cameroon p. 200
Trends and new opportunities (38) Organic Cotton – Burkina Faso p. 206
SLM measures which have not yet widely spread and / or provide additional
sources of income for land users, such as ecotourism, payments for ecosystem (39) Push-Pull Integrated Pest and Soil Fertility Management – Kenya p. 208
services, organic agriculture, etc. (40) Equitable Payments for Watershed Services – Tanzania p. 210
p. 202 (41) Conservation Approach for Kouré Giraffes – Niger p. 212
SLM approaches (42) Stratégie Energie Domestique – Niger p. 222
A SLM approach defines the ways and means used to promote and implement
a SLM Technology - be it project / programme initiated, an indigenous system, a (43) Promoting Farmer Innovation – Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda p. 224
local initiative / innovation - and to support it in achieving more sustainable land
(44) Farmer Field Schools – Kenya p. 226
management.
(45) Participatory Negotiated Territorial Development – Burkina Faso and Ghana p. 228
(46) Participatory Learning and Action Research approach to Integrated Rice
Management PLAR-IRM – Madagascar p. 230
p. 216 (47) ‘Catchment’ Approach – Kenya p. 232

Best SLM practices for Sub ­Saharan Africa 59

Layout_Part_1_2.indd 59 24.05.11 11:13

 Hanspeter Liniger

SLM TECHNOLOGY GROUPS AND CASE

STUDIES

There is no one miracle solution (‘silver bullet’) to solve the This selection of SLM groups and case studies does not
problems which land users in SSA face. The choice of the claim to be complete or comprehensive:
most appropriate SLM practice in a particular situation will l It does not cover or ‘balance’ all land use types, agro-
be determined by local stakeholders, based on the l­ocal ecological zones or regions;
topographic, soil and vegetation conditions and socio- l The
 selection shows the potential, and need for, further
economic context, such as farm size and assets which documenting of experiences to cover the broad spec-
may make certain practices ill-advised or not feasible. trum better.
The SLM groups presented in Part 2 follow the principles
of best practices: increasing productivity, improving liveli- All groups and case studies are presented according to
hoods and improving ecosystems. the familiar and standardised WOCAT format for docu-
menting and disseminating SLM.
Twelve groups of SLM technologies backed up by 41 case
studies, are presented and these: For the quantification of impacts the following categories are
l Cover major land use systems; used in the presentation of SLM groups and case studies:
l Represent degradation types and agro-ecological zones; +++ = high impact
l Cover a broad variety of technologies; ++ = moderate impact
l Have potential for upscaling, in terms of both production + = low impact
and conservation; Na = not applicable
l Capture local innovation and recent developments as For the Benefit-cost ratio the meaning of the symbols «+»
well as long-term project experience; and «–» is slightly different (as indicated under the respective
tables).
l Strike
 a balance between prevention, mitigation and
rehabilitation of land degradation.

SLM technology groups and case studies 61

Layout_Part_1_2.indd 61 24.05.11 11:13

 I N T E G R AT E D S O I L F E RT I L I T Y M A N A G E M E N T

Comparison between traditionally-cultivated, unfertilised millet field with its characteristic high-spatial variability in plant growth at Banizoumbou (left)
and ­m illet field using micro-dosing fertilization at Kara Bedji (right) in Niger. (Andreas Buerkert)

In a nutshell Development issues addressed

Preventing / reversing land degradation ++

Definition: Integrated Soil Fertility Management (ISFM) aims at managing soil
by combining different methods of soil fertility amendment together with soil and Maintaining and improving food security +++
water conservation. It takes into account all farm resources and is based on 3 Reducing rural poverty ++
principles: (1) maximising the use of organic sources of fertilizer; (2) minimising Creating rural employment +
the loss of nutrients; (3) judiciously using inorganic fertilizer according to needs
Supporting gender equity / marginalised groups ++
and economic availability.
In Sub-Saharan Africa, soil fertility depletion is reaching a critical level, especially Improving crop production +++
under small-scale land use. ISFM techniques can regenerate degraded soils and Improving fodder production +
then maintain soil fertility by using available nutrient resources in an efficient and
Improving wood / fibre production +
sustainable way. ISFM aims at making use of techniques without much additional
Improving non wood forest production na
cost to the farmer, such as organic fertilizer, crop residues and nitrogen-fixing
crops, in combination with seed priming and water harvesting. A next step is the Preserving biodiversity +
use of inorganic fertilizer, which requires financial input; however micro-fertiliza- Improving soil resources (OM, nutrients) +++
tion can provide a cost-saving entry point.
Improving of water resources +
Low cost ISFM techniques include: micro-dosing with inorganic fertilizers, man-
uring and composting, rock phosphate application, etc. SLM practices such as Improving water productivity ++
conservation agriculture or agroforestry include supplementary aspects of fertility Natural disaster prevention / mitigation +
management. Climate change mitigation / adaptation ++
Applicability: ISFM is required in areas with low and rapidly declining soil fertility.
Due to the wide variety of ISFM techniques, there is no specific climatic restric- Climate change mitigation
tion for application apart from arid areas where water is constantly a limiting fac- Potential for C Sequestration no data
tor. ISFM is particularly applicable in mixed crop-livestock systems. (tonnes/ha/year)
Resilience to climate variability: ISFM leads to an increase in soil organic mat- C Sequestration: above ground +
ter (SOM) and biomass, and thus to soils with better water holding capacity that
C Sequestration: below ground +
can support more drought-tolerant cropping systems.
Main benefits: Increased nutrient replenishment and soil fertility maintenance Climate change adaptation
will enhance crop yields and thus increase food security, improve household
Resilience to extreme dry conditions ++
income and hence improved livelihoods and well-being.
Adoption and upscaling: Land users’ attitudes and rationale behind adoption Resilience to variable rainfall ++
of ISFM are influenced by the availability and access to inputs such as organic Resilience to extreme rain and wind storms +
fertilizers (compost, manure) and the affordability of inorganic fertilizers. Access Resilience to rising temperatures and +
to financial services and micro-credit must be provided to land users to enable evaporation rates
investment in fertility management. Awareness raising and capacity building on
Reducing risk of production failure ++
suitable options of ISFM techniques and appropriate application is needed.

62 SLM in Practice

1_Soil_Fertility.indd 1 24.05.11 11:27

 Origin and spread
Origin: Composting and manuring are traditional technologies, which are often
reintroduced, in an improved form, through projects / programmes. The applica-
tion of inorganic fertilizer is a relatively new technology, especially when applied
on small-scale farms through micro-fertilization (or ‘micro-dosing’). Micro-­
fertilization was developed through applied participatory research for use at
small-scale level.
Mainly applied in: Integrated soil fertility management is applied in all parts
of SSA, however the types of ISFM can differ depending on climate, soil, etc.
Micro-fertilization has been the basis for reintroduction of fertilizer use in Mozam-
bique, South Africa and Zimbabwe in Southern Africa; and Burkina Faso, Ghana,
Mali, Niger and Senegal in West Africa.
Spread of micro-fertilization in SSA.
Principles and types
For optimized soil fertility management an integrated nutrient management sys-
tem including both organic and inorganic inputs must be envisaged.
1. Organic inputs
Manuring and composting encompasses nutrient sources derived from plant
or animal origin. Very often the availability of material is the main restriction, since
it competes with feeding of animals and / or burning as fuel. Manure is a valuable,
but often neglected resource in livestock and mixed farming systems because
of its bulky nature and a lack of ox-carts and wheelbarrows for transportation
around the smallholding. Including animals in farm production systems reduces
the reliance on external inputs. Composting is the natural process of ‘rotting’ or
decomposition of organic matter such as crop residues, farmyard manure and
waste by micro-organisms under controlled conditions. It is an attractive propo-
sition for turning on-farm organic waste into a farm resource and is gaining more
importance among small-scale farmers in SSA.
The application of crop residues for mulching can also enhance soil fertility. Fur-
thermore, seed priming can be used to reduce germination time. It ensures a more
uniform plant establishment, and increases resistance to insects and fungus.
Integration of nitrogen fixing crops: Green manures or cover crops are legumi-
nous plants that are intercropped or planted in rotation with other crops and used
for nitrogen fixing in the soil. Very often green manure is incorporated into the soil,
which is not the most effective way, due to the fast decomposition and release of
nutrients: it is often better to slash and directly drill into the residue. The natural
incorporation of cover crop and weed residues from the soil surface to deeper lay-
ers by soil micro- and macro-fauna is a slow process. Nutrients are released slowly
and can provide the crop with nutrients over a longer period. Additionally, the soil is
covered by the residues, protecting it against the impact of rain and sun.
2. Inorganic fertilizer
Crop yields can be dramatically improved (to a certain level) through the applica-
tion of inorganic fertilizers at planting or as a top dressing after crop emergence.
However, the application must be well targeted to reduce costs, to minimise
GHG emissions and to avoid unhealthy plant growth, as well as an accelerated
decomposition of soil organic matter. There is great pressure today to increase
the availability and affordability of fertilizers for small-scale subsistence farmers in
SSA. A low-cost method is micro-fertilization (or ‘micro-dosing’). Small amounts
of mineral fertilizer are applied to the planting hole at the time of sowing, and /or
after emergence as a top dressing. Because soil fertility limits production, small
and targeted doses of fertilizer can increase production significantly. To achieve
long term soil fertility, micro-dosing should be combined with compost or manure
because the small amounts of inorganic fertilizer used in micro-dosing are not
sufficient to stop nutrient mining, nor do they directly build up the soil organic
matter. Micro-fertilization can be the first step in lifting on-farm productivity and
building the capacity of farmers to invest in manure or other organic or inorganic
fertilizers. Top: Compost pits with low containing walls, Ghana.
(William Critchley)
Rock phosphate is said to have great potential, but it is yet underused because
Middle: Tithonia diversifolia as green manure in a cocoyam
of the costs and limited availability in the local market, and the limited experi- field, Cameroon. (Fabienne Thomas)
ence of farmers with applying it. A key issue is that the beneficial effects of rock Bottom: One bottle cap of compound fertilizer for micro-
phosphate become apparent only in the course of some years, compared to the dosing, Zimbabwe. (ICRISAT, Bulawayo)
immediate benefits of inorganic fertilizers.

SLM Group: Integrated Soil Fertility Management 63

1_Soil_Fertility.indd 2 24.05.11 11:27

 I N T E G R AT E D S O I L F E RT I L I T Y M A N A G E M E N T
Applicability Land degradation

Land degradation addressed Erosion by water High

Chemical soil deterioration: fertility decline through reduced soil organic mat- Erosion by wind Moderate
ter content and nutrient loss Chemical degradation Low
Physical soil deterioration: compaction, sealing and crusting Physical degradation Insignificant
Water degradation: aridification Biological degradation
Soil erosion by water: loss of topsoil / soil surface Water degradation

Land use
Mainly on annual cropland and mixed land (crop-livestock systems). Unsuitable
for rangeland. Land use

Cropland
Ecological conditions Grazing land
Climate: Compost making is most effective in subhumid to humid areas where
Forests / woodlands
water is available for watering. Here, above ground pits are better than the pits
Mixed land use
used in drier zones. Dry composting (covering the compost with soil and creating
an anaerobic environment) is also applicable in arid areas. Other
Terrain and landscape: flat to hilly (transport is a heavy burden on very steep
slopes)
Soils: ISFM is suitable for all types of soils, however it is difficult to increase the Climate Average rainfall (mm)
organic matter content of soils that are well aerated, such as coarse sands, and
soils in warm-hot and arid regions because the added material decomposes rap- Humid > 3000
idly. Soil organic matter levels can be maintained with less organic residue in fine Subhumid 2000-3000
textured soils in cold temperate and moist-wet regions with restricted aeration. Semi-arid 1500-2000
Arid 1000-1500
Socio-economic conditions 750-1000
Farming system and level of mechanisation: Mainly manual labour for the 500-750
making and spreading of compost and manure. Access to a wheelbarrow or an
250-500
ox-cart aids movement of these bulky materials around the smallholding. The
< 250
application of inorganic fertilizers can be undertaken manually in smallholder
systems where small targeted applications are promoted. For large-scale com-
mercial farming, fertilizer spreaders or combined seed and fertilizer drills are avail-
able. Crop rotation with nitrogen fixing crops can be integrated in either a manual Slopes (%) very steep (>60)
or mechanised agricultural system. steep (30-60)
Market orientation and infrastructure: Applicable for subsistence (self-sup- hilly (16-30)
ply), mixed (subsistence / commercial) farming and even commercial farming. rolling (8-16)
The application of inorganic fertilizer (through micro-fertilization) is suitable for all moderate (5-8)
types of crop production from subsistence to commercial. gentle (2-5)
Land ownership and land use / water rights: Individual land use rights or flat (0-2)
communal and individual not-titled land use rights influence the type and level of
investment in soil fertility amendments and management.
Skill / knowledge requirements: Medium knowledge requirement regarding
the careful application of inorganic fertiliser (N and P) to avoid loss, reduce GHG Farm size Land ownership
emissions and decomposition of soil organic matter, and appropriate use of crop Small scale State
rotations with nitrogen fixing legumes. Medium scale Company
Labour requirements: Depending on the technology the level of labour required
Large scale Community
ranges considerably. Composting and manuring may require high labour inputs,
Individual, not titled
depending on the distance of transport. Green cover crops involve a lower work-
load, since this can be integrated into the seasonal agricultural ­activities. Individual, titled
The application of inorganic fertilizer through a micro-dosing technique does not
increase labour demand significantly since seeds and fertilizer are added simul-
taneously. Mechanisation Market orientation

Manual labour Subsistence

Animal traction Mixed
Mechanised Commercial

Required labour Required know-how

High High
Medium Medium
Low Low

64 SLM in Practice

1_Soil_Fertility.indd 64 21.07.11 12:04

 Economics Example: Micro-fertilization, Mali
Aune et al. (2007) tested the agronomic, eco-
Maintenance costs nomic and social feasibility of micro-fertilizing
in Mali. Two different amounts of fertilizer were
high applied to the holes, 6 g and 0.3 g. Both
Composting & manuring
applications gave higher yields for pearl mil-
mod.
Micro-fertilization let and sorghum in comparison to the control
low Crop rotation with nitrogen fixing crops plot. Yields of sorghum increased by 34% and
52% compared with the control after apply-
o
Labour Equipment Agric. inputs
ing 0.3 g of fertilizer per planting station for the
+ material years 2000 and 2001 respectively. For pearl
millet, the corresponding yield increase was
(Source: WOCAT, 2009) 48% and 67% for 2001 and 2003 respec-
tively. Higher yield increases were observed
Comment: Organic-based ISFM-techniques have lower cash requirements than when 6 g of fertilizer was applied per plant-
the use of inorganic fertilizer; therefore they can more easily reach poorer house- ing station than when 0.3 g of fertilizer was
holds. applied. The application of 0.3 g fertilizer
ISFM-techniques are agricultural measures / activities which have to be con- has shown the better value-cost ratio (VCR),
ducted every year / season, etc. The initial investment or establishment costs due to reduced workload and less inputs
are negligible. needed. The VCR varied from 3.4 to 12 in the
0.3 g treatment, and from 0.4 to 1.2 in the
Production benefits 6 g treatment. Application of 0.3 g of ferti-
Yield without Yield with SLM (kg/ha) Yield gain (%) lizer appeals to farmers because of the good
SLM (kg/ha) return on investment, low financial risk, low
Micro-fertilizing, (Mali)
cash outlay and low workload required.
Sorghum 500–800 1100-18001 900-15002 30-50%1 70-84%2 Micro-dosing has been strongly promoted
Pearl millet 200 300-3701 400-5002 48-70%1 123-143%2 by ICRISAT. The amount of fertilizer recom-
Zai+Micro-fertilizing, mended can be easily measured with a bottle
Sorghum (Burkina Faso) 552 900-1200 cap which equates to approximately 6 g fer-
Sorghum (Ghana) 290 400-650 50-100% tilizer. However, the study of Aune et al. has
Cowpea (Burkina Faso) 590 950-1200 clearly shown that smaller amounts may have
Tithonia - Green a better benefit / cost ratio. Nevertheless,
manure, (Cameroon) for the long term sustainability micro-dosing
Beans 370 410-570 10-55%
should be combined with organic fertiliza-
1
application of 0.3 g fertilizer per hole; application of 6 g fertilizer per hole.
2
tion such as composting or manuring, other­
(Sources: Aune, et al., 2007; WOCAT, 2009; ICRISAT) ) wise nutrient mining cannot be stopped.

Benefit-Cost ratio Example: Zimbabwe

short term long term quantitative Different studies have shown the high bene­
fits of integrated soil fertility management
Micro-fertilizing Value-cost ratio, Mali: compared to the application of single inor-
+++ +++ 3.5-12 (for 0.3 g), Sorghum
0.4-1.2 (for 6 g), Pearl Millet
ganic or organic fertilizers. The integration
of manure and fertilizer on maize in Zimba-
Manuring & Fertilizer & +++ +++ Value-cost ratio, Nigeria: bwe resulted in a return to labour of about
50% Crop Residues 20.8, Rice US$ 1.35 per day, while the best single fer-
5.9, Maize
3.5, Millet
tilizer or manure treatment yielded only US$
0.25. Returns to integrated biomass trans-
Composting & Manuring ++ +++
fer and rock phosphate systems on kale and
Green Manure ++ +++ tomatoes in Kenya showed returns to labour
of between US$ 2.14 to US$ 2.68 as com-
Overall ++ +++
pared to a best return of US$ 1.68 when only
– – negative; – slightly negative; –/+ neutral; + slightly positive; ++ positive; +++ very positive one of the options was used. More economic
(Sources: Aune, et al., 2007; WOCAT, 2009 and IFPRI, 2010) analyses of farmer-managed ISFM systems
are needed. However, existing evidence sug-
Comment: Micro-dosing shows an acceptable value-cost ratio (VCR) for land gests that organic or ISFM systems may be
users. Even though the crop yield for the application of 6 g fertilizer is better than remunerative where purchased fertilizer alone
for 0.3 g fertilizer, the 0.3 g treatment appeals better to farmers because of the remains unattractive (Place et al., 2003).
higher VCR and the better return on investment, low financial risk, low cash out-
lay and low workload required.

SLM Group: Integrated Soil Fertility Management 65

1_Soil_Fertility.indd 4 24.05.11 11:27

 I N T E G R AT E D S O I L F E RT I L I T Y M A N A G E M E N T
Impacts
Benefits Land users / community level Watershed / landscape level National / global level
Production +++ increased crop yields ++ reduced risk and loss of +++ improved food and security
++ fodder production / quality increase production
+ diversification of production

Economic ++ increased farm income ++ stimulation of economic growth +++ improved livelihood and
++ easy to maintain and to establish + less damage to off-site well-being
++ simple technology using locally available material infrastructure
+ reduced expenses on agricultural inputs (with manuring)

Ecological +++ increased organic matter and soil fertility + increased water availability ++ reduced degradation and
++ improved soil cover + reduced degradation and desertification incidence and
++ reduced soil erosion by (water and wind) sedimentation intensity
++ improved excess water drainage + intact ecosystem ++ increased resilience to climate
++ improved rainwater productivity change
++ biodiversity enhancement + enhanced biodiversity
+ increased soil moisture
+ improved micro-climate

Socio-cultural ++ improved conservation / erosion knowledge + increased awareness for + protecting national heritage
++ ’is owned by the farmer’ environmental ‘health’
+ community institution strengthening + attractive landscape
+ changing the traditional gender roles of men and women

Constraints How to overcome

Production ·· Need for water (for composting for optimal growth)
·· Availability of manure and compost and competition for materials ➜ furthering local market for organic fertilizers (manure and compost)
(compost for animals or mulching; manure for house construction or
fuel)

Economic ·· Increased labour demands especially over using organic nutrient

sources
·· Transportation of manure over too long distances not profitable
·· Affordability of inorganic fertilizers for small-scale land users – ➜ purchase of inorganic fertilizer in a land user group and/ or
inflexible packaging in 50 kg bags ­provide small packages of fertilizers (e.g. 1-2 kg)
·· Lack of access to credit for investments (especially for inorganic fer- ➜ ensure financial services and access of land users to small credits
tiliser)
Ecological ·· It takes time to rejuvenate poor soils in SSA - the amount of organic ➜ needs integrated soil fertility management which encompasses
material added is small relative to the mineral proportion of the soil organic and inorganic fertilizers in order to optimise the nutrient
·· Waterlogging application
·· Termites eating up trash; trash can harbour pests and diseases
·· Source of weeds; green manure could become a weed ➜ control through weeding
·· Wrong application of inorganic fertilizer can lead to unhealthy plant ➜ adequate training is necessary: better to use too little than too
grow and increased decomposition of soil organic matter much fertilizer
·· Inappropriate use of inorganic fertilizer and large applications of ➜ due to limited physical and economic access of smallhold-
inorganic nitrogenous fertilisers can be a direct source of GHG ers to N-fertilizer, excessive use is not (yet) widespread in SSA.
emissions. ­Appropriate and efficient use of N-fertiliser reduces the problem
of GHG-emissions particularly if ammonium nitrate is used rather
than urea

Socio-cultural ·· Requires adequate knowledge especially for the right application of ➜ effective and not too costly information provision and technical
inorganic fertilizer support
·· Some efforts do not have an immediate visible impact (e.g. rock ➜ appropriate awareness raising and information
phosphate, compost, etc.)

66 SLM in Practice

1_Soil_Fertility.indd 5 24.05.11 11:27

 Adoption and upscaling Enabling environment: key factors for adoption

Inputs, material incentives, credits +++

Adoption rate
Training and education ++
The use of animal manure and legume intercropping are well-established,
whereas other practices like improved composting and micro-fertilization are Land tenure, secure land use rights ++
relatively new and not yet widespread. So far, widespread adoption of ISFM Access to markets ++
practices has been hindered by high prices, and accessibility and availability of
material and markets. Research +
Infrastructure +
Upscaling
Profitability: The land user’s decision is mainly influenced by perceived profit- Example: Kenya
ability of the system. Low-cost and resource-efficient methods should be pro- Place et al. (2003) have compiled differ-
moted as a starting point for production intensification. ent rates of adoption for ISFM techniques.
Access and availability of inputs must be ensured. Local markets for organic In Kenya, between 86% and 91% of farmers
fertilizers such as manure or compost must be improved. Markets for green used manure in semi-arid and semi-humid
manure seeds do not yet exist to a significant degree. Inorganic fertilizers should zones east of Nairobi. Compost was adopted
be made available and methods promoted like micro-fertilization using only small by about 40% of farmers in the more favour-
amounts. able parts of these zones, but by relatively
Access to financial services is needed and credit must be easily accessible by few in the more arid sites. In the more humid
land users to facilitate investments in ISFM. western highlands, Place et al. (2002a) found
Access to markets and infrastructure: Functioning markets and market that 70% of households used manure and
access is important for producing cash crops. 41% used compost. It was found that 49% of
Awareness raising and promotion about the different options for better soil Rwandan farmers’ plots received organic nutri-
fertility management is needed. ent inputs, and Gambara et al. (2002) found
Knowledge on ISFM: Capacity building on different and appropriate soil fertil- legume rotations and green manure systems
ity techniques and educational programmes for the right application of inorganic practiced in 48% and 23% respectively of focal
fertilizers are needed (to reduce emissions of GHGs). Low adoption rates can be extension areas in Zimbabwe. While the rela-
tackled by emphasising participatory learning and action-oriented research with tive adoption rates between organic and min-
stakeholders. eral nutrients vary by location, the incidence
of organic practices (especially natural fallow-
Incentives for adoption ing and animal manure) often outpaces the
In particular, there needs to be greater access to credit and economic rewards so use of mineral fertilizers (Place et al. 2003).
that land users can make investments in soil fertility management. Users of inor-
ganic fertilizer will need to develop a market-oriented approach. In many cases,
small-scale land users cannot operate as individuals because that will make the
purchase of fertilizer too expensive.

References and supporting information:

Aune J.B., A. Bationo. 2008. Agricultural Intensification in the Sahel – The ladder approach. Agricultural Systems 2008.
Aune J.B., D. Mamadou and A. Berthe. 2007. Microfertilizing sorghum and perl millet in Mali – Agronomic, economic and social feasibility. Outlook on Agriculture, Vol. 36. No. 3.
pp 199-203.
Enyong L.A., S.K. Debrah, and A. Batiano. 1999. Farmers’ perceptions and attitudes towards introduced soil-fertility enhancing technologies in western Africa. Nutrient Cycling in
Agroecosystems 53: 177–187.
FAO. 2005. The importance of soil organic matter – Key to drought-resistant soil and sustained food and production. FAO Soils Bulletin 80.
ICRISAT. 2004. SATrends ISSUE 41, http://www.icrisat.org/satrends/apr2004.htm, accessed on 14 September 2009.
ICRISAT. 2008. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics - Eastern and Southern Africa Region. 2007 Highlights. PO Box 39063, Nairobi, Kenya: ICRISAT.
52pp.
Mati B. M. 2005. Overview of water and soil nutrient management under smallholder rainfed agriculture in East Africa. Working Paper 105. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water
Management Institute (IWMI).
Misra R.V., R.N. Roy, and H. Hiraoka. 2003. On-farm composting methods. FAO Land and Water Discussion Paper 2. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations,
Rome.
Osbahr H., Ch. Allan. 2003. Indigenous knowledge of soil fertility management in southwest Niger. Geoderma 111 (2003) 457–479.
Place F., Ch. B. Barrett, H.A. Freeman, J.J. Ramisch, B. Vanlauwe. 2003. Prospects for integrated soil fertility management using organic and inorganic inputs: evidence from small-
holder African agricultural systems. Food Policy 28 (2003) 365–378.
Thomas F. 2005. Agroökologische Innovationen am Beispiel der Nutzung von Tithonia diversifolia (Mexican Sunflower) zur nachhaltigen Verbesserung der Nahrungsmittelsicherheit.
Diplomarbeit, Departement der Geowissenschaften der Universität Freiburg, Einheit Geographie.
WOCAT. 2009. WOCAT databases on SLM technologies and SLM approaches. www.wocat.net, accessed on 15 September 2009
Woodfine, A. 2009. Using sustainable land management practices to adapt to and mitigate climate change in Sub-Saharan Africa: resource guide version 1.0. TerrAfrica.
www.terrafrica.org

SLM Group: Integrated Soil Fertility Management 67

1_Soil_Fertility.indd 6 24.05.11 11:27

 Case study
Integrated Soil Fertility Management

S E E D P R I M I N G A N D M I C R O F E RT I L I Z AT I O N - M A L I
Seed priming and microfertilization have been found to be effective in increas- SLM measure Agronomic
ing pearl millet and sorghum yields under dryland cropping systems. It is also
SLM group Integrated Soil Fertility Management
applicable for cowpeas, groundnuts and sesame. Seed priming consists of
soaking seeds for 8 hours prior to sowing and microfertilization is the applica- Land use type Annual cropping (pearl millet)
tion of small amounts of mineral fertilizer to the planting hole. Degradation Soil fertility decline
Seed priming should be carried out after a rain shower sufficient for sowing addressed
(15-20 mm) at the beginning of the rainy season. After soaking, the seeds Stage of intervention Mitigation
should be air-dried for 1 hour prior to sowing (to reduce the stickiness of the Tolerance to climate Increased tolerance to droughts
seeds and to reduce risk of burning by fertilizer). Fertilizer (NPK 16-16-16; or change (particularly at beginning of growing
Diammonium Phosphate) is applied at a micro-dose of 0.3 g per planting sta- season) due to better plant
tion, equivalent to 3-8 kg fertilizer/ha, dependent on plant population density. establishment
The air-dried seeds and the fertilizer can be applied simultaneously by first
mixing the seeds and the fertilizer and thereafter taking a pinch of the mixture
Establishment activities
Note: Seed priming and microfertilization are
between thumb and forefinger.
agronomic measures which are carried out
Priming increases water use efficiency because seeds start germinating imme-
repeatedly each cropping season. All activities
diately after sowing. Results from Mali (Koro and Segou) show that yields can
are listed under maintenance / recurrent activi-
be increased by 50% if microfertilization is combined with seed priming. Other
ties (below). There is no establishment phase
benefits are reduced labour constraints (thanks to simultaneous application)
(as defined by WOCAT).
and risk reduction. Seed priming and microfertilization can be practiced inde-
pendently from each other; however, the combination reduces the risk of crop Maintenance / recurrent activities
failure and shows best results in terms of yield increase. Microfertilization has 1. Soak seeds for 8 hours prior to sowing
also been mechanised in Mali. (onset of rainy season, late June).
2. Mix seeds and NPK fertilizer (16-16-16) or
DAP at a ratio of 1:1 before sowing.
3. Sow seeds and fertilizer simultaneously
and cover with soil.
Note: Seed priming can be started after suf-
ficient rain for sowing has been received. If the
method fails, it can be repeated again.
Option: If farmers have the resources to buy
higher amount of fertilizer and if the season
is promising, they can apply 2 g fertilizer per
pocket at first weeding (20 days after sowing).
This results in higher yields but also requires
an additional operation for the farmer, tripling
the labour inputs for fertilizer application. If
this practice is adopted, it is not necessary to
Control apply 0.3 g fertilizer at sowing.
Priming
Priming & All activities are carried out by manual labour;
Microfertilization
microfertilization has partly been mechanised,
using an ox-drawn implement.

Labour requirements
For establishment: na
For maintenance: low
Knowledge requirements
For advisors: low
For land users: low

Photo 1: Priming – soaking the seeds for 8 hours.

(Adama Coulibaly)
Photo 2: Effect on yields of priming and of the combination
microfertilization & priming compared to control plot.
(Adama Coulibaly)
Photo 3: Farmers practicing microfertilization with animal
traction. (Jens B. Aune)

68 SLM in Practice

1_Soil_Fertility.indd 7 24.05.11 11:27

 Case study area: Koro, Mopti Region, Ecological conditions
Mali ··  limate: semi-arid; rainy season: late June – middle of October
C
·· Average annual rainfall: 400-800 mm
·· Soil parameters: low fertility and low soil organic matter
·· Slope: mainly flat (0-2%), partly gentle (2-5%)
·· Landform: plains
·· Altitude: 260 m a.s.l.
Socio-economic conditions
··  ize of land per household: 2-20 ha
S
Tombouctou ·· Type of land user: small-scale / large-scale; poor, average and rich land users
·· Population density: no data
Mopti ·· Land ownership: community
Case study area ·· Land use rights: individual / communal
Bamako Segou
Ségou ·· Level of mechanisation: mainly manual / partly animal traction
·· Market orientation: mixed (subsistence and commercial)

Production / economic benefits

+++ Increased crop yield: combined effect of seed priming and microfertiliza-
Establishment inputs and costs per ha tion 50%, seed priming alone 25%
Inputs Costs (US$)
+++ Increased production of straw / biomass
++ Decreased financial resources needed for purchasing fertilizer, makes the
Labour 0
technology feasible for poor small-scale farmers
Equipment 0 ++ Risk minimisation: decreased risk of crop failure; and low financial risk in the
Agricultural inputs 0 case of crop failure; seed priming reduces the risk of fertilizer application
++ No additional labour inputs (the technology does not significantly increase
TOTAL 0
sowing time due to simultaneous application of seeds and fertilizer)
No establishment costs. ++ Increased land productivity / clearance of new land is avoided
+ Earlier harvest (food security)
Maintenance inputs and costs per ha per year
Ecological benefits
Inputs Costs (US$) +++ Reduced susceptibility to beginning-of-season droughts; less burning
Labour: 6 person-days 1 effect if drought after sowing
Equipment / tools: planting stick / hoe 0 ++ Reduced exposure of plants to droughts (compared to 6 g treatment)
++ Increased resistance to Striga (pest)
Agricultural inputs: 47 kg 2
superphosphate fertilizer Socio-cultural benefits
TOTAL 3 + Can be mechanised
Off-site benefits
Remarks: Sowing can alternatively be mecha-
+ Improved nutrition and both on-farm and off-farm employment
nised, which will cause establishment costs (pur-
chase of the sowing machine). Weaknesses ➜ and how to overcome
·· D
 ependence partly on availability of mineral fertilizer ➜ the technology should
Benefit-cost ratio
be combined with complementary methods for maintenance of soil fertility,
Inputs short term long term such as increased recycling of crop residues as mulch and manure application.
Establishment na na
Maintenance very positive very positive
Adoption
Trend for spontaneous adoption is high. Microfertilization has become a very
popular technology in some area in Mali. Field officers from NGO’s report that
Remarks: The technology has a benefit-cost ratio
in some villages in the ‘Dogon area’ in the Mopti region more than 50% of the
of 10 (increased production value is 10 times
farmers are using the technology on their own initiative. NGOs working in the
higher than the costs for additional fertilizer).
Mopti and Segou regions are currently actively promoting seed priming and
Compared to the 6 g microfertilization method
microfertilization.
(using bottle caps) cost-benefit ratio of 0.3 g treat-
ment is 8-20 times higher.

Main contributors: Jens B. Aune, Noragric/Department of International Environment and Development Studies; Norwegian University of Life Sciences; As, Norway; jens.aune@umb.
no, http://www.umb.no
Key references: Aune JB, Doumbia M, Berthe A (2007): Microfertilizing sorghum and pearl millet in Mali - Agronomic, economic and social feasibility in Outlook on AGRICUL-
TURE Vol 36, No 3, 2007, pp 199–203 n Aune JB, Doumbia M, Berthe A (2005): Integrated Plant Nutrient Management Report 1998-2004; Drylands Coordination Group Report
36, Norway n Aune JB, Bationo A (2008): Agricultural intensification in the Sahel. Agricultural Systems 98: 119-125; n Habima, D. 2008. Drylands ecofarming: An analysis of
ecological farming prototypes in two Sahelian zones: Koro and Bankass. M.Sc Thesis, UMN, Ås, Norway

Part 2: SLM Technology, Seed Priming and Microfertilization - Mali 69

1_Soil_Fertility.indd 8 24.05.11 11:27

 Case study
Integrated Soil Fertility Management

GREEN MANURING WITH TITHONIA - CAMEROON

Tithonia diversifolia hedges grow along roadsides or farm boundaries. The SLM measure Agronomic
green leaf biomass is very suitable as green manure for annual crops, since
SLM group Integrated Soil Fertility Management
the plant has a high content of nitrogen and phosphorus, and decomposes
quickly after application to the soil: its nutrients are released within one grow- Land use type Annual cropping
ing season. Degradation Soil fertility decline and reduced
At an early stage of plant growth, fresh green leaves and stems are cut, addressed organic matter content
chopped and applied on the cropland as green manure after the first pass of Stage of intervention Mitigation and prevention
ridging. The fresh material is spread over the half-made ridges at a rate of 2 kg Tolerance to climatic No data
per m2 and then covered with about 5-10 cm of soil to finish the ridges. Sow- change
ing of crop seeds is done only after a week or more, because of heat genera-
tion during the decomposition process of the leaves (which could damage the Establishment activities
seeds). 1. Planting Tithonia along farm / field bound-
Tithonia biomass enhances soil organic matter and soil fertility, resulting in aries and along roadsides (if not growing
higher crop yields. The treatment supplies the crop with nutrients at the early naturally).
stage of the growing process, and thus improves the establishment of the
Maintenance / recurrent activities
crops through the early development of a good rooting system. The technol-
1. Regular cutting of Tithonia plants: cutting
ogy is especially beneficial for maize: yields in the study area increased by over
back hedges in the dry season (Dec./Jan.)
50%.
ensures that fresh material can be har-
Tithonia can also be applied as mulch 6 to 8 weeks after planting the crop.
vested from March to May.
Covering the mulch with a little soil facilitates nutrient release. Tithonia green
2. Collect any organic material on the crop-
manuring - before planting - and mulching can be combined, which is espe-
land and place it in the furrows of the pre-
cially applicable to maize, beans and cabbage cultivation. Tithonia hedgerows
vious cropping season (which will become
have to be cut back regularly; otherwise it can spread fast and become a
the ridges of the new cropping season) in
weed. Interplanting Tithonia in the field is not recommended due to root com-
February.
petition with crops.
3. Harvesting and chopping green leaves and
stems of Tithonia (March-May).
4. Transport to farm and spread fresh Titho-
nia material on half-done ridges; and cover
with earth.
5. Let decompose the green manure for at
least 1 week before sowing the crops.
6. Apply a mulch layer of fresh Tithonia mate-
rial (6-8 weeks after sowing; optional).
All activities carried out manually (using cut-
lasses and hoes). Cutting back is done annu-
ally, harvesting and spreading 1-2 times a year.

Labour requirements
For establishment: low
For maintenance: high
Knowledge requirements
For advisors: moderate
For land users: moderate

Photo 1: Effects of applying Tithonia diversifolia: cocoyam

with green manure (left ridge) and cocoyam without green
manure (right ridge).
Photo 2: Application of organic material to build ridges for
the next cropping season.
Photo 3: Hedge of Tithonia diversifolia, known also as Mexican
sunflower. (All photos by Fabienne Thomas)

70 SLM in Practice

1_Soil_Fertility.indd 9 24.05.11 11:27

 Case study area: Akiri, North-West Ecological conditions
Province, Cameroon ·· C limate: subhumid
·· Average annual rainfall: mainly 2,000-3,000 mm, partly 1,500-2,000 mm;
rainy season mid March – mid October
·· Soil parameters: medium fertility, medium soil organic matter, medium drain-
Maroua
age
Garoua ·· Slope: mainly hilly (16-30%), partly mountain slopes (30-60%)
·· Landform: hill and mountain slopes
·· Altitude: 1,000-1,500 m a.s.l.
Socio-economic conditions
Ngaoundéré
··  ize of land per household: mainly 1-2 ha, partly 2-5 ha
S
Case study area
·· Type of land user: poor small-scale farmers
Bafoussam
Kumba
·· Population density: 70-100 persons/km2
·· Land ownership: individual
Douala Yaoundé
·· Land use rights: individual
·· Market orientation: mainly subsistence, partly mixed (subsistence and com-
mercial)
·· Level of mechanisation: manual labour
Establishment inputs and costs per ha
Inputs Costs (US$)
Production / economic benefits
+++ Increased crop yield (over 50%, especially beneficial for maize)
Labour –
+ Increased farm income
Equipment – + Cheap fertilizer
Agricultural Inputs – Ecological benefits
TOTAL no data ++ Increased soil fertility
+ Increased soil moisture
Remarks: Costs for planting Tithonia along farm /
+ Improved soil cover
field boundaries and along roadsides (if not grow-
+ Windbreak
ing naturally) are not known.
Socio-cultural benefits
Maintenance inputs and costs per ha per year + Improved knowledge about green manure
Inputs Costs (US$) + Health: Tithonia has also a medicinal use (anti-inflammatory effect)
+ Life barrier: hedges avoid uncontrolled entering of cattle into cropland
Labour: 6 person-days 80
Equipment / tools: planting stick / hoe 30 Weaknesses ➜ and how to overcome
Agricultural inputs: 47 kg 0 ·· C an spread as a weed on cropland (if planted close to fields) and also outside
superphosphate fertilizer the area where it is used; some farmers consider the plant as poisonous ➜
TOTAL 110 advisory service is important, good information on proper management of
Tithonia; regular cutting.
% of costs borne by land users 100%
·· Labour-intensive technology (harvest, transport, regular cutting, chopping
Remarks: Labour costs are the main factor and spreading) ➜ providing / subsidising transport equipment such as wheel­
affecting the costs. Labour inputs depend a lot barrows would make transport more effective and time-saving.
on transport distance between Tithonia hedge ·· Might lead to conflicts if too many farmers want to use it ➜ clarify user rights;
and cropland. replant Tithonia plants and grow new hedges.

Benefit-cost ratio Adoption

Inputs short term long term There is a strong trend towards spontaneous adoption. In the villages where
the technology has been implemented the interest of other farmers is big. All
Establishment na na
land users in the case study area have adopted the technology without any
Maintenance positive positive external support. Total area of land treated with the technology in the case
Remarks: The closer to the field Tithonia is study area is 0.3 km2.
planted, the better is the benefit-cost ratio.

Main contributors: Fabienne Thomas; [email protected] n Urs Scheidegger, Swiss College of Agriculture SHL, Head International Agriculture, Switzerland; urs.
[email protected].
Key references: WOCAT. 2004. WOCAT database on SLM Technologies, www.wocat.net n Thomas F. 2005. Agroökologische Innovationen am Beispiel der Nutzung von Tithonia
diversifolia (Mexican Sunflower) zur nachhaltigen Verbesserung der Nahrungsmittelsicherheit. Diplomarbeit. Departement für Geowissenschaften – Geographie Universität Freiburg.

Part 2: SLM Technology, Green Manuring with Tithonia - Cameroon 71

1_Soil_Fertility.indd 10 24.05.11 11:27

 Case study
Integrated Soil Fertility Management

COMPOST PRODUCTION - BURKINA FASO

Compost is produced in shallow pits, approximately 20 cm deep and 1.5 m SLM measure Agronomic
by 3 m wide. During the dry season after harvesting, layers of chopped crop
SLM group Integrated Soil Fertility Management
residues, animal dung and ash are heaped, as they become available, up to
1.5 m high and watered. The pile is covered with straw and left to heat up and Land use type Mixed: agropastoral
decompose. After 15–20 days the compost is turned over into a second pile Degradation Fertility decline; Erosion by water;
and watered again. This is repeated up to three times – as long as water is addressed Soil moisture problem; Compaction
and crusting
available. Compost heaps are usually located close to the homestead. Alter-
natively, compost can be produced in pits up to 1 m deep. Organic material is Stage of intervention Mitigation and rehabilitation
filled to ground level. The pit captures rain water, which makes this method of Tolerance to climate No data
composting a valuable option in dry areas. change
The compost is either applied immediately to irrigated gardens, or kept in a dry
shaded place for the next sorghum seeding. In the latter case one handful of Establishment activities
compost is mixed with loose soil in each planting pit (zaï). Compost in the pits 1. Dig two compost pits (3 m by 1.5 m and
conserves water and supplies nutrients. This enables the sorghum plants to 20 cm deep) at the beginning of the dry
establish better, grow faster and reach maturity before the rains finish. Vulner- season (November).
ability to droughts and risk of crop failure is reduced. 2. Cover the bottom of each pit with 3 cm
As compost is applied locally to the crop, not only is the positive effect maxim- clay layer.
ised, but the weeds between the pits do not benefit either. It is the high water Duration of establishment: 1 week
retaining capacity of the compost that makes the main difference, and is much Maintenance / recurrent activities
more important than the additional nutrients, which only become available in 1. Put 20 cm layer of chopped crop residues
subsequent years, and do not completely replace all the nutrients extracted by (cereal straw) into the compost pit and
the crops. During the dry season, after harvest, fields are grazed by cattle of water with one bucket (November).
the nomadic pastoral Peuhl, who also herd the agriculturalists’ livestock. 2. Add 5 cm layer of animal manure.
3. Add 1 cm layer of ash.
4. Repeat steps 1–3 until the compost pile is
1.0–1.5 m high.
5. Cover pile with straw to reduce evaporation,
and leave to decompose. Check heating
process within the heap by inserting a stick.
6. Turn compost after 15 days into the 2nd pit,
then after another 15 days back into the 1st
pit. Turning over is done up to 3 times (as
long as water is available).
7. Water the pile after each turning with 3
buckets of water.
8. Store ready compost in dry shady place
(January).
9. Transport compost to the fields by wheel-
barrow or donkey-cart (before onset of
rains) and apply a handful per planting pit
before planting (after the first rains).

Labour requirements
For establishment: low
For maintenance: medium
Knowledge requirements
For advisors: moderate
For land users: low

Photo 1: Application of one handful of compost in planting

pits. (William Critchley)
Photo 2: Sorghum yields with and without compost applica-
tion. (Reynold Chatelain)
Photo 3: Compost pits with low containing walls: Pit compost
requires little or no additional water and is preferable in dry
zones. (William Critchley)

72 SLM in Practice

1_Soil_Fertility.indd 11 24.05.11 11:27

 Case study area: Boulgou Province, Ecological conditions
Burkina Faso ·· C limate: semi-arid
·· Average annual rainfall: 750-1,000 mm (partly 500-750 mm)
·· Soil parameters: fertility is mainly low, partly medium; depth is 50-80 cm;
partly 20-50 cm; drainage is mainly poor, partly medium; organic matter
content is low and further decreasing; soil texture is mainly clay, partly sandy
Ouahigouya (in depressions)
·· Slope: mainly gentle (2-5%), partly moderate (5-8%)
·· Landform: plains / plateaus
Ouagadougou
·· Altitude: 100-500 m a.s.l.
Koudougou
Bobo Dioulasso Case study area Socio-economic conditions
··  ize of land per household: < 1 ha or 1-2 ha
S
·· Type of land user: small-scale; poor
·· Population density: no data
·· Land ownership: communal / village
·· Land use rights: communal (organised)
·· Level of mechanisation: manual labour
·· Market orientation: mainly subsistence (self-supply), in good years mixed
Establishment inputs and costs per ha (subsistence and commercial)
Inputs Costs (US$)
Production / economic benefits
Labour: 2 person-days 2
+++ Increased crop yield
Equipment: hoe, digging stick, bucket 10 +++ Increased farm income (by several times in dry years, compared to no
Construction material: clay (0.5 m3) 0 compost use)
++ Increased fodder production and fodder quality
TOTAL 12
% of costs borne by land users 100% Ecological benefits
+++ Increased soil moisture
Remarks: Establishment costs are for two pits ++ Increased soil fertility
which are needed to manure one hectare. ++ Improved soil cover
++ Efficiency of excess water drainage
Maintenance inputs and costs per ha per year + Reduced soil loss
Inputs Costs (US$)
Socio-cultural benefits
Labour: 20 person-days 20 + Community institution strengthening
Equipment: wheelbarrow renting 6 ++ Improved conservation/ erosion knowledge
Agricultural inputs: manure (100 kg) 2
++ Integration of agriculturalists and pastoralists

Material: ash, straw 0 Weaknesses ➜ and how to overcome

Compost transportation 2 ·· T he modest quantity of compost applied is not enough to replace the nutri-
TOTAL 30 ents extracted by the crops in the long term ➜ small amounts of nitrogen and
phosphorous fertilizer need to be added and crop rotation practised.
% of costs borne by land users 100%
·· The short / medium term local benefits are not associated with a positive over-
Remarks: Costs relate to production and appli- all, long term ecological impact because there is a net transfer of organic mat-
cation of 1 tonne of compost per ha (the product ter (manure) to the fields from the surroundings ➜ improve management of
of one full compost pit). The compost is directly the vegetation outside the cropland, avoiding overgrazing etc. to increase
applied to planting pits at a rate of 7–10 t/ha manure production.
(equal to actual rates applied in small irrigated ·· Needs considerable water and thus also extra-labour ➜ pit composting helps
gardens). If compost is produced in deep pits, to reduce water requirement in drier areas and at the same time reduces
production is cheaper because there is less work labour input.
involved.
Adoption
Benefit-cost ratio Composting has been applied in Boulgou Province of Burkina Faso since
Inputs short term long term 1988. 5,000 families adopted the technology (without external incentives),
total area of manured fields is 200 km2. Even some pastoralists use it in their
Establishment very positive very positive
gardens. There is a strong trend towards growing spontaneous adoption, with
Maintenance very positive very positive extension from farmer to farmer. The pastoral Peuhl have started to system-
atically collect the manure for sale, since the increased demand for manure in
composting has led to doubling of the price.

Main contributors: Jean Pascal Etienne de Pury, CEAS Neuchâtel, Switzerland; www.ceas.ch
Key references: WOCAT. 2004. WOCAT database on SLM Technologies, www.wocat.net  n Ouedraogo E. 1992. Influence d’un amendement de compost sur sol ferrugineux tropicaux
en milieu paysan. Impact sur la production de sorgho à Zabré en 1992. Mémoire de diplôme. CEAS Neuchâtel, Switzerland n Zougmore R., Bonzi M., et Zida Z. 2000. Etalonnage des
unités locales de mesures pour le compostage en fosse de type unique étanche durable. Fiche technique de quantification des matériaux de compostage, 4pp

Part 2: SLM Technology, Compost Production - Burkina Faso 73

1_Soil_Fertility.indd 12 24.05.11 11:27

 Case study
Integrated Soil Fertility Management

P R E C I S I O N C O N S E R V AT I O N A G R I C U LT U R E - Z I M B A B W E
Precision Conservation Agriculture (PCA) is a combined technology that SLM measure Agronomic
encompasses four basic principles: (1) minimum tillage – use of small planting
SLM group Combined: Integrated Soil Fertil-
basins which enhance the capture of water from the first rains and allow effi- ity Management and Conservation
cient application of limited nutrient resources with limited labour input; (2) the Agriculture
precision application of small doses of nitrogen-based fertilizer (from organic Land use type Annual cropping (cereals)
and / or inorganic sources) to achieve higher nutrient efficiency; (3) combina-
Degradation Soil fertility decline and reduced
tion of improved fertility with improved seed for higher productivity; and (4) use
addressed organic matter; Soil erosion by
of available residues to create a mulch cover that reduces evaporation losses water; Sealing and crusting
and weed growth.
Stage of intervention Prevention and mitigation
Crop mixes are adapted to the local conditions and household resource con-
straints. Cereal / legume rotations are desirable. PCA spreads labour for Tolerance to climate Increased resilience to droughts
change
land preparation over the dry season and encourages more timely planting,
resulting in a reduction of peak labour loads at planting, higher productivity
Establishment activities
and incomes. Over four years these simple technologies have consistently
Note: PCA is based on agronomic measures
increased average yields by 50 to 200%, depending on rainfall regime, soil
which are carried out repeatedly each cropping
types and fertility, and market access. More than 50,000 farm households
season. All activities are listed under mainte-
apply the technology in Zimbabwe.
nance / recurrent activities (below). There is no
PCA strategies are promoted by ICRISAT, FAO and NGOs in Southern Africa
establishment phase (as defined by WOCAT).
focusing on low potential zones with the most resource-poor and vulnerable
farm households. Maintenance / recurrent activities
1. Spreading residues (after harvesting).
2. Winter weeding.
3. Land preparation: mark out basins using
planting lines and dig planting basins (dry
season).
4. Application of available fertilizer: manure
at a rate of a handful per planting basin
(1,500-2,500 kg/ha) and micro-doses of
basal fertilizer at a rate of 1 level beer bot-
tle cap per pit (92.5 kg/ha); cover lightly with
clod-free soil (soon after land preparation).
5. Planting at onset of rains; cover seed with
clod-free soil.
6. First weeding when weeds appear.
7. Second Weeding (Dec.-Jan.; when cereals
are at 5 to 6 leaf stage).
8. Apply micro-dose of top dress fertilizer
(Ammonium Nitrate) at a rate of 1 level
beer bottle cap per basin (83.5 kg/ha )
(cereals at 5 to 6 leaf stage).
9. Third weeding.
10. Harvesting.
Hand hoes, planting lines marked at appropri-
ate spacings.

Labour requirements
For establishment: high
For maintenance: medium to low
Knowledge requirements
For advisors: high
For land users: high

Photo 1: Excavation of planting pits (Dimensions: 15 cm

by 15 cm by 15 cm; Spacing: varies between 60 – 90 cm,
depending on average rainfall).
Photo 2: Mulch cover on planting pits.
Photo 3: Application of a micro-dose of basal fertilizer (a com-
pound applied prior to planting in the bottom of the planting pit).
Photo 4: Application of a handful of organic manure.
Photo 5: Application of micro-dose of top dressing.
(All photos by ICRISAT)

74 SLM in Practice

1_Soil_Fertility.indd 13 24.05.11 11:27

 Case study area: Bulawayo, Zimbabwe Ecological conditions
·· C limate: semi-arid
·· Average annual rainfall: 450-950 mm
·· Soil parameters: low fertility, medium depth, good drainage, low organic mat-
ter content
·· Slope: average slope is 1-7%
·· Landform: plains, footslopes
Harare
·· Altitude: 500-1,500 m a.s.l.

Hwange
Kadoma Socio-economic conditions
Mutare ··  ize of land per household: 1-3 ha
S
Gweru
·· Type of land user: small-scale; poor / average level of wealth
Bulawayo ·· Population density: 10-50 persons/km2
Case study area
·· Land ownership: communal (not titled)
·· Land use rights: communal
·· Market orientation: subsistence
·· Level of mechanisation: manual labour / animal traction
·· Opportunity to introduce commercial crops as part of the rotation if market
access developed
Establishment inputs and costs per ha
Inputs Costs (US$)
Production / economic benefits
+++ Increased crop yield (400 kg/ha before, 1520 kg/ha after; increase varies
Labour 0
between 50-200%)
Equipment 0 +++ Increased fodder production (600 kg/ha before, 2200 kg/ha after)
Agricultural inputs 0 +++ Increased farm income
+++ Increased product diversification
TOTAL 0
++ Reduced risk of production failure
No establishment costs.
Ecological benefits
++ Increased water quality
Maintenance inputs and costs per ha per year
++ Increased soil moisture and reduced evaporation
Inputs Costs (US$) ++ Increased soil organic matter
Labour: 124 person-days 108 ++ Increased beneficial species
Equipment: hand hoes 7 + Weed control (timely weeding in combination with mulching)
+ Improved soil cover
Agricultural inputs: fertilizer 69
TOTAL 184 Socio-cultural benefits
+++ Communities institution strengthening
% of costs borne by land users no data
+++ Improved situation of socially and economically disadvantaged groups
Remarks: Labour costs do not include harvest- (gender, age, status, ethnicity etc.)
ing (8 person-days/ha). Initially, fertilizers were +++ Improved food security / self-sufficiency (household meets food needs
partly subsidised by project, at a later stage from less land)
farmers purchased more as they increased the
area and became more self-reliant. Most house- Weaknesses ➜ and how to overcome
holds start applying chemical fertilizer from the ·· A vailability of residues and willingness to use as mulch ➜ long term demon-
2nd year on (at least 1 bag). strations required.
·· Access to basal and top dress fertilizers ➜ input market development and
Benefit-cost ratio identification of enabling government policies. If the access to nitrogen ferti-
Inputs short term long term
lizer can be improved there is a great chance that households will move from
a food insecure state to one of surplus.
Establishment positive very positive
·· Lack of rotations and legumes poorly adopted ➜ increase access to quality
Maintenance positive very positive legume seeds and develop output markets.
Remarks: Initial results suggest a cost-benefit
Adoption
ratio of US$ 3.5 per US$ invested. Returns to
5% of land users have applied the SLM technology. There is evidence of spon-
labor have been about two times higher than
taneous adoption, with more than 50,000 households with at least 0.3 ha of
conventional practices.
basins in 2008. The average area per household increased from 1,500 m2 in
2004 to more than 3,500 m2 in 2008.

Main contributors: Steve Twomlow, UNEP, Nairobi, Kenya; [email protected]; www.unep.org

Key references: Hove L, Twomlow S. 2008. Is conservation agriculture an option for vulnerable households in Southern Africa? Paper presented at the Conservation Agriculture
for Sustainable Land Management to Improve the Livelihood of People in Dry Areas Workshop, United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization, 7-9 May, 2007. Damascus,
Syria n Mazvimavi K., and S. Twomlow. 2009. Socioeconomic and institutional factors influencing adoption of conservation farming by vulnerable households in Zimbabwe.
Agricultural Systems, 101 (1), p.20-29  n Pedzisa I., I. Minde, and S.Twomlow. 2010. An evaluation of the use of participatory processes in wide-scale dissemination of research
in micro dosing and conservation agriculture in Zimbabwe. Research Evaluation, 19(2). n Twomlow S., J. Urolov, J.C. Oldrieve, B. Jenrich M. 2008. Lessons from the Field Zim-
babwe’s Conservation Agriculture Task Force. Journal of SAT Agricultural Research, 6.

Part 2: SLM Technology, Precision Conservation Agriculture - Zimbabwe 75

1_Soil_Fertility.indd 14 24.05.11 11:27

 C o n s e r v at i o n A g r i c u lt u r e

Farmer explaining the difference between conventional tillage (left) and conservation tillage (right), Kenya. (Hanspeter Liniger)

In a nutshell Development issues addressed

Preventing / reversing land degradation ++

Definition: Conservation Agriculture (CA) is a farming system that conserves,
improves, and makes more efficient use of natural re­sources through integrated Maintaining and improving food security ++
management of soil, water and biological resources. It is a way to combine prof- Reducing rural poverty ++
itable agricultural production with environmental concerns and sustainability. The Creating rural employment ++
three fundamental principles behind the CA concept are: minimum soil distur-
Supporting gender equity / marginalised groups ++
bance, perma­nent soil cover, and crop rotation. Each of the principles can serve
as an entry point to the technology; however, only the simultaneous application Improving crop production ++
of all three results in full benefits. CA covers a wide range of agricultural practices Improving fodder production +
based on no-till (also known as zero tillage) or reduced tillage (minimum tillage).
Improving wood / fibre production na
These require direct drilling of crop seeds into cover crops or mulch. Weeds are
Improving non wood forest production na
suppressed by mulch and / or cover crops and need to be further controlled
either through herbicide application or pulling by hand. Preserving biodiversity +
Applicability: CA has been proven to work in a variety of agro-ecological zones Improving soil resources (OM, nutrients) ++
and farming systems: high or low rainfall areas; in degraded soils; multiple crop-
Improving of water resources ++
ping systems; and in systems with labour shortages or low external-input agri-
culture. CA has good potential for spread in dry environments due to its water Improving water productivity +++
saving ability, though the major challenge here is to grow sufficient vegetation to Natural disaster prevention / mitigation ++
provide soil cover. Climate change mitigation / adaptation ++
Resilience to climate variability: CA increases tolerance to changes in tem-
perature and rainfall including incidences of drought and flooding.
Climate change mitigation
Main benefits: CA is considered a major component of a ‘new green revolution’
in SSA which will help to make intensive farming sustainable through increased Potential for C Sequestration 0.57 ± 0.14*
crop yields / yield reliability and reduced labour requirements; will cut fossil fuel (tonnes/ha/year)
needs through reduced machine use; will decrease agrochemical contamination C Sequestration: above ground +
of the environment through reduced reliance on mineral fertilizers; and will reduce C Sequestration: below ground ++
greenhouse gas emissions, minimise run-off and soil erosion, and improve fresh
water supplies. CA can thus increase food security; reduce off-site damage;
reduce foreign exchange required to purchase fuel and agrochemicals; and cre- Climate change adaptation
ate employment by producing CA equipment locally. The potential to mitigate Resilience to extreme dry conditions ++
and to adapt to climate change is high. Resilience to variable rainfall ++
Adoption and upscaling: Change of land user’s mind-set, support for specific
Resilience to extreme rain and wind storms +
material inputs and good technical know-how increase the potential for adoption.
A main aim is to phase out or minimise herbicide use - because of the poten- Resilience to rising temperatures and ++
tial risk to the environment. Alternative methods of weed control with minimum evaporation rates
soil disturbance are needed. Pioneer farmers in regions of new adoption require Reducing risk of production failure +
support for access to no-till tools / equipment, cover crop seed and technical * change from conventional tillage to no-till, carbon restored can be
guidance. Critical constraints to adoption appear to be competing uses for crop expected to peak after 5 to 10 years with SOC reaching a new equi-
residues (as mulch), increased labour demand for weeding, and lack of access librium in 15 to 20 years (Source: West and Post, 2002 in Woodfine,
to, and use of, external inputs. 2009).

76 SLM in Practice

2_Conservation_Agriculture.indd 76 20.01.11 14:32

 Origin and spread
Origin: Through research activities and the development of herbicides and direct
seeding equipment, no-till practices started spreading in the 1970s from the
Americas and Australia to the rest of the world. In Sub-Saharan Africa, CA was
introduced in the 1980s by research projects, and further developed and spread
through the initiative of large-scale farmers. It must not be forgotten, however,
that many traditional forms of farming in SSA (very shallow tillage with hand hoes
for example) can be considered within the CA ‘family’.
Mainly applied in: South Africa (2% of arable area), Zambia (0.8%), Kenya
(0.3%), Mozambique (0.2%), Madagascar (0.1%)
Also applied in: Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Ethio-
pia, Eritrea, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, Mali, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Sudan, Swa-
ziland, Tanzania, Uganda and Zimbabwe Spread of conservation agriculture in SSA.

Principles and types

Minimal soil disturbance: The main principle of conservation agriculture is
mi­nimal soil disturbance through reduced or no tillage. This favours soil life,
and build up of soil organic matter (less exposure to oxygen and thus less soil
organic matter mineralization). Compared to conventional tillage, CA increases
the organic matter content of soils, increasing their porosity and hence improving
their ability to absorb and retain water – and this has two positive effects: first,
there is more water to support crop growth and the biological activity that is so
important for productivity, and second, less water accumulates and thus doesn’t
flow across the surface, causing floods and erosion.
Seeding is done directly through the mulch (usually residues of previous crops),
or cover crop (specially grown legumes). Although small-scale farmers can apply
CA using a standard hoe or planting stick to open planting holes, appropriate
machinery such as direct seed drills (large- or small-scale motorised or animal
drawn) or jab-planters (hand tools) are normally required to penetrate the soil
cover and to place the seed in a slot. Prior sub-soiling is often required to break-
up existing hard pans resulting from ploughing or hoeing to a constant depth.
Compacted soils may require initial ripping and sub-soiling to loosen the soil.
Permanent soil cover: Permanent soil cover with cover crops or mulch has
multiple positive effects: increased availability of organic matter for incorporation
by soil fauna, protection from raindrop splash, reduced soil crusting and surface
evaporation, better micro-climate for plant germination and growth, reduced run-
off and soil erosion, and suppression of weeds. In the initial years of CA, a large
weed seed population requires management through use of herbicides or hand
weeding to reduce the seed bank. Use of herbicides and weeding then falls to
a minimum level after a few years, as the number of seeds is reduced and their
growth hindered by crop cover.
Crop rotation: In order to reduce the risk of pests, diseases and weed infesta-
tion a system of rotational cropping is beneficial. Typical systems of rotation are
cereals followed by legumes and cover / fodder crops. However, for small-scale
farmers it is often difficult to become accustomed to growing crops in rotation,
when this goes against tradition and dietary preference. One solution is inter-
cropping which allows permanent cover and also replenishment of nutrients –
when nitrogen-fixing legumes are included in the mixture.
For successful adaptation in SSA, CA needs to evolve to suit the biophysical
and socio-economic conditions, in other words there need to be trade-offs. This
implies being flexible regarding soil cover and crop rotation, and emphasizing the
role of water harvesting in dry regions.

Top: Training on the use of a jab planter for direct seeding,

Burkina Faso. (John Ashburner)
Middle: Direct seeding with special animal traction equip-
ment, Zambia. (Josef Kienzle)
Bottom: A no-till seeder at work on a large-scale farm in
Cameroon. (Josef Kienzle)

SLM Group: Conservation Agriculture 77

2_Conservation_Agriculture.indd 77 20.01.11 14:32

 C O N S E R V AT I O N A G R I C U LT U R E
Applicability Land degradation

Land degradation addressed Erosion by water High

Physical soil deterioration: reduction in soil’s capacity to absorb and hold Erosion by wind Moderate
water due to degradation of soil structure (sealing, crusting, compaction, pulveri- Chemical degradation Low
zation) in drought-prone situations Physical degradation Insignificant
Water degradation: aridification due to runoff and evaporation loss Biological degradation
Chemical soil deterioration and biological degradation: reduction in soil Water degradation
organic matter and fertility decline due to soil loss and nutrient mining, reduction
of biodiversity and pest risk (in tropical and subtropical conditions)
Erosion by water and wind
Land use
Land use Cropland
Suitable for rainfed agriculture and irrigated systems (including those in semi- Grazing land
arid areas).
Forests / woodlands
Mainly used for annual crops: cereals (maize, sorghum), with legume cover crops
Mixed land use
(mucuna, lablab, cowpea etc.), cotton; vegetables (e.g. onions) and some peren-
nial / plantation crops and tree crops (e.g. coffee, orchard fruits, vineyards). Also Other
used on mixed crop / livestock systems (but competition for plant residues reduces
ground cover and organic matter restoration unless alternative fodder is grown).
Although CA is often not considered to be suitable for root crops, recent studies Climate Average rainfall (mm)
have shown that it can be used for crops such as beet and cassava since their
roots grow more evenly and, due to the better structured soil, the soil sticking to Humid > 3000
the roots is reduced. CA can be also suitable for potatoes, if sufficient mulching Subhumid 2000-3000
material is provided to protect the potatoes from sunlight. Nevertheless harvest Semi-arid 1500-2000
disturbs the soil in contrast to grain crops. Arid 1000-1500
750-1000
Ecological conditions 500-750
Climate: CA is suitable for all climates, although its specific benefits become
250-500
more pronounced in unfavourable climates, such as semi-arid zones: it is most
< 250
effective where low or uneven rainfall limits crop production. CA is also suitable
for subhumid and humid climates: such as the moist savanna of West Africa and
part of the East African highlands. The technology has specific challenges in arid
climates, however, it still performs better than tillage-based alternatives, given Slopes (%) very steep (>60)
adequate mulch. steep (30-60)
Terrain and landscape: Suitable for flat to moderate slopes, mechanised sys- hilly (16-30)
tems are unsuitable for slopes steeper than 16%, but hand planters are suit- rolling (8-16)
able for steeper slopes. Mainly applied on plateaus and valley floors. Due to the moderate (5-8)
reduced runoff and erosion it is particularly suitable for steeper slopes (under gentle (2-5)
manual or animal traction), where crops are grown under these conditions. flat (0-2)
Soils: Suitable for sandy loams to clay loams, but unsuitable for compacted hard
soils or those at risk of waterlogging (poorly drained), shallow soils. Compaction
due to previous tillage can be dealt with through sub-soiling.
Farm size Land ownership
Socio-economic conditions Small scale State
Farming system and level of mechanisation: can be applied at all farm scales Medium scale Company
and implemented with different levels of mechanisation. Until recently there has
Large scale Community
been little emphasis on extending CA to the small-scale level.
Individual, not titled
Small-scale farms: hand or animal (oxen) draft implements such as animal (or
sometimes tractor) drawn ripper, and ripper planter; hand jab planters for manual Individual, titled
systems, etc.
Large-scale farms: direct seed drill, knife roller, sprayer, etc. with substantial
reduction in time and energy use for tillage operations. Mechanisation Market orientation
Market orientation: suitable for subsistence or commercial systems; access to Manual labour Subsistence
markets is important to sell surplus and to purchase inputs. Animal traction Mixed
Land ownership and land use / water rights: some communally-owned lands
Mechanised Commercial
lack security of tenure and hence render land users reluctant to practise and
invest in the shift to conservation agriculture.
Skill / knowledge requirements: medium to high for land users, extension
Required labour Required know-how
agents and technical staff (rotations / crop sequence, planting dates, weed con-
trol / use of herbicides). High High
Labour requirements: significantly reduced (by 10% to more than 50%) com- Medium Medium
pared to conventional tillage (reduced hired labour costs, family labour ➜ more Low Low
time available for other activities).

78 SLM in Practice

2_Conservation_Agriculture.indd 78 21.07.11 12:08

 Economics Example: Ghana
A study conducted on the impact of no-till in
Establishment and maintenance costs Ghana has shown a significant reduction of
Establishment costs: CA requires substantial initial investment. Initial costs are labour. No-till reduced labour requirements for
mainly related to the acquisition of new machinery and tools. The range of the land preparation and planting by 22%. Labour
costs can be very wide – from nothing (in case of the hand-based planting pit for weed control fell by 51%, from an aver-
method) to high (in case of specific no-till seeders); input levels depend on the age of 8.8 person days/ha to 4.3 person days/
production intensity and can be low to high, but decrease over time. ha. There was, however, a slight increase in
Maintenance costs: On small-scale farms the labour requirements for mainte- labour for harvest from 7.6 person days/ha to
nance are usually higher at the beginning due to the burden of weeding. Com- 8.6 person days/ha. This was largely a conse-
pared to conventional practices, the overall workload significantly decreases - by quence of higher yields obtained. Ninety-nine
up to 50%. Agricultural input requirements are mainly cover crop seeds and percent of no-till users reported that it was
(where appropriate) herbicides for controlling weeds. On large-scale farms the less physically demanding than the traditional
maintenance costs of the machines and tractor(s) significantly decrease by elimi- technology and that labour requirements at
nating farming operations like ploughing, harrowing and by reducing weeding. critical moments were reduced, thus simplify-
ing labour management (Ekboir et al., 2002).
30-1400 US$/ha
0-300 US$/ha

0-100 US$/ha
0-350 US$/ha

0-100 US$/ha
0-320 US$/ha

Example: Tanzania
Likamba, Tanzania suffered from a severe
drought in 2004. Even though adequate soil
high cover was not attained, farmers who had
mod. ripped their land and planted lablab with
maize were able to harvest at least 2-3 bags
low (90 kg) of maize per hectare, while conven-
o tional farmers harvested nothing, or less
Labour Equipment Agric. Inputs than half a bag, per hectare. This experi-
ence showed conservation agriculture was
Small-scale CA
able to ensure an adequate harvest even
Large-scale CA
under drought conditions (FAO, 2007).
(Source: WOCAT, 2009)
Example: Tanzania and Kenya
Production benefits The CA project under Sustainable Agriculture
Yield without SLM Yield with SLM Yield gain (%) and Rural Development (SARD) introduced
(t/ha) (t/ha) the concept of conservation agriculture in rural
Ghana: 0.75-1.8 2.7-3.0 areas of northern Tanzania and in western and
Maize (Slash-and-burn) (Minimum tillage, 150-400% central regions of Kenya. Through participa-
direct planting) tory assessments it was found that the net
Kenya: financial benefits could be higher under CA
Wheat 1.3-1.8 3.3-3.6 100-150% than under conventional tillage, mainly due
Maize 1.3-2.2 3.3-4.5 100-150% to reduced workload / time, smaller amount
Tanzania: and cost of fertilizer required to maintain
Maize 1.13-1.5 2.25-2.9 93-100% yields, and reduced energy fuel costs for till-
Sunflower 0.63-0.75 1.5-2.7 140-360% age and spraying operations (FAO, 2008).
(Source: Kaumbutho and Kienzle, 2007; Boahen et al., 2007; Shetto and Owenya, 2007)
Comment: Yield increase can vary widely – mostly an initial yield increase of 10-20%
is observed if all other conditions remain the same; if CA introduction comes with
ripping / sub-soiling and fertilizer use, a 100% increase can eventually be observed.
Only after 4-5 years of continued application of CA can a significant increase in
crop yield be recorded. The ecosystem requires a number of years to adjust.

Benefit-Cost ratio
short term long term quantitative

Minimum tillage +(+) +++ Labour returns (Ghana):

and direct planting 9.2 US$/ work hour
(under conventional tillage: 5.4 US$/ work hour)

Conservation +(+) +++ Profit range (Kenya):

agriculture 432-528 US$/ ha (for wheat)
(under conventional tillage: 158-264 US$/ ha)

– – negative; – slightly negative; –/+ neutral; + slightly positive; ++ positive; +++ very positive
(Source: WOCAT, 2009; Kaumbutho and Kienzle, 2007; Boahen et al., 2007).
Comment: The short term benefit-cost ratio is mainly affected by the initial cost
of purchasing new machinery and tools.

SLM Group: Conservation Agriculture 79

2_Conservation_Agriculture.indd 79 20.01.11 14:32

 C o n s e r v at i o n A g r i c u lt u r e
Impacts
Benefits Land users / community level Watershed / landscape level National / global level
Production +++ increased yield stability (mainly rainfed areas and in dry ++ reduced damage to +++ improved food and water
years) neighbouring fields ­security
++ increased crop yields ++ reduced risk and loss of
+ production diversification production
+ access to clean drinking water

Economic +++ increased farm income / profitability (mainly long term) ++ economic growth stimulation +++ improved livelihood and
+(+) savings in labour / time (small-scale: only over the ++ diversification and rural ­well-being
long term) employment creation (e.g.
+(+) lower farm inputs (fuel, machinery cost and repairs, small manufacturing units)
fertilizer) ++ less damage to off-site
infrastructure

Ecological +++ improved soil cover ++ reduced degradation and ++ reduced desertification
+++ improved water availability / soil moisture sedimentation in rivers, dams incidence and intensity
+++ improved soil structure (long term) and irrigation systems ++ increased resilience to climate
++ improved micro-climate / reduced evaporation ++ improved recharge of aquifers, change
++ reduced soil erosion (by water / wind) more regular water flow in ++ increased C sequestration
++ reduced surface runoff rivers / streams + reduced C emissions
++ increased organic matter / soil fertility + enhanced water availability + enhanced biodiversity
++ enhanced biodiversity / biotic activity (long term) + enhanced water quality
+ intact ecosystem

Socio-cultural ++ improved SLM / conservation / erosion knowledge + increased awareness for + protecting national heritage
+ changing the traditional gender roles of men and women ­environmental ‘health’
+/- changed cultural and traditional norms (e.g. no more + attractive landscape
burning of crop residues)

Constraints How to overcome

Production l L ow biomass production (for cover) in low precipitation areas and ➜ ’African adapted’ CA: reduce the mulch requirement, focus on no-
short growing seasons tillage methods (including traditional low-till systems such as zaï
planting pits), promote efficient use of organic fertilizers, better
water management, e.g. planting basins
l S carcity of particular plant nutrients in humid areas due to high and ➜ relieve deficiency by use of inorganic / organic (higher biological
fast decomposition rate (especially P) activity) fertilization

Economic l 
Needs initial capital investment for adapted machinery and small ➜ introduce and allow access (availability and costs) to appropriate
scale equipment conservation equipment (tested and adapted); ability to hire or
share equipment and services
l 
External input constraints: fertilizers, cover crop seeds, herbi cides, ➜ in some countries small clusters for production and distribution
etc. (availability, access and costs) of CA equipment already exists ➜ need further support and
l Availability and access to equipment on local markets investment
l Low capacity of local manufacturers of hand / animal-driven CA
equipment
l Labour constraints for hand weeding (availability and costs in first ➜ c hange weeding practice to ‘shallow weeding’ or chopping
years) and the positive long term benefits of adoption CA needs to be
recognised
Ecological l  ompetition between soil cover and livestock feed (how to integrate
C ➜ s tall-feeding, unpalatable cover crops, link CA with intensive live-
livestock and mixed cropping smallholdings) stock production
l Weed control in the early years of adoption ➜ flatten cover crop using e.g. knife roller, machete or grass-whip or
spray with a herbicide
➜ shallow manual weed control, use of herbicides, keep soils covered
by mulch to suppress weeds
l  rop residues on the surface may favour disease and pests (micro-
C ➜ adapt and improve crop rotations, pest management
climate)
l Compacted soils require prior sub-soiling
Socio-cultural l  ncertain land use rights
U ➜ secure access to land
l Lack of laws and regulations for communal grazing ➜ enclosures, controlled grazing and residue-friendly management;
l Lack of supporting policies and implementing institutions communal by-laws on grazing
l Poorly developed infrastructure / restricted access to markets,
l Requires information, locally specific knowledge, technical skills and ➜w
 ell informed advisory service is necessary to provide training and
innovation to find the most suitable system share knowledge; the technology is flexible and allows multiple
l Difficult to introduce crop rotations on small portions of land (half options
a hectare or less)
l ‘Project’ approach to piloting CA (short time frames, availability of
support, limited lead-time for institutionalising CA into existing insti-
tutions and policies

80 SLM in Practice

2_Conservation_Agriculture.indd 80 20.01.11 14:32

 Adoption and upscaling Enabling environment: key factors for adoption

Inputs, material incentives, credits ++

Adoption rate
Despite good quality and lengthy research only slow adoption of CA in SSA, Training and education ++
but with an increasing trend in recent years (in South Africa, from 0% in 1988 to Land tenure, secure land use rights ++
about 2% in 2007 of which the large majority in commercial lands). Farmers often
Access to markets ++
adopt only certain components of CA (i.e. ‘African-style CA’).
Research ++
Upscaling
Secure land use rights are a prerequisite for small-scale land users to invest Example: FAO’s Emergency Programmes,
in CA. Swaziland
Immediate benefits must be seen by the land users to take the investment risk. The FAO’s Emergency Programme in Swazi-
Training and capacity building: Good technical support to all stakeholders land has trained about 800 land users, plus
is needed. Training should include practical training, introduction of appropriate advisory and other staff over six years. There
equipment and its maintenance, education on animal health and care. is now a demand for farmers in Shewala
Successful and innovative participatory learning approaches are needed for expansion of CA as they recognize it as
such as Farmer Field Schools and the formation of common interest groups for ‘the most sustainable way to produce food’.
strengthening knowledge about CA principles. Important requirements for successful imple-
Farm inputs for CA such as adequate machinery, tools and herbicides need to mentation in Swaziland are among others:
be available and accessible to small-scale farmers for adoption of the system. a) an agreed plan to implement CA involv-
Effective market systems and supply chains must be developed for producing ing all stakeholders i.e. land users, exten-
CA equipment and other inputs for smallholders. sion staff, etc., b) field research comparing
Disseminate knowledge: Agricultural machinery producers and agricultural, CA to conventional tillage, c) policy sup-
as well as political, advisors are heavily involved in developing and disseminat- port, d) sustained and practical training for
ing knowledge, advising farmers, providing relevant services or shaping local or extension and research staff and for land
national policies. users, e) common understanding with live-
stock owners, f) supply of quality seeds, g)
Incentives for adoption supply of CA tools and equipment, and h)
Very often external support for small-scale farmers is needed in the form of credit / need for good farm management including
loans mainly for purchase of equipment, food-for-work (in emergencies), direct timely planting, weeding, etc. (FAO, 2008).
payments by project or government e.g. for inputs (agricultural seeds, fertilizers,
etc.).

References and supporting information:

Baudeon F., H.M. Mwanza, B. Triomphe, M. Bwalya. 2007. Conservation agriculture in Zambia: a case study of Southern Province. Nairobi. African Conservation Tillage Network,
Centre de Coopération Internationale de Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Baudron F., H.M. Mwanza, B. Triomphe, M. Bwalya and D. Gumbo. 2006. Challenges for the adoption of Conservation Agriculture by smallholders in semi-arid Zambia. Online:
www.relma.org.
Boahen P, B.A. Dartey, G.D. Dogbe, E. A. Boadi, B. Triomphe, S. Daamgard-Larsen, J. Ashburner. 2007. Conservation agriculture as practised in Ghana. Nairobi. African Con-
servation Tillage Network, Centre de Coopération Internationale de Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Bwalya, M. and M. Owenya. 2005. Soil and water Conservation to Conservation Agriculture Practices: experiences and lessons from the efforts Eotulelo Farmer Field School – a
community based organisation. (http://www.sustainet.org/download/sustainet_publication_eafrica_part2.pdf).
Derpsch, R. 2008. No-Tillage and Conservation Agriculture: A Progress Report. In: No-Till Farming systems. 2008. Edited by Tom Goddard, Michael A. Zoebisch, Yantai Gan, Wyn
Ellis, Alex Watson and Samran Sombatpanit, WASWC, 544 pp.
Ekboir, J., K. Boa and A.A. Dankyi. 2002. Impacts of No-Till Technologies in Ghana. Mexico D.F. CIMMYT.
FAO Aquastat. http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/data/query/results.html
FAO, 2002. Conservation Agriculture: Case studies in Latin America and Africa. Soils Bulletin 78.
FAO, 2005. Conservation Agriculture in Africa, A. Calegari, J. Ashburner, R. Fowler, Accra, Ghana
FAO. 2008. Investing in Sustainable Agricultural Intensification, the role of Conservation Agriculture. Part III – a framework for action. An international technical workshop investing in
sustainable crop intensification: The case for improving soil health, FAO, Rome: 22-24 July 2008. Integrated Crop Management Vol. 6-2008.
Giller, K.E., E. Witter, M. Corbeels and P.Tittonell. 2009. Conservation agriculture and smallholder farming in Africa: The heretic’s view. Field Crops Research.
GTZ Sustainet. 2006. Sustainable agriculture: A pathway out of poverty for East Africa’s rural poor. Examples from Kenya and Tanzania. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische
Zusammenarbeit, Eschborn.
Haggblade S., G. Tembo, and C. Donovan. 2004. Household Level Financial Incentives to Adoption of Conservation Agricultural Technologies in Africa. Working paper no. 9. Food
security research project. Lusaka, zambia
Kaumbutho P. and J. Kienzle, eds. 2007. Conservation agriculture as practised in Kenya: two case studies. Nairobi. African Conservation Tillage Network, Centre de Coopération
Internationale de Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Kaumbutho P., J. Kienzle, eds. 2007. Conservation agriculture as practised in Kenya: two case studies. Nairobi. African Conservation Tillage Network, Centre de Coopération Inter-
nationale de Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Mrabet, R. 2002. Stratification of soil aggregation and organic matter under conservation tillage systems in Africa, Soil & Tillage Research 66 (2002) 119–128
Nyende, P., A. Nyakuni, J.P. Opio, W. Odogola. 2007. Conservation agriculture: a Uganda case study. Nairobi. African Conservation Tillage Network, Centre de coopération Inter-
nationale de Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
RELMA. 2007.Wetting Africa’s appetite. Conservation agriculture is turning rainfall into higher crop yields and catching on. RELMA Review Series No. 3. ICRAF, Nairobi.
Rockström, J., P. Kaumbutho, J. Mwalley, A. W. Nzabi, M. Temesgen, L. Mawenya, J. Barron, J. Mutua and S Damgaard-Larsen. 2009. Conservation Farming Strategies in East
and Southern Africa: Yields and Rainwater Productivity from On-farm Action Research. Soil & Tillage Research 103 (2009) 23–32.
Shetto R., M. Owenya, eds. 2007. Conservation agriculture as practised in Tanzania: three case studies. Nairobi. African Conservation Tillage Network, Centre de Coopération
Internationale de Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
West T.O. and W.M. Post. 2002. Soil organic carbon sequestration rates by tillage and crop rotation. A global data analysis. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 66. Available
from: http://soil.scijournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/66/6/1930?etoc
WOCAT, 2009. WOCAT databases on SLM technologies and SLM approaches. www.wocat.net, accessed on 15 September 2009
Woodfine, A. 2009. Using sustainable land management practices to adapt to and mitigate climate change in Sub-Saharan Africa: resource guide version 1.0. TerrAfrica. www.
terrafrica.org

SLM Group: Conservation Agriculture 81

2_Conservation_Agriculture.indd 81 20.01.11 14:32

 Case study
Conservation Agriculture

Sm a l l - s c a l e c o n s e r v a t i o n t i l l a g e - K e n y a
Small-scale conservation tillage involves the use of ox-drawn ploughs, modified SLM measure Agronomic
to rip the soil. An adaptation to the ordinary plough beam makes adjustment SLM group Conservation Agriculture
to different depths possible and turns it into a ripper. Ripping is performed in
Land use type Annual cropping
one pass, to a depth of 10 cm, after harvest. Deep ripping (subsoiling) with the
same implement is done, when necessary, to break a plough pan and reaches Degradation Water degradation: soil moisture
addressed problem; Soil compaction; Loss of
depths of up to 30 cm.
topsoil through water erosion
Ripping increases water infiltration and reduces runoff. In contrast to conven-
tional tillage, the soil is not inverted, thus leaving crop residues on the sur- Stage of intervention Mitigation
face. As a result, the soil is less exposed and not so vulnerable to the impact Tolerance to climate Increased tolerance to climatic
of splash and sheet erosion, and water loss through evaporation and runoff. change extremes due to water conserva-
In well-ripped fields, rainfall from storms at the onset of the growing season tion effect.
is stored within the rooting zone, and is therefore available to the crop dur-
Establishment activities
ing subsequent drought spells. Ripping the soil during the dry season com-
Note: Conservation tillage is based on agro-
bined with a mulch cover reduces germination of weeds, leaving fields ready
nomic measures which are carried out repeat-
for planting. In case of stubborn weeds, pre-emergence herbicides are used
edly each cropping season. All activities are
for control.
listed under maintenance / recurrent activities
Yields from small-scale conservation tillage can be more than 60% higher than
(below). There is no establishment phase (as
under conventional ploughing. In addition, there are savings in terms of energy
defined by WOCAT).
used for cultivation. Crops mature sooner under conservation tillage, because
they can be planted earlier (under inversion tillage the soil first has to become Maintenance activities
moist before ploughing is done). 1. Spreading of crop residue as mulch: up to
Earlier crop maturity means access to markets when prices are still high. There 3 t/ha (before planting, dry season).
are various supportive technologies in use which can improve the effective- 2. Application of compost / household waste:
ness of the ripping, including (1) application of compost / manure to improve up to 4 t/ha.
soil structure for better water storage; (2) cover crops (e.g. Mucuna pru- 3. Ripping of soil with modified plough (dry
riens) planted at the end of the season to prevent erosion, control weeds and season) to a depth of 10 cm, spacing
improve soil quality; and (3) Agroforestry (mainly Grevillea robusta planted on between rip lines is 20-30 cm.
the field or along field boundaries). 4. Subsoiling: every 3 years; or as required to
break a plough pan.
5. Seeding and application of mineral fertilizer
(nitrogen, phos­phorus) at the rate of 20 kg/
ha, close to seed.
6. Legume interplanting (Dolichos lablab) into
the cereal crop (supplementary measure):
Dolichos needs replanting every 3 years.
All activities are carried out using animal trac-
tion, mulching done manually. Equipment /
tools: pair of oxen, modified ‘Victory’ plough
beam, plough unit, ripper / chisel (tindo) used
for ripping / deep ripping.

Labour requirements
For establishment: medium (initially high for
weeding, decreasing with years)
For maintenance: low (compared to conven-
tional tillage)
Knowledge requirements
For advisors: moderate
For land users: moderate

Photo 1: Demonstration of conservation tillage through shal-

low ripping of soil using draught animals. (Hanspeter Liniger)
Photo 2 and 3: ‘Victory’ ploughs modified into ripper by
replacing the plough blade by a metal tine to provide extra
penetration. (Hanspeter Liniger and Frederick Kihara)

82 SLM in Practice

2_Conservation_Agriculture.indd 82 20.01.11 14:32

 Case study area: Umande, Laikipia Ecological conditions
District, Kenya ·· C limate: semi-arid (lower highland zone IV)
·· Average annual rainfall: 500 – 750 mm
·· Soil parameters: moderately deep, loamy soils; organic matter and soil fertil-
Lodwar ity: mostly medium, partly low (<1%); medium drainage / infiltration
·· Slope: mostly moderate (5-8%), partly rolling (8-16%)
·· Landform: plains / plateaus; high altitude and rolling terrain
·· Altitude: mostly 1,500 – 2,000, partly 2,000 – 2,500 m a.s.l.
·· Most of the soil and water loss occurs during a few heavy storms at the
Eldoret Case study area beginning of each growing season.
Kisumu Meru
Socio-economic conditions
Nakuru
·· S ize of land per household: mainly <1 ha, partly 1-2 ha
·· Type of land users: small-scale, groups; mostly average level of wealth,
Nairobi
partly poor land users
Lamu ·· Population density: 100-200 persons/km2
·· Land ownership: individual titled
Mombasa ·· Land use rights: mostly individual, partly leased
·· Market orientation: mostly subsistence, partly mixed (subsistence / commercial)
·· Level of mechanisation: animal traction
Establishment inputs and costs per ha ·· More than 90% of families have less than two hectares of land, and few have
Inputs Costs (US$) alternative sources of income.
Labour 0
Production / economic benefits
Equipment 0 +++ Increased crop yield (>60%)
Agricultural inputs 0 ++ Increased fodder production and increased quality
TOTAL 0
++ Increased farm income
++ Earlier crop maturity
No establishment costs. ++ Time saving

Maintenance inputs and costs per ha per year Ecological benefits

+++ Increased soil moisture; better rainwater harvesting
Inputs Costs (US$)
++ Reduced soil loss
Labour: 3-5 person-days 25 ++ Reduced evaporation
Equipment 0 + Improved soil cover
+ Reduced energy consumption
Agricultural inputs: seeds (50 kg), fertilizer 68
(20 kg), compost / manure (4,000 kg) Socio-cultural benefits
TOTAL 93 ++ Community institution strengthening
% of costs borne by land users 100%
++ Improved conservation / erosion knowledge
Off-site benefits
Remarks: Cost calculated charges for hiring
++ Reduced downstream siltation
equipment, draught animals and operator: these
+ Improved streamflow characteristics
are all rolled up into the ‘cost of labour’ at US$
+ Reduced downstream flooding
25/ha. Conventional tillage costs US$ 37.5/ha
+ Reduced river pollution (chemical contamination)
compared with US$ 25/ha for conser­vation till-
age operations: other costs remain more or less
Weaknesses ➜ and how to overcome
the same.
·· Male-oriented activity (heavy equipment / animals) compared to using the hoe
➜ training of women.
Benefit-cost ratio
·· Waterlogging ➜ contingency plans needed for draining excess water in very
Inputs short term long term wet years (only in 1 in 10).
Establishment na na ·· No clear advantage in extreme climatic conditions ➜ make farmers aware
Maintenance positive very positive about this so they do not become discouraged.
·· More prone to weeds; may require annual use of pre-emergence herbicides
Remarks: Initial investments can be high (pur- ➜ mulch application reduces negative effects of weeds.
chasing of new equipment). Costs decrease in ·· Conflict between using residues as mulch and as livestock fodder ➜ greater
the long term and benefits increase. yields mean more income can be generated to buy fodder, and more bio-
mass / mulch material.
Adoption ·· High equipment and animal maintenance costs ➜ possible loan scheme
200 families accepted the technology without (micro-finance option); farmer self-help groups to share costs.
incentives. The area covered by the technology is
4 km2. There is a growing trend for spontaneous
adoption.

Main contributors: Frederick Kihara, Nanyuki, Kenya; [email protected]

Key references: WOCAT. 2004. WOCAT database on SLM technologies, www.wocat.net. n Kihara F. 1999. An investigation into the soil loss problem in the Upper Ewaso Ng’iro basin,
Kenya. MSc. Thesis. University of Nairobi, Kenya n Mutunga C.N. 1995. The influence of vegetation cover on runoff and soil loss – a study in Mukogodo, Laikipia district Kenya. MSc
Thesis, University of Nairobi, Kenya n Ngigi S.N. 2003. Rainwater Harvesting for improved land productivity in the Greater Horn of Africa. Kenya Rainwater Association, Nairobi n Liniger
HP. and D.B. Thomas. 1998. GRASS – Ground Cover for Restoration of Arid and Semi-arid Soils. Advances in GeoEcology 31, 1167–1178. Catena Verlag, Reiskirchen.

SLM Technology: Small-Scale Conservation Tillage - Kenya 83

2_Conservation_Agriculture.indd 83 20.01.11 14:32

 Case study
Conservation Agriculture

M i n i m u m T i l l a g e a n d D i r e c t P l a n t i n g - Gh a n a
The traditional slash-and-burn land use system in the case study area – involv- SLM measure Agronomic
ing clearing natural vegetation followed by 2-5 years of cropping – has become SLM group Conservation Agriculture
unsustainable as land pressure has greatly increased, shortening fallow peri-
Land use type Annual cropping (cereals)
ods. Under the SLM practice of ‘minimum tillage and direct planting’, land is
prepared by slashing the existing vegetation and allowing regrowth up to 30 Degradation Fertility decline and reduced organic
addressed matter content; Loss of topsoil by
cm height. A glyphosate-based herbicide is sprayed with a knapsack fitted
water; Reduction of vegetation
with a low-volume nozzle. The residue is left on the soil surface without burn- cover: detrimental effects of fires;
ing. After 7–10 days, direct planting is carried out in rows through the mulch. Biomass decline
Maize is the main crop planted under this system. Planting is practiced manu- Stage of intervention Prevention and mitigation
ally using a planting stick.
Tolerance to climate The technology is tolerant to
The mulch layer has several important functions: it helps to increase and main-
change climatic extremes, contrary to the
tain water stored in the soil, reduces soil erosion, contributes to improve soil traditional slash-and-burn practice.
fertility (after crop residues have decomposed in subsequent seasons) and it
efficiently controls weeds by hindering their growth and preventing weeds from Establishment activities
producing seeds. Note: Minimum tillage and direct planting are
The use of herbicides requires adequate knowledge. An even better option is agronomic measures which are carried out
to introduce multipurpose cover crops to control weed populations, improve repeatedly each cropping season. All activities
soil fertility, and enhance yields while diversifying crop production and thus are listed under maintenance / recurrent activi-
reducing dependence on the use of herbicides. ties (below). There is no establishment phase
Labour inputs for land preparation and weeding is considerably decreased (as defined by WOCAT).
under conservation agriculture. Women benefit most from the workload reduc-
tion since these time-consuming activities are their task. For men, the new Maintenance activities
technology usually means heavier work, especially during the 1st year, since 1. Initial land clearing: slash existing vegeta-
they have to plant through the mulch. Using a jab planter makes the work tion and allow regrowth (up to 30 cm);
easier. before onset of rainy season.
2. Spraying of pre-emergence herbicide;
300 ml (2 sachets) for every 15 litres water
for annual weeds; 450 ml (3 sachets) for
every 15 litres water for perennial weeds.
3. Leave residues on the soil surface without
burning.
4. Planting through the mulch.
5. Spraying post-emergence herbicide; after
regrowth of weeds (7-10 days after planting).
6. Harvesting.
All activities are carried out manually (each
cropping season) using jab planter (or a plant-
ing stick) and knapsack sprayers.

Labour requirements
For establishment: na
For maintenance: low
Knowledge requirements
For advisors: moderate
For land users: moderate

Photo 1: Cover crop field sprayed with herbicides and left as

mulch on the field to improve soil moisture and reduce soil
erosion. (FAO)
Photo 2: Young maize plants are growing through a dense
mulch layer. (WOCAT database)
Photo 3: Residue management on a field with mature maize
plants. (Souroudjaye Adjimon)

84 SLM in Practice

2_Conservation_Agriculture.indd 84 20.01.11 14:32

 Case study area: Sunyani and Atwima Ecological conditions
district; Brong Ahafo region; Ghana ·· Climate:
 subhumid
·· Average annual rainfall: 1,400-1,850 mm (bimodal)
·· Soil parameters: partly well drained with high organic matter content (forest
area); partly poorly drained with low organic matter content (savanna belt)
·· Slope: no data
Tamale ·· Landform: mainly plains, partly hill slopes
·· Altitude: 220-380 m a.s.l.
Socio-economic conditions
··  ize of land per household: 1-2 ha, partly 2-5 ha
S
·· Type of land user: small-scale; poor
Case study area ·· Population density: 100-200 persons/km2
Kumasi ·· Land ownership: communal / family land tenure; some individual (titled)
Obuasi ·· Land use rights: individual; partly leased
·· Level of mechanisation: manual labour
·· Market orientation: mainly subsistence; partly mixed (subsistence and commercial)
Accra
Production / economic benefits
+++ Increased crop yield (200-300%; from 0.75-1 t/ha to 3 t/ha)
Note: The technology ‘minimum tillage and direct +++ Increased farm income (150%; from US$ 50 to US$ 123 net return)
planting’ is compared with the traditional slash- +++ Decreased workload (-42%; from 83 to 48 working days): less time
and-burn land use system. needed for weeding and land preparation
+ Decreased labour constraints: critical labour shortage at weeding time is
Slash and burn (traditional): avoided
Maintenance inputs and costs per ha
+ Early planting (benefit from early rains; due to minimal land preparation)
Inputs Costs (US$)
Ecological benefits
Labour: 83 person-days 142
+++ Improved soil cover
Equipment 13 + Reduced soil loss
Agricultural inputs 65 + Improved harvesting / collection of surface runoff
+ Increased soil moisture
Construction material 0
TOTAL 220 Socio-cultural benefits
++ Improved situation of socially and economically disadvantaged groups:
Minimum tillage and direct planting: women / children benefit most from workload reduction
Maintenance inputs and costs per ha per year
Weaknesses ➜ and how to overcome
Inputs Costs (US$)
·· K nowledge / experience is needed for adequate application of herbicides and
Labour: 48 person-days 83 handling of jab planters ➜ training / advisory service.
Equipment 18 ·· Increased expenses and dependence on herbicides ➜ introduce multipur-
Agricultural inputs 111 pose cover crops to control weed populations, improve soil fertility, and
enhance yields while diversifying crop production.
Construction material 0
·· Availability of / access to herbicides and equipment is limited; some dealers
TOTAL 212 sell adulterated or fake products that are harmful to the environment ➜ hire
Remarks: Input costs include Jab planter US$ 20; spraying gangs; provide training; set up ‘rent-a-knapsack’.
herbicides US$ 5-6/liter. A knapsack costs US$ 50, ·· Increased labour constraints in the first year; need for a long term investment
which is not affordable for small-scale farmers (they ➜ good rates of return are achieved in the 2nd year of continuous use of the
have to get organised in groups, or hire spraying technology; long term user rights are crucial.
gangs). Comparing to the traditional slash-and- ·· High amounts of soil cover impede germination of the main crop, thereby
burn system, ‘minimum tillage and direct planting’ affecting productivity ➜ partial burning appears necessary in such cases to
has increased input costs but reduced labour reduce the quantity of mulch on the field.
costs, and results in higher yields, which makes the ·· Fields that had been ploughed for years recorded slightly lower yield with min-
conversion profitable! imal tillage and herbicide application, probably due to ploughing pan forma-
tion (hindering root penetration) ➜ ripping.
Benefit-cost ratio
Adoption
Inputs short term long term
21 communities with 193 farmers (125 male, 68 female) apply the technology in
Establishment na na the case study area (totally 2,845 km2). Around 88% accepted the technology
Maintenance neutral positive receiving incentives. There is little trend towards spontaneous adoption (through
cross farmer visits); 30% of farmers ceased conservation farming practices after
Remarks: Initial investments can be high (pur- termination of projects input.
chasing of new equipment). Costs decrease in the
long term and benefits increase.

Main contributors: Souroudjaye Adjimon, Volta Environmental Conservation Organization, Ghana; [email protected]
Key references: Boahen P, B.A. Dartey, G.D. Dogbe, E. A. Boadi, B. Triomphe, S. Daamgard-Larsen, J. Ashburner. 2007. Conservation agriculture as practised in Ghana. Nairobi.
African Conservation Tillage Network, Centre de Coopération Internationale de Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement,FAO. Rome, Italy.

SLM Technology: Minimum Tillage and Direct Planting - Ghana 85

2_Conservation_Agriculture.indd 85 20.01.11 14:32

 Case study
Conservation Agriculture

Conservation tillage for large-scale cereal production - Kenya

Conservation tillage (or ‘No-Till’) on large-scale commercial cereal farms is SLM measure Agronomic
based on tractor-drawn equipment which allows furrow opening and planting SLM group Conservation Agriculture
in one pass. This technology minimizes soil disturbance, avoids formation of
Land use type Annual cropping
hard pans and considerably reduces machine hours used for crop production:
time is saved as well as fossil fuels – and field operations are thus cheaper Degradation Soil erosion by water: loss of top-
addressed soil; Fertility decline and reduced
than under conventional farming. Crops can be planted early to make the best
organic matter content; Compaction
use of rainfall. During harvesting, the crop residues are chopped and left as
mulch on the field (3 tonnes of crop residues per hectare give around 70-100% Stage of intervention Prevention and mitigation
cover), to improve soil organic matter and protect the soil against erosion and Tolerance to climate More tolerant to prolonged dry
evaporation. change spells and heavy rainfall events
Thanks to enhanced water conservation and infiltration, wheat and barley can
be produced without irrigation and the risk of crop failure is reduced. Weeds Establishment activities
are controlled with a broad spectrum herbicide (glyphosate) application 1. Purchasing no-till machinery.
(2 liters/ha) two months after harvesting and shortly before planting. The com- Note: Conservation tillage is based on agro-
pany minimizes usage of pesticides. nomic measures which are carried out repeat-
Conservation agriculture also includes contour planting (25 cm rows). Crop edly each cropping season. All activities are
rotation is 3-4 years of wheat or barley followed by a season of legumes listed under maintenance / recurrent activities
(for example peas) or canola (oilseed rape). If, after several years, the yields (below). There is no establishment phase (as
decrease due to compaction in the subsoil, crops with a strong tap root are defined by WOCAT).
planted (e.g. rape or sunflower) to break the hard pan - rather than using a
ripper. Maintenance / recurrent activities
As a supplementary technology tree rows (e.g. pines, cypress, or eucalyptus) 1. Harvesting and chopping of crop residues
are planted as shelterbelts and for wood production along boundaries, in val- (end of growing season).
leys or on steep slopes. 2. Herbicide application: glyphosate 4 liters/ha
(2 months after harvesting and before
planting).
3. Early planting, along contour (just before
rains).
4. Furrow opening and planting in one pass,
using direct seeder (beginning of rainy sea-
son).
5. In-crop spraying during growing season
(once or more).

Labour requirements
For establishment: na
For maintenance: medium
Knowledge requirements
For land user: medium to high
For advisors: na

Photo 1: No-till wheat crop after harvesting showing crop

residue on surface.
Photo 2: No-till machinery used in large scale cereal farming.
Photo 3: Discs used to cut crop residue before planting.
(All photos by Ceris Jones)

86 SLM in Practice

2_Conservation_Agriculture.indd 86 20.01.11 14:32

 Case study area: Kisima Farm, Meru Ecological conditions
Central, Kenya ·· Climate:
 subhumid to semi-arid
·· Average annual rainfall: 500-750 mm; two rainy seasons; rains are inade-
quate and / or poorly distributed
Lodwar ·· Soil parameters: good drainage; soil organic matter is mostly medium and
partly low
·· Slope: moderate to rolling (5% - max. 16%)
·· Landform: mainly footslopes, partly hillslopes
·· Altitude: 2,000 – 2,900 m a.s.l.
Eldoret Case study area
Kisumu Meru Socio-economic conditions
·· S ize of land per household: 2,600 ha
Nakuru ·· Type of land users: rich large-scale farmers, with employees, fully mecha-
nised
Nairobi
·· Population density: < 10 persons/km2
Lamu ·· Land ownership: company (Ltd)
·· Land use rights: leased
Mombasa ·· Market orientation: commercial
·· Level of mechanisation: highly mechanised

Establishment inputs and costs per farm Production / economic benefits

Machinery for no-till includes: Tractor (110,000 +++ Increased crop yield (from 1 t/ha to 4 t/ha; after 20 years of CA)
US$), combined harvester (160,000 US$), +++ Increased farm income
sprayer (160,000 US$), direct seeder (110,000 +++ Increased product diversification (wheat, barley, legumes, oil seeds)
US$). Life span is 10-15 years. For conversion +++ Increased forest products
from conventional to conservation agriculture
Ecological benefits
usually only a direct seeder is needed as new
+++ Increased soil moisture
equipment. Total equipment costs are less than
+++ Reduced hazard towards adverse events (drought, floods, storms, etc.)
half of the conventional tillage.
+++ Increased biomass / above ground carbon
Maintenance inputs and costs per ha per year +++ Increased soil organic matter / below ground carbon
+++ Increased beneficial species (predators, earthworms, pollinators, e.g. lady
Inputs Costs (US$)
birds)
Labour 10 +++ Reduced surface runoff (from 20% to almost 0%)
Equipment: 4 machine hours / ha 70 +++ Reduced soil loss (from around 15 to almost 0 t/ha/yr; only wind erosion
during planting)
Agricultural inputs: biocides 25
TOTAL 105 Off-site benefits
+++ Reduced downstream siltation (the heavy rains in 2003 did not cause
% of costs borne by land user 100% erosion)
Remarks: Main factors affecting the costs are + Groundwater recharge during exceptional high rainfall seasons
machinery, spraying and labour. It takes more
than 3 years to fully establish the conservation Weaknesses ➜ and how to overcome
tillage system. During the conversion phase ·· H igh costs if new equipment is needed (particularly established brands) but
yields might be lower, and costs are approx. less than half of the costs for conventional tillage equipment! ➜ encourage
25% less. local production and regulation of prices or subsidising input purchase.
·· Poor market for equipment ➜ establish a market association.
Benefit-cost ratio ·· During wet years more herbicides are needed, especially before planting (sev-
eral sprayings) ➜ spray use is slightly more than conventional tillage. If after
Inputs short term long term
the harvest there are no more rains during the dry season, there is no applica-
Establishment slightly positive positive tion of herbicides needed and direct planting can be done.
Maintenance positive very positive ·· Takes more than three years to fully establish ➜ needs continuous adaptation.

Remarks: Positive pay-backs against establish- Adoption

ment costs depend on the point in time of the There is a strong trend towards spontaneous adoption. Neighbouring farmers
conversion. If replacement of equipment is are picking up the technology.
required anyway, conversion to conservation
tillage is a profitable option, since total equip-
ment costs are lower than those for conven-
tional agriculture.

Main contributors: Martin Kisima, Farmer, Meru, Kenya; [email protected] n Kithinji Mutunga, FAO, Nairobi, Kenya; [email protected]
Key references: WOCAT. 2009. WOCAT database on SLM Technologies; www.wocat.net.

SLM Technology: Conservation Tillage for Large-Scale Cereal Production - Kenya 87

2_Conservation_Agriculture.indd 87 20.01.11 14:32

 R a i n wat e r H a r v e s t i n g

Small dam harvesting water for animals and smallholder irrigation, Kenya. (Hanspeter Liniger)

In a nutshell Development issues addressed

Preventing / reversing land degradation ++
Definition: Rainwater Harvesting (RWH) refers to all technologies where rainwater
Maintaining and improving food security ++
is collected to make it available for agricultural production or domestic purposes.
RWH aims to minimise effects of seasonal variations in water availability due to Reducing rural poverty +
droughts and dry periods and to enhance the reliability of agricultural production. Creating rural employment +
A RWH system usually consists of three components: (1) a catchment / collection
Supporting gender equity / marginalised groups +
area which produces runoff because the surface is impermeable or infiltration is
low; (2) a conveyance system through which the runoff is directed e.g. by bunds, Improving crop production +++
ditches, channels (though not always necessary); (3) a storage system (target Improving fodder production ++
area) where water is accumulated or held for use - in the soil, in pits, ponds, Improving wood / fibre production ++
tanks or dams. When water is stored in the soil - and used for plant produc-
Improving non wood forest production na
tion there - RWH often needs additional measures to increase infiltration in this
zone, and to reduce evaporation loss, for example by mulching. Furthermore soil Preserving biodiversity +
fertility needs to be improved by composting / manuring, or micro-dosing with Improving soil resources (OM, nutrients) +
inorganic fertilizers. Commonly used RWH techniques can be divided into micro- Improving of water resources +++
catchments collecting water within the field and macro-catchments collecting
Improving water productivity +++
water from a larger catchment further away.
Applicability: RWH is applicable in semi-arid areas with common seasonal Natural disaster prevention / mitigation +
droughts. It is mainly used for supplementary watering of cereals, vegetables, Climate change mitigation / adaptation +++
fodder crops and trees but also to provide water for domestic and stock use,
and sometimes for fish ponds. RWH can be applied on highly degraded soils. Climate change mitigation
Resilience to climate variability: RWH reduces risks of production failure due Potential for C Sequestration 0.26-0.46
to water shortage associated with rainfall variability in semi-arid regions, and (tonnes/ha/year) (+/-0.35)*
helps cope with more extreme events, it enhances aquifer recharge, and it ena- C Sequestration: above ground +
bles crop growth (including trees) in areas where rainfall is normally not sufficient
C Sequestration: below ground +
or unreliable.
Main benefits: RWH is beneficial due to increased water availability, reduced Climate change adaptation
risk of production failure, enhanced crop and livestock productivity, improved
Resilience to extreme dry conditions +++
water use efficiency, access to water (for drinking and irrigation), reduced off-site
damage including flooding, reduced erosion, and improved surface and ground- Resilience to variable rainfall +++
water recharge. Improved rainwater management contributes to food security Resilience to extreme rain and wind storms +
and health through households having access to sufficient, safe supplies of water
Resilience to rising temperatures and ++
for domestic use. evaporation rates
Adoption and upscaling: The RWH techniques recommended must be prof-
Reducing risk of production failure +
itable for land users and local communities, and techniques must be simple,
inexpensive and easily manageable. Incentives for the construction of macro- *for a duration of the first 10-20 years of changed land use man-
catchments, small dams and roof catchments might be needed, since they often agement (Pretty et al., 2006)
require high investment costs. The greater the maintenance needs, the less suc-
cessfully the land users and / or the local community will adopt the technique.

88 SLM in Practice

3_Group_Rainwater_Harvesting.indd 88 20.01.11 14:33

 Origin and spread
Origin: A wide variety of traditional and innovative systems exists in the Sahelian
zone e.g. Burkina Faso, Egypt, Kenya, Niger, Somalia, Sudan. In some cases
these traditional technologies have been updated and (re-)introduced through
projects or through the initiative of land users.
Mainly applied in: Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Niger, Senegal, South
Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda
Also applied in: Botswana, Burundi, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Namibia,
Rwanda, Togo, Zambia, Zimbabwe

Principles and types

In-situ rainwater conservation (sometimes not classified as RWH) is the Spread of Rainwater Harvesting in SSA.
practice where rainfall water is captured and stored where it falls. Runoff is not
allowed and evaporation loss is minimised. This is achieved through agronomic
measures such as mulching, cover crops, contour tillage, etc. Those technolo-
gies are further described under conservation agriculture.
Micro-catchments (for farming) are normally within-field systems consisting of
small structures such as holes, pits, basins, bunds constructed for the collection
of surface runoff from within the vicinity of the cropped area. The systems are
characterised by relatively small catchment areas ‘C’ (<1,000 m2) and cropping
areas ‘CA’ (<100 m2) with C:CA = 1:1 to 10:1. The farmer usually has control
over both the catchment and the storage area. The water holding structures are
associated with specific agronomic measures for annual crops or tree establish-
ment, especially fertility management using compost, manure and / or mineral
fertilizers. Common technologies are zaï / tassa (planting pits), demi-lunes (half-
moons), semi-circular / trapezoidal bunds, etc.
Micro-catchments such as zaï / tassa are often combined with conservation
agriculture. This may be referred to as ‘African-Adapted Conservation Agri-
culture’. Its focus is on water harvesting and applying fertilizers rather than
maintaining soil cover. Traditionally, CA is poorly suited to areas where water
is a limiting factor and provision of permanent soil cover is a problem due to
the competition between materials for mulch and livestock fodder. African style
CA encompasses the following aspects: minimal soil disturbance (e.g. using jab
planter), water harvesting, fertilizer application and hand weeding or low-cost
herbicide.
Macro-catchments (for farming) are designed to provide more water for crop
or pasture land through the diversion of storm floods from gullies and ephemeral
streams or roads directly onto the agricultural field. Huge volumes of water can
be controlled through large earth canals often built over many years. The systems
are characterised by a larger catchment outside the arable land with a ratio of
C:CA = 10:1 to 1000:1. Common technologies are: check-dams, water diversion
channels / ditches, etc.
In the cultivated area through different practices and by manipulating the soil sur-
face structure and vegetation cover, evaporation from the soil surface and sur-
face runoff can be potentially reduced, infiltration is enhanced and thereby the
availability of water in the root zone increased.
Small dams / ponds are structural intervention measures for the collection and
storage of runoff from different external land surfaces including hillsides, roads,
rocky areas and open rangelands. Sometimes runoff is collected in furrows /
channels below terraces banks. Small dams / ponds act as reservoirs of surface
and floodwater to be used for different purposes e.g. for irrigation, livestock and
/ or domestic use during dry periods.
Roof catchments: Rainwater harvesting from roofs is a popular method to
secure water supplies for domestic use. Tiled roofs, or roofs covered with cor-
rugated iron sheets are preferable, since they are the easiest to use and provide
the cleanest water. Thatched or palm leafed surfaces are also feasible, but are
difficult to clean and often taint the runoff. Water is collected and stored in plastic, Top: Demi-lune micro-catchments in an arid zone, Niger.
(Hanspeter Liniger)
metal or cement tanks. Roof catchments provide water at home, are affordable,
Middle: Collection and storing water in a small pond, Rwanda.
easy to practice, can be shared by several houses or used on public infrastruc- (Malesu Maimbo)
ture (schools, clinics, etc.). Bottom: Roof catchment for domestic water use, Kenya.
(Hanspeter Liniger)

SLM Group: Rainwater Harvesting 89

3_Group_Rainwater_Harvesting.indd 89 20.01.11 14:33

 R A I N WAT E R H A R V E S T I N G
Applicability Land degradation

Land degradation addressed Erosion by water High

Water degradation: aridification through decrease of average soil moisture con- Erosion by wind Moderate
tent and change in the quantity of surface water Chemical degradation Low
Erosion by water: loss of fertile topsoil through capturing sediment from catch- Physical degradation Insignificant
ment and conserving within cropped area Biological degradation
Physical soil deterioration: compaction, sealing and crusting Water degradation
Chemical soil deterioration and biological degradation: fertility decline and
reduced organic matter content

Land use Land use

Mainly used on annual cropland with cereals (sorghum, millet, maize), leguminous Cropland
grains / pulses (cowpeas, pigeon peas etc.) vegetables (tomatoes, onion, pota- Grazing land
toes, etc.) and tree crops; also used on mixed extensive grazing land with trees.
Forests / woodlands
Micro-catchments are mainly used for single trees, fodder shrubs, or annual
Mixed land use
crops, whereas macro-catchments and concentrated runoff harvesting are
mainly used for annual crops, but have also been used on mixed extensive graz- Other
ing land with tree crops.

Ecological conditions Climate Average rainfall (mm)

Climate: RWH techniques are most relevant in semi-arid and subhumid zones
with poorly distributed rains, in particular in cereal–based areas. In more arid Humid > 3000
regions they are used for tree crops and / or establishing trees for afforestation. Subhumid 2000-3000
Micro-catchments are more suitable for areas with more reliable rainfall, whereas Semi-arid 1500-2000
macro-catchments are effective in areas where few runoff events are expected. Arid 1000-1500
Terrain and landscapes: Macro-catchments can be applied in depressions / 750-1000
valleys, whereas micro-catchments can be used on all landforms. 500-750
Soils: Clay or shallow soils with low infiltration rates in the collection area and
250-500
deep soils with high moisture storage capacity in the storage areas. This makes
< 250
them suitable for deep flooding for subsequent cropping on residual moisture -
though waterlogging can be a problem. Sandy soils have quicker infiltration but
lower storage capacity: they are thus relatively suitable for diversion schemes.
Slopes (%) very steep (>60)
Socio-economic conditions steep (30-60)
Farming system and level of mechanisation: Micro-catchments are mainly hilly (16-30)
small-scale and constructed manually or by animal traction. Macro-catchments rolling (8-16)
for runoff harvesting and small dams / ponds may be applied within medium or moderate (5-8)
large-scale systems, and the construction is usually mechanised - but may be gentle (2-5)
built up manually over many years. flat (0-2)
Market orientation: Both subsistence and partly commercial.
Land ownership and land use / water rights: The absence of clear land and
water use rights prevents water harvesting and conveyance techniques from
being more widely spread. Farm size Land ownership
Skill / knowledge requirements: For the establishment of rainwater harvesting Small scale State
techniques, medium to high level of know-how is required. Medium scale Company
Labour requirements: Roof catchments, macro-catchments and small dams
Large scale Community
require high initial labour input, whereas micro-catchments usually need mainly
Individual, not titled
medium labour input depending on the technique used. Micro-and macro-catch-
ments and small dams also require a certain level of labour for maintenance. Individual, titled
Many techniques can be implemented manually.

Mechanisation Market orientation

Manual labour Subsistence

Animal traction Mixed
Mechanised Commercial

Required labour Required know-how

High High
Medium Medium
Low Low

90 SLM in Practice

3_Group_Rainwater_Harvesting.indd 90 21.07.11 12:12

 Economics Example: Niger
Cost of selected RWH techniques
Establishment costs Maintenance costs Erosion control / SLM Indicative costs
techniques US$/ha
30-1400 US$/ha

118-800 US$/ha
70-640 US$/ha

20-600 US$/ha

30-800 US$/ha
0-300 US$/ha

0-100 US$/ha
0-350 US$/ha

0-100 US$/ha
0-320 US$/ha

5-380 US$/ha
Stone lines 31

5-60 US$/ha
Cordon de pierres
Stone lines with direct seeding 44
high high Cordon de pierres avec semis direct
Earth bunds 137
mod. mod.
Banquette en terre
low low Earth bunds manual 176
Banquette en terre manuelle
o o
Labour Equipment Agric. Inputs Labour Equipment Agric. Inputs Half-moon for crops 111
Demi-lune agricole
Micro-catchments Micro-catchments Half-moon for trees 307
Macro-catchments Macro-catchments Demi-lune forestière

Labour is valued as 1-2 US$ per person day (Source: WOCAT, 2009) Planting pits 65
Zaï
Micro-catchments: Main costs are for labour (establishment and maintenance); (Sources: Projet d’Aménagement Agro-Sylvo-Pastoral Nord Tilla-
inputs are mainly agricultural such as compost, fertilizer, etc., equipment is less béry (PASP); Projet Développement Rural Tahoua (PDRT))
impor­tant than for macro-catchments. Labour days can vary considerably and
range between 80 - 250 person days/ha. Example: Tanzania
Macro-catchments: Main costs are for labour. Maintenance costs depend heav- In Tanzania a study was conducted on the
ily on the quality of the structures; they are usually low for well-built structures. productivity of RWH techniques. The results
In case of breakages maintenance costs can be very high (compared to micro- showed that farmers using RWH for maize
catchments). and paddy could increase crop yields. How-
Small dams: Costs for a size of 50-80,000 m3 approximately 120,000-300,000 ever the yield achieved can be depressed
US$ (this translates to about 1.5-6 US$ per m3 of earth dam material) through higher labour requirements as well
Ponds: Costs about 4 US$ per 1 m3 excavation as low market prices. Other factors in pro-
Roof catchments: Storage tanks cost about 200 US$ per m3 of water (a tank is duction, such as fertility management, are
typically 10 m3 ➜ 2,000 US$) (the same if plastic tanks are used or ferrocement essential for higher crop yields. Micro-catch-
tanks (except that the cement tanks are logistically much more demanding and ments led to higher benefits than the use
require much greater skills). Both of them last more than 10 years. of storage ponds and macro-catchments,
even though the increase in crop yield
Production benefits was higher with the latter, but the return to
Crop Yield without SLM Yield with SLM Yield gain (%) labour for storage ponds and macro-catch-
(t/ha) (t/ha) ments is lower than for micro-catchments.
Burkina Faso Zaï + manure The study also showed that using RWH
Millet 0.15 – 0.3 0.4 (poor rainfall) 30-400% techniques like storage ponds and macro-
0.7 - 1 (high rainfall) catchments is very beneficial for the produc-
tion of vegetables with returns to labour of
(Source: FAO, 2001) between 10 US$ and 200 US$ per person
day, whereas for maize and paddies it rarely
Comment: For roof catchments and for small dams, ponds, etc. no directly exceeds 10 US$ per person day. One rea-
related production benefits can be shown. The main benefits are related to the son for the better return under vegetables is
availability of clean and free household, as well as irrigation water. the higher market price (Hatibu, et al., 2004).
Crops Return to labour*
Benefit-Cost ratio (US$/person days)
System short term long term quantitative Maize 4.6
Micro-catchments +/++ ++
Paddy 5.2
Small dams, etc. –– ++/+++ Tomatoes 13
Macro-catchments –– ++/+++ Returns to labour, Onions 87
10-200 US$/PD vegetables
10 US$/PD* for maize *for RWH techniques using external runoff and storage ponds
Roof catchments –– +++ (mean return from 1998 to 2002)

Overall – ++/+++

– – negative; – slightly negative; –/+ neutral; + slightly positive; ++ positive; +++ very positive
*PD: person days. (Sources: WOCAT, 2009 and Hatibu, et al., 2004)

Comment: Due to the required level of maintenance activities the costs for
micro-catchments are slightly less positive in the long term than for roof catch-
ments and small dams / ponds, etc.

SLM Group: Rainwater Harvesting 91

3_Group_Rainwater_Harvesting.indd 91 20.01.11 14:33

 R a i n wat e r H a r v e s t i n g
Impacts
Benefits Land users / community level Watershed / landscape level National / global level
Production ++ increased crop yields (a, b, c)* ++ reduces risk of crop failure +++ improved food and water
++ enhanced water availability (a, b, c) security
++ increased fodder production (a, b, c) +++ access to clean and free
+ increased wood production (a, b, c) drinking water (d)
+ diversification of production +++ reduced damage to
neighbouring fields

Economic +++ access to clean / free drinking water (d) ++ less damage to off-site +++ improved livelihood and
++ increased farm income infrastructure ­well-being
+ stimulation of economic growth
+ diversification and rural
employment creation

Ecological +++ improved water availability ++ reduced degradation and +++ increased resilience to climate
++ can be used for rehabilitation of highly degraded sedimentation (a) change
land (a, b) ++ increased stream flow in dry ++ reduced degradation and
++ improved water infiltration (a) season / reliable and stable desertification incidence and
++ reduced velocity of runoff (a) low flows (a, b, c) intensity
++ reduced net surface runoff (a and b) + groundwater recharge + enhanced biodiversity
++ increased net soil moisture (a) + reduced groundwater / river
++ reduced soil erosion and soil loss (a) pollution (a, b)
++ improved excess water drainage (a) + intact ecosystem
+ increases soil organic matter and soil fertility (a)
+ improved soil cover (a)
+ biodiversity enhancement
+ sediment traps for nutrient (a, b)

Socio-cultural +++ less pressure on water resources for drinking water, + increases awareness for + protecting national heritage
irrigation, etc. environmental ‘health’
++ community institution strengthening ++ reduced water conflicts
++ improved conservation / erosion knowledge (a, b, c) ++ national institution
++ can reduce the time used for gathering water for strengthening
domestic use + attractive landscape

*a) Micro-catchments, b) Macro-catchments, c) Small dams / ponds, d) Roof catchments

Constraints How to overcome

Production l V ery often RWH alone does not always lead to a significant produc- ➜ combine with improved soil fertility management
tion increase, additional fertility management is needed (a, b, c)

Economic l Increased input constraints especially for the establishment ➜ access to market for inputs and equipment and if necessary sup-
l A vailability of manure to improve soil fertility especially within micro- port for establishment
catchments
l Establishment and construction can be labour intensive and requires ➜ technical support in form of training and education on the system
a high level of technical knowledge is needed
l Maintenance of the system and limited life-span of certain types of ➜ for small-dams, ponds, etc. community organisation is needed for
structures – for micro-catchments this mainly refers to annual agro- the establishment and the maintenance with clear responsibilities
nomic activities, whereas for small dams and macro-catchments
maintenance includes also reparation and protection against animals
as well as siltation
l Loss of land (decreased production area) especially for very small ➜ most successful techniques are simple, inexpensive, easily man-
farms (a, b, c) ageable by local community (includes stone bunds, semi-circular
l Lack of market (a, b, c) bunds, vegetative strips)
l Cost of transportation of the material (a, b, c)

Ecological l  aterlogging can be a problem under poor drainage systems

W
(a, b, c,)
l Water can only be harvested when it rains

Socio-cultural l Conflicts in areas formerly used by nomads ➜ clear land and water use rights and improved watershed planning
l  here RWH is used over a significant area, there may be upstream /
W with allocation of water resources
downstream conflicts in terms of water availability
l Socio-cultural conflicts concerning rehabilitated land ➜ farmer and community involvement
l Eliminates women’s burden of collecting water for domestic use (d)

92 SLM in Practice

3_Group_Rainwater_Harvesting.indd 92 20.01.11 14:33

 Adoption and upscaling Enabling environment: key factors for adoption

Inputs, material, incentives, credits ++

Adoption rate
Training and education ++
In general adoption rates remain low. Farmers hesitate to invest time and money
in RWH without security of land and limited access to local markets where they Land tenure, secure land use rights +++
can sell surpluses. However some RWH technologies like zaï have been widely Access to markets ++
adopted with (and in some areas, without) external support.
Research ++
Upscaling Infrastructure ++
Profitability: The techniques recommended must be profitable for land users
Genuine ownership on the part of +++
and local communities, and techniques must be simple, inexpensive and easily communities
manageable.
Capacity building and knowledge sharing on suitable RWH techniques is
needed. One of the constraints hindering adoption is lack of information, educa-
tion and training
The level of maintenance is an important criterion. The techniques should be
manageable at farm level and involve community action, especially for larger-
scale construction such as ponds, small dams and macro-catchments which are
very often out of the land user’s control.
Clear land and water tenure and property rights are necessary to motivate land
users to invest in RWH.
Market access: A better linkage and access to markets is necessary, and assist-
ance for small-scale farmers to change from subsistence to commercial farming.
Micro-catchments usually need a low level of material and technical support .
However, depending on the techniques, a certain level of material and / or tech-
nical support is needed, e.g. demi-lune / half moon techniques in West Africa
require a relatively high level of material support for the establishment. In Burkina
Faso the zaï system has been successfully spread through farmer-to-farmer vis-
its. Farmer-to-farmer exchange can be a highly successful tool for upscaling of
micro-catchment systems.
Macro-catchments and small dams are very often not within reach of small com-
munities and usually require material and technical support for the establishment
as well as community involvement / organisation in the planning and mainte-
nance of the system.
Roof catchments: Relative high investment costs might require initial material
support for the construction. Community involvement is needed for the estab-
lishment and maintenance. Trained extension services and self-help groups and
organisations are very effective and needed for spreading of the technology.

Incentives for adoption

(1) For micro-catchments a low level of material and technical support is needed;
(2) macro-catchments and small dams require high material and technical sup-
port for establishment; and (3) roof catchments need high levels of material and
technical support for establishment.

References and supporting information:

AQUATSTAT. 2009. http://www.fao.org/NR/WATER/AQUASTAT/main/index.stm, access on 15 July 2009
FAO, 2008. Water and Rural Poverty - Interventions for Improving Livelihoods in sub-Saharan Africa.
FAO. 1991. A Manual for the Design and Construction of Water Harvesting Schemes for Plant Production. W. Critchley and K. Siegert
FAO. 2001. Compendium of Land and SARD Cases: Supporting Document to Task Managers’ Report to CSD+10 on the Land and Agriculture Cluster for Chapters 10, 12 and 14
of Agenda 21. http://www.fao.org/wssd/land/docs/Comp_Cases2001.doc, accessed on 15 July 2009.
Hatibu N., E. M. Senkondo, K. Mutabazi and A.S.K. Msangi. 2004. Economics of Rainwater Harvesting for Crop Enterprises in Semi-Arid Areas. ‘New directions for a diverse planet’.
Proceedings of the 4th International Crop Science Congress, 26 Sep – 1 Oct 2004, Brisbane, Australia. Published on CDROM.
IWMI. 2009. Vallerani-System. http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/africa/west/projects/Adoption%20Technology/RainWaterHarvesting/26-ValleranisSystem.htm
Malesu, M., J. K. Sang, J. Orodi Odhiambo, A. R. Oduor and M. Nyabenge. 2006. Hydrologic impacts of ponds on land cover change, Runoff water harvesting in Lare, Kenya, Maimbo,
Technical Report No. 32. Regional Land Management Unit (RELMA-in-ICRAF), Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency
(Sida)
Mati B. M. 2005. Overview of water and soil nutrient management under smallholder rainfed agriculture in East Africa. Working Paper 105. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water
Management Institute (IWMI).
Pretty J. N., A. D. Noble, D. Bossio, J. Dixon, R. E. Hine, F. W. T. Penning de Vries, and J. I. L. 2006. Resource-conserving Agriculture Increases Yields in Developing Countries.
Environmental Science & Technology, Vol. 40, No. 4.
RAF Publication. 2001. La collecte des eaux de surface en Afrique de l’Ouest et du Centre - Water harvesting in western and central Africa
UNEP. 2009. Rainwater Harvesting: A Lifeline for Human Well-Being. A report prepared for UNEP by Stockholm Environment Institute.
UNESCO. 2002. Proceedings of the International Seminar on Combating Desertification: Freshwater Resources and the Rehabilitation of Degraded Areas in the Drylands, held in
N’Djamena, Chad, 30 October to 4 November 2000
Vohland K. and B. Barry. 2009. A review of in situ rainwater harvesting (RWH) practices modifying landscape functions in Africa drylands. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment
131 (2009) 119-127
Wateraid. 2009. Roof Catchments. http://www.wateraid.org/documents/plugin_documents/technology_notes_07_web_1.pdf, accessed on 15 July 2009
WOCAT. 2009. WOCAT database on SLM technologies and SLM approaches. www.wocat.net, accessed on 15 September 2009
Woodfine, A. 2009. Using sustainable land management practices to adapt to and mitigate climate change in sub-Saharan Africa: resource guide version 1.0. TerrAfrica. www.
terrafrica.org.

SLM Group: Rainwater Harvesting 93

3_Group_Rainwater_Harvesting.indd 93 20.01.11 14:33

 Case study
Rainwater Harvesting

Ta s s a P l a n t i n g P i t s - N i g e r
Tassa planting pits are used for the rehabilitation of degraded, crusted land. SLM measure Structural
This technology is mainly applied in semi-arid areas on sandy / loamy plains, SLM group Rainwater Harvesting
often covered with a hard pan, and with slopes below 5%.
Land use type Silvopastoral / wasteland (before),
Planting pits are holes of 20-30 cm diameter and 20-25 cm depth, spaced cropland (after)
about 1 m apart in each direction. They are dug by hand. The excavated earth
Degradation Loss of topsoil (by water and wind);
is formed into a small ridge downslope of the pit for maximum back capture of addressed Soil compaction / crusting; Soil fer-
rainfall and runoff. Manure is added to each pit, though its availability is some- tility decline; Soil moisture problem
times a problem. The improved infiltration and increased nutrient availability
Stage of intervention Rehabilitation
brings degraded land into cultivation.
Common crops produced in this water harvesting system are millet and sor- Tolerance to climate Increased tolerance due to water
change harvesting
ghum. At the start of the rainy season, seeds are sown directly into the pits.
Silt and sand are removed annually. Normally the highest plant production is
Establishment activities
during the second year after manure application. The technology does not
1. Digging pits (tassa) with a hoe in the
require external inputs or heavy machinery and is therefore favourable to spon-
dry season (20-25 cm deep, 20-40 cm
taneous adoption.
in diameter): the excavated earth forms
Tassa are often combined with stone lines along the contour to enhance water
ridges downslope of the hole. The pits
infiltration, reduce soil erosion and siltation of the pits. Grass growing between
are spaced 0.8-1 m apart, giving approxi-
the stones helps increase infiltration further and accelerates the accumulation
mately 10,000 pits/ha.
of fertile sediment.
2. Manuring the pits with approx. 250 g per
pit (2.5 t/ha).
3. Optionally: Digging out stones from nearby
sites (using a pick-axe and shovel) and
aligning the stones along the contour with
the help of a ‘water tube level’: maximum
of 3 stones wide. The distance between
the stone lines is a function of the slope: at a
2% slope (or less) the lines are spaced 50 m
apart, at a 5% slope, spacing is 25m.
All activities are carried out by manual labour.
Maintenance / recurrent activities
1. Removing sand from the tassa (annually,
March-May).
2. Manuring the pits with about 250 g per pit
(2.5 t/ha) every second year in October /
November or March-May.
All activities are carried out by manual labour.

Labour requirements
For establishment: high
For maintenance: low
Knowledge requirements
For advisors: moderate
For land users: low

Photo 1: Adding manure to the pits (tassa) before planting.

(William Critchley)
Photo 2: Digging pits and piling up a small bund on the
downstream side, using a traditional hoe. (William Critchley)
Photo 3: Sorghum growing in planting pits.
(Philippe Benguerel)

94 SLM in Practice

3_Group_Rainwater_Harvesting.indd 94 20.01.11 14:33

 Case study area: Tahoua, Niger Ecological conditions
·· C limate: semi-arid
·· Average annual rainfall: 250-500 mm
·· Soil parameters: well drained, sandy, shallow soils; low to very low soil
­fertility; low organic matter (<1%); soil crusting
·· Slope: mostly gentle (2-5%), partly flat (0-2%)
·· Landform: mainly plains / plateaus, partly footslopes
·· Altitude: 100-500 m a.s.l.
Socio-economic conditions
Agadez
··  ize of land per household: 2-5 ha
S
·· Type of land user: small-scale farmers
Case study area
·· Population density: no data
Maradi Zinder ·· Land ownership: mostly individual, titled
Niamey ·· Land use rights: individual
·· Market orientation: mostly subsistence, partly mixed (subsistence and
commercial)
·· Level of mechanisation: manual labour

Establishment inputs and costs per ha Production / economic benefits

Inputs Costs (US$)
+++ Increased crop yield
++ Increased farm income
Labour: 100 person-days 150
Ecological benefits
Equipment 5
+++ Improved soil cover (long term)
Agricultural inputs 5 ++ Increased soil moisture
TOTAL 160 ++ Increased soil fertility
% of costs borne by land users 100% ++ Increased soil organic matter
++ Reduced soil loss
Remarks: Establishment costs are for 2 pits.
Socio-cultural benefits
Maintenance inputs and costs per ha per year ++ Improved conservation / erosion knowledge
+ Community institution strengthening through mutual aid in technology
Inputs Costs (US$)
implementation
Labour: 20 person-days 30
Off-site benefits
Equipment 0 ++ Reduced downstream flooding
Agricultural inputs 2.5 + Reduced downstream siltation
TOTAL 32.5
Weaknesses ➜ and how to overcome
% of costs borne by land users 100%
·· Implementation constraint: availability / transport of manure and transport-
Remarks: Labour costs are indicated for estab- ing manure to the plateaus and slopes ➜ subsidise transport means (or
lishment of tassa only (without appli­cation of supply donkey carts).
stone lines). Maintenance costs refer to remov- ·· High labour input for implementation and maintenance ➜ mechanisation of
ing sand from the pits from the second year tasks: transportation of manure. However, this would raise the cost.
onwards, and to manuring every second year ·· Instability of planting pits in loose soil, increased erosion on steeper slopes
(costs are spread on an annual basis). If applica- and with heavy rains ➜ avoid sandy soils and steep slopes; combine with
ble, costs for transporting the manure need to be additional measures (e.g. stone lines).
added. The general assumption in these calcula- ·· The effectiveness can be compromised if the various geo-morphological
tions is that adequate manure is readily available units (plateaus, slopes) are not treated simultaneously ➜ catchment area
close by. Land users bear 100% of all costs. approach if downstream flooding is an issue.
·· Possibility of land use conflicts concerning rehabilitated land, in particular
Benefit-cost ratio with pastoralists (because grazing land is being turned into cultivated fields)
Inputs short term long term ➜ better coordination / consultation before implementing the technology in
an area.
Establishment neutral slightly positive
Maintenance slightly positive positive Adoption
There is a moderate trend towards spontaneous adoption (for rehabilitation of
Remarks: Initial labour inputs pay out on the
the plains). Area covered by the technology was approx. 40 km2 in 2000.
medium to long term.

Main contributors: Adamou Oudou Noufou, Tahoua, Niger

Key references: Bety A, A. Boubacar, W. Frölich, A. Garba, M. Kriegl, A. Mabrouk, Noufou O, Thienel M and Wincker H (1997): Gestion durable des ressources naturelles. Leçons tirées
du savoir des paysans de l’Adar. Ministère de l’agriculture et de l’élevage, Niamey, 142 pp. n Hassane A, Martin P and Reij C (2000) Water harvesting, land rehabilitation and house-
hold food security in Niger: IFAD’s Soil and Water Conservation Project in Illela District. IFAD, Rome, 51 pp. n WOCAT 2009, WOCAT Database on SLM Technologies, www.wocat.net

SLM Technology: Tassa Planting Pits - Niger 95

3_Group_Rainwater_Harvesting.indd 95 20.01.11 14:33

 Case study
Rainwater Harvesting

Sm a ll E a r t h D a m s - Z a mb i a
Small earth dams are water harvesting storage structures, constructed across SLM measure Structural
narrow sections of valleys, to impound runoff generated from upstream catch- SLM group Rainwater Harvesting
ment areas. Construction of the dam wall begins with excavation of a core
Land use type Cropland; Grazing land
trench along the length of the dam wall which is filled with clay and compacted
to form a central core (‘key’) that anchors the wall and prevents or minimises Degradation Water degradation: reduced surface
addressed water availability
seepage. The upstream and downstream embankments are built using soil
with a 20-30% clay content. During construction – either by human labour, Stage of intervention Mainly prevention and mitigation,
partly rehabilitation
animal draught or machine (bulldozer, compacter, grader etc.) – it is critical to
ensure good compaction for stability of the wall. It is common to plant Kikuyu Tolerance to climate Sensitive to climatic extremes (e.g.
grass (Pennesetum clandestinum) to prevent erosion of the embankment. The change floods); Tolerant with respect to
rainfall variability, prolonged dry
dam is fenced with barbed wire to prevent livestock from eroding the wall. spells, etc.
Typical length of the embankment is 50-100 m with water depth ranging 4-8 m.
An emergency spillway (vegetated or a concrete shute) is provided on either, Establishment activities
or both sides, of the wall for safe disposal of excess water above the full sup- 1. Site selection in consultation with community.
ply level. The dam water has a maximum throwback of 500 m, with a capacity 2. Dam survey and design: Topographical
ranging from 50,000 – 100,000 m3. The dams are mainly used for domestic survey of dam area; using levelling equip-
consumption, irrigation or for watering livestock. ment (dumpy level or theodolite); Determi-
If the dams are located on communal lands, their establishment requires full nation of dam wall dimensions.
consultation and involvement of the local community. The government provides 3. Dam wall construction: Excavate core trench
technical and financial assistance for design, construction and management of (usually 4 m wide; 2 m deep). Excavate and
these infrastructures. Community contribution includes land, labour and local transport clay-rich soil to the dam site. Con-
resources. The community carries out periodic maintenance of the infrastructure struct core and embankments (slope angles
– including vegetation management on embankment, desilting etc. – and of the 3:1). Continuously compact placed soil.
catchment areas (through soil and water conservation practices). 4. Construct lateral spillway(s), 5-30 m wide
(depending on the flood flow and the
return slope).
5. Design and installation of irrigation and drain-
age infrastructure (in case of crop production).
6. Completion: plant Kikuyu grass on dam
embank­ment, spillway and irrigation canals
and fence of; alternatively line with cement.

Maintenance / recurrent activities

1. Catchment conservation to minimise sil-
tation of dam and irrigation infrastructure
(continuous).
2. (Re-)planting grass on dam and irrigation
infrastructure (annually, using hand hoes).
3. Desiltation of the dam (every 5-10 years):
excavate and remove the silt deposited in
the dam.
4. Cleaning of dam and irrigation infra­structure:
remove trees / shrubs from dam / canals. If
concrete lined: repair of any damages.
Establishment and maintenance of structures is
carried out by human or animal labour or by
machine (i.e. bulldozers or tractors with scoop).

Labour requirements
For establishment: high
For maintenance: low to medium
Knowledge requirements
For advisors: high
For land users: high

Photo 1: Manual construction of a small dam requires com-

munity action: soil is transported in bags, piled up and com-
pacted layer by layer.
Photo 2: Fetching water for domestic use at a small dam.
Photo 3: Water point for livestock. (All photos by Maimbo Malesu)
Technical drawing: Dimensions and main components of a
small dam: (1) water body; (2) dam wall (with layers of com-
pacted soil; side slopes 3:1); (3) central core (‘key’); (4) grass
cover; (5) stone apron; (6) spillway (Mats Gurtner).

96 SLM in Practice

3_Group_Rainwater_Harvesting.indd 96 20.01.11 14:33

 Case study area: Southern Province, Ecological conditions
Zambia ·· C limate: semi-arid, subhumid
·· Average annual rainfall: 700 mm (400-800 mm)
·· Soil parameters: medium fertility; medium depth, well drained, medium
Mbala organic matter content; loamy to sandy soil texture
·· Slope: plains (2-15%) and valleys (15-40%)
Kasama
·· Landform: plains and valleys
·· Altitude: 300-1,200 m a.s.l for mid Zambezi valley and Southern plateau
respectively
Ndola Socio-economic conditions
··  ize of land per household: 2 ha
S
Mongu ·· Type of land user: small-scale; land user groups; poor
Lusaka
·· Population density: 10 persons/km2
·· Land ownership: communal (not titled)
Case study area
·· Land use rights: communal (organised)
·· Level of mechanisation: animal traction
·· Market orientation: mixed (subsistence and commercial)

Production / economic benefits

Establishment inputs and costs per dam +++ Increased crop yield
Inputs Costs (US$) +++ Increased irrigation water availability
Labour: 633 person-days 2,000 ++ Increased animal production
++ Increased farm income
Equipment / tools: machinery, ox-ripper, 30,000
hoe / pick, shovel (US$ 3/m3 of earth work) Ecological benefits
Agricultural inputs: termicide, grass seed, 3,000 +++ Increased water quantity
fertilizer +++ Improved water harvesting / collection
Construction material: cement, sand, 15,000 ++  Recharge of groundwater table / aquifer
stones, abstraction pipes, screen, valve, + Reduced hazard towards adverse events
bolts and nuts
Socio-cultural benefits
TOTAL 50,000
+++ Improved food security
% of costs borne by land users 20% ++ Community institutional strengthening
+ Increased recreational opportunities
Maintenance inputs and costs per ha per year
Off-site benefits
Inputs Costs (US$)
+++ Increased water availability
Labour: 63 person-days 200 +++ Reduced downstream flooding
Equipment / tools: hoe, axe, shovel 2,000
Weaknesses ➜ and how to overcome
Agricultural inputs: grass seed, fertilizer 300
·· Dams are communally owned ➜ requires strong organisation and commit-
Construction material: cement, stones, 1,500 ment by community.
building sand
·· R isk of siltation ➜ de-silting and catchment conservation is essential
TOTAL 4,000 ·· Vulnerability to climate change ➜ increase depth and design storage to last
% of costs borne by land users 80% at least for two rainy seasons.
·· Evaporation and seepage losses ➜ maintain minimum design depth of 4
Remarks: Establishment costs are calculated for meters; if seepage is high: provide impervious material on the upstream
a dam with an earthwork volume of 10’000 m3 embankment, i.e. clay or plastic lining if necessary.
(44 m long; 8 m deep; side slopes 3:1). 20% of
costs are borne by the community (in-kind con- Adoption
tribution: labour and local materials such as sand, Records of 1991 indicate at least 537 such dams exist in Zambia. In the study
stones). Construction machinery can include: tip- area there are over 293 dams serving a cattle population of 1.1 million and
per truck, bulldozer, motor scraper, compactor, human population of nearly 1 million people. Communities require government
tractor, grader. or NGO support for establishment.

Benefit-cost ratio
Inputs short term long term
Establishment negative very positive
Maintenance neutral very positive

Main contributors: Maimbo Malesu, ICRAF-CGIAR; Nairobi, Kenya; [email protected]

Key references: The Jesuit Centre for Theological Reflection. 2010. Social Conditions Programme. http://www.mywage.org/zambia/main/minimum-wage/comparitive-minimum-
wage. n Nissen-Petersen E. 2006. Water from small dams. A handbook for technicians, farmers and others on site investigations, designs, cost estimations, construction and main-
tenance of small earth dams n Morris P. H. 1991. Statement of Policy: Progress Review of the Drought Relief Dam Cons/ruction Project, Southern Province. Part 1 — Main Report.
Irrigation and Land Husbandry Branch, Department of Agriculture, Chôma. n Sichingabula H.M. 1997. Problems of sedimentation in small dams in Zambia. Human Impact on Erosion
and Sedimentation (Proceedings of the Rabat Symposium, April 1997. IAHS Publ. no. 245, 1997

SLM Technology: Small Earth Dams - Zambia 97

3_Group_Rainwater_Harvesting.indd 97 20.01.11 14:33

 Case study
Rainwater Harvesting

R u n o f f a n d Flood w a t e r F a rm i n g - E t h i op i a
Runoff and floodwater farming is a traditionally practiced water harvesting sys- SLM measure Structural
tem which helps overcome problems of soil moisture and crop failure in a hot, SLM group Rainwater Harvesting
dry area with erratic rainfall and shallow, highly erodible soils: floodwater and
Land use type Annual crops, tree crops
runoff from ephemeral rivers, roads and hillsides is captured through tempo-
rary stone and earth embankments. A system of hand dug canals – consist- Degradation Loss of water, aridity; Loss of topsoil
addressed through erosion by water
ing of a main diversion canal and secondary / tertiary canals – conveys and
distributes the captured water to the cultivated fields in naturally flat or leveled Stage of intervention Mitigation
areas. The total length of the canal system is 200 – 2,000 m. The harvested Tolerance to climate Increased tolerance to drought and
water is used for growing high value crops, vegetables and fruit trees. Irrigated change seasonal variations; sensitive to
fields are divided into rectangular basins bordered by ridges to maximise water extreme flood events
storage and minimise erosion risk.
Runoff and floodwater management requires preparedness for immediate
Establishment activities
1. Construction of diversion canals with lat-
action by the farmers: When a flood is expected in the ephemeral river, farmers
eral embankments, from runoff source to
rush to the diversion site and start erecting the embankment across the bed
the fields. Embankments are stabilised with
of the stream. Similarly, each famer starts to maintain the canal which leads
stones – if possible (hand dug during dry
water to his field. A schedule defines the date and time each farmer is allo-
season).
cated his turn to irrigate. When the water reaches the field, it is spread either
2. Seed bed preparation before the water is
through flooding or distributed in furrows which are opened and closed using
diverted to the fields: construction of rectan-
a local tool.
gular basins separated by small bunds
The ratio between catchment area and production area is 10:1 – 100:1 or
(0.3 m high; 0.3 m wide).
greater. While the diversion canals / ditches and basins for tree planting are
3. Watering the field for better seed germina-
permanent structures, basins for annual crops are seasonal. Soil fertility is
tion. The field is watered before the seeds
improved by additional measures such as composting and mulching. Main-
are planted otherwise germination will be
tenance, including repairs to breaks along the canal and water conveying
affected.
ditches, is needed every season before the onset of rains.
Main canal: 3-4 m wide, 0.5-0.75 m high
Secondary canal: 2-3 m wide, 0.5 m high
Tertiary canal: 0.5-1 m wide

Maintenance / recurrent activities

1. Runoff management. This is essentially
the activity of spreading water to the field
which includes cleaning the canals for
directing water to the field.
2. Seed bed preparation (reconstruction of
basins is done every season, before the
water is diverted to the field).
3. Regular maintenance / repairing of runoff
diversion canals: scouring, removing sedi-
ment / silt, repairing breaks in the embank-
ment.

Labour requirements
For establishment: high (very labour-intensive
structures)
For maintenance: medium to high
Knowledge requirements
For advisors: medium
For land users: medium

Photo 1: Main canal for diverting flood water from seasonal

rivers to the field. Lateral embankments are stabilised with
stones.
Photo 2 and 3: Cropland prepared for floodwater farming:
basins allow controlled flooding of the fields. In the back-
ground the river bed from which the water is extracted.
(All photos by Daniel Danano)

98 SLM in Practice

3_Group_Rainwater_Harvesting.indd 98 20.01.11 14:33

 Case study area: Dire Dawa, Ethiopia Ecological conditions
··  limate: semi-arid (also suitable for arid areas)
C
·· Average annual rainfall: 500-750 mm; erratic, not well distributed
·· Soil parameters: good drainage, low organic matter
·· Slope: flat to gentle (0-5%)
Gondar Mek'ele
·· Landform: footslopes and valley floors
·· Altitude: 1,000-2000 m a.s.l.
Bahir Dar Socio-economic conditions
Dire Dawa ··  ize of land per household: 1-2 ha
S
Addis Ababa Case study area ·· Type of land users: better-off small-scale farmers
Jimma Nazret ·· Population density: 150 persons/km2
·· Land ownership: state
·· Land use rights: private
·· Market orientation: mainly commercial, partly mixed (90% of vegetables and
fruits are sold)
·· Level of mechanisation: manual labour

Production / economic benefits

Establishment inputs and costs per ha +++ Increased farm income (net benefit 1st year: 226 US$; from 4th year onwards:
Inputs Costs (US$)
711 US$)
+++ Increased crop yield (gross production value increases by 200% after
Labour: 295 person-days 253
3 years and 400% after 10 years)
Equipment: shovels, hoes 24 +++ Increased fodder production and increased fodder quality
Agricultural inputs 106 +++ Increased wood production
TOTAL 383 Ecological benefits
% of costs borne by land users 100% +++ Increased soil moisture
+++ Increased infiltration
Maintenance inputs and costs per ha per year +++ Reduced runoff (from 50% to 5% of annual rainfall)
+++ Reduced soil loss (from 60 to 6 t/ha)
Inputs Costs (US$)
+++ Increased soil fertility
Labour: 525 person-days 450
Socio-cultural benefits
Equipment 64
+++ Community strengthening
Agricultural inputs: seeds 300 +++ Improved conservation / erosion knowledge
TOTAL 814
Off-site benefits
% of costs borne by land users 100% +++ Reduced downstream flooding
+++ Increased stream flow in dry season
Remarks: Establishment costs include the con- +++ Reduced downstream siltation
struction of diversion ditch, construction of blocks
(irrigation basins); seeds and seedlings. Mainte- Weaknesses ➜ and how to overcome
nance costs include the reconstruction of blocks / ·· Increased labour constraints: construction of diversion ditches, preparation
seedbed preparation; seeds and seedlings; of irrigation basin and spreading the runoff water and regular maintenance /
weeding and cultivation; irrigation; harvest. Costs reconstruction of structures is very labour intensive ➜ providing improved
have been calculated assuming that 0.5 ha of the farm tools could improve efficiency of operation, organising farmers in
land is planted by fruit trees and 0.5 ha planted groups for sharing labor would curtail labor problems; Placing permanent
with vegetables. Daily wage cost of hired labor to structures at the diversion head (concrete) and paving ditches to improve
implement SLM is 0.85 US$. All costs are met by channel stability would reduce maintenance activities.
the land users themselves. ·· Social inequity: mainly better-off farmers apply the technology (due to high
costs) ➜ providing credit solves financial problems and facilitating market
Benefit-cost ratio would motivate land users to get more engaged in the business.
Inputs short term long term ·· Loss of land (through conservation structures) ➜ is outweighed by the high
Establishment positive very positive production benefits.
Maintenance very positive very positive
Adoption
Remarks: Net benefits are positive from the 100% of land users that have applied the technology, have done it wholly vol-
beginning due to rapid production increase. untarily, without any incentives except technical guidance. There is enough
local skill and support to expand the technology.

Main contributors: Daniel Danano, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; [email protected]
Key references: Danano, D. 2008; (unpublished): Soil and Water Conservation Practices for Sustainable Land Management in Ethiopia. Ethiocat.

SLM Technology: Runoff and Floodwater Farming - Ethiopia 99

3_Group_Rainwater_Harvesting.indd 99 20.01.11 14:33

 S m a l l h o l d e r I r r i g at i o n M a n a g e m e n t

Low-cost drip irrigation for vegetable production on a small plot in Niger. (William Critchley)

In a nutshell Development issues addressed

Preventing / reversing land degradation +

Definition: A Smallholder Irrigation Management (SIM) unit is typically a plot
co­vering an area less than 0.5 ha. SIM schemes may be managed either by an Maintaining and improving food security +++
individual land user or by groups / communities. Reducing rural poverty ++
The guiding principle of sustainable SIM is ‘more crop per drop’, in other words Creating rural employment ++
efficiency of water use. This can be achieved through more efficient (1) water
Supporting gender equity / marginalised groups ++
collection and abstraction; (2) water storage; (3) distribution and; (4) water appli-
cation in the field. Two main categories of SIM can be distinguished, traditional Improving crop production +++
surface irrigation systems and recent micro-irrigation systems including drip irri- Improving fodder production +
gation. Micro-irrigation systems are commonly used for, and are very important
Improving wood / fibre production na
in, the production of vegetables, fruits and flowers. More efficient water use can
Improving non wood forest production na
enhance production benefits remarkably. However, additional measures including
soil fertility management, introduction of high value crops and appropriate pest Preserving biodiversity na
and disease control are necessary for a substantial increase in production. As Improving soil resources (OM, nutrients) +
water resources in SSA are generally scarce and very unevenly distributed, any
Improving of water resources -/+
dream of widespread irrigation schemes is unrealistic. However, there is scope
for improved irrigation management - making the most efficient use of precious Improving water productivity +++
water resources, especially for small-scale farming. Priority areas for SIM in SSA Natural disaster prevention / mitigation +
are in semi-arid and subhumid areas, where a small amount of irrigation water Climate change mitigation / adaptation -/+
leads to a significant increase in yield - or at least a reduction in crop failure. Often
there are possible synergies to be made by basing such schemes on water col- Climate change mitigation
lected through rainwater harvesting. Therefore, SIM builds on the principles of Potential for C Sequestration 0.15
supplementary irrigation, with rainfall as the principle source of water, and sup- (tonnes/ha/year) (+/- 0.012)*
plementary irrigation helping during dry spells and extending the growing period. C Sequestration: above ground +
Applicability: SIM is most applicable to arid, semi-arid and subhumid areas. In
C Sequestration: below ground +
water-scarce regions, the amount of irrigation water is limited and irrigation com-
petes with other water demands. Climate change adaptation
Resilience to climate variability: SIM systems can enhance the resilience to
Resilience to extreme dry conditions +
droughts and temperature increase. The storage of excess rainfall and the effi-
cient use of irrigation are critical in view of growing water scarcity, rising tempera- Resilience to variable rainfall ++
tures and climatic variability. Resilience to extreme rain and wind storms na
Main benefits: This system can increase incomes of the farmers by producing
Resilience to rising temperatures and +
more, and higher-value, crops. Helping land users to move from subsistence
evaporation rates
farming to producing cash crops contributes to poverty reduction, primarily by
Reducing risk of production failure ++
enhancing the productivity of both labour and land. Agricultural production risks
can be reduced, and food security enhanced. *for a duration of the first 10-20 years of changed land use man-
Adoption and upscaling: The major constraint to smallholder irrigation is the agement (Pretty et al., 2006)
availability of water. Financing (high costs of equipment), and the lack of a func-
tioning market system to sell products, are further constraints. Therefore it is
important that access to financial services is provided to land users. Land user
group organisations can be a means to pool land users and resources and
develop irrigation schemes.

100 SLM in Practice

4_Group_Smallholder_Irrigation.indd 100 20.01.11 14:34

 Origin and spread
Origin: Traditional SIM systems in SSA are mainly based on gravity systems
using mountain streams. Spate irrigation is another traditional system, with a long
history in the Horn of Africa. In the 1970s -1980s there was much investment in
large-scale irrigation projects to intensify agriculture: these often ended in failure,
because of either poor governance, or lack of maintenance, or both. In the 1980s
investments in irrigation turned to a more integrated approach by financing small-
scale irrigation with little or no government support. The use of drip irrigation sys-
tems has accelerated over the last decades with the mass production of plastic
pipes. Initially it was a capital-intensive system. Recent innovations have helped
to make drip irrigation more affordable to smallholders.
Mainly applied in: Burundi, Burkina Faso, Chad, Gambia, Guinea, Kenya, Mali,
Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Tanzania, Zimbabwe Spread of Smallholder Irrigation Management in SSA.

Principles and types

‘More crop per drop’ can be achieved through more efficient use of water:
(1) Efficient water abstraction, storage and distribution: SIM needs emphasis
on efficient water storage, abstraction and distribution to the field. Water sources
for irrigation can be rivers, lakes, groundwater, or water collected through rainwater
harvesting systems (see RWH group). The water can be either abstracted through
pumps or wells, or it can be gravity-fed. Treadle pumps, which are food-operated
water lifting devices, have been very successfully introduced in SSA for the pro-
duction of vegetables. More efficient water distribution can be achieved through
the usage of pipelines instead of open water channels.
(2) Efficient water application in the field: In a SIM-system the water is used
efficiently by applying appropriate quantities at strategic times, principally through
providing supplementary irrigation water at particular growth stages. Excessive
flooding can be harmful, as it may lead to nutrient leaching, as well as inducing
greater evaporation and salinisation. The application of too little water is also
wasteful, since it will fail to provide the desired benefits. Under the ‘deficit irri-
gation method’ crops are exposed to different levels of water stress resulting in
enhanced root development - and thereby substantial saving of water can be
achieved while maximum yields can be almost attained.
a) Micro-irrigation techniques are promising systems for increased water
use efficiency. Within micro-irrigation, a small volume of water is applied at fre-
quent intervals to the spot where the roots are concentrated. Micro-irrigation
techniques are gaining popularity among small-scale farmers, especially those
systems using water harvested in tanks and small ponds. The most common
micro-irrigation system is drip irrigation.
In a drip irrigation system, water flows under pressure through a filter into drip
pipes, with emitters located at variable spacings. Water is discharged directly
onto the soil near the plants. Drip lines should be placed close to the plants to
avoid salt accumulation in the root zone, and to minimise water loss. Fertilizer
and nutrients can be applied easily, and more precisely, through the system.
b) Surface irrigation is the application of water by gravity flow to the surface of
the field. Either the entire field is flooded, or the water is led into basins, or fed into
furrows, or strips of land (borders). Surface irrigation is the main traditional irriga-
tion method and still plays a significant role in SSA. An example is:
Spate irrigation: Floodwater diversion or spate irrigation techniques divert the water
from its natural course. Storm-floods are harvested from rainfall-rich highlands, and
diverted into levelled basins in the dry lowlands. Floodwater is channelled through a
network of different channels. Collection areas may range from anything between a
few hectares to over 25,000 ha. The schemes are expensive to construct and diffi-
cult to maintain due to frequent bund breakages during floods. Spate irrigation is
mainly applied in Ethiopia, Eritrea, Kenya, Senegal, Somalia and Sudan.
Informal irrigation can be defined as the irrigation sector established purely by
land users without public funding (often synonymously with smallholder irriga- Top: Water distribution for irrigation, Kenya. (Hanspeter Liniger)
tion). Informal irrigation is widespread in urban and peri-urban agriculture, espe- Middle: Large private vegetable producer using watering cans
for irrigation, Senegal. (Christoph Studer)
cially in West Africa. It is common in market gardening of cash crops. Intensive Bottom: Detail of a drip irrigation system: water from the pipe
irrigation relies mainly on watering cans, due to its low investments costs and is being emitted directly onto the soil close to the plant, Niger.
precise water application, yet it is labour intensive. The value of urban agriculture (William Critchley)
and informal irrigation is still underestimated in SSA.

SLM Group: Smallholder Irrigation Management 101

4_Group_Smallholder_Irrigation.indd 101 20.01.11 14:34

 S M A L L H O L D E R I R R I G AT I O N M A N A G E M E N T
Applicability Land degradation

Land degradation addressed Erosion by water High

Water degradation: aridification – decrease of average soil moisture content, Erosion by wind Moderate
overuse / over-abstraction of surface and groundwater / aquifer level due to inef- Chemical degradation Low
ficient water use and too high demand on irrigation water Physical degradation Insignificant
Physical soil deterioration: waterlogging, sealing and crusting through inap- Biological degradation
propriate irrigation management Water degradation
Chemical soil deterioration: salinisation of soil through inappropriate irrigation
management and through bad quality of irrigation water
Unsuitable for areas prone to salinisation where salts cannot be washed out by
drainage. Land use

Cropland
Land use Grazing land
Mainly used on cropland and mixed land and in homegardens for food and cash
Forests / woodlands
crops (vegetables, fruit trees, etc.), rice, cotton, etc.
Mixed land use
Sometimes used for establishment of tree plantations.
Other
Micro-irrigation system mainly used for vegetables, fruits and cash crops or for
tree seedlings and establishment of trees.
Spate irrigation is used mainly for cereal crops.
Climate Average rainfall (mm)
Ecological conditions
Climate: Mainly for semi-arid and subhumid areas, partly for arid areas. Small- Humid > 3000
holder irrigation systems are valid options in almost all types of agro-ecological Subhumid 2000-3000
zones. They are naturally most relevant in areas where water is a constraint to Semi-arid 1500-2000
crop production, and where water resources are limited, very variable or over- Arid 1000-1500
used: thus in semi-arid to subhumid zones. Drip irrigation systems are very suit- 750-1000
able for water-scarce areas. In arid areas with annual rainfall of less than 500 mm, 500-750
irrigation management is mainly related to permanent rivers, based on water har-
250-500
vesting methods, or withdrawals from groundwater.
< 250
Terrain and landscape: Spate irrigation requires a highland catchment area
which supplies runoff in seasonal or ephemeral rivers. Drip irrigation can irrigate
sloping land and even quite steep slopes.
Soils: No restrictions, apart from soils with high sodium (Na) content (sodic soils); Slopes (%) very steep (>60)
needs good management on heavy clays due to risk of waterlogging. Drip irriga- steep (30-60)
tion can reduce or eliminate runoff and deep percolation, making it possible to hilly (16-30)
irrigate difficult soils – e.g. crusting or porous soils, through frequent and control- rolling (8-16)
led application of water. moderate (5-8)
gentle (2-5)
Socio-economic conditions flat (0-2)
Farming system and level of mechanisation: Traditional irrigation systems are
mainly applied on small-scale farms. Modern irrigation systems were used origi-
nally on large-scale farms. The newly popularised system of drip irrigation, for
example, is now also affordable and suitable for small-scale farming due to the Farm size Land ownership
development of smaller units and kits for smaller areas, tended by hand. Small- Small scale State
holder irrigation systems are mainly maintained with manual labour. Medium scale Company
Market orientation: SIM can be used for subsistence and small-scale farming.
Large scale Community
Irrigation can help farmers to move from solely subsistence to a mixed subsist-
Individual, not titled
ence / commercial system.
Land ownership and land use / water rights: SIM-systems are normally pri- Individual, titled
vately owned by the land users or land user groups, therefore secure rights and
full control over water are essential for the users. Additional permits for the use of
Mechanisation Market orientation
scarce water resources may be needed.
Skill / knowledge requirements: Needs high level of knowledge for the estab- Manual labour Subsistence
lishment, and also for the maintenance, of the system (especially micro-irrigation Animal traction Mixed
systems). Timing and amount of water application requires considerable skill. Mechanised Commercial
Labour requirements: Depending on the system, the labour requirements are
medium to high; a spate irrigation system needs higher labour inputs for estab-
lishment than micro-irrigation. The maintenance of a drip irrigation system can
Required labour Required know-how
be very demanding, but the labour days needed for watering can be significantly
reduced through the implementation of drip irrigation, compared to watering with High High
cans. Medium Medium
Low Low

102 SLM in Practice

4_Group_Smallholder_Irrigation.indd 102 21.07.11 12:13

 Economics Example: A simple bucket system costing
US$ 10, allowing the irrigation of 40 m², rep-
Establishment and maintenance costs resents an investment of US$ 2,500 per ha,
Establishment costs for SIM-systems vary considerably. Drip irrigation systems which, depreciated over 2-3 years, results
carry relatively high investment costs. Some traditional systems are (or were) high in annual depreciation costs of US$ 833 –
in initial labour – where for example intricate networks of channels brought water 1,250 per ha. In comparison, some gravity-
down from highland streams. Maintenance of the latter has almost always been based communal schemes providing water
carried out with no external support. If the costs for a drip irrigation system are for an irrigation area of 100 ha with high ini-
worked out per hectare then the prices appear high. Yet it is the low incremen- tial investment costs can be depreciated over
tal cost that allows land users to start on a small area (e.g. for horticultural pro- 5 years at a rate of US$ 400/ha. Despite the
duction). The costs for small-scale drip kits have decreased dramatically which large difference in investment costs per ha,
makes them now affordable for small-scale users. Even so it still requires initial the small units are on a par with the larger
investment and hence access to micro-credit: this means it is not a possibility schemes with respect to the financial income
for the poorest of land users. Land user groups provide an opportunity for joint they are able to generate (GTZ, 2006).
investment in the equipment.
Example: Zambia
SIM-system Establishment costs
In Zambia, treadle pumps could signifi-
Drip irrigation: cantly increase incomes of small-scale land
Bucket system (for home 5 US$ for 50m2 ➜ 2,000 US$ per ha
gardens) users. With the former used bucket irriga-
Drum kit irrigation system 10 US$ for 40 m2 ➜ 2,500 US$ per ha tion system the income achieved was about
Farm kit drip irrigation 25 US$ for 125 m2 ➜ 2,000 US$ per ha 125 US$ per 0.25 ha of land, whereas with
424 US$ with 1,000 litre tank, for 2,500 plants per one-eight acre (= 500 m2) treadle pumps the income increased to 850-
150–240 US$ for 1,000 m2 ➜ 1,500 – 2,400 US$ per ha
1,700 US$. This was attributed not only to
Treadle pump 50-120 US$ per pump (for about 0.4 ha) increased crop yields, but also to the greater
area of land irrigated. Cropping intensity rose
Spate irrigation systems 1,000 US$/ha
in some cases by 300% with an associated
(Sources: FAO, 2001; GTZ, 2001; Grid, 2008) increase in crop varieties. Because of the bet-
ter water availability land users were more
Maintenance costs for SIM cannot be neglected: drip irrigation systems, espe- willing to invest in new crops (FAO, 2001).
cially, need careful maintenance. However, the implementation of a drip irrigation
system in place of watering with cans lessens the labour input, reduces the water Example: African Market Gardens in the
used and therefore the fuel costs. An example based on drip irrigation introduced North of Benin
in an African Market Garden system (AMG: see case study) has shown a reduc- Studies conducted through ICRISAT and part-
tion in workload from 240 man hours when irrigating with watering cans com- ner organisations in West Africa have clearly
pared to 90 man hours with drip irrigation in the AMG system. shown the high profitability of African Market
Gardens (AMG). The profitability of AMG is
Production benefits around double that of vegetable gardens irri-
Yield without SLM Yield with SLM Yield gain (%) gated with traditional methods. Returns to
(kg/m2) (kg/m2) labour are more than three times higher for
Traditional irrigation AMG* system AMG and the investment can be paid back in
Lettuce (Niger) 1.14 1.95 + 70% little more than one year. The payback period
Onion (Ghana) 1.21 1.65 + 36% can even be shorter if the investments are
*AMG: African Market Garden system based on drip irrigation and crop species selection (Woltering, et al., 2009). made through a land users / commune group.
(Woltering, et al., 2009)
Comment: The figures presented above show the higher crop yield for the
AMG system compared to the traditional system with watering cans. Beside the
improved irrigation system the crop varieties selected also influence the yield.

Benefit-Cost ratio
Irrigation system short term long term quantitative

Drip irrigation + +++ AMG* (50 m2), Burkina Faso:

Return to labour: 12.6 US$/day
Return to land: 1.7 US$/m2
Bucket kit + +++ Income / cost per bucket kit, Kenya:
26-40/15 US$
Spate irrigation ++ +++
Overall +/++ +++
– – negative; – slightly negative; –/+ neutral; + slightly positive; ++ positive; +++ very positive;
*AMG: African Market Garden system based on drip irrigation and crop species selection (Source: Mati,
2005; Woltering, et al., 2009)

Comment: The AMG system clearly shows the profitability of drip irrigation,
which is around double that of traditional irrigated gardens. The returns to labour
are about three times higher for the AMG than for the traditional system.

SLM Group: Smallholder Irrigation Management 103

4_Group_Smallholder_Irrigation.indd 103 20.01.11 14:34

 S m a l l h o l d e r I r r i g at i o n M a n a g e m e n t
Impacts
Benefits Land users / community level Watershed / landscape level National / global level
Production +++ informal irrigation in urban areas helps to diversity ++ reduced risk of crop failure +++ improved food and water
­livelihoods and diets of the poor dwellers ­security
+++ higher crop yields
++ enhanced productivity of labour and land
++ increased diversity of cropping

Economic +++ increased income and new income streams ++ stimulation of economic growth +++ improved livelihood and
+ reduced labour (through reduction of weeds, because ++ new labour opportunities for ­well-being
no watering between plants and less time needed for landless labourers
watering) + less damage to off-site infra-
structure

Ecological ++ through more efficient water use reduced pressure on ++ increased water efficiency and
water resources reduced pressure on water
++ allows to produce crops in the off-season if water stor- resources
age available
+ micro-irrigation: reduced salinisation hazard: through
reduced evaporation and salt accumulation on soil sur-
face
+ reduced soil erosion (by water / wind)
+ improved soil cover
+ increased soil fertility
+ biodiversity enhancement
+ improved micro-climate

Socio-cultural ++ strong gender component, as marketing of vegetables is + increased awareness for envi- + protecting national heritage
the domain of women ronmental ‘health’
+ attractive landscape

Constraints How to overcome

Production l L ack of reliable water supply ➜ storage facilities (but has additional cost)
l Land users tend to use more water than needed by using a micro- ➜ needs good training of the land users
irrigation system, since water can be applied more easily

Economic l L ack of market access and incentives for agricultural intensification ➜ promoting markets for smallholder irrigation systems
l Lack of market for low cost irrigation material
l High investment costs especially a problem for poor land users
l Requires a high level of technical knowledge also for maintenance ➜ access to credits and financial support to improve the ­ability to
of the system invest in smallholder irrigation systems
Ecological l 
Abstraction / overuse of surface water and non-renewable ground ➜ use of improved rainwater harvesting systems to collect and store
and / or fossil water additional irrigation water
l Waterlogging and salinisation ➜ good crop rotation, appropriate irrigation practices,
balance supply and demand of water
lIf dependant on water harvesting or surface water during dry years /
periods, water supply for irrigation can be threatened
l Over-irrigation facilitates the development of diseases, weed growth ➜ needs good technical knowledge and appropriate maintenance of
and nutrient leaching the system
Drip irrigation:
l Salt accumulation at root zone (especially in areas with rainfall <100 ➜ regular leaching of salts and drainage for removal of salts is nec-
mm) essary
l Only a fraction of root zone is wetted, is more susceptible, and
depends on the continuous operation of the system

Socio-cultural – Over-abstraction of surface and groundwater resources can lead to ➜ specialists providing technical and economic information are
a decline of river flows and groundwater table and endangering sup- needed
ply of drinking water
– Conflicts over water ➜ proper planning and regional assessment of water resources as
well as restricted allocation of irrigation water

References and supporting information:

Andersson, L. 2005. Low-Cost Drip irrigation – On farm implementation in South Africa. Master Thesis, Master of Science Programme, Environmental Engineering, Lulea University
of Technology.
Community spate irrigation. 2009. http://www.spate-irrigation.org/spate/spatehome.htm, accessed on 28 September 2009.
FAO. 1988. Irrigation Water Management: Irrigation Methods. Irrigation Water Management, Training Manuals – 5. Prepared jointly by C. Brouwer and K. Prins, M. Kay, M. Heibloem.
FAO. 1997. Small-scale irrigation for arid zones. http://www.fao.org/docrep/W3094E/w3094e00.htm
FAO. 2001, Smallholder irrigation technology: prospects for sub-Saharan Africa. International Programme for Technology and Research in Irrigation and Drainage Knowledge Syn-
thesis Report No. 3 - March 2001 Melvyn Kay FAO/IPTRID Consultant.
FAO. 2008. Water and Rural Poverty - Interventions for Improving Livelihoods in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Grid. 2008. International Programme for Technology and Research in Irrigation and Drainage (IPTRI), Issue 28, February 2008.

104 SLM in Practice

4_Group_Smallholder_Irrigation.indd 104 20.01.11 14:34

 Adoption and upscaling Enabling environment: key factors for adoption

Inputs, material incentives, credits +++

Adoption rate
Training and education ++
SSA shows one of the lowest degrees of investment in irrigation among devel-
oping regions, and recent surveys do not show any sign of change, the annual Land tenure, secure land use rights +++
increase in irrigation being slightly more than 1% between 1995 –2005. Access to markets +++

Upscaling Research ++
The adoption of small-scale irrigation systems will also be determined by the Infrastructure ++
capacity of land users to take risks in the uptake and investments with a new
technology. Therefore the following aspects are crucial: Example: Kenya
Reliable water supply: The access to reliable supply of water is often the major In the study conducted by Kulecho and
constraint to irrigation. Weatherhead (2006) NGOs were asked what
Profitability: The benefit-cost ratio must make it worthwhile for land users to they considered as the main problems for
invest in irrigation. For poor land users the high investment cost and the pay- smallholder irrigation in Kenya. The systems
back time pose a major obstacle. used were mainly drip, furrow and sprin-
Access to financial services: The financing and managing of irrigation systems kler systems. The results showed that the
need to be market-driven and are to a large degree the responsibility of small- highest number of responses were related
holders. The self-financing capacity of farmers needs to be strengthened and to the problem of crop marketing, low-cost
credit must be easy accessible to smallholders. Land user groups / community drip irrigation maintenance, followed by
organisations can be an opportunity for poor land users to receive credit and to water supply problems. The report clearly
make the initial investment. showed that farmers need adequate tech-
Access to markets and infrastructure: Functioning markets and market nical support, reliable water supplies, and
access is a prerequisite for the success of SIM. Irrigation can help subsistence affordable access to markets if they are to
land users to become more market-oriented. maximise the economic and poverty-reduc-
Market for low-cost drip irrigation systems: Even though a market very often ing benefits of low-cost drip systems.
exists for equipment generally, low-cost drip irrigation systems may be hard to
obtain. Therefore, setting up a working supply chain and ensuring sufficient man- Example: Burkina Faso and Niger
ufacturing capacity is essential. ICRISAT has introduced the African Market
Technical support and capacity development: The utilisation of the full Garden (AMG) system as a commercial irri-
potential of irrigation production needs adequate training and technical support gation and production system in Niger. There
for the land users also for appropriate water application and maintenance of the was little follow-up and in most cases non-
system. Competent specialists providing technical and economic information are educated land users were left on their own to
needed. operate the systems, which resulted in zero
Policy: Usually a Ministry of Agriculture is separate from a Ministry of Water, maintenance. Only 4 years after the imple-
which often leads to administrative confusion and administrative hurdles. The mentation 20% of the systems were still found
water and agricultural sector must be coordinated. operational. The producers who abandoned
If an irrigation system is used in common, the number of users sharing the infra- the systems found that there were no clear
structure should be low. Operational simplicity is a major criterion for the success savings in labour and water. Based on these
of small-scale community-based irrigation schemes. experiences a new project started in Burkina
Faso. This time only the wealthier small-scale
Comment: The dream of many land users in SSA to increase production and farmers were approached and they paid 70%
income with irrigation is limited by the availability of water. Already today, scarce of the investments. Most of the systems are
water resources are often overused. Therefore, the main aim should be to still operational. It demonstrates that the
improve water use efficiency and to develop more decentralised smaller irrigation more educated and the wealthier a producer
systems without causing land or water degradation. is, the more likely he / she is to adopt small-
scale drip irrigation (Woltering, et al., 2009).
Incentives for adoption
For SIM to be used by individuals these ideally should not be subsidised but should
be self-financed by land users. For that reason, the access to micro-credit must
be ensured. Yet, SIM techniques are still only accessible to land users who can
afford to buy them or to access micro-credit. Therefore poorest land users need
appropriate financial and technical support for the establishment of a SIM system.

References and supporting information (continued):

GTZ. 2006. Financing Small-scale Irrigation in Sub-Saharan Africa. Grimm J., M. Richter. Volume 1: Desk Study, December 2006. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusam-
menarbeit (GTZ) GmbH, Commissioned by The World Bank .
IWMI. 2007. Recognising Informal Irrigation in Urban and Peri-Urban West Africa. Water Policy Briefing, Issue 26.
Pretty, J. N., A. D. Noble, D. Bossio, J. Dixon, R. E. Hine, F. W. T. Penning de Vries, and J. I. L. 2006. Resource-conserving Agriculture Increases Yields in Developing Countries.
Environmental Science & Technology, Vol. 40, No. 4.
Kulecho,I.K. and K. Weatherhead. 2008. Issues of irrigation of horticultural crops by smallholder farmers in Kenya. Irrig Drainage Syst (2006) 20:259–266
Mati, B. M. 2005. Overview of water and soil nutrient management under smallholder rainfed agriculture in East Africa. Working Paper 105. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water
Management Institute (IWMI).
Mati, B. M. 2008. Capacity Development for Smallholder Irrigation in Kenya. IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE. Irrig. and Drain. 57: 332–340 (2008)
Postel, S., P. Polak, F. Gonzales, and J. Keller. 2001. Drip Irrigation for Small Farmers - A New Initiative to Alleviate Hunger and Poverty. International Water Resources Association.
Water International, Volume 26, Number 1, Pages 3–13, March 2001
Woltering, L., D. Pasternak, and J. Ndjeunga. 2009. The African Market Garden: Development of an Integrated Horticultural Production System for Smallholder Producers in West
Africa. Submitted to Irrigation and Drainage.

SLM Group: Smallholder Irrigation Management 105

4_Group_Smallholder_Irrigation.indd 105 20.01.11 14:34

 Case study
Smallholder Irrigation Management

A f r ic a n M a r k e t G a r d e n s - S e n e g a l
The African Market Garden (AMG) is a horticultural production system based SLM measure Agronomic
on low-pressure drip irrigation. According to the level of experience, market SLM group Smallholder Irrigation Management
orientation or social structure of the land users, four different AMG models
Land use type Annual crops: vegetables; Tree
have been developed. This case study focuses on the ‘Cluster System’ which crops: fruit trees
is suitable for an organised group of independent vegetable producers sharing
Degradation na
a common water delivery system. addressed
From a central source, water is distributed through a pipe network to a cluster
Stage of intervention Prevention
of plots. Each farmer operates a 1,000 m2 unit, and each is equipped with an
elevated 200 litre barrel and a standard irrigation kit, including a tap, filter and Tolerance to climate AMG especially suitable for sea-
thick-tube drip laterals. Minimal size of an AMG unit should be 500 m2. Afford- change sons with high evapotranspiration
demand, because AMG permits daily
able high-quality material is used and the design and operation is simple. The irrigation that eases water stress
barrel also serves as a fertilizer tank. A float ensures a constant pressure head.
Water supply is calculated by the time needed for delivery of the daily water Establishment activities
dosage, or through the use of water dosing valves. Producers have individual 1. Build concrete reservoir.
control of water use. Since the AMG requires only 1 meter pressure for opera- 2. Drill borehole (110 mm diameter; 12 m deep,
tion, it can draw on low-capacity renewable energy sources such as elevated hand drilled).
dams, solar pumps or reservoirs. To supply an area of 50,000 m2 with 8 mm/ 3. Install motor pump and tubes to connect
day in the hot season a 400 m3-reservoir is required. The crops are planted on well with reservoir.
elevated beds. Water mixed with urea as fertilizer is applied daily. Drip irriga- 4. Install drip kit with tap, filter and drip laterals
tion improves growing conditions for crops while at the same time saving labor, (8-16 mm in diameter).
water and other inputs. 5. Establish a fence to protect the garden.
AMG is promoted as a holistic management package, integrating all aspects
of production, post-harvest and marketing in one system. This includes the Maintenance / recurrent activities
use of improved vegetable varieties, improved crop husbandry, integrated pest 1. Prepare elevated beds with a basic dress-
management, as well as improved storage, processing and marketing of prod- ing of 4 kg/m2 manure and 0.1 kg/m2 NPK
ucts, and improved access to inputs. fertilizer biannually.
2. Add urea to irrigation water (concentration:
50-100 ppm N).
3. Operate water supply system.

Labour requirements
For establishment: high
For maintenance: low
Knowledge requirements
For advisors: high
For land users: high

Remark: Installation of the system requires

basic knowledge on engineering for the sizing
of the PVC distribution network.

Photo 1: AMG system with elevated barrels for irrigation of

cash crops (okra) through drip laterals. (ICRISAT)
Technical drawing: Cluster system with several AMG plots
connected to a central water source - in this case a small
elevated dam. (ICRISAT)

106 SLM in Practice

4_Group_Smallholder_Irrigation.indd 106 20.01.11 14:34

 Case study area: Ngoyé Ndioffogor and Ecological conditions
Mbassis Tatadem, Senegal ··  limate: semi-arid
C
·· Average annual rainfall: 400-500 mm
·· Soil parameters: sandy soils, low fertility and organic matter content
·· Slope: flat (0-2%)
Saint-Louis ·· Landform: plains
·· Altitude: no data
Dakar
Thiès Socio-economic conditions
Case study area ·· S ize of land per household: no data
Kaolack Tambacounda ·· Type of land user: small to medium-scale, land user groups, poor to average
level of wealth
·· Land ownership: individual (titled)
Ziguinchor ·· Land use rights: individual - secure land use rights are a precondition
·· Level of mechanisation: manual labour / mechanised
·· Market orientation: commercial
·· AMG is suitable for urban / peri­urban areas where producers have access
to credit, markets, technical support
Establishment inputs and costs per unit ·· Strong organisation in groups is important for the maintenance of the sys-
Inputs Costs (US$) tem and for access to training / backstopping

Drip system 300

Production / economic benefits
Oil drum (200 l) 56 +++ Reduced production costs: costs for drip irrigated gardens are 50% lower
Well / borehole 16 than for traditional irrigated gardens due to savings in labour, water and
consequently in fuel
Motor pump (3 hp) 34
+++ Reduced workload: total workload for AMG is 11.5 man-days compared
Farming tools 65 to 30 man-days in traditional irrigation system
Fence 25 +++ Increased income due to doubled profits from vegetable production (com-
PVC connections 79 pared to traditional irrigation methods)
TOTAL 575 Ecological benefits
+++ Improved water availability / reduced pressure on water resources
Maintenance inputs and costs per unit and year +++ Reduced evaporation / effective use of water due to accurate and equal
distribution of water at optimal rates
Inputs Costs (US$)
+++ Effective application of fertilizer with the water
Labour, fuel and agricultural inputs 510
Socio-cultural benefits
TOTAL 510
+++ Improved nutrition and food security through year-round availability of
quality vegetables and fruits
Remarks: A unit corresponds to the area irri-
+++ Improved knowledge on irrigation techniques / horticulture
gated by one producer (= 500 m2). Establish-
+++ Improved organisation (farmer associations, user groups, etc.)
ment costs include labour inputs (2 US$ per
person-day). Annual maintenance costs include
Weaknesses ➜ and how to overcome
labour, fuel and agricultural inputs (e.g. fertilizer,
·· Irrigated vegetable production is a capital intensive undertaking ➜ sharing
seeds; based on ICRISAT recommended rates).
infrastructure, land and water through producer groups can cut investment
For a 1,000 m2-unit prices are doubled (except
costs by 60% per unit area. Set-up and operation costs further decrease if
for tools and fence).
producer groups can use communally owned infrastructure and / or alterna-
tive energy sources (e.g. elevated dams, solar pumps, artesian well).
Benefit-cost ratio ·· The AMG system is not suitable for farmers with limited access to knowledge,
Inputs short term long term marketing and services ➜ improve access to markets and training programs
Establishment slightly positive very positive (for extensionists and farmers); guarantee technical assistance during 2-3
years; target the system to educated producers who make a living out of veg-
Maintenance very positive very positive
etable production. Set up AMG service and demonstration centres offering
credit, farm inputs, marketing support, training and technical advice.
Remarks: Payback period is only 6 months. Net
income per farmer after all deduction is about
Adoption
US$ 1,000 per year. The profitability of the AMG
AMG is spreading fast in Senegal and Burkina Faso. Cost reduction (e.g. alter-
is around double that of vegetable gardens irri-
native energy sources), collective action and intensive training / back­stopping
gated with traditional methods.
are very important provisions for successful adoption. Upscaling of AMG in dry
West Africa will depend on access to technology, inputs, knowledge and
organisation, and a conducive institutional environment.

Main contributors: Dov Pasternak, Head Crops and Systems Diversification and Director of IPALAC, ICRISAT-WCA, Niamey, Niger; [email protected]; [email protected]
Key references: Woltering L., D. Pasternak and J. Ndjeunga. 2009. The African Market Garden: Development of an Integrated Horticultural Production
System for Smallholder Producers in West Africa – Draft Submitted to Irrigation and Drainage 21-10-2009 n ICRISAT. 2009. The African Market Garden - Advanced Horticulture for the
Poor (Flyer).

SLM Technology: African Market Gardens - Senegal 107

4_Group_Smallholder_Irrigation.indd 107 20.01.11 14:34

 Case study
Smallholder Irrigation Management

L o w - P r e ssu r e I r r i g at i o n S ys t e m ‘ C a l i f o r n i a n ’ - S e n e g a l
The low pressure pipe distribution system called ‘Californian’ has proven to SLM measure Agronomic
be a very efficient irrigation system for smallholder farmers group in Africa. SLM group Smallholder Irrigation Management
The principle of the Californian system is to convey water to the crops through
Land use type Annual cropping
fixed underground rigid PVC pipes (40–75 mm diameter). The pipe network is
buried at 0.50 m depth to avoid deterioration by UV radiation and agricultural Degradation na
addressed
practices. Risers with hydrants are fixed to those rigid pipes at regular distance
(18-36 m). To each riser a 14 m long flexible hose is attached which can be Stage of intervention Prevention
dragged around to irrigate the individual plots and crops. The installation of the Tolerance to climate High tolerance as long as water
pipe network can be made locally by plumbers. Water is supplied through a change source is not depleted
pump (manual, pedal or small motor) from a well, a reservoir or a river. From
the intake water is conveyed to the highest point of the plot which allows the Establishment activities
conveyance to the field’s most distant point (irrespective of topographical con- 1. Layout of pipe network by putting stakes
ditions - upslope or downslope). along the line to indicate the orientation of
The system is remarkably efficient in sandy or salty soils. It is adapted to small– the canal to be dug.
scale farming especially for vegetable crops, rice and tree crops and is suitable for 2. Excavate network of canals (0.2 m wide,
areas ranging between 0.25 - 1 ha; one riser irrigates an area of 500-1000 m2. 0.5 m deep; straight and regular). In sandy
The system as such does not require maintenance. In case of deterioration soil the interval between risers is 30 m x 18 m
of pipes or fittings, the farmer can easily fix the problem himself or with the or 36 m x 18 m (intervals are multiples of
assistance of a local plumber. The estimated life expectancy for the Californian 6 m = PVC pipe unit length). Density of risers
system is 6-10 years in West African conditions. Ideal conditions for transfer / is 10 -15 risers/ha.
adoption of the technology include: (1) availability of shallow aquifers, and other 3. Install the pipes into the open canals, fittings
water sources; (2) occurrence of sandy soils and sandy clay soils; (3) clearly are assembled by sticking.
defined land legislation and tenure; (4) access to markets and to microfinance 4. Install hydrants composed by a 0.2 m high
institutions. riser, a PVC elbow and a locally made flow
control device (plug); the risers are anchored
in the soil through a small concrete slab.
5. Put the pipe under flow condition to verify
the water tightness of the system.
6. Bury the canals.
7. Protect risers from sun.

Maintenance / recurrent activities

1. Before starting to pump it is recommended
to let open one of the hydrants in order to
avoid excessive pressure and blasting of
pipes.
2. In case of deterioration of the pipes or fit-
tings, land users can easily fix the problem
themselves or request the intervention of a
local plumber.

Labour requirements
For establishment: medium
For maintenance: low
Knowledge requirements
For advisors: high
For land users: high
Remark: Technical assistance needed for
design, installation and operation of the
­system; installation of pipes is quick and
easy; no need for topographical survey.

Photo 1: Hand pump for supply of irrigation water;

Photo 2: Pipes for the distribution of irrigation water are
buried in 0.5 m deep canals;
Photo 3: Growing onions on an irrigated plot (All photos by
Sourakata Bangoura)
Technical drawing: Dimensions and main components of the
low-pressure irrigation system: (1) water source; (2) manual
or motor pump; (3) input hydrant; (4) rigid PVC pipes; (5)
small concrete slab; (6) elbow; (7) plug; (8) flexible hose for
irrigation.

108 SLM in Practice

4_Group_Smallholder_Irrigation.indd 108 20.01.11 14:34

 Case study area: Diourbel, Senegal Ecological conditions
·· C limate: semi-arid; sudano-sahelian, 9 months dry period: Oct.-June
·· Average annual rainfall: 450 mm
·· Soil parameters: sandy soils, with low organic matter content, low fertility,
good drainage (tropical ferralitic soils)
Saint-Louis ·· Slope: flat or gentle (0-5%)
·· Landform: plains
·· Altitude: 25 m a.s.l.
Dakar
Thiès Case study area ·· Availability of shallow aquifers, and other water sources is crucial; sandy
soils and sandy-clay soils are suitable.
Kaolack Tambacounda
Socio-economic conditions
·· S ize of land per household: 0.5 ha
·· Type of land user: poor small-scale farmers, implemented individually or
Ziguinchor
within farmer groups
·· Population density: no data
·· Land ownership: mostly individual
·· Land use rights: mostly individual
Establishment inputs and costs per ha ·· Level of mechanisation: mostly manual labour and animal traction
Inputs Costs (US$) ·· Market orientation: mixed (subsistence and commercial)
·· Strong local leadership, long term land use rights and external funding or
Labour 50
access to microfinance institutions are preconditions.
Equipment/tools no data
Construction material 1333 Production / economic benefits
+++ Increased crop yield (in combination with improved agricultural inputs (fer-
TOTAL 1383
tilizer, pesticides, seeds)
% of costs borne by land users 0% +++ Increased production area (from 0.1 to 2 ha per farmer group)
+++ Reduced risk of production failure
Maintenance inputs and costs per ha per year +++ Increased drinking / household water availability (from < 10 to 20 liters/
Inputs Costs (US$) person-days)
+++ Increased irrigation water availability
Labour, equipment, construction material no data
+++ Increased farm income and diversification of income sources
TOTAL no data ++ Increased product diversification
Remarks: If soil is not sandy labour input for
Ecological benefits
establishment increases. Hand or treadle pumps
+++ Increased water quantity
are provided by the project. Motor pumps (with
+++ Reduced hazard towards adverse events (droughts)
pump capacity 2 HP) increase costs for estab-
+++ Increased plant diversity
lishment and maintenance (fuel) but reduce
+++ Increased soil moisture
labour inputs for operation.
++  Increased water quality
++ Reduced surface runoff
Benefit-cost ratio
++ Reduced salinity
Inputs short term long term ++ Improved soil cover and increased biomass
Establishment positive very positive
Socio-cultural benefits
Maintenance positive positive +++ Improved cultural opportunities (pilgrimage to Mecca, marriages, etc.)
+++ Community institution strengthening
Remarks: The estimated life expectancy for the
+++ Conflict mitigation (group management of irrigation facilities)
Californian system is 6-10 years in the West Afri-
+++ Improved food security / self-sufficiency
can conditions.
++ Improved situation of socially and economically disadvantaged groups
Adoption ++ Improved health
Totally 468 farmers (64% of them women) have
adopted the technology. Inputs were paid by
Weaknesses
·· Initial investment cost of construction material and equipments.
project. There is high demand for the technology.
·· Breakage of riser pipes.
Full participation of stakeholders in the whole
·· Scarcity of surface water resources, poor water quality (salinity), low water
project process and the involvement of local
discharge from the shallow wells and boreholes limit the applicability of the
leaders, local NGOs and private companies are
system.
pre­requisites for successful implementation.
·· Lack of farmers knowledge on irrigation techniques and lack of qualified per-
sonnel for training and supervision hinder successful implementation.

Main contributors: Sourakata Bangoura, Land and Water Resources Officer for Central Africa, Subregional Office for Central Africa, Libreville, Gabon; [email protected]

SLM Technology: Low-Pressure Irrigation System ‘Californian’ - Senegal 109

4_Group_Smallholder_Irrigation.indd 109 20.01.11 14:34

 Case study
Smallholder Irrigation Management

I r r i g a t e d O a sis g a r d e n s - Ni g e r
In the Oasis of Timia in the Aïr, small irrigated gardens (< 0.3 ha) have been SLM measure Structural and vegetative
used for over a century, producing dates and tree crops (figs, citrus, cher- SLM group Smallholder Irrigation Management
ries, etc.) for sale and cereals for consumption (wheat, maize and pearl millet).
Land use type Annual cropping, Tree cropping
With the onion boom in the 1990s, the establishment of new gardens grew
dramatically. The new gardens cover a bigger area (0.5 - 1 ha) and focus on Degradation Chemical and biological degrada-
addressed tion of soil; Soil erosion by water
cash crops - mainly onions, but also potatoes and garlic. Gardens are fenced and wind
using branches from acacia trees. The water supply system in most cases
Stage of intervention Rehabilitation and mitigation
is based on traditional wells with an animal-drawn scoop. The wells are less
than 20 meters deep and generally built without a casing. Local experts were Tolerance to climate Technology is sensitive to drought,
trained by GTZ project staff in well construction and maintenance. Modern change temperature increase, floods and
storms
motor pumps have recently become common and are used in new gardens.
Water is conveyed to the plots through a hand-dug network of distribution Establishment activities
channels. The channels are lined with clay and stones to minimise water loss 1. Identify and demarcate of a free area to be
through infiltration, evaporation, or breaching. Irrigating a whole garden takes converted into a garden. Fence area with
about two hours. acacia branches and living hedge.
There are two cropping seasons per year: the rainy season (June-September) 2. Establish a traditional or cement well, max.
with staple crops such as maize and millet; and the dry / cold season (October- 2 m wide and 15-20 m deep (contract with
February) with wheat-barley associations and cash crops such as onions, gar- local well builder) in the middle of the field.
lic, tomatoes and vegetables. Fruit trees covering up to a fifth of the gardens; 3. Installation of traditional water conveyance
one section of the garden is reserved for keeping small ruminants. Agricultural system (Tekarkat): wooden poles hold a pul-
residues are used as fodder and manure produced by livestock ensures fertil- ley which conducts a rope with a scoop for
ity of gardens in combination with inorganic fertilizers. Traditional techniques extraction of water from the well. The sys-
(local plants, ash, etc.) are used for pest management. Seed production and tem is powered by a dromedary. A 5 m duct
selection is done strictly locally. (palm stem or iron sheet) conducts the water
to a small reservoir.
Irrigated fields Tekarkat 4. Mark and dig irrigation canal system and
basins for crop cultivation (8 m2): Main canal
and secondary canals (perpendicular to main
canal) are reinforced with clay or stones.
Duct 5. Purchase inputs (local market): seeds,
seedlings, fertilizer, tools.
6. Plant fruit trees.

Water basin Activities 1. and 4. are done collectively. All activi-

ties are carried out by manual labour.
Well
Fence Maintenance / recurrent activities
1. Maintenance of fence: replace missing
branches; plant new tree seedlings to rein-
force the living hedge (biannually).
2. Irrigation (daily).
3. Maintenance of Tekarkat and canal system:
control (and replace) poles; periodic weed-
ing, cleaning, repair leaks and improve lining
with clay/stones (biannually, after harvest).
4. Field preparation and application of organic
manure (beginning of each cropping season).
5. Maintenance of well: cleaning (hot season),
reinforce walls with cement (if needed).
6. Feeding draught animal using natural
grassland and crop residues.

Labour requirements
For establishment: medium to high
For maintenance: medium to high
Knowledge requirements
For advisors: medium to high
For land users: low (indigenous knowledge)

Photo 1: Components of an irrigated oasis garden with a tra-

ditional Tekarkat water supply system. The dromedary pulls
up the water filled scoop.
Photo 2: Tekarkat established in an oasis North of Tahoua.
Photo 3: Irrigated gardens in Timia. (All photos by Abdoulaye
Sambo Soumaila)

110 SLM in Practice

4_Group_Smallholder_Irrigation.indd 110 20.01.11 14:34

 Case study area: Timia oasis, Aïr, Niger Ecological conditions
·· C limate: arid
·· Average annual rainfall: <120 mm
·· Soil parameters: sandy soils, with usually good drainage, medium water stor-
age capacity, medium soil fertility and soil organic matter; and low soil depth
·· Slope: mostly flat (0-2%) in oasis
·· Landform: mainly mountains, valley floors
·· Altitude: 800 m a.s.l.
Case study area
Agadez Socio-economic conditions
··  ize of land per household: <1 ha
S
·· Type of land users: individuals / families; mainly poor land users
Zinder ·· Population density: 10,000 persons/km2 (oasis)
Maradi
·· Land ownership: mostly individual, untitled
Niamey ·· Land use rights: individual, communal (unorganised)
·· Market orientation: mostly subsistence (self-supply), partly mixed (subsist-
ence and commercial)
·· The land user can be (1) the owner of the garden; (2) a family member man-
Establishment inputs and costs per 0.5 ha aging the family-owned garden; (3) a paid labourer; (4) a usufructuary
Inputs Costs (US$)
Production / economic benefits
Labour: 90 person-days 180
+++ Increased crop yield, fodder and animal production
Land (opportunity costs) 400 +++ Increased fodder quality and animal diversity
Equipment: traditional well and tekarkat 500 +++ Increased farm income
camel / dromedary 400 Ecological benefits
Other equipment: 200 +++ Improved soil cover
+++ Reduced wind velocity and soil loss
Agricultural inputs: seedlings (50) 200
+++ Increased soil fertility
TOTAL 1880 (+++ Increased biomass / above ground carbon)
% of costs borne by land users 100% ++ Reduced fire risk
Socio-cultural benefits
Maintenance inputs and costs per 0.5 ha +++ Conflict mitigation
per year +++ Community institution strengthening through mutual aid in technology
Inputs Costs (US$) implementation
Labor: 104 person-days 208 +++ Improved cultural opportunities
+++ Improved food security
Equipment: traditional well and tekarkat 100
camel (fodder, health) 1460
Off-site benefits
++ Reduced damage on public / private infrastructure
Other equipment: 100 +++ Reduced wind transported sediments
Agricultural inputs: seedlings, organic 240
fertilizer Weaknesses ➜ and how to overcome
TOTAL 2108 ·· High implementation costs ➜ establish national financial support systems
% of costs borne by land users 100%
for acquisition of garden area by very poor people.
·· H igh maintenance costs ➜ promote efficient irrigation technologies that
Remarks: Cost calculation is based on local land reduce maintenance costs (such as drip irrigation).
prices and traditional irrigation systems. Mainte- ·· Uncontrolled spread of the technology resulting in an overexploitation of
nance costs include also fodder (for draught ani- groundwater and over-production of e.g. onions ➜ increase water use effi-
mal) and organic manure. ciency; regulate market and promote agro-industrial food processing.
·· High dependency on climatic factors influencing the recharge of the ground-
Benefit-cost ratio water level ➜ exploitation of deep water resources through artesian wells
Inputs short term long term and introduction of adapted drip irrigation technologies.
Establishment very positive vey positive
Adoption
Maintenance very positive very positive The gardens are traditional with a high trend of spontaneous adoption. The tech-
Remarks: The technology serves a double pur- nology was an answer to the successive droughts in the 1970ies and 1980ies
pose: food security and income generation. which have caused heavy livestock losses in the region. Pastoralists adopted the
technology to diversify their livelihoods and minimise risk. Since the 1990ies, 700
new irrigated gardens were established in Timia (as compared to 100 gardens).

Main contributors: Abdoulaye Sambo Soumaila, Groupe de Recherche d’Etude et d’Action pour le Développement (GREAD), Niamey, Niger; [email protected]
Key references: Suchantke, J. and A. S. Soumaila. 2001. Etude cadre pour le programme NIGETIP IV, KfW, Niamey, Niger n Soumaila, A. S., 2005. Rapport du symposium international
sur le développement des filières agropastorales en Afrique organisé par GREAD. n UCMA. 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009. Rapports annuels de commercialisation n PPEAP. 2006. Rapport final
d’évaluation du projet de promotion des exportations agropastorales n Ministère du développement agricole. 2008, 2009.  Données statistiques sur la production maraichère.

SLM Technology: Irrigated Oasis Gardens - Niger 111

4_Group_Smallholder_Irrigation.indd 111 20.01.11 14:34

 Case study
Smallholder Irrigation Management

S pat e I r r i g at i o n - E r i t r e a
Spate irrigation has a long history in Eritrea and still forms the livelihood base SLM measure Structural
for rural communities in arid lowlands of the country. It is a traditional water SLM group Smallholder Irrigation Management
diversion and spreading technique under which seasonal floods of short dura-
Land use type Annual cropping
tion – springing from the rainfall-rich highlands – are diverted from ephemeral
rivers (wadis) to irrigate cascades of leveled and bunded fields in the coastal Degradation na
addressed
plains. The diversion structures include the following elements: (1) the ‘agim’, a
temporary 3-4 m high river diversion structure on the low-flow side of the wadi, Stage of intervention na
made from brushwood, tree trunks, earth, stones and / or boulders, erected Tolerance to climate Tolerant to climatic extremes
to divert a large part of the flow during a spate flow to adjacent agricultural change (adapted to unpredictable heavy
fields; (2) a primary, and several secondary distribution canals; unlined, bor- floods)
dered by earthen embankments; convey and spread the floodwater to the irri-
Establishment activities
gable fields; (3) the fields, rectangular shaped, of about 1–2 ha, separated by
1. Construction of diversion structure (agim).
earthen bunds. Floodwater is distributed from field to field: when a field is com-
2. Construction of main distribution canal.
pletely flooded (to a depth of about 0.5 m), water is conveyed to the immediate
3. Construction of secondary distribution
downstream field by breaching one of the bunds. This process continues until
canals.
all the water is used up. Arable fields need to be flooded several times.
4. Leveling of fields.
The water soaks deep into the soil profile (up to 2.4 m) and provides moisture
5. Establish embankments around fields and
sufficient for two or even three harvests: crop growth is entirely dependent on
within fields.
the residual soil moisture. The main crop grown is sorghum; maize is the next
All activities are carried out by manual labour and
most important. Sedimentation is as important as water management: With
animal traction, before the highland rainy season.
each flood, soil is built up by depositing rich sediment on the fields. Due to
the force of the floods, the diversion structures are frequently damaged and / Maintenance / recurrent activities
or washed away. Reconstruction and maintenance are labour-intensive and 1. Reconstruction / repair of diversion struc-
require collective community action. Elaborate local regulations, organisation tures (2-4 times/year; collective community
and cooperation at the community level are prerequisites for successful man- action).
agement of spate irrigation systems. 2. Annual desilting / repair of distribution
canals.
3. Annual raising of bund heights due to silt-
ing up of fields.
4. Flood fields (community action, during
highland rainy season: July-September).
Most likely a field receives 3 irrigation turns,
on a bi-weekly interval between any 2
turns.
5. Soil tillage (15 cm deep; using oxen-drawn
plough) to break capillary uplift of soil water
and to create evaporation barrier (end of
the flooding season).
6. Sowing (10 days after last flooding; Mid
September).

Labour requirements
For establishment: high
For maintenance: high
Knowledge requirements
For advisors: high
For land users: high

Photo 1: Social organisation and community action are pre-

requisites for spate irrigation systems: construction of an
agim in a dry river bed. (IFAD)
Photo 2: Fertile sediments and spate irrigation result in high
sorghum yields. (IFAD)
Technical drawing: Cross section of an agim (top left);
Components of a traditional spate irrigation system: (1) agim;
(2) main distribution canal; (3) irrigated fields; (4) earthen
embankments. Arrows indicate the water flow. (Mats Gurtner)

112 SLM in Practice

4_Group_Smallholder_Irrigation.indd 112 20.01.11 14:34

 Case study area: Wadi Laba, Sheeb area, Ecological conditions
Eastern lowlands, Eritrea ·· C limate: arid (hot, high evapotranspiration)
·· Average annual rainfall: < 200 mm
·· Soil parameters: very deep and fertile soil (alluvial silts), formed by annual
sedimentation; well drained, soil texture: loams to silt loams
·· Slope: flat (0-2%)
Case study area
·· Landform: plains (alluvial plains of the coastal area)
Keren Massawa ·· Altitude: 200 m a.s.l.
·· The alluvial plains are cut through by wadis discharging into the Red Sea.
Asmara The spates account for 65% of the annual flow volume. 75% of the irrigated
land in Sheeb is watered by the main wadi. Floodwater is unpredictable in
timing and volume, and has high destructive potential.

Assab
Socio-economic conditions
·· S ize of land per household: no data
·· Type of land user: small-scale, poor to very poor land users; water manage-
ment carried out communally, crop management individually
·· Population density: low
Establishment inputs and costs per unit ·· Land ownership: state
Inputs Costs (US$) ·· Land use rights: individual
·· Level of mechanisation: manual labour and animal traction
Labour: 12 person-days no data
Equipment / tools: 4 camel-days, 10 pairs- no data Production / economic benefits
of-ox-days, scouring and tillage imple- +++ Increased crop yield
ments, shovels
+++ Increased fodder production (residues are fed to livestock)
Agricultural inputs: none no data +++ Increased production area (without irrigation, agricultural production is not
Construction material: tree trunks, brush- no data possible)
wood, stones, boulders, earth +++ Increased water availability
TOTAL 60 +++ Increased farm income
% of costs borne by land users 100% Ecological benefits
+++ Improved harvesting / collection of water
Maintenance inputs and costs per unit* and year +++ Increased soil moisture
Inputs Costs (US$) +++ Increased soil fertility
Labour no data Socio-cultural benefits
Equipment: camels, oxen, scouring and till- no data +++ Improved food security
age implements +++ High level of cooperation and organisation on community level
Agricultural inputs: none no data
Weaknesses ➜ and how to overcome
Construction material: tree trunks, brush- no data ·· H ighly labour-intensive and time consuming maintenance; water diversion
wood, stones, boulders, earth
structures are frequently breached / washed away by heavy floods; canals
TOTAL 48-96 are obstructed through deposition of boulders, gravel and coarse sediments
% of costs borne by land users 100% ➜ yearly repair / reconstruction is required.
* unit = 10 m long agim (1 m high, 3 m wide), constructed with ·· Great demand for wood: huge numbers of trees are annually needed for (re-)
mixed material (stones, earth, brushwood) constructing diversion structures.
·· Irrigation efficiency is only about 20% because of the difficulty of controlling
Remarks: Data on labour inputs for construc- large amounts of water in a short period of time (and often at night) and
tion / maintenance of canals and field bunds are because water is lost by percolation, seepage and evaporation ➜ to over-
not included, therefore not included in the come all 3 problems, recommendations focus on building permanent flood
tables above. Costs for agim reconstruction are diversion and distribution structures which: (1) withstand the force of heavy
40% of establishment. Total maintenance costs floods and divert the water effectively; (2) eliminate the need to cut trees; (3)
depend on the number of reconstructions dur- reduce human and animal labour inputs; (4) increase productivity. Lining the
ing normal spate season (2-4 times). The yearly main canals with cements would reduce water loss by percolation and seep-
cost (establishment and maintenance) reaches age. Proper leveling of basin fields helps to distribute the floodwater uniformly.
US$ 60-156.
Adoption
Benefit-cost ratio Spate irrigation is an indigenous technology, originally introduced from Yemen.
Inputs short term long term Spontaneous spread takes place throughout the lowlands. Current spate
Establishment no data no data ­irrigation area in Eritrea is 16,000 ha. Potential area is estimated at 60,000–
90,000 ha.
Maintenance no data no data

Main contributors: Abraham Mehari Haile, UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education, Delft, The Netherlands; [email protected]
Key references: Abraham Mehari H, Van Steenbergen F, Verheijen O, Van Aarst S:Spate Irrigation, Livelihood Improvement and Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change; n Mehretab
Tesfai Stroosnijder L:The Eritrean spate irrigation system n Abraham Mehari, Depeweg, H, Schultz B (2005): Hydraulic Performance Evaluation of The Wadi Laba Spate Irrigation System
in Eritrea, in Irrigation and Drainage. 54: 389–406; online: Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). n Berhane Haile G, Van Steenbergen F: Agricultural Water Management in
Ephemeral Rivers: Community Management in Spate Irrigation in Eritrea; in African Water Journal n Berhane Haile G: Community Spate Irrigation in Bada, Eritrea n Mehretab Tesfai,
Stroosnijder L (2000): The Eritrean spate irrigation system; on-line: linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0378377400001153

SLM Technology: Spate Irrigation - Eritrea 113

4_Group_Smallholder_Irrigation.indd 113 20.01.11 14:34

 Cross-Slope Barriers

Fanya juu with grass for stabilisation, Kenya. (Hanspeter Liniger)

In a nutshell Development issues addressed

Preventing / reversing land degradation ++

Definition: Cross-slope barriers are measures on sloping lands in the form of
earth or soil bunds, stone lines, and / or vegetative strips for reducing runoff Maintaining and improving food security +
velocity and soil loss, thereby contributing to soil, water and nutrient conserva- Reducing rural poverty +
tion. This is achieved by reducing steepness and / or length of slope. Terraces are Creating rural employment +
not usually constructed per se, but rather develop gradually behind earth bunds,
Supporting gender equity / marginalised groups +
vegetative strips (usually grass) or stone barriers, due to soil movement from
the upper to the lower part of the terrace. Erosion between the barriers helps to Improving crop production ++
achieve the levelling of the terrace bed. While cross-slope barriers are primarily Improving fodder production ++
intended to reduce soil erosion, they also enable / ease cultivation between the
Improving wood / fibre production +
barriers, which are usually sited along contours. However, in high rainfall areas
Improving non wood forest production na
they may be graded at 0.5 – 2.0% across the slope to allow safe discharge of
excess surface water along the barriers to reach watercourses. Some common Preserving biodiversity +
technologies used by smallholder farmers include contour bunds, fanya juu and Improving soil resources (OM, nutrients) +
fanya chini terraces, stone lines and vegetative barriers. Bench terraces can be
Improving of water resources ++
the eventual result – though in some circumstances may be constructed through
excavation and shaping. Improving water productivity ++
To ensure sustained fertility of the land it is necessary to employ soil fertility man- Natural disaster prevention / mitigation ++
agement measures such as composting, green manures, cover crop, etc. (see Climate change mitigation / adaptation ++
group on Integrated Soil Fertility Management).
Applicability: Applicable from gentle to steep slopes. Suitable for the whole Climate change mitigation
range of arid to humid areas; in subhumid and humid areas cross-slope barriers Potential for C Sequestration 0.5-1.0*
are used for protection against soil erosion, whereas in semi-arid areas they are (tonnes/ha/year)
employed for in-situ water conservation and even water harvesting purposes. C Sequestration: above ground +
Resilience to climate variability: Terraces and vegetative strips can, to a cer-
C Sequestration: below ground +
tain extent, cope with extreme rainfall events.
Main benefits: Improved water management through reduced soil erosion by Climate change adaptation
water in subhumid areas, increased water infiltration and storage in semi-arid areas
Resilience to extreme dry conditions ++
- hence helping to maintain soil fertility, increase crop yields and food security.
Adoption and upscaling: Depending on the type of measure, very often the Resilience to variable rainfall +
investment costs for establishment exceed the short term benefits. Due to these Resilience to extreme rain and wind storms +
high initial costs, incentives to compensate land users for part of the establish- Resilience to rising temperatures and +.
ment investments may be needed. However, land users and communities should evaporation rates
be able to maintain the system without any external support.
Reducing risk of production failure +

* based on expert estimation for a duration of the first 10-20 years

of changed land use management

114 SLM in Practice

5_Cross_Slope_Barriers.indd 114 20.01.11 14:35

 Origin and spread
Origin: Terracing steep lands in Africa is an indigenous technology. The same is
true of earth bunds, stone lines and vegetative strips. New methods have evolved
over the years in response to increasing population and land pressure. Under colo-
nial regimes, large areas of communal lands were compulsorily terraced in the
1950s (e.g. in Kenya, Malawi and Zambia) through the construction of ridges or
bunds. Often rejected immediately after independence such techniques made a
come-back in the 1970s having been improved and promoted through projects /
programmes. Fanya juu terraces first developed in the 1950s and are currently
spreading throughout East Africa. The period of rapid spread occurred during the
1970s to 1980s with the advent of the National SWC Programme in Kenya. In the
West African Sahel, contour stone lines (and vegetative barriers) have been pro-
moted successfully since the 1980s, as water harvesting structures.
Mainly applied in: Terracing systems in steep areas throughout Africa; Stone
lines on low slopes mainly West Africa (Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger); Earth bunds /
ridges mainly in East Africa (Ethiopia, Kenya) and Southern Africa (Malawi, Zam-
bia, Zimbabwe, etc.), Fanya juu mainly in East Africa (Kenya; also Ethiopia, Tan-
zania, Uganda); vegetative strips throughout Africa especially in the more humid
zones.

Principles and types

Bench terraces are commonly developed on steep slopes as a result of con-
structing cross-slope barriers, and then erosion (water and tillage) progressively
causing the bed to level. A bench terrace is defined by a flat or slightly backward
or forward-sloping bed. Stone-faced terrace risers are characteristic of areas
where stone is available (e.g. the Konso terraces in Ethiopia), otherwise the earth
risers are protected by grass. Due to the heavy labour input they are usually con-
structed to support production of high-value crops such as irrigated vegetables
and coffee. The design of the benches is usually calculated by a formula that
relates their size and spacing to the slope. Bench terraces are rarely excavated
and constructed directly, as this is very expensive.
Earth bunds (sometimes referred to as ‘ridges’ in Southern Africa) are soil con-
servation structures that involve construction of an earthen bund along the contour
by excavating a channel and creating a small ridge on the downhill side. Usually
the earth used to build the bund is taken from both above and below the structure.
They are often reinforced by vegetative cover to stabilise the construction. Bunds
are gradually built up by annual maintenance and adding soil to the bund.
Fanya juu (‘do upwards’ in Kiswahili) terraces are made by digging ditches and
trenches along the contour and throwing the soil uphill to form an embankment.
A small ledge or ‘berm’ is left between the ditch and the bund to prevent soil slid-
ing back. In semi-arid areas they are normally constructed to harvest and con-
serve rainfall, whereas in subhumid zones they may be laterally graded to safely
discharge excess runoff. The embankments (risers) are often stabilised with fod-
der grasses. Fanya juu terraces can develop into bench terraces.
In a Fanya chini system (‘do downwards’ in Kiswahili) soil is piled below a con-
tour trench. These are used to conserve soil and divert water and can be used
up to a slope of 35%. Fanya chini involve less labour than Fanya juu, but they do
not lead to the formation of a bench terrace over time as quickly as the former.
Stone lines and bunds: In areas where stones are plentiful, stone lines are used
to create bunds either as a soil conservation measure (on slopes) or for rainwater
harvesting (on plains in semi-arid regions). Stones are arranged in lines across
the slope to form walls. Where these are used for rainwater harvesting, the per-
meable walls slow down the runoff, filter it, and spread the water over the field,
thus enhancing water infiltration and reducing soil erosion. Furthermore, the lines
trap fertile soil sediment from the external catchment.
Vegetative strips are the least costly or labour-demanding type of cross-slope Top: Konso Terraces in Ethiopia. (Rima Mekdaschi Studer)
barriers. Such strips are a popular and easy way to terrace land, especially in Top middle: Fanya juu terrace with napier grass, Kenya.
areas with relatively good rainfall. The spacing of the strips depends on the slope (Hanspeter Liniger)
Bottom middle: Vegetative strips along contour line for reduc-
of the land. On gentle sloping land, the strips are given a wide spacing (20-30 m),
ing surface runoff and erosion, Kenya. (Christoph Studer)
while on steep land the spacing may be as little as 10-15 m. Vegetative strips can Bottom: Stone lines catching run-off water and fertile soil
also provide fodder for livestock if palatable varieties of grass (or densely spaced sediments, Niger. (Hanspeter Liniger)
bushes) are used.

SLM Group: Cross-Slope Barriers 115

5_Cross_Slope_Barriers.indd 115 20.01.11 14:35

 CROSS-SLOPE BARRIERS
Applicability Land degradation

Land degradation addressed Erosion by water High

Soil erosion by water: mainly loss of topsoil / surface erosion, partly gully erosion / Erosion by wind Moderate
gullying Chemical degradation Low
Physical soil deterioration: runoff can contribute to crusting and soil sealing Physical degradation Insignificant
Water degradation: sedimentation and pollution of water downstream, partly Biological degradation
aridification Water degradation

Land use
Mainly on annual cropland and / or partly on mixed land with tree and shrub
­cropping. Land use
Partly on intensive grazing fodder production: rarely on grazing land. Cropland
Grazing land
Ecological conditions Forests / woodlands
Climate: Mainly in subhumid and semi-arid, partly in humid and arid areas. In
Mixed land use
subhumid to humid areas mainly for protection against soil erosion, whereas in
semi-arid areas mainly for water conservation purposes. Other
Earth bunds are not suitable for very wet areas unless graded; Vegetative strips
are most effective in moist areas and least effective in dry areas; Fanya juu ter-
races are not suitable in dry areas unless used for rainwater harvesting. Climate Average rainfall (mm)
Terrain and landscape: Bench terraces: moderate to very steep slopes; Earth
bunds: gentle to moderate slopes; Stone bunds: gentle to steep slopes; Fanya Humid > 3000
juu terraces: moderate to steep slopes (up to 50%); Fanya chini terraces: moder- Subhumid 2000-3000
ate to hilly slopes (up to 35%); Vegetative strips: gentle to steep slopes. Semi-arid 1500-2000
Soils: Not suitable for very shallow and sandy soils – bench terraces must not be Arid 1000-1500
built on shallow soils (to avoid risk of landslides). 750-1000
500-750
Socio-economic conditions
250-500
Farming system and level of mechanisation: Mainly animal traction (oxen,
< 250
with plough) and manual labour (hand tools, on steeper slopes where oxen can
not be used, etc.), very often a combination of animal traction and manual labour;
only partly mechanised (e.g. for transportation of stones)
Market orientation: Mainly subsistence (self-supply), partly mixed and partly Slopes (%) very steep (>60)
commercial / market. steep (30-60)
Land tenure and land use / water rights: Secure individual land use rights are hilly (16-30)
needed, otherwise the land users are not willing to invest in structural conserva- rolling (8-16)
tion measures. Land tenure is often formally state- or communal-(village) property moderate (5-8)
and individually not-titled. gentle (2-5)
Skill / knowledge requirements: A high level of know-how is required for the flat (0-2)
establishment and the maintenance of terraces and bunds.
Planting and construction of vegetative strips is relatively simple and can be done
by local land users with minimum investment and with local equipment.
Labour requirements: The establishment of terraces and bunds requires high Farm size Land ownership
input; sometimes outside labour needs to be hired for the construction of the Small scale State
terraces or the bunds. Fanya juu terraces are associated with hand construc- Medium scale Company
tion, and are well suited to small-scale farms. In Kenya they are often established
Large scale Community
through self-help groups.
Individual, not titled
Maintenance can usually be done by individuals and is very important for all kind
of terraces and bunds. Earth structures often need considerable maintenance - Individual, titled
building up and reshaping the structure every year and stabilising through veg-
etative cover.
Vegetative strips often require less establishment work compared to terraces and Mechanisation Market orientation
bunds. Maintenance work is also very important e.g. grass strips require trim- Manual labour Subsistence
ming and gap-filling to keep them dense. Animal traction Mixed
Mechanised Commercial

Required labour Required know-how

High High
Medium Medium
Low Low

116 SLM in Practice

5_Cross_Slope_Barriers.indd 116 21.07.11 12:15

 Economics Examples: Burkina Faso
The analysis of different structural conservation
Establishment and Maintenance costs measures in Burkina Faso, has shown shown
Establishment costs (US$/ha) Maintenance costs (US$/ha) that the construction of stone lines gener-
ally leads to the highest establishment costs
Costs Terraces Fanya juu Veg. strips Terraces Fanya juu Veg. strips
(140-400 US$/ha), the construction of earth
High High Medium-high Medium Low Low bunds is slightly cheaper (95-200 US$/ha),
Labour cost 150-1200 40-600 7-80 10-300 10-60 0-30
whereas vegetation barriers show relatively
PDays* 150-600 40-300 7-40 10-150 10-30 0-15
low establishment costs if local grasses are
Equipment Low-medium Low-medium Low Low Low Low used (approx. 60-70 US$/ha) (Spaan, 2003).
10-50 20-60 10-50 0-20 0-10 0-10
Material Medium-high Low-medium Medium Low Low Low Example: Tanzania
inputs 50-300 10-80 20-100 0-50 0-15 0-10
A study in the West Usambara Highlands has
Total 210-1350 70 – 740 37-230 10-370 10-85 0-50 shown significant increase in the crop yield
*PD: Person days (labour is valued as 1-2 US$ per day), (Source: WOCAT, 2009) for maize and beans by implementing bench
terraces, fanya juu or grass strips (see pro-
Comment: Very often the high establishment costs related to labour for the con- duction benefits). However, the results clearly
struction of terraces are the main obstacle for establishment. The construction showed that cross-slope barriers alone may
costs depend on the slope of the area (number of barriers needed), the distance not significantly increase crop yields unless
to the material (e.g. stones), the level of mechanisation and labour costs. The these are followed by other practices such
construction of vegetative strips requires least working days and can provide a as manure and fertilizer. Grass strips and /
cost-saving alternative to terracing. The equipment needed does not differ a lot or the introduction of grass on the risers,
between the three measures. can lead to an additional increase in yield
which can be either used as fodder for live-
Production benefits stock or it can be sold (Tenge et al., 2005).
Yield without Yield with SLM Yield gain %
SLM (t/ha) (t/ha) Example: Burkina Faso
Maize, Kenya 2.1 – 3.4 2.3 – 3.7 (grass strips) 10-45%
A cost-benefit analysis for stone lines in the
3.1 – 4.5 (fanya juu) region of Kaya shows that, from the farmer’s
point of view, the implementation of stone lines
Beans, Tanzania 1.5 – 1.8 2 (grass strips) 10-85%
2.8 (fanya juu) alone is only profitable if a lorry is provided
2.1 – 2.7 (bench terraces) for the transport of stones. If the farmer has
Sorghum, Ethiopia Non-terraced Terraced (stone bunds)
to pay the transport himself the net present
15% slope 0.96 2.18 127% value of stone lines is negative. The benefits
25% slope 0.67 1.83 173% (20% yield increase in wet years and 30% yield
35% slope 0.43 1.7 297% increase in dry years) are not high enough to
(Sources: Mwangi et al., 2001; Tenge et al., 2005; Alemayehu et al., 2006) compensate for the costs of transport and
construction. Thus profitability of stone lines
Comment: With increasing slope the difference in sorghum yields between ter- depends closely on transport and distance to
raced and non-terraced lands increases. Terraces result in remarkably higher the source of the stones (Kempkes, 1994).
yields on steep slopes compared with non-terracing.

Benefit-Cost ratio
short term long term quantitative

Bench terraces –– ++ Internal rate of return, Tanzania:

19%
Bunds – ++

Stone lines – ++

Fanya juu – ++ 14%

Vegetative strips +/– ++ 6%

Overall – ++

– – negative;– slightly negative; –/+ neutral; + slightly positive; ++ positive; +++ very positive
(Sources: Tenge et al., 2005 and WOCAT, 2009)

Comment: The internal rate of return as shown above suggest that, farmers who
are able to invest in bench terraces, will be able to recover their investment faster
than from the fanya juu and grass strips. However, the short term benefit-cost ratio
for cross-slope barriers is mostly negative due to high investment costs. It can take
up to 2 years until the barriers lead to a positive return. The profitability of barriers
also depends on the opportunity costs for labour. For land users with an off-farm
income the establishment of cross-slope barriers is often financially not attractive.

SLM Group: Cross-Slope Barriers 117

5_Cross_Slope_Barriers.indd 117 20.01.11 14:35

 Cross-Slope Barriers
Impacts
Benefits Land users / community level Watershed / landscape level National / global level
Production ++ increased crop yield (long term) ++ reduced risk and loss of +++ improved food and water
++ increased grass / fodder production (through grass strips production ­security
and / or grass on risers) can be used for livestock, sold, + access to clean dinking water
as mulch or to thatch roofs
+ increased wood production

Economic ++ increased farm income (long term) ++ less damage to off-site infra- +++ improved livelihood and
structure ­well-being
+ stimulation of economic growth

Ecological +++ reduced soil loss (mainly in subhumid areas) ++ reduced degradation and ++ increased resilience to climate
++ increased soil moisture (mainly in semi-arid areas) sedimentation change
++ reduced soil erosion (by wind / water) ++ improved water quality ++ reduced degradation and
++ increased infiltration rates + increased water availability desertification incidence and
++ decrease in runoff velocity and control of dispersed + intact ecosystem intensity
runoff ++ enhanced biodiversity
+ improved soil cover
+ increase in soil fertility (long term)
+ biodiversity enhancement
+ improved micro-climate

Socio-cultural ++ improved conservation / erosion knowledge ++ increased awareness for ++ protecting national heritage
+ community institution strengthening environmental ‘health’
++ attractive landscape

Constraints How to overcome

Production l L oss of land for production due to risers of terraces, ditches for ➜ integrating and incorporating vegetative measures in the system,
Fanya juu / chini, vegetative strips, etc. widen the spacing between bunds, make bund area productive
(e.g. grass on terraces for livestock), increase productivity of fod-
der trees on bunds, etc.
l T he constructions can easily be damaged by cattle interference ➜ controlled grazing management of the terraces
l Planting of vegetative strips falls in the period with highest
agricultural activity
l If not adequately managed soil and water conservation function can ➜ n eeds good capacity building and training for appropriate manage-
be lost or can even be accelerated ment of the measures
l Competition for water and nutrients in the case of vegetative ­barriers

Economic l High investments costs, usually exceeding short term benefits ➜ credits and financial incentives for initial investments should be
easily accessible to land users
l 
Shortage of labour, especially for the construction; very high labour ➜ establishment with labour-sharing groups, financial incentives or
input is needed. Some cross-slope barriers can also lead to high credit facilities or phasing the establishment over several years to
maintenance requirement, e.g. soil bunds. overcome. For maintenance less support is needed but land users
l Shortage of construction material and hand tools should be organised (individually or in groups) to undertake main-
l Lack of market infrastructure tenance and repairs

Ecological l P ossible waterlogging before bund / embankment ➜ additional measures such as vegetation / mulch cover
l Uneven flood water distribution, breakages of terraces ➜ maintenance and adjustments of the barriers
l Rodent and other pests hiding in the vegetation ➜ provision of appropriate measures, provision of rodent and pest
controlling mechanisms
l 
Competition of vegetative strips + bunds with crop ➜ trimming of vegetation during crop growing period
l Unprotected bunds, which have not been planted with grass, are ➜ additional measures such as vegetation / mulch cover to reduce
prone to erosion runoff

Socio-cultural l  ften traditional system, but not properly maintained, especially

O ➜ incentives for ‘renovation’ of traditional structures (e.g. Konso ter-
when populations move away from rural areas races in Ethiopia)

118 SLM in Practice

5_Cross_Slope_Barriers.indd 118 20.01.11 14:35

 Adoption and upscaling Enabling environment: key factors for adoption

Inputs, material incentives, credits ++

Adoption rate
The labour requirement can be a major constraint to the adoption of cross-slope Training and education ++
barrier technologies. Vegetative strips have the lowest labour requirements lead- Land tenure, secure land use rights ++
ing to higher adoption. However, establishment of these very often coincides with
Access to markets +
the labour peak of the normal agricultural activities.
The loss of land and temporal yield decline in the short term are the main obsta- Research ++
cles, especially for small-scale farmers, to adoption of structural measures such
Infrastructure +
as terraces or bunds, even though long term benefits are likely.
High investment costs and the uncertain benefits in the short term further hinder Conflicts of interest +
the adoption and upscaling of this group of measures.
Example: Kenya
Upscaling During the colonial period in Kenya, in the
For adoption, a substantial yield gain is essential to overcome the high invest- 1950s, bench terracing used to be forced on
ment costs and the loss of agricultural productive land. Land users need to be local people, and after independence in 1963,
well informed in terms of yields and / or monetary values which can be gained many terraces were destroyed or neglected.
through the implementation of cross-slope barriers. After the soil conservation extension cam-
Awareness raising: Land users need to recognise the multiple resource losses paigns of the 1970s-1980s, bench terraces
due to runoff and erosion on sloping land. were adopted by farmers living on steep
Clear land use rights are needed for investments to be made in structural meas- mountain slopes of Central and Eastern
ures. Provinces, especially on farms where coffee
Access to knowledge must be ensured for land users; training of land users is was grown (Mburat, 2006).
essential to establish knowledge and technical skill about appropriate establish-
ment and also maintenance. Example: Tanzania
Micro-credit for financial investments: The self-financing capacity of farmers Despite decades of efforts to promote
needs to be strengthened and credits must be easily accessible also for small- cross-slope barriers in the West Usambara
scale land users. Highlands in Tanzania, there is still minimal
Access to material inputs and markets is necessary for establishment of adoption by land users. Among the major rea-
cross-slope barriers. sons for this could be that land users do not
recognise the losses caused by runoff and soil
Incentives for adoption erosion, that the recommended measures are
The construction of cross-slope barriers usually requires considerable labour but not effective enough or not financially attrac-
material inputs also, and hence the investment costs often exceed the short term tive. Furthermore, the establishment period
benefits. Therefore it is crucial that land users have access to micro-credit to competes with other activities for scarce
enhance self-financing. Incentives should only be given if there is no other pos- labour resources and equipment. It is crucial
sibility of establishing cross-slope barriers. Two reasons to justify the provision that land users are well informed about costs
of incentives are: (1) the costs are only slowly recuperated by on-site benefits; and benefits of implementing the measures in
(2) part of the benefits are obtained by people downstream. Possible options order to achieve greater motivation to imple-
for incentives can be transport facilities for stones (for example) or subsidies ment cross-slope barriers (Tenge et al., 2005).
on inputs such as seedlings for the vegetative strips. Payment for ecosystem
services (PES) is another incentive that specifically addresses the benefits of
downstream users. Maintenance work should be conducted without any exter-
nal support.

References and supporting information:

Alemayehu M., F. Yohannes, and P. Dubale. 2006. Effect of Indigenous Stone Bunding (KAB) on Crop Yield at Mesobit-Gedeba, North Shoa, Ethiopia. Land Degrad. Develop. 17:
45–54 (2006).
Amsalu, A. and J. de Graaff. 2007. Determinants of adoption and continued use of stone terraces for soil and water conservation in an Ethiopian highland watershed. Ecological
Economics, 61 (2007) 294-302.
Bodnar, F. 2005. Monitoring for impact: evaluating 20 years of soil and water conservation in southern Mali.
IWMI. 2009. http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/africa/west/projects/Adoption%20Technology/Soil&WaterConservation/56-ImprovedStoneTerracing.htm, accessed on 15 September 2009.
IWMI. 2009. http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/africa/west/projects/Adoption%20Technology/RainWaterHarvesting/50-Fanya%20juu.htm, accessed on 15 September 2009.
Kempkes, M. 1994. Analyse financière des cordons pierreux: cas d’étude de Tagalla, province du Sanmatenga au Burkina Faso; rapport des étudiants 44a Antenne Sahélienne,
Ouagadougou.
Mati B. M. 2005. Overview of water and soil nutrient management under smallholder rainfed agriculture in East Africa. Working Paper 105. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water
Management Institute (IWMI).
Mwangi J.N., T.O. Mboya and Kihumba. 2001. Improved Maize Production in Central Kenya with Adoption of Soil and Water Conservation Measures. Seventh Eastern and Southern
Africa Regional Maize Conference, 11th-15th February, 2001. pp. 299-300.
Spaan, W.P. 2003. Consuming the savings: water conservation in a vegetative barrier system at the Central Plateau in Burkina Faso., Wageningen University and Research Centre,
Wageningen.
Tenge, A.J., J. De Graaff, J.P. Hella. 2005. Financial efficiency of major soil and water conservation measures in West Usambara highlands, Tanzania. Applied Geography 25, 348-
366.
UNEP. 1998. Sourcebook of Alternative Technologies for Freshwater Augumentation in Africa. Newsletter and Technical Publications.http://www.unep.or.jp/ietc/Publications/Tech-
Publications/TechPub-8a/fanya.asp, accessed on 28.10.2009.
WOCAT. 2009. WOCAT databases on SLM technologies and SLM approaches. www.wocat.net, accessed on 15 September 2009.

SLM Group: Cross-Slope Barriers 119

5_Cross_Slope_Barriers.indd 119 20.01.11 14:35

 Case study
Cross-Slope Barriers

Aloe Vera Life Barriers - Cape Verde

Aloe vera is a drought tolerant, fleshy plant which is planted in the form of live SLM measure Vegetative
barriers to recuperate degraded slopes on the Cape Verde Islands. The plants SLM group Cross-Slope Barriers
are closely planted along the contour to build an efficient barrier for retention
Land use type Annual cropping (maize, beans)
of eroded sediments and surface runoff. The hedgerows stabilise the soil, and
increase soil humidity by improving infiltration and soil structure. Soil is accu- Degradation Soil erosion by water
addressed
mulating behind the Aloe strips and slope angle is considerably reduced over
time. Groundwater is recharged indirectly. Soil cover is improved, and thus Stage of intervention Mitigation and rehabilitation
evaporation reduced. Tolerance to climate Tolerant; Aloe vera is resistant to
Implementation is relatively simple. The contour lines are demarcated using change water stress, and establishes well in
line- or water-levels. Seedlings are planted at a distance of 30-50 cm between different climatic zones
plants; Spacing between the rows varies between 6–10 m according to the
Establishment activities
slope. The technology is applied in subhumid and semi-arid areas, on steep
1. Demarcation of contour lines, using line or
slopes with shallow soils, sparse vegetative cover and high soil erosion rates.
water levels; spacing between barriers is
These areas are generally used by poor subsistence farmers for rainfed agri-
minimum 6 meters (early June).
culture with crops such as maize and beans, which are considered inappro-
2. Collection of Aloe vera plants; Aloe vera is
priate for such slopes. On slopes steeper than 30% the live barriers are often
growing naturally in abundant quantity on the
combined with stone walls (width 40-50 cm; height 80-90 cm). The plants
upper slopes, in depressions / hollows, in
stabilise the stone risers, making this combined technology one of the most
arid as well as in more humid zones.
efficient measures for soil erosion control on Cape Verde.
3. Planting of Aloe vera seedlings, one next
Aloe vera is well adapted to the local biophysical conditions and to the pre-
to the other, or at a spacing of 30-50 cm
vailing land use system: it can be used with any crop and is available to all
between plants; (end of June) manually,
farmers; establishment and transport is simple, its leaves are not palatable
using hoe / pickaxe.
to livestock, the plant is extremely resistant to water stress and grows in any
4. From the second year on the gaps between
bioclimatic zone on the island. Furthermore, Aloe vera is known for its multiple
the plants are plugged by naturally expand-
uses in traditional medicine.
ing Aloe vera plants.
Maintenance / recurrent activities
1. Vegetative control: removal of Aloe vera
plants that are invading cropland (maize,
peas) between the life barriers.
2. Replanting of Aloe vera to fill gaps in life
barriers (very rare; survival rate is over
95%).

Labour requirements
For establishment: medium
For maintenance: low
Knowledge requirements
For advisors: low
For land users: low

Photo 1: Well established Aloe vera life barriers on steep

slopes. (Jacques Tavares)
Photo 2 and 3: Detailed view of Aloe vera life barriers; soil
is accumulating on the upper side of the barriers. (Jacques
Tavares)
Photo 4: Aloe vera life barriers are often combined with stone
walls to enhance the erosion control on steep slopes. (Hans-
peter Liniger)

120 SLM in Practice

5_Cross_Slope_Barriers.indd 120 20.01.11 14:35

 Case study area: Santiago, Cape Verde Ecological conditions
·· C limate: mainly semi-arid, partly subhumid
·· Average annual rainfall: mainly 500-750 mm, >800 mm in wetter areas
·· Soil parameters: mainly shallow loamy soils, with medium fertility and low-
Mindelo
medium organic matter content; drainage is medium while water storage
capacity is high to very high
Santa Maria ·· Slope: steep (30-60%), partly less
·· Landform: mountain slopes and ridges
·· Altitude: mainly 500-1,000 m a.s.l., partly 100-500 m a.s.l.
Socio-economic conditions
··  ize of land per household: 1-2 ha (poor), 2-5 ha (better-off)
S
·· Type of land user: small-scale, poor; partly medium-scale, better-off
·· Population density: 100-200 persons/km2
·· Land ownership: individual (titled) and communal (Diocese)
Case study area ·· Land use rights: mainly leased, partly individual or hereditary
Praia ·· Level of mechanisation: mainly manual, few farms are mechanised
·· Market orientation: mainly subsistence, few mixed (subsistence and commercial)

Establishment inputs and costs per ha Production / economic benefits

Inputs Costs (US$) ++ Reduced risk of production failure
+ Increased crop yield
Labour: 65 person-days 215
+ Increased fodder production
Equipment: levels, hoes, shovels 13 + Increased production area
Agricultural inputs: 5,000 plants 0 Ecological benefits
TOTAL 228 +++ Improved harvesting / collection of surface runoff
% of costs borne by land users 0% +++ Reduced surface runoff
++ Improved soil cover
++ Increased biomass / above ground carbon
Maintenance inputs and costs per ha per year
+ Increased soil moisture
Inputs Costs (US$) + Increased water quality
Labour: 1 person-day 3 + Increased water quantity
Equipment 0 Socio-cultural benefits
Agricultural inputs 0 +++ Improved conservation / erosion knowledge
TOTAL 3 + Conflict mitigation
+ Improved food security / self-sufficiency
% of costs borne by land users 100%
+ Aloe vera is used in traditional medicine / personal hygiene: pills against
Remarks: Labour inputs for implementation are anaemia, diabetes and digestion problems; bactericide for wound treatment
rewarded by project: Individuals of poor com- Off-site benefits
munities receive a salary of 3 US$ per day. +++ Recharge groundwater table / aquifer
Plants are collected locally. Establishment costs
do not include labour-intensive construction of Weaknesses ➜ and how to overcome
stone risers (supportive measure). Main­tenance ·· Reduction of the production area, which is occupied by strips of Aloe vera
costs are borne by land users. ➜ annual vegetative control within cultivated area and by cutting Aloe vera
plants growing outside the life barriers.
Benefit-cost ratio
Inputs short term long term Adoption
Most of the land users have implemented the technology by receiving financial
Establishment slightly negative very positive
incentives (payments). Totally 380 land users have adopted the technology; the
Maintenance neutral / balanced very positive area treated with Aloe vera life barriers is 71.5 km2. There is a small trend towards
spontaneous adoption.
Remarks: Maintenance is not costly, it’s simply
vegetative control and punctual replanting.

Main contributors: Jacques Tavares and Larissa Varela, Instituto Nacional de Investigação e Desenvolvimento Agrário (INIDA), Praia, Cape Verde; [email protected]
Key references: WOCAT. 2010. WOCAT database on SLM technologies. www.wocat.net. DESIRE-project. 2010. http://www.desire-project.eu/

SLM Technology: Aloe Vera Life Barriers - Cape Verde 121

5_Cross_Slope_Barriers.indd 121 20.01.11 14:35

 Case study
Cross-Slope Barriers

G r a s s e d F a n y a J u u T e r r a c e s - K e ny a
A fanya juu terrace is made by digging a trench and throwing the soil uphill SLM measure Structural combined with vegetative
to form an embankment. A berm prevents the embankment soil from sliding SLM group Cross-Slope Barriers
back into the trench. On the embankment a grass strip is established, serving
Land use type Cropland: annual crops
a triple purpose: it stabilises the earth structure through its roots, it enhances
siltation of eroded soil particles, and it is used as a fodder source for livestock. Degradation Loss of topsoil (water erosion); Soil
addressed moisture problem
Often napier (Pennisetum purpureum), or makarikari (Panicum coloratum var.
makarikariensis) are used in the drier zones. Stage of intervention Mitigation
In semi-arid areas the structures are laid out along the contour to maximise Tolerance to climate Tolerant to climatic extremes (e.g.
water retention, whereas in subhumid zones they are laterally graded to dis- change rain storms); Water conservation
charge excess runoff. Spacing of terraces ranges from 9 - 20 m, according to effect increases resilience to peri-
ods of water stress
slope and soil depth. On a 15% slope with a moderately deep soil, the spacing
is 12 m between the structures and the vertical interval around 1.7 m. Establishment activities
The purpose of the fanya juu is to reduce loss of soil and water, and thereby to 1. Layout (alignment and spacing) of ter-
improve conditions for plant growth. The embankment impounds runoff water, races: (a) on the contour in dry areas; (b)
eroded soil and nutrients. As a consequence of water and tillage erosion, sedi- on a slight grade in more humid areas,
ment accumulates behind the bund, making it necessary to periodically build using ‘line levels’.
up the embankment (by throwing silted material from the trench upslope). In 2. Loosen soil for excavation (forked hoe,
this way fanya juu terraces gradually develop into forward sloping terraces. ox-drawn plough).
Grass strips require trimming to keep them dense. 3. Dig a ditch / trench and throw the soil
Fanya juu terraces are associated with hand construction, and are well suited upwards to form a bund, leaving a berm
to small-scale farms. Fanya juu is applicable where soils are too shallow for of 15-30 cm in between (using hoes and
level bench terracing and on moderately steep slopes (e.g. < 20%), they are shovels).
not suitable for stony soils. 4. Levelling and compacting bund.
5. Digging planting holes for grass.
6. Creating splits of planting materials (Maka-
rikari or Napier grass).
7. Manuring and planting of grasses.
All activities are done manually before the rainy
seasons start (March and October) except
planting of grasses, at the onset of rains. Dura-
tion of establishment: usually within one year.
Maintenance / recurrent activities
1. Desilting the trench and throwing silt up­-
slope.
2. Repairing breaches in embankment where
necessary.
3. Building up embankment annually.
4. Cutting grass to keep low and non-com-
petitive, and provide fodder for livestock.
5. Maintaining grass strips weed-free and
dense.

Labour requirements
For establishment: high
For maintenance: low to medium
Knowledge requirements
For advisors: moderate
For land users: low

Photo 1: Napier grass strip on the upper part of a Fanya juu

bund; maize trash was deposited in the ditch below after har-
vest. (Hanspeter Liniger)
Photo 2 : Fanya juu terraces with well established grass
strips in a semiarid area have developed over time into bench
terraces. (Hanspeter Liniger)
Technical drawing: Schematic representation of fanya juu
terraces with dimensions of structures; initial stage (left)
and mature stage with well established grass strip and soil
accumulating on the upper side of the embankment (right).
(Mats Gurtner)

122 SLM in Practice

5_Cross_Slope_Barriers.indd 122 20.01.11 14:35

 Case study area: Eastern Province, Kenya Ecological conditions
·· C limate: subhumid, semi-arid
·· Average annual rainfall: 500-1,000 mm
·· Soil parameter: moderately deep, loamy soils, with medium soil fertility, low
Lodwar
to medium organic matter content; medium water storage capacity, medium
to good drainage
·· Slope: mainly moderate-rolling (5-16%); partly hilly
·· Landform: hillslopes and footslopes
Eldoret ·· Altitude: 500-1,500 m a.s.l.
Kisumu Meru Socio-economic conditions
Nakuru ··  ize of land per household: mainly < 1ha, partly 1-2 ha, some 2-5 ha
S
Case study area ·· Type of land user: small-scale, average level of wealth to poor land users
Nairobi ·· Population density: 100-200 km2
Lamu
·· Land ownership: individual titled and individual not titled
·· Land use rights: individual
·· Market orientation: subsistence and mixed (subsistence and commercial)
Mombasa ·· Level of mechanisation: mainly animal traction, partly manual labour

Establishment inputs and costs per ha Production / economic benefits

Inputs Costs (US$) ++  Increased crop yield (25%)
++ Increased fodder production and fodder quality
Labour: 90 person-days 270
+ Increased farm income
Equipment / tools 20
Ecological benefits
Agricultural inputs: compost, manure 30 ++ Increased soil moisture (semi-arid)
Grass establishment 60 ++ Increased efficiency of excess water drainage (subhumid)
TOTAL 380 ++ Reduced soil loss
++ Increased soil fertility (in the long term)
% of costs borne by land users 100%
++ Improved soil cover

Maintenance inputs and costs per ha per year Socio-cultural benefits

++ Improved conservation / erosion knowledge
Inputs Costs (US$)
++ Community institution strengthening
Labour: 10 person-days 30
Off-site benefits
Equipment
++ Reduced downstream siltation
Agricultural inputs: compost + Increased stream flow in dry season
TOTAL 30 + Reduced downstream flooding
% of costs borne by land users 100%
Weaknesses ➜ and how to overcome
Remarks: These calculations are based on a ·· Loss of cropping area for terrace bund ➜ site-specific implementation: only
15% slope with 830 running metres of terraces where fanya juu terraces are absolutely needed, i.e. where agronomic (e.g.
per hectare with typical dimensions and spac- mulching, contour ploughing) and vegetative measures are not sufficient in
ing (see technical drawing). retaining / diverting runoff; use the bund for production of valuable fodder /
fruit (trees).
Benefit-cost ratio ·· High amounts of labour involved for initial construction ➜ spread labour
over several years and work in groups.
Inputs short term long term
·· Risk of breakages and therefore increased erosion ➜ accurate layout and
Establishment slightly negative positive good compaction of bund.
Maintenance positive very positive ·· Competition between fodder grass and crop ➜ keep grass trimmed / har-
vest for livestock feed.
Remarks: As the terrace is built up gradually
over the years, establishment costs can be Adoption
limited. Fanya Juu is a wide-spread technology – covering approx. 3,000 km² in the case
study area – with high degree of spontaneous adoption throughout East Africa,
and further afield also. The terraces first came into prominence in the 1950s, but
the period of rapid spread occurred during the 1970s and 1980s with the advent
of the National Soil and Water Conservation Programme.

Main contributors: Kithinji Mutunga, FAO Kenya, Nairobi, Kenya; [email protected] n Hanspeter Liniger, Centre for Development and Environment; Bern, Switzerland;
[email protected]
Key references: Thomas D (Editor) 1997: Soil and water conservation manual for Kenya. Soil and Water Conservation Branch, Nairobi n WOCAT 2004, WOCAT Database on SLM
Technologies; www.wocat.net

SLM Technology: Grassed Fanya Juu Terraces - Kenya 123

5_Cross_Slope_Barriers.indd 123 20.01.11 14:35

 Case study
Cross-Slope Barriers

K o n s o B e nch T e r r a c e - Eth i o p i a
The traditional Konso Bench Terraces are established by building up stone SLM measure Structural combined with vegetative
embankments along the contour and gradually levelling the land in between SLM group Cross-Slope Barriers
risers. Levelling is done actively and by siltation processes. Stone walls have to
Land use type Annual cropping
be enhanced periodically. The appearance of the technology evolves over time
from stone embankments to bench terraces. The stone walls are supported Degradation Soil erosion; Fertility decline; Aridifi-
addressed cation / soil moisture problem
on the downslope side by trees and / or legumes including coffee, pigeon pea,
etc. The purpose of the structures is to break the slope length and reduce run- Stage of intervention Rehabilitation and mitigation
off concentration thereby controlling erosion, increasing water stored in soil and Tolerance to climate Tolerant to climatic extremes (e.g.
harvesting eroded sediments. change rain storms). Water conservation
Terraces have a long tradition in the area, and farmers are specialists in con- effect increases resilience to peri-
ods of water stress
struction of stone walls. The first step during terrace establishment is to dig
foundation up to 30 cm. Then stone walls are gradually built up to an impressive Establishment activities
height of 1.5 - 2 m above the ground. The technology is very labour intensive: 1. Survey / layout.
Establishment takes 5 years and bi-annual maintenance is required. However, 2. Collecting stones.
it is worth the effort, since without terracing crop production would not be 3. Digging foundation (0.3 m deep; 0.3 m
thinkable in a marginal area characterised by shortage and high variability of wide).
rainfall, shallow, stony soils on steep slopes, high levels of soil erosion and 4. Establish stone wall (0.7 m high).
(thus) frequent food shortages. 5. Land levelling.
Social systems for labour-sharing and voluntary assistance have evolved to 6. Option: plant trees on the upper part of the
manage heavy labour inputs. Multiple cropping is practised for risk aversion. stone riser.
Growing leguminous crops helps to further improve soil fertility. Additional All activities carried out by manual labour,
water harvesting measures are needed to further raise yields. using water level, poles, scoop hoe, spade. All
activities carried out in the dry season.
Maintenance / recurrent activities
1. Stabilising terraces / enhancing walls by
putting additional stones.
2. Repairing broken terraces and replanting of
vegetative material.
3. Include inter-terrace management
measures.
All activities carried out by manual labour,
using crowbar, hammer,
hoe, spade (1-2 times a year).

Labour requirements
For establishment: very high
For maintenance: high
Knowledge requirements
For advisors: moderate
For land users: moderate

Photo 1 and 2: Meticulously built terrace risers reaching a

height of 1.5 – 2 meters; frequent maintenance is needed to
enhance risers and repair breaches.
Photo 3: Bench terraces with maize, cassava and sunflowers.
Photo 4: Overview of a terraced hillside with annual crops
and trees. (All photos by Hanspeter Liniger)

124 SLM in Practice

5_Cross_Slope_Barriers.indd 124 20.01.11 14:36

 Case study area: Konso; Ethiopia Ecological conditions
··  limate: semi-arid
C
·· Average annual rainfall: 500-750 mm
·· Soil parameters: low to very low fertility, low soil organic matter, good drainage
·· Slope: moderate – hilly (5-30%)
Gondar Mek'ele ·· Landform: hillslopes and footslopes, ridges
·· Altitude: 1,500 - 2,500 m a.s.l.
Bahir Dar
Socio-economic conditions
Dire Dawa
Addis Ababa ··  ize of land per household: 0.5-1.5 ha
S
·· Type of land user: poor / better-off small-scale farmers; in groups or individually
Jimma Nazret
·· Population density: 50-100 persons/km2
·· Land ownership: state
·· Land use rights: individual
Case study area
·· Market orientation: mostly subsistence
·· Level of mechanisation: manual labour

Production / economic benefits

+++ Increased crop yields: sorghum yield raised by 50% (from 0.4 t/ha to 0.6 t/ha)
Establishment inputs and costs per ha ++ Increased farm income
Inputs Costs (US$) Ecological benefits
Labour: 1,650 person-days) 1,650 +++ Reduced soil loss (>50%)
+++ Reduced runoff (60%)
Equipment 70
++ Increased infiltration and increased soil moisture
Agricultural inputs: seeds and manure 40 ++ Increased soil organic matter (sediment harvesting)
Construction material: stones 300
Socio-cultural benefits
TOTAL 2,060 + Social organisation: establishment of community organisations and strength-
ening of groups
Maintenance inputs and costs per ha per year + Maintenance of cultural heritage
Inputs Costs (US$) Off-site benefits
Labour: 25-30% person-days of 500 ++ Reduced downstream siltation
establishment + Reduced downstream flooding
Equipment 0
Weaknesses ➜ and how to overcome
Agricultural inputs 40
·· T
 he terraces require very frequent maintenance which makes the technol-
TOTAL 540 ogy highly labour-demanding ➜ use bigger stones for construction; avoid
Remarks: Duration of establishment phase is 5 free grazing (animals damage the structures).
years. Land users maintain the terrace at least
Adoption
twice a year, mainly while preparing the land for
The technology is wide-spread in the case study area, covering approx.
crops. Labour inputs for maintenance are usu-
1200 km2. 90% of land users have implemented the terraces without receiving
ally 25-30% of construction. Daily wage of hired
any external support other than technical guidance.
labour is about US$ 1; material costs include
collection and sizing of stones.

Benefit-cost ratio
Inputs short term long term
Establishment negative slightly positive
Maintenance slightly positive positive

Remarks: The profit is very marginal but without

the terraces no harvest is expected. The land
users continue to invest on the terraces as long
as they can make a living from the land this way.

Main contributors: Firew Desta, Bureau of Agriculture, Southern Nation, Nationalities and Peoples Region (SNNPR), Awassa, Ethiopia. n Daniel Danano, Ministry of Agriculture
and Rural Development, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; [email protected]
Key references: Danano D. 2008 (unpublished). Soil and Water Conservation Practices for Sustainable Land Management in Ethiopia. Ethiocat. n WOCAT. 2002. WOCAT database
on SLM technologies. www.wocat.net.

SLM Technology: Konso Bench Terrace - Ethiopia 125

5_Cross_Slope_Barriers.indd 125 20.01.11 14:36

 Agroforestry

High diversity in an agroforestry system, Ethiopia. (Hanspeter Liniger)

In a nutshell Development issues addressed

Preventing / reversing land degradation +++

Definition: Agroforestry (AF) is a collective name for land use systems and prac-
tices in which woody perennials are deliberately integrated with agricultural crops Maintaining and improving food security +++
and / or livestock for a variety of benefits and services. The integration can be Reducing rural poverty +++
either in a spatial mixture (e.g. crops with trees) or in a temporal sequence (e.g. Creating rural employment +
improved fallows, rotation). AF ranges from very simple and sparse to very com-
Supporting gender equity / marginalised groups ++
plex and dense systems. It embraces a wide range of practices: alley cropping,
farming with trees on contours, or perimeter fencing with trees, multi-storey Improving crop production ++
cropping, relay cropping, intercropping, multiple cropping, bush and tree fallows, Improving fodder production ++
parkland systems, homegardens etc.; many of them are traditional land-use sys-
Improving wood / fibre production ++
tems. AF is thus not a single technology but covers the broad concept of trees
Improving non wood forest production +
being integrated into cropping and livestock systems in order to achieve multi-
functionality. There is no clear boundary between AF and forestry, nor between Preserving biodiversity +++
AF and agriculture. Improving soil resources (OM, nutrients) +++
Applicability: On subhumid mountain slopes AF can be practiced on a whole
Improving of water resources ++
farm as around Mt. Kilimanjaro (Chagga system) and Mt. Kenya (Grevillea sys-
tem). In the drylands AF is rarely practiced on whole farms (except under park- Improving water productivity +++
land systems in the Sahel). It is more common for trees to be used in various Natural disaster prevention / mitigation +++
productive niches within a farm. AF is mainly applicable to small-scale land users Climate change mitigation / adaptation +++
and in small-to large-scale tea / coffee plantations.
Resilience to climate variability: AF is tolerant to climate variability. AF systems Climate change mitigation
are characterised by creating their own micro-climates, and buffering extremes Potential for C Sequestration 0.3 - 6.5*
(excessive storms or dry and hot periods). AF is recognised as a greenhouse gas (tonnes/ha/year)
mitigation strategy through its ability to sequester carbon biologically. The adap- C Sequestration: above ground ++
tation and mitigation potential depends on the AF system applied.
C Sequestration: below ground ++
Main benefits: Agroforestry systems have great potential to diversify food and
income sources, improve land productivity and to stop and reverse land degra- Climate change adaptation
dation via their ability to provide a favourable micro-climate, provide permanent
Resilience to extreme dry conditions ++
cover, improve organic carbon content, improve soil structure, increase infiltra-
tion, and to enhance fertility and biological activity of soils. Resilience to variable rainfall +++
Adoption and upscaling: There is a lack of quantitative and predictive under- Resilience to extreme rain and wind storms ++
standing about traditional and innovative agroforestry practices and their
Resilience to rising temperatures and ++
importance in order to make them more adoptable. Long term field research / evaporation rates
monitoring are needed because of the complex nature of tree / crop systems.
Reducing risk of production failure ++

* for a duration of the first 20-30 years of changed land use

management, depending on the selected tree species (Source:
Nair et al., 2009)

126 SLM in Practice

6_Agroforestry.indd 126 20.01.11 14:36

 Origin and spread
Origin: AF encompasses many traditional land-use systems such as home gar-
dens, boundary tree planting, shifting cultivation and bush fallow systems, con-
tour cropping. AF is traditional and was ‘rediscovered’ in 1978 when the name
‘agroforestry’ was coined. Since then it has been promoted by projects and
through land user’s initiative. Alley cropping was conceived in the late 1970s by
research to eliminate the need for a fallow period in the humid and subhumid
tropics to replenish soil fertility.
Mainly applied in: Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Guinea, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi,
Mozambique, Nigeria, Niger, South Africa, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zambia,
Zimbabwe: however all countries in SSA practise one form or another of AF.
What differs is the extent, and the forms of AF practiced in these countries.
Tree cover on agricultural land in SSA
(Source: Zomer et al., 2009)
Principles and types
The factors influencing the performance of AF are crop, livestock and tree types
and mixtures, germplasm, number and distribution of trees, age of trees, man-
agement of crops, livestock and trees, and the climate.
Agroforestry parkland systems are mainly cropland areas with dispersed trees
(often indigenous). Among the characteristics of traditional agroforestry park-
lands are the diversity of tree species they contain and the variety of pro­ducts
and uses (including fruits, fodder, etc.). They generate and provide favourable
micro-climates (through shade especially) and buffer extreme conditions (through
acting as windbreaks). Parklands are found primarily in the semi-arid and sub-
humid zones of West Africa. Faidherbia albida / cereal systems are predominat-
ing throughout the Sahelian zone (e.g. 5 million ha in Niger) and in some parts of
East Africa. For many local populations these systems are very important for food
security, income generation and environmental protection.
Multistorey systems are defined as existing or planted stands of trees or shrubs
that are managed as an upperstorey of woody plants and one to several under-
storeys of woody and non-woody plants that are grown for a variety of products.
The purpose is (a) to use different layers and improve crop diversity by growing
mixed but compatible crops of different heights in the same area; (b) protect soils
and provide a favourable micro-climate; (c) improve soil quality by increasing uti-
lisation and cycling of nutrients and maintaining or increasing soil organic matter
and (d) increase carbon storage in plant biomass and soil. The Chagga homegar-
dens of Tanzania, which integrate more than 100 plant species, provide a classic
example of a multistorey AF system.
Fodder banks: Trees and shrubs with palatable leaves and / or pods are attrac-
tive to farmers as feed supplements for their livestock because they require little
or no cash for inputs: they can be grown on boundaries as trees (often pol-
larded to reduce competition) or as hedges. They effectively do not compete for
land as they are grown along boundaries, pathways - and along the contour to
curb soil erosion. Managing fodder shrubs requires multiple skills including rais-
ing seedlings in a nursery, pruning trees, and feeding the leaves. This is a con-
straint to rapid spread of the technology. Nevertheless, over the past 10 years,
about 200,000 farmers in Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, and northern Tanzania have
planted fodder shrubs, mostly to feed dairy cows.
Improved fallows consist of planted woody species in order to restore fertility
within a short time. Traditionally fallows take several years. Natural vegetation is
slow in restoring soil productivity. By contrast, fast growing leguminous trees and
bushes - if correctly identified and selected - can enhance soil fertility by bring-
ing up nutrients from lower soil layers, litter fall and nitrogen fixation. Improved
fallows are one of the most promising agroforestry technologies in the subhumid
and humid tropics and have shown great potential for adoption in southern and
eastern Africa in recent years.
Windbreaks / shelterbelts are barriers of trees and shrubs that protect against
damaging wind. They are used to reduce wind velocity, protect growing plants
Top: Off-season onion gardens (background) in a parkland
(crops and forage), improve micro-environments to enhance plant growth, delin-
system, Burkina Faso. (Christoph Studer)
eate field boundaries, and increase carbon storage. Middle: Intercropping of 4 different plant species, Rwanda.
(Hanspeter Liniger)
Bottom: Agroforestry with grevilla trees, coffee, tea on steep
mountain slopes, Kenya. (Hanspeter Linigier)

SLM Group: Agroforestry 127

6_Agroforestry.indd 127 20.01.11 14:36

 AGROFORESTRY
Applicability Land degradation

Land degradation addressed Erosion by water High

Chemical soil deterioration: declining soil fertility and organic matter content Erosion by wind Moderate
(due to continuous cropping and few inputs) Chemical degradation Low
Erosion by water and wind: loss of fertile topsoil Physical degradation Insignificant
Physical soil deterioration: compaction, sealing and crusting Biological degradation
Water degradation: namely high water losses by non-productive surface evap- Water degradation
oration, extreme heavy events causing runoff and erosion

Land use
AF is suitable for all types of cropping systems where woody and non-woody Land use
species can be mixed. It is suitable for dry areas suffering from strong winds and Cropland
wind erosion and low soil fertility (parkland systems, alley cropping and / or shel- Grazing land
terbelts). Multistorey systems are suitable for areas with excessive rainfall caus-
Forests / woodlands
ing erosion by water, soil compaction, expensive inputs especially fertilizers, pest
Mixed land use
and diseases.
Unsuitable for dry areas in situations where a lack of land (small farming units) Other
makes AF systems such as parklands and improved fallows unsuitable. In more
humid regions AF can be practiced on very small land parcels (e.g. Chagga
homegardens; other multistorey systems). Unclear land and tree use rights are Climate Average rainfall (mm)
not favourable for the establishment of AF systems.
Humid > 3000
Ecological conditions Subhumid 2000-3000
Climate: AF systems can be found in all kind of environments. Systems with low Semi-arid 1500-2000
tree densities are more suitable in low rainfall areas and high density systems in Arid 1000-1500
high rainfall areas. AF in its diversity is suitable for a wide range of climates and 750-1000
AEZs. Parklands are not confined to specific AEZs and occur in various latitudes, 500-750
but primarily in the semi-arid and subhumid zones of West Africa and in some
250-500
parts of East Africa. Multistorey systems are more applicable in subhumid to
< 250
humid environments or under irrigated systems, due to water requirements. Alley
cropping and improved fallow have a wide range of applicability from semi-arid
to humid.
Terrain and landscape: Suitable for all landforms and slopes: plains / plateaus Slopes (%) very steep (>60)
as well as slopes and valley bottoms. Not suitable for high altitudes (higher than steep (30-60)
2,000 – 2,500 m a.s.l) due to lower temperatures, negative impact of shade and hilly (16-30)
a shorter growing season. AF is viable on steep land which otherwise is too steep rolling (8-16)
for cropping: here AF can help building up terraces if trees are planted along the moderate (5-8)
terrace risers. gentle (2-5)
Soils: No major limitations, AF is suitable for a wide range of soils. AF system flat (0-2)
can restore the soil fertility, where other land use systems have mined (depleted)
soil nutrients.

Socio-economic conditions Farm size Land ownership

Farming system and level of mechanisation: Mainly applied on small-scale Small scale State
farms. However, it can be applied to all farm scales and conducted under dif- Medium scale Company
ferent level of mechanisation (where trees are planted at low densities). In many
Large scale Community
countries women are the main actors in home gardening and food is mainly pro-
Individual, not titled
duced for subsistence.
Market orientation: Mainly applied in mixed systems (subsistence with some Individual, titled
commercial). Can be applied in subsistence or commercial systems; access to
markets is important to sell surplus production and for availability of inputs.
Land ownership and land use / water rights: Mostly applied on areas with Mechanisation Market orientation
individual land use rights and where land users have the rights to the trees they Manual labour Subsistence
plant and tend. Communally owned land often lacks security of tenure and hence Animal traction Mixed
renders land users reluctant to practise and invest in agroforestry. Local regula-
Mechanised Commercial
tions for the use of trees and crops are needed.
Skill / knowledge requirements: Medium to high and often part of a tradition,
however selection of species suitable for different environments and purposes,
Required labour Required know-how
as well as to minimise competition, needs know-how.
Labour requirements: Very variable, can be high for establishment – unless High High
a system of protecting natural regeneration is used - but low for maintenance Medium Medium
though some input needed for pollarding and pruning to reduce competition. Low Low

128 SLM in Practice

6_Agroforestry.indd 128 21.07.11 12:16

 Economics Example: Malawi
Modeled maize grain yields in improved fal-
Establishment costs Maintenance costs low rotations in Makoka, Malawi as a func-
tion of growing season precipitation.
25-250 USS/ha

70-150 USS/ha
10-40 USS/ha

30-80 USS/ha

0-30 USS/ha

0-10 USS/ha
3.0 Sole maize
Maize + sesbania
2.5

high

Maize yield (t ha-1)

high 2.0

mod. mod. 1.5

low low 1.0

o o
0.5
Labour Equipment Agric. inputs Labour Equipment Agric. inputs
0.0
Based on case studies from Ethiopia, Kenya and Togo (Source: WOCAT, 2009) 1001 1017 551 962 522
Precipitation (mm)
Establishment costs for agroforestry systems can vary a lot. Labour and agri-
cultural inputs (seeds, seedlings, etc.) affect the establishment costs especially (Source: Chirwa, 2003 in Verchot et al., 2007)
when linked to rainwater harvesting systems in drier areas.
Maintenance costs are relatively low. Example: Kitui district, Kenya
Within a study conducted in Kitui district,
Production benefits Kenya it was determined whether growing
Yield without SLM Yield with SLM Yield gain (%) Melia volkensii trees in croplands was cost
(t/ha) (t/ha) effective or not. The value of timber prod-
Maize (Malawi) 0.7 1.5-2.0 110-190% ucts gained with that of the crop value lost
due to competition over an 11-year rota-
(Source: Malawi Agroforestry Extension Project; in Woodfine, 2009) tion were compared. Costs for seed, cultiva-
tion, tree planting stock or labour were not
Comments: Crop yields can increase under an agroforestry system, however, taken into account, which would increase
AF does not lead in every case to an increase in crop production; depending on the surplus of cash from the tree products
the type of system, the aggregate yield may improve as the products gained from because in recent years, crop failure has
the trees / shrubs compensate for any loss of crop yield. occured 50% of the time. It was shown
that at the end of the rotation, the accumu-
Benefit-Cost ratio lated income from tree products exceeded
AF systems short term long term quantitative the accumulated value of crop yield lost
through competition by US$ 10 or 42% dur-
Parkland systems –/+ +/++ No data available ing average years and US$ 22 or 180% with
Multistorey +/++ +/++ the assumption of 50% crop failure due to
drought. (In this district of Kenya, on average
Alley cropping + ++ six of the 16 cropping seasons have failed)
Improved fallow ++ +++ (Ong et al., 1999 in Verchot et al., 2007).
Overall + ++
Example: Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, and
– – negative; – slightly negative; –/+ neutral; + slightly positive; ++ positive; +++ very positive northern Tanzania
(Source: WOCAT, 2009) In the highlands of East Africa farmers with
500 calliandra shrubs increased their net
Comments: Available benefit-cost analyses all point to the economic profitabil- income by between $US 62 to 122 depend-
ity of integrating trees within crop fields (particularly multipurpose tree species). ing on whether they used shrubs as a sub-
Analyses have mostly only taken direct use values into account, because indirect stitute, or as supplement, and depending on
use values, such as environmental functions, and non-use values such as cultural where they are located. Fodder shrubs are
and religious functions are more difficult to evaluate. Furthermore, benefit-cost very attractive to farmers because they require
estimates are complicated by the many sources of annual variation in factors little or no cash, nor do they require farm-
governing tree and crop production and tree-crop interactions. ers to take land out of production for food or
other crops (Franzel and Wambugu, 2007).
Impact over different temporal scales is an issue that is especially relevant to
agroforestry. Low-income land users more readily adopt agroforestry practices
with short term benefits such as short term improved fallows (enriched with N-fix-
ing bush / tree species) and multistorey systems.

SLM Group: Agroforestry 129

6_Agroforestry.indd 129 20.01.11 14:36

 Agroforestry
Impacts
Benefits Land users / community level Watershed / landscape level National / global level
Production +++ crop diversification +++ reduced risk and loss of pro- +++ improved food and water
++ higher combined yields (trees, crops and livestock) duction ­security
++ provide products year around ++ access to clean drinking water
++ reliable fuel wood supply

Economic ++ generate additional cash income +++ less damage to off-site infra- +++ improved livelihood and
structure ­well-being
+ creation of employment
+ stimulation of economic growth

Ecological +++ improved soil cover +++ reduced degradation and +++ increased resilience to climate
+++ reduced soil erosion (by water / wind) ­sedimentation change
+++ favourable changes in micro-climatic conditions (e.g. ++ increased water availability +++ enhanced biodiversity
shade trees (can reduce temperature extremes by ++ improved water quality ++ arresting and reversing land
approximately 5°C, windbreaks) ++ intact ecosystem degradation
++ improve soil fertility and biological activity
++ improve organic carbon content (above and below
ground)
++ more effective use of available water
++ enhanced biodiversity and soil life
++ improve soil structure
+ biocontrol of pests and diseases

Socio-cultural ++ improved conservation / erosion knowledge ++ increased awareness for +++ protecting natural and
++ multipurpose tree, meeting various needs ­environmental health national resources for the next
++ reduces pressure on forests ++ reduced conflicts due to ­generations (heritage)
+ community institution strengthening reduced negative off-site
+ social services (as boundary markers) impacts
+ aesthetic value ++ attractive landscape
++ reduced deforestation

Constraints How to overcome

Production l S ystems produce multiple products under specific conditions: some ➜ minimise competition and emphasise the overall production
single products can suffer due to competition

Economic l 
Labour and time consuming ➜ participation of all family members
l High input demand ➜ maximum use of locally available inputs: including indigenous tree
l Reduced flexibility to changing markets related to tree products seedbanks

Ecological l 
Competition between trees (parkland, windbreaks, alley cropping) ➜ species selection and canopy management for reducing above and
and crops for light, water and nutrients below ground competition (e.g. pruning of tree branches, periodic
root pruning)
l Interception of rain by canopy ➜ with water harvesting and moisture management techniques, the
technology could spread to lower rainfall areas
l Loss of land for non-woody crops ➜ increase the productivity of land per unit area, regular pruning of
woody bush and trees esp. during the crop growing period
l 
Depleting groundwater (when scarce groundwater) ➜ species selection
l Dry periods result in low seedling survival rates ➜ supplement with water harvesting and moisture management
techniques
l Timber susceptible to pest attack ➜ species selection, integrated pest management, breeding of more
pest tolerant varieties

Socio-cultural l Forest policies hindering planting, use and ownership of trees ➜ e.g. charcoal policy reform and rights to trees; contract fuelwood
schemes
l Physical and social barriers to smallholder participation in markets ➜ novel market information systems (e.g. per cell phones); facilitating
and capacity building of farmer and farm forest ­associations
l T he overall lack of information at all levels on markets for agro­ ➜ collaboration between the private sector, research and extension
forestry products
l Seedling availability and survival low ➜ small-scale nursery enterprises encourage local seed collection

130 SLM in Practice

6_Agroforestry.indd 130 20.01.11 14:36

 Adoption and upscaling Enabling environment: key factors for adoption

Inputs, material incentives, credits +

Adoption rate
Training and education ++
The complex management requirements of agroforestry (AF) may limit its adop-
tion. Agroforestry systems, such as improved fallows, found widespread accept- Land tenure, secure land use rights ++
ance and adoption by smallholder farmers in Southern Africa (e.g. Zambia). In Access to markets (niche markets and high ++
regions such as the highlands of East Africa, AF systems have spread with very value products)
little or no support from the outside, as land users value trees for multiple pur-
Research ++
poses and have strong motivation to plant and maintain good tree cover. ‘Ferti-
lizer tree species’ (making nutrients available from deeper soil layers) tend to be Infrastructure +
adopted to a greater extent by the poorest families in the villages, which is unu-
sual for agricultural innovations. Recently, with improved rainfall, secured rights Example: Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, and
to trees and project support, there has been a massive increase in parkland sys- northern Tanzania
tems in the West African Sahel. The spread of fodder shrubs in East Africa has
been substantial. By 2006, about 10 years
Upscaling after the dissemination began, 224 organisa-
Parklands, for example, were developed by farmers over many generations to tions across Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, and
diversify production for subsistence, and for income generation, as well as to northern Tanzania were promoting fodder
minimise environmental risks related to the high climatic variability in the region. shrubs, and over 200,000 farmers had planted
This knowledge and tradition needs to be tapped and built upon in order to them, even though the number of shrubs per
upscale AF. Understanding the system and how it works in different environments farm was still well below the number needed
is also crucial. A knowledge system is needed that documents experiences and to feed a single dairy cow. The reason for
facilitates exchange between practitioners and scientists from different countries, the still rather low number of shrubs is that
and stimulates better understanding of the processes behind upscaling. Land many farmers adopt incrementally - they first
users need more information and training to be able to adopt and implement want to see how it performs, and many farm-
AF systems suitable for their specific environmental conditions, as compared to ers ‘partially adopt’ applying several different
other agricultural activities. This limits the spread of some AF techniques. Exten- strategies for providing fodder supplements
sion strategies, including field schools, exchange visits and farmer training, are to ensure better risk management. Due to
effective ways of disseminating information. the information-intensive nature of the tech-
nology, it does not spread easily on its own
Incentives for adoption and thus requires outside facilitation. Con-
Both ecological and social factors are simultaneously important in motivating siderable investments are required to reach
land users to grow trees on their farms. Land users as observed do accept yield other dairy farmers and sustain the uptake
losses provided the new intervention results in a clear return on investment. In the process (Franzel and Wambugu, 2007).
traditional parklands of West Africa, dense shading by shea nut trees (Vitellaria
paradoxa) and néré (Parkia biglobosa), which reduce millet yield by 50–80% are
used because of the high economic returns from marketable tree products. Mar-
kets for multipurpose tree products are crucial for the adoption of AF on a scale
to have meaningful economic, social and environmental impacts. Land tenure
reforms and established systems of payment for ecosystems services (PES) will
encourage land ownership and stimulate the development of plantations (both
forest and AF parklands). A stronger AF focus in agricultural policy and extension
services and the promotion of markets and improved processing of AF products
will encourage the adoption. Incentives provided are often in relation to building
up tree nurseries at the village level.

References and supporting information:

Bekele-Tesemma, A. (ed). 2007. Profitable agroforestry innovations for eastern Africa: experience from 10 agroclimatic zones of Ethiopia, India, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda. World
Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Eastern Africa Region.
Boffa, J. M. 1999. Agroforestry parklands in sub-Saharan Africa. Conservation Guide 34. FAO. http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/x3940e/X3940E10.htm#ch7.4
Chirwa, P.W. 2003. Tree and crop productivity in Gliricidia/Maize/Pigeonpea cropping systems in southern Malawi, Ph.D dissertation, University of Nottingham.
Critchley, W. forthcoming. More People, More Trees. Practical Action Publications.
FAO. 2005. Realising the economic benefits of agroforestry: experiences, lessons and challenges. State Of The World’s Forests, P. 88-97.
Franzel S. and C. Wambugu. 2007. The Uptake of Fodder Shrubs among Smallholders in East Africa: Key Elements that Facilitate Widespread Adoption. In Hare, M.D. and K.
Wongpichet (eds). 2007. Forages: A pathway to prosperity for smallholder farmers. Proceedings of an International Symposium, Faculty of Agriculture, Ubon Ratchathani Uni-
versity, Thailand, 203-222.
Leakey, R.R.B., Z. Tchoundjeu, K. Schreckenberg, S. Shackleton and C. Shackleton. 2005. Agroforestry Tree Products (AFTPs): Targeting Poverty Reduction and Enhanced Liveli-
hoods. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 3: 1-23.
Nair, P. K. R B., M. Kumar and V.D. Nair. 2009. Agroforestry as a strategy for carbon sequestration. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2009, 172, 10–23.
Sinclair, F. L. 1999. A general classification of agroforestry practice. Agroforestry Systems 46: 161–180.
Sood, K. K. and C. P. Mitchell. 2009. Identifying important biophysical and social determinants of on-farm tree growing in subsistence-based traditional agroforestry systems Agro-
forest Syst (2009) 75:175–187.
Verchot, L. V., M. Van Noordwijk, S. Kandji, T. Tomich, C. Ong, A. Albrecht, J. Mackensen, C. Bantilan, K. V. Anupama and C. Palm. 2007. Climate change: linking adaptation and
mitigation through agroforestry. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Change 12: 901–918.
WOCAT, 2009. WOCAT database on SLM technologies and SLM approaches. www.wocat.net, accessed on 15 September 2009.
Woodfine, A. 2009. Using sustainable land management practices to adapt to and mitigate climate change in sub-Saharan Africa: resource guide version 1.0. TerrAfrica. www.
terrafrica.org
Zomer, R., A. Trabucco, R. Coe and F. Place. 2009. Trees on Farm: Analysis of Global Extent and Geographical Patterns of Agroforestry. ICRAF Working Paper no. 89. Nairobi,
Kenya: World Agroforestry Centre. 60pp.

SLM Group: Agroforestry 131

6_Agroforestry.indd 131 20.01.11 14:36

 Case study
Agroforestry

C ha g g a H o m e g a r d e n s - Tan z an i a
The Chagga homegardens are traditional, densely planted ‘banana forests’ SLM measure Management and vegetative
with a scattered upper tree layer. The complex multicropping system evolved SLM group Agroforestry
over several centuries through a gradual transformation of the natural forest
Land use type Mixed (Agroforestry)
on the footslopes of Kilimanjaro. A Chagga homegarden has an average size
of 0.68 ha and integrates numerous multipurpose trees and shrubs with food Degradation Nutrient depletion; Loss of topsoil
addressed
crops, and stall-fed animals, without a specific spatial arrangement. How-
ever, vertically, the following 4 stories / canopies can be distinguished: (1) food Stage of intervention Prevention
crops: taro, beans, vegetables and fodder herbs / grasses; (2) coffee: 500- Tolerance to climate Tolerant to climatic extremes: the
1,400 plants/ha; (3) banana: primary crop; 50% cover; 330-1,200 clumps/ha; change system has a high buffer capacity
and (4) trees, such as Cordia abyssinica, Albizia schimperiana and Grevillea (micro-climate, biodiversity,
irrigation)
robusta. The trees provide shade for coffee, act as live fences, provide medi-
cines, firewood, fodder, mulching material, bee forage; and some have pesti- Establishment activities
cidal properties (e.g. Rauwolfia caffra). 1. Transforming the native forest: trees that
This multilayer system maximises the use of limited land in a highly populated provided fodder, fuel, fruits, medicines,
area, making sustained production possible with a minimum of external inputs, shade, timber, bee forage, anti-pest prop-
minimises risk (less production failure, increased resistance against droughts erties are retained while the less useful
and pests) and ensures at the same time environmental protection. The large species are eliminated.
species diversity provides both subsistence and cash crops. 2. Introduction of new fruit and timber tree
Parts of the homegarden area are irrigated and drained by a network of over species, such as avocado, mango, Grevil-
1,000 canals and furrows tapping runoff from the montane forest. However, lea robusta, Persea americana.
many systems are now in disrepair. Starting in the 1930s when coffee took 3. Planting crop species (banana, coffee,
more space from the food production, it became necessary to expand food taro, beans, vegetables).
production to the lowlands. Today, the Chagga highland homegarden works 4. Establishment of irrigation / drainage
only in combination with a lowland field where maize, millet, beans, sunflower ­channels.
and groundnuts are grown to ensure food security. 5. Terracing or building of bunds in steep
places.
Spatial arrangement of components is irregular
and appears haphazard with the trees / shrubs
and food crops intimately mixed.
Maintenance / recurrent activities
1. Planting, tending and harvesting of
bananas, taro, yams (all year round).
2. Opening up the canopy to ensure better
fruiting of the coffee.
3. Spacing out the banana stools.
4. Manuring crops (using dung from the stall-
fed livestock and compost).
5. Lopping fodder trees / shrubs.
6. Pruning and spraying against coffee berry
disease and leaf rust.
7. Maintaining irrigation furrows.
8. Coffee harvest (August-January).
9. Tending and milking the stall-fed cows
­(typically only one cow).
10. Mulching, terrace maintenance (soil erosion
prevention in general).
All operations are performed manually.

Labour requirements
For establishment: medium
For maintenance: medium
Knowledge requirements
For advisors: medium to high
For land users: medium to high

Photo 1: Chagga homegardens with the snow-capped peak

of Mt. Kilimanjaro in the background. (Hanspeter Liniger)
Profile: Typical chagga homegarden on a 45% slope at 1,400
m a.s.l. with 4 vegetation layers: open light upper canopy
with Albizia schimperiana (up to 20 m high); upper shrub
layer with banana (4-6 m); a lower shrub layer with coffee
(1.5-2 m) and food crops such as taro (< 1.5 m) (Hemp A.,
Hemp C. 2009)

132 SLM in Practice

6_Agroforestry.indd 132 20.01.11 14:36

 Case study area: Mt. Kilimanjaro Region, Ecological conditions
Tanzania ·· C limate: subhumid (tropical montane; bimodal: long rains in March-May,
short rains in Nov-Dec)
·· Average annual rainfall: 1,000-2,000 mm (depending on slope orientation
Case study area and altitude)
Mwanza
·· Soil parameters: fertile volcanic soils with a high base saturation and cation
Moshi
exchange capacity
Kigoma Tanga ·· Slopes: hilly to steep (16 - 60%)
·· Landform: Mountain slopes, orientation south / south-east
Dodoma Zanzibar
·· Altitude: 1,000-1,800 m a.s.l.
Morogoro Dar es Salaam Socio-economic conditions
··  ize of land per household: 1-2 ha (2-3 separate plots)
S
Mbeya ·· Type of land user: poor small-scale farmers
·· Population density: 650 persons/km2
·· Land ownership: individual, traditional clan regulations (land cannot be sold
to outsiders)
·· Land use rights: individual
·· Market orientation: mixed (subsistence and commercial)
Establishment inputs and costs per ha ·· Level of mechanisation: manual labour
Inputs Costs (US$)
Production / economic benefits
Labour na
+++ Continuous and diversified production: 185 kg beans/ha; 410 kg coffee/
Equipment na ha; 400 bunches of banana/ha; ca. 30 kg honey/ha
Agricultural inputs na +++ Reduced risk of crop failure
++ Increased fuelwood production 1.5-3 m3/ha/year
TOTAL na
++ Valuable gene pool (for breeding programmes to improve crop varieties
Maintenance inputs and costs per ha per year for multistorey cropping systems)
++ Increased labour efficiency
Inputs Costs (US$)
Ecological benefits
Labour 300
+++ Improved continuous ground cover
Equipment (axes, hoes, pangas) 45 +++ Improved micro-climate
Agricultural inputs 100 +++ Improved soil conservation and reduced soil loss
TOTAL 445 +++ High biodiversity and genetic variability (over 500 plant species including
400 non-cultivated plants)
% of costs borne by land users 100%
++ High pest resistance
Remarks: Chagga homegardens are traditional Socio-cultural benefits
systems which evolved over centuries through a +++ Improved food security
gradual transformation of the natural forest into +++ Improved health
agroforestry gardens. Establishment of new gar- +++ Preservation of traditional knowledge
dens is not possible due to land shortage.
Benefit-cost ratio Weaknesses ➜ and how to overcome
– Productivity of Chagga homegardens is not optimal ➜ (1) Replace the less
Inputs short term long term
productive trees / shrubs with fast growing nitrogen fixing species (2) improve
Establishment na na animal husbandry (e.g. to increase lactation period); (3) improve apiculture; (4)
Maintenance positive very positive introduce new crop varieties using the gene pool developed by natural and
farmer selection; (5) use fertilisers; (6) improve coffee production: certified pro-
Adoption duction (organic, fair trade) to fetch higher prices; (7) replace old coffee plants
Locally well adopted traditional land use system, with new ones; (8) integrated pest management; (9) facilitate access to capital
covering an area of approximately 1,200 km2; for farm investments; (10) improve erosion control (terraces and bunds); (11)
further spread at local level is not possible due to include productive fruit trees; (12) improve advisory services.
land shortage. Migration of young people to – Water management causes nutrient loss in the gardens and water shortages
urban areas leads to labour shortages and dis- on the lower slopes ➜ improve efficiency of furrows: Install pipes and surfac-
rupts intergenerational knowledge transmission, ing by cement, protect river banks from cultivation.
required for the successful management and – High demand of wood, low coffee prices and the introduction of sun-tolerant
perpetuation of the homegardens. coffee varieties endanger the homegardens ➜ incentive-based tree planting
in gardens to reduce the pressure on the forest.

Main contributors: Andreas Hemp, University of Bayreuth, Bayreuth, Germany; [email protected] n Claudia Hemp, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany;
[email protected]
Key references: Hemp, A. (1999): An ethnobotanical study on Mt. Kilimanjaro. Ecotropica 5: 147-165. n Hemp, A. (2006): The banana forests of Kilimanjaro. Biodiversity and con-
servation of the agroforestry system of the Chagga Homegardens. Biodiversity and Conservation 15(4): 1193-1217. n Hemp, C. (2005): The Chagga Home Gardens – relict areas for
endemic Saltatoria Species (Insecta: Orthoptera) on Mt. Kilimanjaro. Biological Conservatrion 125: 203-210. n Hemp, A., C. Lambrechts, and C. Hemp. (in press). Global trends and
Africa. The case of Mt. Kilimanjaro. (UNEP, Nairobi). n Hemp, A., Hemp, C., Winter, C. (2009) Environment and worldview: The Chagga homegardens. In: Clack, T.A.R. (ed.) Culture, his-
tory and identity: Landscapes of inhabitation in the Mount Kilimanjar area, Tanzania. BAR International Series 1966, Archaeopress Oxford, pp. 235-303 n Fernandes E.C.M., Oktingati
A., Maghembe J. 1985. The Chagga homegardens: a multistoried agroforestry cropping system on Mt. Kilimanjaro (Northern Tanzania) in Agroforestry Systems 2: 73-86.

SLM Technology: Chagga Homegardens - Tanzania 133

6_Agroforestry.indd 133 20.01.11 14:36

 Case study
Agroforestry

Sh e l t e r b e l t s - T o g o
On the vast denuded plains of Pays Kabyé in northern Togo, barriers of legu- SLM measure Vegetative
minous trees (e.g. Cassia siamea or spectabilis; a medium sized tree growing SLM group Agroforestry
between 10-20 m tall; Albizzia procera, Leucaena leucocephala) and shrubs
Land use type Cropland / mixed land
(Cajanus cajan, Erythrina variegate) are established between fields cultivated
with annual crops such as maize. The shelterbelts provide a good micro-­ Degradation Wind erosion, Aridification
addressed
climate and protect the crops against the counterproductive effects of wind
speed such as wind erosion, soil moisture loss through evaporation and physi- Stage of intervention Prevention and mitigation
cal damage to crops. Tolerance to climate No data
The shelterbelts’ effectiveness depends on their permeability, their spacing change
and the direction of planting in relation to the wind direction: A proportion of
40-50% of holes (openings, void) in relation to the total surface of the shelter- Establishment activities
belt is desirable, and establishment of tree rows perpendicularly to the main 1. Determine the area to be protected and
wind direction is most effective. In order to reduce lateral turbulence the wind- alignment of shelterbelts (1,2, or 3 lines of
breaks need to reach a length of minimum 10 times their height. Shelterbelts trees per row); rows to be established per-
protect 15-25 times their height on the leeward and 1-2 their height on the pendicular to main wind direction; spacing
windward side. If the area to be protected is large, several windbreaks need between rows: 20-25m).
to be established. 2. Establish plant nursery.
The denser the shelterbelts are, the better the windbreaking effect, but the 3. Dig planting pits at a spacing of 2-3
higher the competition with crops for nutrients, light and water. Frequent meters.
pruning helps to avoid too much competition and provides fuelwood. In case 4. Planting of seedlings (when conditions are
leguminous tree species are used, soil properties can be improved through favourable).
nitrogen fixation and the provision of organic matter (leaves). 5. Regular irrigation of young tree seedlings
after plantation.
6. Weeding.
7. Reduce density to a spacing 5 m between
trees.
All activities carried out during rainy season,
using hand tools such as hoe, machete and
measuring tape. Establishment takes 36
months.
Maintenance / recurrent activities
1. Weeding (according to necessity / speed of
regrowth).
2. Pruning to avoid shading effect on crops.

Labour requirements
For establishment: high
For maintenance: moderate
Knowledge requirements
For advisors: high
For land users: moderate

Photo 1: A windbreak with two or three tree lines planted

5 m apart established between fields of annual crops.
(Idrissou Bouraima)
Technical drawing: Spacing between windbreak rows is
20-25 m. The row of windbreak can be of a single tree line,
of double tree lines, etc. depending on wind speed and scope
of protection. The in between tree line spacing is 5 m. Plant
density can range from 100 – 200 plants/ha depending on
the number of tree lines planted within a windbreak. (Mats
Gurtner)

134 SLM in Practice

6_Agroforestry.indd 134 20.01.11 14:36

 Case study area: Tchitchao, Kara, Togo Ecological conditions
·· C limate: subhumid
·· Average annual rainfall: 1,000-1,500 mm
·· Soil parameters: medium to good drainage; shallow, sandy-loamy soils;
medium soil organic matter
·· Slope: gentle (2-5%)
Kara Case study area ·· Landform: footslopes, plateaus / plains, hill slopes
·· Altitude: 100-500 m a.s.l.
Sokodé Socio-economic conditions
·· S ize of land per household: 1-2 ha
·· Type of land user: small-scale farmers, relatively rich (about 1.5% of land
users). Windbreak technology is little known by most farmers
·· Population density: 300 persons per km2 in the region
·· Land ownership: individual, titled
Kpalimé
·· Land use rights: individual
Lomé
·· Level of mechanisation: no data
·· Market orientation: subsistence and commercial

Establishment inputs and costs per ha Production / economic benefits

Inputs Costs (US$) ++ Increased income from agriculture
++ Increased wood production and forest products (fruits)
Labour 200
++ Increased crop yield
Equipment 86
Ecological benefits
Agricultural inputs 90 ++ Reduced wind speed
TOTAL 376 ++ Reduced loss of topsoil (through wind erosion)
% of costs borne by land users 100% ++ Reduced loss of soil moisture (through evaporation)
Socio-cultural benefits
Maintenance inputs and costs per ha per year ++ Increased conservation / erosion knowledge
Inputs Costs (US$) Socio-cultural benefits
Labour 139 ++ Reduced off-site deposition of wind sediments
Equipment
Weaknesses ➜ and how to overcome
Agricultural Inputs 23 ·· Reduced area for cultivation of crops ➜ establish the minimum of shelter-
TOTAL 162 belts necessary for optimal protection.
% of costs borne by land users 100% ·· R educed crop yields alongside shelterbelts (competition for nutrients, light,
water) ➜ avoid dense planting of trees and shrubs; frequently prune the
Remarks: The monetary costs include the pur- trees.
chase of seeds, cuttings or nursery plants and ·· Shelterbelts provide habitat for vermins / pests (rats, insects) ➜ frequently
labour for the preparation and planting. In certain hunt these animals.
circumstances, it is necessary to protect young ·· Increased labour inputs.
trees against browsing and other damage.
Adoption
Benefit-cost ratio 100% of the families who have implemented shelterbelts in the case study area
have done it without any external support apart from technical advice. However,
Inputs short term long term there is no growing trend of spontaneous adoption in the region since the wind-
Establishment positive positive break technology is little known by most farmers.
Maintenance positive very positive

Main contributors: Mawussi Gbenonchi, Ecole Supérieure d’Agronomie, Université de Lomé (ESA UL), Lomé, Togo; [email protected]
Key references: Care International Togo. 1997. Agroforestry training and demonstrations in northern Togo. Final report to European Union B7-5040/93/21 n Louppe, D., H. Yossi.
1999. Les haies vives défensives en zones sèches et subhumides d’Afrique de l’Ouest. Atelier Jachères, Dakar.  n Ariga, E. S., 1997. Availability and Role of Multipurpose Trees and
Shrubs in Sustainable Agriculture in Kenya. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 10:2/3, 25-35. n WOCAT. 2007. WOCAT database on SLM technologies. www.wocat.net

SLM Technology: Shelterbelts - Togo 135

6_Agroforestry.indd 135 20.01.11 14:37

 Case study
Agroforestry

G r e v i ll e a A g r o f o r e s t r y S y s t e m - K e n y a
While Grevillea robusta (the ‘silky oak’, an Australian native) was originally intro- SLM measure Vegetative
duced from India to East Africa as a shade tree for tea and coffee estates, it is SLM group Agroforestry
now more commonly used in small-scale farming areas, especially in associa-
Land use type Mixed (crops and trees)
tion with annual crops (maize / beans). There are three major forms of grevillea
agroforestry systems: (1) planting along farm boundaries; (2) scattered grevillea Degradation Soil moisture problem; Fertility
addressed decline, reduced organic matter
trees on cropland - resembling open forests with multi-storey layers; (3) ‘alley content; Loss of topsoil through
cropping’ on terraces. Boundary planting is the most common form and is water erosion
described in this case study.
Stage of intervention Mitigation
Grevillea can be easily established and is relatively free of pests and dis-
eases. The trees are managed through periodic pollarding – the pruning of Tolerance to climate High tolerance to change of tempera-
change ture and rainfall – Grevillea grows
side branches while maintaining the trunk – to reduce competition with crops. under a high range of climates
Competition is little in any case, and can be further reduced by digging a small
trench around the trees, thus cutting the superficial roots. Establishment activities
Grevillea is planted for a number of purposes, including marking prop- 1. Dig planting pits (before rainy seasons).
erty boundaries, supplying fuelwood and building materials (pruning of side 2. Purchase seedlings from nurseries or col-
branches which rapidly regrow), providing shade and for ornamental value. lection of wildings (naturally generated
Simultaneously it increases organic matter, provides mulching materials to seedlings).
improve ground cover, reduces wind speed, and encourages nutrient recycling 3. Plant seedlings (at onset of rains), initial
due to its deep rooting. It can be planted over a wide range of agro­ecological spacing ca. 1 m, later thinned to 1.5 – 3 m.
zones and from sea level up to 2,000 metres. It is ideally suited to intensive
areas of small-scale mixed farming. To effectively combat soil erosion prob- Maintenance / recurrent activities
lems on slopes, grevillea planting must be combined with additional measures 1. Weeding around seedlings when necessary
such as fanya juu and bench terraces, grass strips and other vegetative and (rainy season).
agronomic measures. 2. Pruning as necessary; pruned branches
are dried and used for fuelwood (annually).
3. Pollarding (pruning of side branches;
ensures large and straight tree trunks):
annually, after crop harvest.
4. Root pruning: dig a trench (60 cm from
tree, 25 cm deep) and cut the shallow
roots to reduce competition with annual
crops every four years.
5. Felling some trees to reduce density as
they grow bigger (during dry season).
6. Replanting when trees are harvested for
timber.
All activities carried out by manual labour using
machetes (panga), hoes and handsaws.

Labour requirements
For establishment: moderate
For maintenance: moderate
Knowledge requirements
For advisors: moderate
For land users: low

Photo 1: Boundary planting of grevillea trees between small­

holder plots used for cultivation of maize and beans.
Photo 2: Detailed view of a dense row of grevillea trees.
Photo 3: Scattered grevillea trees planted as a shade tree in
a coffee plantation. (All photos by Hanspeter Liniger)

136 SLM in Practice

6_Agroforestry.indd 136 20.01.11 14:37

 Case study area: Kiawanja, Nembure Ecological conditions
division, Embu, Kenya ·· C limate: subhumid
·· Average annual rainfall: 1,000-1,500 mm
Lodwar
·· Soil parameters: good drainage, deep well drained nitosols; soil organic
matter mostly low and partly medium
·· Slope: mostly rolling to hilly (8-30%), partly steeper
·· Landform: ridges, mountain / hill slopes; also foot slopes / valleys
·· Altitude: 1,000 – 1,500 m a.s.l.
Eldoret
Kisumu Meru Socio-economic conditions
··  ize of land per household: mainly 1-2 ha, partly <1 ha
S
Nakuru Case study area
·· Type of land user: mainly small-scale farmers
·· Population density: > 500 persons/km2
Nairobi
·· Land ownership: individual titled
Lamu ·· Land use rights: individual
·· Level of mechanisation: manual labour
Mombasa ·· Market orientation: mixed (subsistence and commercial): marketed prod-
ucts include: grevillea timber, coffee, macademia nuts and milk

Establishment inputs and costs per ha Production / economic benefits

Inputs Costs (US$) +++ Increased wood production (for timber and fuelwood)
++ Increased farm income
Labour 25
+ Increased fodder production (leaves used as fodder during dry season)
Equipment 10 + Increased crop yield (through mulching and nutrient pumping)
Agricultural inputs 125 Ecological benefits
TOTAL 160 +++ Reduced wind velocity (affecting crops / homesteads)
% of costs borne by land users 100% ++ Improved soil cover (mulch and canopy cover)
++ Improved micro-climate
++ Increased soil fertility and organic matter (leaf litter, leaves used as cattle
Maintenance inputs and costs per ha per year
bedding; nutrient recycling)
Inputs Costs (US$) ++ Reduced soil loss
Labour 65 + Increased soil moisture (mulching improves infiltration)
Equipment 0 + Biodiversity enhancement (bees, birds, etc.)
Agricultural inputs 25 Socio-cultural benefits
TOTAL 90 ++ Improved conservation / erosion knowledge (stakeholder interaction)
++ Improved housing (more timber available)
% of costs borne by land users 100%
Off-site benefits
Remarks: Boundary planting is the basis of cost- +++ Reduced deforestation (alternative source of fuel and timber)
ing (assuming average plot size of 25 m by 25 m ++ Creation of employment (tree management and harvesting)
and an average spacing of 1 m between trees = + Reduced downstream flooding and siltation
1,000 trees/ha). 1 person plants 50 trees in one + Reduced river pollution (chemical contamination)
day. The labour required for management (prun- + Increased stream flow in dry season
ing and pollarding) of established trees is high.
Seedling purchase price is also high, but this can Weaknesses ➜ and how to overcome
be reduced by collecting wildings (seed­lings ·· S eedlings and wildings not always readily available ➜ encourage local seed
growing in the wild) and establishing personal or collection and setting up of group tree nurseries.
group nurseries. ·· T imber is susceptible to pests attack (weevils) ➜ timber treatment with
appropriate chemicals; breeding of pest tolerant varieties.
Benefit-cost ratio ·· Livestock can damage young seedlings ➜ protection by fencing.
Inputs short term long term ·· Dry periods result in low seedling survival rates: planting not possible in dry
Establishment slightly positive very positive areas ➜ combine technology with water harvesting / moisture management
techniques.
Maintenance slightly positive very positive
·· Competition with crops ➜ regular pruning of side branches; dig a small
trench around the trees, thus cutting the superficial roots.
Adoption ·· Limited efficiency of agroforestry system in combating soil erosion problems
All land users of the catchment (totally 120 fami- on slopes ➜ combine with agronomic and vegetative measures (e.g. con-
lies) have accepted the technology spontane- tour ploughing, mulching, grass strips), and where necessary with structural
ously. measures (e.g. terraces, bunds and ditches).

Main contributors: John Munene Mwaniki, Ministry of Agriculture & Rural Development, Embu, Kenya; [email protected]. Ceris Jones, Agronomica, UK;
[email protected]
Key references: ICRAF. 1992. A selection of useful trees and shrubs in Kenya. n ICRAF, Nairobi. Guto et al (1998) PRA report, Kiawanja catchment, Nembure division, Embu District-
Kenya. Ministry of Agriculture, Nembure division, Embu. n Harwood CE. 1989. Grevillea robusta: an annotated bibliography: ICRAF, Nairobi. n Rocheleau D., F. Weber and A . Field-
Juma. 1988. Agroforestry in dryland Africa: ICRAF, Nairobi http://www.winrock.org/forestry/factpub/factsh/grevillea.htm. http://www.ces.uga.edu/pubcd/b949-w.html

SLM Technology: Grevillea Agroforestry System - Kenya 137

6_Agroforestry.indd 137 20.01.11 14:37

 Case study
Agroforestry

Fa r m e r M ana g e d N a t u r al R e g e n e r a t i o n - N i g e r
Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration (FMNR) is the systematic regenera- SLM measure Vegetative and management
tion of living and sprouting stumps of indigenous vegetation which used to SLM group Agroforestry
be slashed and burned in traditional field preparation. The naturally occurring
Land use type Mainly annual cropping
seedlings and / or sprouts are managed and protected by local farmers. Most
suitable are species with deep roots that do not compete with crops and have Degradation Deforestation; Wind erosion and
addressed sedimentation (increased wind
good growth performance even during poor rainy seasons. In the case study speed, dust storms); Water defi-
area the three most valuable species – as perceived by land users – are Faid- ciency; Sand dune movements
herbia albida; Piliostigma reticulatum and Guiera senegalensis.
Stage of intervention Mainly rehabilitation, partly miti-
The ideal density, when grown with cereal crops, is between 50 and 100 trees gation
per hectare. For each stump, the tallest and straightest stems are selected and
Tolerance to climate Tolerant to climatic extremes (e.g.
side branches removed to roughly half of the stem height. Excess shoots are change droughts, temperature increase,
then removed. Regular pruning of any unwanted new stems and side branches rainfall decrease, etc.)
stimulates growth rates. Farmers are encouraged to leave 5 stems / shoots per
tree, cutting one stem each year and letting another grow in its place. On remov- Establishment activities
ing a shoot, the cut leaves are left on the surface where they reduce erosion 1. Select 50 - 100 stumps per hectare for
and are then eaten by termites, returning the nutrients to the soil. The remain- regrowth during the dry season.
ing shoots continue to grow, providing a continuous supply of wood. From the 2. Select the tallest and straightest stems
first year, firewood is collected from trimmings. From the second year on, cut and prune side branches to roughly half
branches are thick enough to sell. A more intensive form of FMNR is to profit the height of the stem (using sharpened
from every stump sprouting on the land. This option allows idle land to become a axe or machete and cutting upwards care-
productive resource during an otherwise unproductive eight-month dry season. fully).
FMNR is a simple, low-cost and multi-benefit method of re-vegetation, acces- 3. Remove excess shoots, leave the cut
sible to all farmers, and adapted to the needs of smallholders. It reduces leaves on the surface.
dependency on external inputs, is easy to practice and provides multiple ben- 4. Prune any unwanted new stems and side
efits to people, livestock, crops and the environment. Tree layout will need to branches (each 2-6 months).
be carefully considered if ploughs are used for cultivation.
All activities carried out manually.
Maintenance / recurrent activities
1. Cut one stem (per tree) each year and let
another grow in its place.
2. Once the stems selected for growth are
> 2 meters high, they can be pruned up to
two thirds.
3. Prune any unwanted new stems and side
branches (each 2-6 months).
All activities carried out manually.
Note: Farmers in different countries have
developed a range of management practices
which best suit their needs and thus differ from
the present case study.

Labour requirements
For establishment: low
For maintenance: low
Knowledge requirements
For advisors: medium
For land users: medium

Photo 1: Mature FMNR system in Maradi, with millet and a

tree density of around 150 trees/ha.
Photo 2: New tree sprouts in front of the farmer, harvested
wood in the background. Note the proximity of the crop (mil-
let) to the tree without detrimental effect.
Photo 3: Re-sprouting tree stumps and roots: the basis of
FMNR.
Photo 4: Typical FMNR farm after harvest of millet.
Photo 5: After just one year the numerous stems are growing
vigorously and straight. Ideally, one or two are harvested from
the clump each year, always leaving new regrowth to replace
them. (All photos by Tony Rinaudo)

138 SLM in Practice

6_Agroforestry.indd 138 20.01.11 14:37

 Case study area: Maradi, Niger Ecological conditions
·· C limate: semi-arid
·· Average annual rainfall: 150–500 mm (variable)
·· Soil parameters: low fertility, very low soil depth, drainage and organic mat-
ter content
·· Slope: mainly flat, partly undulating
·· Landform: mainly plains
·· Altitude: 200–300 m a.s.l.

Agadez
Socio-economic conditions
··  ize of land per household: 1–5 ha (average production area)
S
·· Type of land user: small-scale; very poor and poor land users
·· Population density: 11 persons/km2
Maradi Zinder
·· Land ownership: individual, generally untitled
Niamey Case study area ·· Land use rights: individual
·· Level of mechanisation: mainly manual labour, partly animal traction
·· Market orientation: mixed (subsistence and commercial)
·· FMNR can be practiced by any farmer, even the poorest. No external

Establishment inputs and costs per ha Production / economic benefits

Inputs Costs (US$) +++ Increased wood production (production value increased by 57%)
+++ Increased income
Labour: 2-3 person-days 6
+++ Increased crop production (at least doubled)
Equipment / tools: see below 0 ++ Reduced workload: no annual clearing / burning of trees
Agricultural inputs: none 0 ++ Increased livestock production (nutritious pods as fodder)
TOTAL 6 Ecological benefits
% of costs borne by land users 100% +++ Increased soil cover and increased biomass: increased tree density on
farmland (from 30 to 45 trees/ha average)
+++ Windbreak effect: deposition of rich, wind blown silt; improved micro-climate
Maintenance inputs and costs per ha per year
+++ Increased organic matter from leaf fall and trimmings
Inputs Costs (US$) +++ Increased soil fertility (dung; livestock spends more time in fields with trees)
Labour: 1-2 person-days 4 +++ Increased biodiversity; creation of habitat, food and shelter for predators
Equipment / tools: see below 0 of crop pests
+++ Increased drought-tolerance: regenerated trees are indigenous and gen-
Agricultural inputs: none 0
erally have mature root systems
TOTAL 4
Socio-cultural benefits
% of costs borne by land users 100%
++ Increased food security: edible leaves / fruits; bridge food shortages
+++ Improved quality of life: reduced wind speeds and dust; shade is availa-
Remarks: Main costs are in the form of labour.
ble; barren landscape is returning to a natural savanna
One man could prepare one hectare in 1–3 days,
+++ Increased disaster risk reduction: FMNR acts as an insurance policy
depending on tree density (labour is undertaken
by the farm owner and rarely through paid Off-site benefits
labour). No inputs used; no extra tools needed, +++ Urban populations benefit from cheaper, sustained wood supply and
tools are available on-farm (hoe, axe, machete reduced incidence of dust storms
etc). Maintenance costs depend on tree density
also and could require 1–2 days/year/ha. Weaknesses ➜ and how to overcome
·· Scarce presence of live tree stumps ➜ alternatively broadcast seeds of
Benefit-cost ratio indigenous species (reduced short term benefits; high mortality rates).
Inputs short term long term ·· C ultural norms and values: ‘a good farmer is a clean farmer’ (= no trees)
➜ work with all stakeholders to change norms.
Establishment positive very positive
·· Land (including trees) is treated as common property during dry season;
Maintenance positive very positive damaging and removing trees on other people’s land occurs ➜ create
sense of ownership of trees: (1) encourage communities to develop rules
Remarks: Annual income from selling wood: that respect property; (2) local forestry authorities granting informal approval
US$ 140 (from the 6th year after implementa- for farmers to be able to reap the benefits of their work.
tion). By some estimates, total benefit per hec-
tare (incl. wood sales, increased crop yield, Adoption
increased livestock productivity, wild foods and The technology has first been implemented in Maradi region, Niger in the early
medicines etc.) are in the order of US$ 200/ha, 1980’s. Spread has been largely spon­taneous, with minimal external assistance.
compared to an investment in labour US$ 10-15. The area covered today by trees from FMNR is estimated to be more than
50,000 km2 in Niger.

Main contributors: Tony Rinaudo; World Vision, Melbourne; [email protected]; Dov Pasternak ICRISAT-WCA, Niamey, Niger; [email protected]
Key references: Rinaudo T (1999): Utilising the Underground Forest: Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration of Trees, in Dov Pasternak and Arnold Schlissel (Eds). Combating Desrtifi-
cation with Plants. n Cunningham PJ and Abasse T (2005): Reforesting the Sahel: Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration; in Kalinganire A, Niang A and Kone A (2005). Domestication
des especes agroforestieres au Sahel: situation actuelle et perspectives. ICRAF Working Paper, ICRAF, Nairobi. n Haglund E, Ndjeunga J, Snook L, and Pasternak D (2009): Assessing
the Impacts of Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration in the Sahel: A Case Study of Maradi Region, Niger (Draft Version)

SLM Technology: Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration - Niger 139

6_Agroforestry.indd 139 20.01.11 14:37

 Case study
Agroforestry

P a r kland A g r o f o r e s t r y S y s t e m - B u r k i na Fa s o
Parklands are the traditional agroforestry systems of semi-arid West Africa or SLM measure Vegetative
Sahel where naturally growing, valuable trees are protected and nurtured on SLM group Agroforestry
cropping and grazing lands. For the rural people in the Sahel, parkland trees
Land use type Mixed (crops and trees)
are multipurpose: they are a grocery shop, a pharmacy and a silo at the same
time. People rely on many locally cherished species to provide food and nutri- Degradation Desertification problem; Fertility
addressed decline, reduced organic matter
tional security for both human and livestock populations and to protect and content; Loss of topsoil through
enrich soils. Important tree species are baobab (Adansonia digitata), tamarind water erosion
(Tamarindus indica), Faidherbia albida, shea nut or karité (Vitellaria paradoxa,
Stage of intervention Mitigation
see photo 1 below) and néré (Parkia biglobosa).
Crop production can be increased below and around the trees (especially Tolerance to climate Increased tolerance through the use
change of indigenous species
under Faidherbida albida) due to the favourable micro-climate, accumulation
of soil organic matter through litter fall, prunings and root decay in the predom-
Establishment activities
inantly sandy and poor soils.
1. Retaining saplings from natural regenera-
Parkland management practices include: assisted tree regeneration (see also
tion or wildings before rainy seasons.
Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration, Niger); Tree planting (mostly in vicin-
2. Planting improved material (early stage).
ity of family compounds); Improved fallows (under which economically useful
3. Grafting for shortening juvenile phase and
and fertility-improving trees are planted before cropping is discontinued) and
improving fruit quality (initiation stage).
fire protection. Farmers commonly apply silvicultural techniques to increase
4. Pruning to form erect canopy.
production of parkland trees. These include seedling protection and fencing,
5. Protection from animals by dead or live
watering, and the selection of vigorous shoots. Pruning is done to improve
fences.
productivity of trees, reduce shade and enhance understorey crop perform-
ance and to produce fuelwood and fodder. It stimulates leaf regrowth, causes Maintenance / recurrent activities
an additional foliation peak during the rainy season and depresses pod pro- 1. Weeding around seedlings when necessary
duction. Coppicing and pollarding represent a way of limiting competition with (rainy season).
intercrops and providing wood and other tree products in species with good 2. Pruning as necessary (pruned branches
vegetative growth. are dried and used for fuelwood): annually.
3. Pollarding (pruning of side branches to
improve light for understorey crops.
4. Felling some trees to reduce density as
they grow bigger (during dry season).
All activities carried out by manual labour using
machetes (panga) or hoes.

Labour requirements
For establishment: moderate
For maintenance: high
Knowledge requirements
For advisors: moderate
For land users: low

Photo 1: Karité –millet parkland in Sapone, Burkina Faso.

(Jules Bayala)
Photo 2: Faidherbia albida dominating a parkland system
with pearl millet in Burkina Faso. (William Critchley)

140 SLM in Practice

6_Agroforestry.indd 140 20.01.11 14:37

 Case study area: Saponé, Burkina Faso Ecological conditions
··  limate: semi-arid
C
·· Average annual rainfall: 720 mm (unimodal)
·· Soil parameters: sandy loam, Regosols; low soil organic matter
·· Slope: mostly flat
·· Landform: plains
Ouahigouya ·· Altitude: no data
Socio-economic conditions
Ouagadougou ··  ize of land per household: 1-5 ha
S
Koudougou Case study area ·· Type of land user: poor and better-off farmers (basically everyone who has land)
Bobo Dioulasso ·· Population density: 76 persons/km2
·· Land ownership: majority has ownership of the land, few borrow
·· Land use rights: individual
·· Level of mechanisation: manual labour
·· Market orientation: mixed (subsistence and commercial)

Production / economic benefits

+++ Increased production from fruits
Establishment inputs and costs per ha ++ Increased farm income
Inputs Costs (US$) + Increased fodder production (leaves used as fodder during dry season)
+ Increased crop yield (through mulching and nutrient pumping)
Labour -
Ecological benefits
Equipment -
+++ Reduced wind velocity (affecting crops / homesteads)
Agricultural inputs - ++ Improved soil cover (mulch and canopy cover)
TOTAL no data ++ Improved micro-climate
++ Increased soil fertility (leaf litter and nutrient recycling)
Maintenance inputs and costs per ha per year ++ Reduced soil loss
+ Increased soil moisture (mulching improves infiltration)
Inputs Costs (US$)
+ Biodiversity enhancement (bees, birds, etc.)
Labour -
Socio-cultural benefits
Equipment -
++ Improved conservation / erosion knowledge (stakeholder interaction)
Agricultural inputs - ++ Improved housing (more timber available)
TOTAL no data
Off-site benefits
Remarks: Data on costs is not available. How- +++ Reduced deforestation (alternative source of fuel and timber)
ever, costs for management of the land use sys- ++ Creation of employment (tree management and harvesting)
tem are low; only some pruning and trimming of + Reduced downstream flooding
trees is needed which is effectively ‘harvesting’ + Reduced downstream siltation
of fodder and wood. + Increased stream flow in dry season

Benefit-cost ratio Weaknesses ➜ and how to overcome

·· S eedlings and wildings not always readily available ➜ encourage local seed
Inputs short term long term
collection and setting up of group tree nurseries.
Establishment slightly positive very positive ·· Livestock sometimes damage the young seedlings ➜ protection by fencing.
Maintenance slightly positive very positive ·· Dry periods result in low seedling survival rates: planting not possible in dry
areas ➜ combine technology with fencing.
Remarks: Costs of establishment and mainte-
·· Competition with crops ➜ regular pruning of side branches.
nance in traditional parklands are difficult to
·· Long period to fruiting ➜ use vegetative propagation of superior trees.
quantify because trees usually arise through nat-
ural regeneration and then are ‘nurtured’. Annual Adoption
returns from the sale of neré products were esti- Tens of millions of people live in the traditional parklands of Burkina Faso, Mali,
mated at 50-60 US$ (26% of farmers’ income) Senegal and Niger. In Mali alone an estimated 3.6 million people practice park-
and karité / shea nut activities can represent land agroforestry with 40 trees per hectare.
20–60% of women’s income in rural areas.

Main contributors: Jules Bayala, CORAF; [email protected]; www.coraf.org

Key references: Boffa,J.M. 1999. Agroforestry parklands in Sub-Saharan Africa. FAO Conservation guide no.34, Rome, 230pp. n Jonsson K, CK. Ong and JCW. Odongo . 1999.
Influence of scattered nere and karite trees on microclimate, soil fertility and millet yield. Experimental Agriculture 35:39-53. n Bayala J., J. Balesdent, C. Marol, F. Zapata, Z. Tekle-
haimanot, SJ. Quedrago. 2006. Relative contribution of trees and crops to soil carbon content in a parkland system in Burkina Faso using natural 13C abundance. Nutrient Cycling in
Agroecosystems 76:193-201.

SLM Technology: Parkland Agroforestry System - Burkina Faso 141

6_Agroforestry.indd 141 20.01.11 14:37

 I n t e g r at e d C r o p - L i v e s t o c k M a n a g e m e n t

Pegged small-stock on harvested cropland, Cape Verde. (Hanspeter Liniger)

In a nutshell Development issues addressed

Preventing / reversing land degradation ++

Definition: In Integrated Crop - Livestock Management (ICLM) crops and live-
stock interact to create synergies, making optimal use of resources. The waste Maintaining and improving food security ++
products of one component serve as a resource for the other: manure from live- Reducing rural poverty ++
stock is used to enhance crop production (improve soil fertility), whilst crop resi- Creating rural employment +
dues and by-products (grass weeds and processing waste) are supplementary
Supporting gender equity / marginalised groups ++
feed for the animals. Grass – and prunings from agroforestry trees - grown on
contour conservation barriers, as well as nitrogen-fixing legumes grown under Improving crop production ++
conservation agriculture systems, are further potential sources of fodder. Live- Improving fodder production ++
stock are integral to most African cropping systems: they provide traction and
Improving wood / fibre production +
transport, as well as meat, milk and hides. Improvements to the livestock com-
Improving non wood forest production +
ponent of integrated systems include upgraded intensive pastures through shift-
ing night enclosures (kraals / bomas), fodder planting / hay making, and stall Preserving biodiversity ++
feeding (‘cut-and-carry’; ‘zero grazing’) in the more humid areas. Various factors Improving soil resources (OM, nutrients) ++
influence the type and effectiveness of crop - livestock interactions, including
Improving of water resources +
socio-economic parametres (access to land, labour and capital) and ecological
conditions (temperature and rainfall). Improving water productivity ++
Applicability: Integrated crop - livestock systems are common in semi-arid and Natural disaster prevention / mitigation +
subhumid (and humid) areas as well as in tropical / temperate highlands. Given Climate change mitigation / adaptation ++
the growing demand for livestock products, the subhumid areas are predicted to
the best potential to provide most of this increase. ICLM can be applied in many
areas, but needs to be adapted and modified to prevailing conditions. Climate change mitigation
Resilience to climate variability: ICLM systems tend to be relatively well Potential for C Sequestration 0.1- 0.8*
adapted to climatic variability because of their diversity and flexibility – especially (tonnes/ha/year)
when soil and water conservation / water harvesting and agroforestry are inte- in silvo / agro-forestry systems up to 3*
grated into the overall system. C Sequestration: above ground ++
Main benefits: Well managed ICLM (a) increases crop yields; (b) improves soil C Sequestration: below ground ++
biological activity and health; (c) builds up fertility through nutrient recycling,
the planting of leguminous crops and trees; (d) reduces erosion; (e) intensifies
land use, improving profits; and (f) improves livestock productivity and health. Climate change adaptation
Including animals in farm systems increases sustainability and reduces reliance Resilience to extreme dry conditions ++
on external inputs. Carbon storage can be high: in one case from West Africa, Resilience to variable rainfall ++
soil receiving manure for five years had 1.18 t/ha more carbon present than soil
Resilience to extreme rain and wind storms +
treated with plant residues alone (Woodfine, 2009 and FAO, 2007). Nevertheless,
the carbon budget of such systems is affected negatively by methane emitted by Resilience to rising temperatures and +
livestock. ICLM thus reduces poverty and malnutrition, and strengthens environ- evaporation rates
mental sustainability. Reducing risk of production failure ++
Adoption and upscaling: Skillful organisation and management of animals and * for a duration of the first 10-20 years of changed land use
the land is needed. Rules and regulations have to be followed by all concerned, ­management (Source: Woodfine, 2009)
particularly with regard to exclusion of areas from grazing and in terms of ani-
mal health and nutrition. Specific skills can be taught, but much must be learnt
through experience.

142 SLM in Practice

7_Livestock_Management.indd 142 20.01.11 14:44

 Origin and spread
Origin: Traditional agriculture in Africa was generally based on mixed crop-live-
stock systems, with pure livestock production predominating only when rainfall
was too low and uncertain to support some form of crop production. Pure arable
systems only developed when large-scale mechanised cereal farming was intro-
duced, or where cash crops such as coffee, tea or sugar cane expanded. Animal
disease may also have played a role in some areas. Today the re-discovery and
modification of traditional techniques, including rotational land use / fallows, mixed
cropping, grazing rules and regulations, in combination with agroforestry, improved
Mainly applied
fodder species, specific soil and water conservation measures (SWC) and more Also applied
productive livestock breeds, make these systems stronger and more versatile.
Mainly applied in: Ethiopia, Kenya, South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe
Also applied in: Burkina Faso, Mali, Senegal Integrated Crop-Livestock Management in SSA.

Principles and types

ICLM is evolving as a very viable and common farming system, allowing small-
holder farmers to capitalise on the complementarity and synergies between
crops and livestock for improved cycling of nutrients, efficient resource use, and
safeguarding the environment. Some activities / measures in an integrated crop
livestock system are:
Animals stall-fed (zero-grazing) has expanded significantly through the intro-
duction in the more humid areas of (particularly) dairy cows. This has led to an
all-round intensification of crop – livestock systems. Combined with vegetative
SWC measures, based often on napier grass which is an excellent fodder, as
well as agroforestry, and sometimes biogas plants, whole farming systems have
been upgraded.
Harvesting and relocating nutrients: Crop residues are sometimes stored but
most are left in the field after harvest, opportunistically grazed and often under-
utilised (and spoiled). Land users can paddock animals on cropland or other-
wise collect (sometimes store and process) and spread manure on cropland to
improve fertility and hence production. In agropastoral systems animals graze
freely during the day and are in kraals / bomas (enclosures for cattle, goats and
sheep) or on cropland during the night. The balance of feed that an animal con-
sumes influences the properties of its gaseous emissions (especially methane,
CH4), and manure management is important in this context.
Dual-purpose crops (food-feed) enable farmers to increase unit area productivity
with the same resources. Significant advances have already been made in the devel-
opment and promotion of dual-purpose cowpeas in West Africa and maize in Kenya.
Addition or control of species involves improving grazing land through planting
high-value species (e.g. grasses, multi-purpose shrubs / trees) for increased bio-
mass production (‘enrichment planting’), eradicating invasive species by selec-
tive cutting, while simultaneously encouraging natural regeneration of desirable
local species. Under dry conditions, water harvesting techniques can be useful.
Haymaking allows the building up of reserves for the dry season from surplus
in the wet. Storing fodder helps animals to survive during dry periods without
having to overgraze the land. It is also a buffer in extreme drought when market
prices for animals are very low. The conservation of fodder as hay or silage, how-
ever, has not been a common practice in small-scale farming systems in SSA
due to lack of information on conserving fodder under tropical conditions, and
the resilience of local breeds to harsh conditions and poor diets.
Production of forages, grasses and leguminous trees is often through being
grown on bunds and intercropped with food or cash crops. Live fences can also
serve the same purpose.
Enclosures: If pasture is severely degraded due to overgrazing then fencing
(social as well as physical) is often the first step, followed by a period of several
years of rest. After good regeneration and regrowth, cut-and-carry or controlled
grazing (e.g. rotational grazing) leaving periods of recovery of the vegetation are Top: Cow stall fed with crop residues, Kenya.
(Hanspeter Liniger)
the management systems that maintain the land’s condition.
Middle: Transportation of grass for stall feeding, Ethiopia.
Animals for field work and transportation constitute an appropriate, afford- (Hanspeter Liniger)
able and sustainable technology that is used in most countries in SSA. Draft ani- Bottom: Stall feeding of dairy cows, Uganda.
mals, notably cattle and donkeys, provide smallholder farmers with vital power (William ­Critchley)
for cultivation and transport. Animal traction can also be used for water-raising,
milling, logging, land-leveling and road construction.

SLM Group: Integrated Crop-Livestock Management 143

7_Livestock_Management.indd 143 20.01.11 14:44

 I N T E G R AT E D C R O P - L I V E S T O C K M A N A G E M E N T
Applicability Land degradation

Land degradation addressed Erosion by water High

Chemical soil deterioration: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content Erosion by wind Moderate
Biological degradation: reduction of vegetation cover and species composi- Chemical degradation Low
tion / diversity decline, loss of fodder value Physical degradation Insignificant
Poor animal health due to limited availability and quality of feed Biological degradation
Fire is a widely used management practice for vegetation clearance, growth stim- Water degradation
ulation and pest control. Rangeland and crop residue burning, besides emitting
CO2, reduces soil organic matter and nutrient levels.

Land use Land use

Mainly cropland and mixed land use Cropland
Also intensive grazing / fodder production (improved or planted pastures, etc.) Grazing land
Forests / woodlands
Ecological conditions
Mixed land use
Climate: mainly subhumid to humid areas, partly in semi-arid, with rainfall mainly
between 750-1,500 mm (though even higher also) Other
Terrain and landscape: no restrictions whole range from flat to hilly
Soils: no restriction
Climate Average rainfall (mm)
Socio-economic conditions
Farming system and level of mechanisation: Mainly on small-scale to Humid > 3000
medium-scale farms, mainly animal draught and manual labour, low level of Subhumid 2000-3000
mechanisation (few exceptions: replanting / reseeding). Semi-arid 1500-2000
Market orientation: Mainly subsistence and mixed, but also commercial (e.g. Arid 1000-1500
Kenya and South Africa). 750-1000
Land ownership and land use / water rights: In most cases individual land 500-750
use rights and communal (organised).
250-500
Skill / knowledge requirements: Compared to other SLM practices medium
< 250
to high, depending on the ICLM management practices applied e.g. if a stall-
fed dairy unit is introduced. Land users need to undergo training programmes
to learn how to best apply technology, including conserving the land, improving
grazing and controlling invasive species. Keeping animals well-fed, healthy and Slopes (%) very steep (>60)
productive needs a high level of skill. steep (30-60)
Labour requirements: Medium to high labour requirements for stall-fed live- hilly (16-30)
stock with cut-and-carry and high for rehabilitation of grazing land through rolling (8-16)
addition of species with structural and vegetative measures (e.g. for water har- moderate (5-8)
vesting). In this case labour requirements are mainly for the establishment phase. gentle (2-5)
flat (0-2)

Farm size Land ownership

Small scale State

Medium scale Company
Large scale Community
Individual, not titled
Individual, titled

Mechanisation Market orientation

Manual labour Subsistence

Animal traction Mixed
Mechanised Commercial

Required labour Required know-how

High High
Medium Medium
Low Low

144 SLM in Practice

7_Livestock_Management.indd 144 21.07.11 12:18

 Economics The value of manure and animal traction equals
in East Africa the value of meat, and Sub-
Established costs Maintenance costs Saharan Africa as a whole has the potential
to increase the total gross value of livestock
products by about a third. As mixed crop-live-

150-4000 US$/ha

10-200 US$/ha
140-600 US$/ha

50-1400 US$/ha

0-200 US$/ha

0-100 US$/ha
30-650 US$/ha

50-600 US$/ha

0-10 US$/ha
0-30 US$/ha

0-50 US$/ha
stock systems expand, the relative importance
5-50 US$/ha

of animal traction and manure will grow

(Ogle 1996).
high
high Percent of gross value of output
mod.
mod. Output West Central East South Sub-
low Africa Africa Africa Africa Saharan
low Africa
o
o Animal 21 3 39 26 31
Labour Equipment Agric. Inputs traction
Labour Equipment Agric. Inputs
Case studies Ethiopia Case studies Ethiopia Manure 4 1 3 2 3
Case studies South Africa Case studies South Africa
Meat 56 79 38 58 47
(Source: WOCAT, 2009)
Milk 11 12 17 9 15

Labour costs in US$ are similar between ICLM technologies in Ethiopia and Eggs 8 5 3 5 4
South Africa. In Ethiopia more manual and untrained labour, and in South Africa
less but more qualified (therefore more expensive) labour is required. Example: Senegal
Establishment costs can be relatively high for fencing materials, and increas- The Rodale Institute Regenerative Agriculture
ing when reseeding / replanting, control of invasive species, water harvesting is Research Centre in Senegal has worked
added. Maintenance costs are generally low. closely with 2,000 farmers in 59 groups to
In the case of stall-fed livestock, initial costs are high both for purchase of ani- improve soil quality, integrate stall-fed livestock
mals and for buildings. into crop systems, add legumes and green
The costs per hectare for ICLM are relatively low compared to other SLM groups, manures, improve the use of manures and
however the generally lower productivity of grazing land compared to cropland, rock phosphate, incorporate water harvesting
makes a comparison per hectare difficult. systems and develop effective composting
systems. The result has been a 75-195 percent
Production benefits improvement in millet yields – from 330 to
Several studies carried out recently have clearly shown that integration of live- 600-1,000 kg/ha, and in groundnut yields from
stock with crops results in improvements of 50% (Ethiopian highlands) to over 340 to 600-900 kg/ha. Yields are also less
100% (Zimbabwe) or more, in terms of farm productivity and income, compared ­variable year to year, with consequent improve­
to smallholders who only raise subsistence crops. ments in household food security – clearly
Approximately 25% of the agricultural domestic product in SSA is from livestock, contributing to CC adaptation (FAO 2007).
not considering the contributions of animal traction or manure (Winrock Inter-
national, 1992; in Pell, 1999). When traction and manure are included, livestock Example: Kenya
contribute 35% of the agricultural domestic product (Pell, 1999). In the semi-arid highlands of Kenya, water
loss by runoff was over 80% of the rainfall
Benefit-Cost ratio due to bare ground. The fodder production
short term long term quantitative was mainly annual grasses and forbs of low
value. In a rotational grazing system with a
Fodder / crop /
ground cover of more that 40%, runoff was
animal productivity + ++/+++ No data available
reduced to zero. The cover was mainly from
– – negative; – slightly negative; –/+ neutral; + slightly positive; ++ positive; +++ very positive perennial grasses and the production was
between 4-8 times higher than on the over-
grazed land. Furthermore, it was recorded
that under acacia trees high value perennial
grasses were preserved even in the over-
grazed areas (Liniger and Thomas, 1998).

SLM Group: Integrated Crop-Livestock Management 145

7_Livestock_Management.indd 145 20.01.11 14:44

 I n t e g r at e d C r o p - L i v e s t o c k M a n a g e m e n t
Impacts
Benefits Land users / community level Watershed / landscape level National / global level
Production +++ increased crop yield and quality ++ reduced risk and loss of +++ improved food and security
+++ improved livestock nutrition and productivity production
++ fodder production / quality increase
++ production diversification
++ providing energy through draft power and (sometimes)
biogas
Economic ++ increased farm income ++ stimulation of economic growth +++ improved livelihood and
+ creation of job opportunities, spreading of labour + diversification and rural well-being
+ recycle resources, reduces need for chemical fertilizer employment creation
(inputs) + less damage to off-site
infrastructure

Ecological +++ increased soil fertility and organic matter (improved + reduced degradation and ++ reduced degradation and
nutrient recycling) sedimentation desertification incidence and
++ improved soil cover ++ intact ecosystem intensity
++ reduce soil erosion (by water / wind) + increased water availability ++ increased resilience to climate
++ biodiversity enhancement + increased water quality change
++ increase animal health + reduced wind transported ++ enhanced biodiversity
+ improved water availability sediments
+ improved micro-climate

Socio-cultural ++ improved conservation / erosion knowledge + increased awareness for envi- + protecting national heritage
++ reduced workload (draft power) ronmental ‘health’
+ improvement in household diets ++ attractive landscape
++ reduced rural-urban migration

Constraints How to overcome

Production l 
Low nutritional value of crop residues ➜ s upplement with fodder legumes, trees
l Tsetse fly in specific areas ➜ resistant breeds of livestock (stall-fed)
l Possibly more vulnerable to disturbances since livestock and crop
production are interdependent

Economic l ‘Investment’ costs can be rather high (e.g. fences, manure transport, ➜ establish credit and loan systems
seeds and seedlings)
l Availability of inputs, e.g. labour and seeds, at times even tractors ➜ community mobilisation, self-help groups, government and project
and implements support and using family labour

l On larger scale fencing almost impossible ➜ use thorn bush (encroachment) to make fence or social fencing

Ecological l  ompetition for crop residues

C ➜ alternative sources e.g. other sources of animal feed
l Efficient use of biomass ➜ keep animals in stalls; introduce cut-and-carry, initial reduction of
stocking rates
l Insufficient livestock and availability of animal manure ➜ amend with green manure, N-fixing trees and / or supplement with
chemical fertilizers
l  urning of seed / seedlings by manure
B ➜ modify and adapt mode of application
l Contamination of water by livestock
l Increase of incidence by fire ➜ introduce cut-and-carry, haymaking before grass is too tall and
controlled grazing to reduce potential fuel material

Socio-cultural l Insecurity of land tenure ➜ set appropriate land use policy

l 
Access to credit (e.g. veterinary services) ➜ credit schemes and land users associations
l Possible dependence on experts concerning species selection (live-
stock and crop / feed) and planting methods
l Lack of awareness and access to knowledge ➜ create awareness
l More pressure on remaining grazing area (enclosures) ➜ use enclosures for cut and carry and hay making
l Rotational grazing can fail due to wrong timing ➜ intelligent pasture management – knowing when to graze and
when to rest
l 
Weak governance and reluctance to observe the existing rules and ➜ install control and fining mechanism
regulations (lack of control)
l Requires ‘double’ expertise (animal and crops) ➜ training and capacity building, strengthening advisory service

146 SLM in Practice

7_Livestock_Management.indd 146 20.01.11 14:44

 Adoption and upscaling Enabling environment: key factors for adoption

Inputs, material incentives, credits ++

Adoption rate
The adoption rate depends on the specific ICLM system. Land users have basic Training and education ++
traditional knowledge needed to integrate livestock and crop production, but Land tenure, secure land use rights +++
because of their limited access to knowledge, assets and inputs – especially
Access to markets ++
dairy cattle - relatively few adopt an upgraded integrated system.
Adoption of enclosures with cut-and-carry depends on availability of land for Research ++
closure and availability of incentives. Spontaneous acceptance of this practice is
Participation (% involvement) +++
relatively low and if it is practised then it is mainly with external support.
It is rare that the initiative is taken by the villages alone. The reasons are numerous Initial external support ++
inlcuding the decrease of production area, privatisation of land etc.

Upscaling
In semi-arid regions the transition in crop and livestock production from the cur-
rent relatively extensive, low input/output production to more intensive, higher
input/output production presents numerous challenges.
– participation of community right from the beginning, during planning to imple-
mentation, to ensure ownership
– availability of land and consensus of the community where the system can be
introduced or applied
– secure land use rights and tenure
– need for training and capacity building in use of technology and its benefits
– need for training and support in animal husbandry
– requires change in mindset from ‘focus on parts’ towards ’the whole system’

Incentives for adoption

For regeneration of pastureland, where intensive structural measures are included,
land users often rely on incentives (food-for-work or materials). If seedlings and
seed are used, the community might need support to at least initiate their pro-
duction (e.g. tree and seed nurseries). Where stall-fed dairy systems are put in
place, it is common that projects supply an initial cow, and then they are ‘repaid’
with the first heifer calf.

References and supporting information :

FAO. 2009. Grasslands: enabling their potential to contribute to greenhouse gas mitigation. A submission by The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations1. Work-
shop held at FAO Rome 15 -17 April 2009.
FAO. 2007. TerrAfrica- A Vision paper for Sustainable Land Management in Sub-Saharan Africa. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
FAO. 2001. Mixed crop-livestock farming- a review of traditional technologies based on literature and field experience. FAO, Animal production and health papers 152 (http://www.
fao.org/DOCREP/004/Y0501E/Y0501E00.HTM)
Gebremedhin, B., J. Pender, and T. Girmay. 2004. Collective action for grazing land management in crop-livestock mixed systems in the highlands of northern Ethiopia. Agricultural
Systems 82 (2004) 272-290.
IFAD. 2009. Integrated-Livestock Farming Systems. Thematic paper 12-13 January 2009
Lenné, J. and D. Thomas. 2006. Integrating crop-livestock R & D in sub-Saharan Africa: option, imperative or impossible? Outlook on Agriculture, Volume 35, Number 3, pp. 167-
175(9)
Liniger, H.P. and D.B. Thomas 1998: GRASS: Ground cover for the Restoration of the Arid and Semi-arid Soils. In: Advances in GeoEcology 31, 1167-1178, CATENA Verlag,
Reiskirchen.
Ogle, B. 1996. Livestock Systems in Semi-Arid Sub-Saharan Africa, Integrated Farming in Human Development – Workshop Proceedings
Otte J. and V. Knips. 2005. Livestock Development for Sub-Saharan Africa. PPLPI Research Report Nr. 05-09. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome, Italy
Pell, A.N. 1999. Integrated crop-livestock management systems in sub Saharan Africa. Environment, Development and Sustainability 1: 337–348.
Powell, J. M., R. A. Pearson, and P. H. Hiernaux. 2004. Crop–Livestock Interactions in the West African Drylands. Agron. J. 96:469–483.
Van Keulen, H. and H. Schiere. 2004. Crop-Livestock Systems: Old Wine in New Bottles? In New Directions for a Diverse Planet. Proceedings of the 4th International Crop Science
Congress, Brisbane, Australia, 26 September-October 2004. http://www.cropscience.org.au/icsc2004/symposia/2/1/211_vankeulenh.htm
WOCAT, 2009. WOCAT database on SLM technologies and SLM approaches. www.wocat.net, accessed on 15 September 2009
Woodfine, A. 2009. Using sustainable land management practices to adapt to and mitigate climate change in Sub-Saharan Africa: resource guide version 1.0. TerrAfrica. www.
terrafrica.org.

SLM Group: Integrated Crop-Livestock Management 147

7_Livestock_Management.indd 147 20.01.11 14:44

 Case study
Integrated Crop-Livestock Management

Ni g h t C o r r a lli n g - Ni g e r
Night corralling of cattle, sheep and goats on cropland during the dry season SLM measure Management and agronomic
(November-April) replenishes soil fertility of agricultural land depleted by con- SLM group Integrated Crop-Livestock
tinuous cropping. This technology is mainly applied in semi-arid and subhumid Management
areas on sandy / loamy plains with low soil organic matter content, low soil Land use type Agropastoral and cropland
pH, and with slopes below 5%. Adequate spacing of animals helps to homog-
Degradation Loss of soil fertility (organic matter,
enously distribute the manure on the field (see photo): in cattle this is ensured addressed nutrients, pH decline) due to con-
through tying the animals to poles, in sheep and goats a movable fence serving tinuous cropping
as night enclosure helps to save labour.
Stage of intervention Rehabilitation
Corals and animals are moved to a new spot within the field every 4-5 nights to
homogeneously manure fields. Ideal is a rate of 2.5 tonnes of faecal dry mat- Tolerance to climate Technology not much affected by
change climatic extremes or changes
ter per hectare. The application of this amount results in superior grain yields
(millet, sorghum) as compared to an unmanured field. High yield response is
Establishment activities
achieved in the cropping season directly following the corralling (year 1) and
1. Purchasing the poles.
in the subsequent two to three years, in which no new deposit of faeces and
urine, i.e. no further corralling, is needed. Maintenance / recurrent activities
While a 250 kg cow deposits about 1 kg of manure dry matter per night, 7 In year 1 (of a 3-years cycle):
sheep or 7 goats are needed to produce this same amount. Thus, to cover 1 1. Placing poles in the field at 2m x 2m spac-
hectare of land with 2.5 tonnes of manure, a herd of 15 cattle would need to ing for small ruminants and at 4m x 4m
be corralled during 167 nights; alternatively 178 nights would be needed if 70 spacing for cattle, starting at the field bor-
small ruminants were corralled. Since individual herds are often smaller than 15 der (see technical drawing).
cattle (or 70 small ruminants) and fields are larger than 1 hectare, it is recom- 2. Attach individual animals (adult small rumi-
mended to organise corralling of fields within a community (village) of farmers nants, adults or calves if you work with
and especially to revitalise the traditional corralling contracts (‘contrats de par- cows) to the pole during night.
cage’) with transhumant herders. 3. Shift the poles to an adjacent unmanured
part of the field every 4 days in cattle, and
every 5 days in small ruminants. To cover
the whole field (1 ha) with manure:
– with 15 cattle you will need a total of 167
nights of corralling;
– with 70 small ruminants you will need
178 nights.
In year 2 and 3 (of a 3-years cycle):
4. Cultivate the field for 3 subsequent crop-
ping seasons (year of application, plus year
2 and 3) without further corralling in year 2
and year 3.
5. Apply a new corralling treatment in year 4
(repeat maintenance steps 1-4).

Labour requirements
For establishment: low
For maintenance: low
Knowledge requirements
For advisors: moderate
For land users: moderate (spacing and timing
of animal placement need to be respected)

Photo 1: Relatively homogenously manured field obtained

through night corralling of cattle in south-western Niger.
(Pierre Hiernaux)
Technical drawing: Corralling area of 4 sheep to poles
(brown circles) during 5 nights (left) and principle of shifting
corralling areas across a field of undefined size (right).
(Eva Schlecht)

148 SLM in Practice

7_Livestock_Management.indd 148 20.01.11 14:44

 Case study area: Fakara region (near Niamey) Ecological conditions
and Chikal territory (near Filingué), Niger ·· C limate: semi-arid
·· Average annual rainfall: 250-500 mm
·· Soil parameters: well drained, sandy, shallow soils, low to very low soil fertility;
low organic matter; low pH (< 4)
·· Slope: mostly flat (0-2%), partly gentle (2-5%)
·· Landform: mainly plains, partly pediments
·· Altitude: 100-500 m a.s.l.

Agadez
Socio-economic conditions
·· S ize of land per household: average land holding is 13 ha (near Niamey) and
10 ha (near Filingué)
Case study areas ·· Type of land users: small-scale farmers
Maradi Zinder
·· Population density: no data
Niamey ·· Land ownership: mostly individual, titled
·· Land use rights: individual for fields, communal for pastures
·· Market orientation: mostly subsistence (self-supply), partly mixed (subsist-
ence and commercial)
·· Level of mechanisation: manual labour
Establishment inputs and costs per ha
Inputs (for 1 ha with 15 cattle) Costs (US$) Production / economic benefits
+++ Increased crop yield (in year 1 - 3; corralling only done in year 1)
Equipment: 15 poles (1 per animal) 15
++ Increased farm income
TOTAL 15
Ecological benefits
Inputs (for 1 ha with 70 sheep) Costs (US$) +++ Improved soil organic matter (medium term)
+++ Increased soil fertility
Equipment: 70 poles (1 per animal) 70
++ Increased water holding capacity
TOTAL 70 ++ Reduced risk of soil crusting
Socio-cultural benefits
Maintenance inputs and costs per ha per year ++ Revaluation of traditional knowledge
Inputs (for 1 ha with 15 cattle) Costs (US$) ++ Community institution strengthening through rotational corralling of
Labour: 1.3 person-days* 3 ­multiple-owner herds on individuals’ fields
++ Revitalisation of ties with transhumant groups
Equipment: 5 poles (replacement) 5
TOTAL 8 Weaknesses
* 11 minutes on 167 days in year 1; 0 days in years 2–3 ·· Implementation constraint: organisation of rotational corralling is necessary to
effectively manure fields of a village community; this needs skilful organisation.
Inputs (for 1 ha with 70 sheep) Costs (US$)
·· Need to invest in poles.
Labour: 1.7 person-days* 4 ·· High labour investment in year 1.
Equipment: 21 poles (replacement) 21 ·· Difficulty to revitalise trustful partnership with transhumant pastoral groups,
as more and more crop residues are harvested and stored at the homestead
TOTAL 25
(no dry season feed for mobile herds).
* 14 minutes on 178 days in year 1; 0 days in years 2–3
·· Extensive consultation and coordination is needed if rotational (community)
Remarks: Labour costs incur in a 3-years cycle: corralling or involvement of transhumant herders is necessary due to low
putting and changing the poles on a specific animal numbers (<12 cattle, <50 small ruminants) at the level of individual
field is done in year 1, while in years 2 and 3 the households.
respective field is cultivated, and no corralling
takes place. Actual labour input for corralling in year Adoption
1 is 4–5 days (= 10–15 minutes during approx. 170 Relatively high, but incomplete in the sense that homogeneity of dung applica-
days), equivalent to US$ 10–13; main­tenance tion is lacking.
costs given in the tables above refer to the average
expenses of the whole 3-years cycle.

Benefit-cost ratio
Inputs short term long term
Establishment slightly positive positive
Maintenance highly positive positive

Remarks: Labour input in year 1 (dry season) pays

through high yields in harvest seasons of years 1–3.
Main contributors: Eva Schlecht, Animal Husbandry in the Tropics and Subtropics, University of Kassel and Georg-August Universität Göttingen, Witzenhausen, Germany.;
[email protected]
Key references: Schlecht E., A. Buerkert. 2004. Organic inputs on millet fields in western Niger: the implications of farmers’ practices for sustainable agricultural production. Geoderma
121, 271-289 n Schlecht E., P. Hiernaux, I. Kadaouré, C. Hülsebusch, F. Mahler. 2006. A spatio-temporal analysis of forage availability, grazing and excretion behaviour of cattle, sheep
and goats in Western Niger. Agric, Ecosys Environ 113, 226-242. n Schlecht E., H. Richter, S. Fernández-Rivera, K. Becker. 2007. Gastrointestinal passage of Sahelian roughages in
cattle, sheep and goats, and implications for livestock-mediated nutrient transfers. Anim Feed Sci Technol 137, 93–114.

SLM Technology: Night Corralling - Niger 149

7_Livestock_Management.indd 149 20.01.11 14:44

 Case study
Integrated Crop-Livestock Management

R o t a t i o n a l F e r t ili z a t i o n - Ni g e r
Rotational fertilization is an integrated crop-livestock management measure SLM measure Management and agronomic
practised by the agropastoralist Peulh. At intervals of 2-3 years they relocate SLM group Integrated Crop-Livestock
with their livestock to a new area previously used for crop cultivation - where ­Management
they install their temporary dwellings and improve soil fertility by applying farm- Land use type Cropland: temporarily: settlement
yard manure and other organic materials. area
The rotation of temporary habitation areas leads to successive fertilization Degradation Soil fertility decline; Soil erosion by
of the land. Livestock (cattle or small ruminants) are corralled or tethered in addressed water; Soil erosion by wind
the rehabilitation area over-night. They feed on crop residues and emerging
Stage of intervention Rehabilitation
grasses after harvesting of the crops. Dung dropped within the coral area is
collected and then distributed on the fields. The main criterion for site selec- Tolerance to climate Tolerant to temperature increase
change and reduction of vegetation period;
tion is the level of land degradation. The size of the area occupied is maximum sensitive to droughts, floods, wind
500 m2, and depends on family size, herd size and on the quantitative and storms and rainfall variability
qualitative objectives of soil fertilization of the land owner.
In the years after settlement (after families move to a new location) the treated Establishment activities
area is used for crop cultivation, and crop rotation / intercropping are practiced 1. Identification of site where level of land
(e.g. millet / legumes) for increased and diversified production, improved pest degradation is high.
control and fertility management. 2. Level and clean the land.
The effectiveness of this technology has led to field-fertilization contracts between 3. Layout / disposition of infrastructure
agropastoralists and sedentary farmers. The farmers offer post-harvest grazing ­(dwellings, barns, corral, poles, poultry
rights to the agropastoralists who in turn fertilize the land and benefit from the habitat) according to type and degree of
access to the important weekly markets in the area where they can sell milk. In land degradation.
this case the agropastoralist families and their livestock split up after the rainy 4. Establishment of infrastructure.
season: a part assures fertilization of the own land, the other part is in charge of
Maintenance / recurrent activities
fertilizing foreign land (during 3-4 months) before returning home.
➜ On land being treated
1. On-going fertilization by applying farmyard
manure and any kind of organic material
accruing from daily human activities to the
soil during 2-3 years.
2. Maintenance / re-location of huts to improve
fertilization of land (after rainy season).
➜ On previously treated land:
3. Land preparation (ploughing, e.g. cowpea).
4. Cultivation of millet and legumes (‘niébé’)
as intercrop or in the form of crop rotation.

Labour requirements
For establishment: high
For maintenance: low
Knowledge requirements
For advisory service: na
For land users: low

Photo 1: Dung dropped by animals feeding on crop residues;

sheltered corrals in the background. (Pierre Hiernaux)
Photo 2: Millet growing on fertilized fields. (Adamou Kalilou)
Photo 3: Increased yields are an important impact of the
technology: millet sold on village market. (Adamou Kalilou)

150 SLM in Practice

7_Livestock_Management.indd 150 20.01.11 14:44

 Case study area: Damari, Kollo district, Ecological conditions
Tillabéry region, Niger ·· C limate: semi-arid
·· Average annual rainfall: 400-550 mm
·· Soil parameters: very poor sandy soils with low soil organic matter content,
usually well drained (low in case of soil crusting)
·· Slope: mostly flat (0-2%)
·· Landform: mainly plains / plateaus, valley floors
·· Altitude: 0-100 m

Agadez
Socio-economic conditions
··  ize of land per household: 1-2 ha
S
·· Type of land users: groups / community, family; small-scale, poor
·· Population density: 10-50 persons/km2
Niamey Maradi Zinder
·· Land ownership: mostly individual, untitled
Case study area ·· Land use rights: individual, communal (organised)
·· Market orientation: mostly subsistence (self-supply), partly mixed (subsist-
ence and commercial)
·· Level of mechanisation: manual labour

Establishment inputs and costs per ha Production / economic benefits

Inputs Costs (US$) +++ Increased crop yield
+++ Increased farm income
Labour: 100 person-days 150
+++ Increased animal production
Construction material: lumber and straw 200 ++ Increased fodder quality and fodder production
for hut
Ecological benefits
TOTAL 350
++ Increased soil cover
% of costs borne by land users 100% +++ Reduced wind velocity
+++ Increased soil fertility
Maintenance inputs and costs per ha per year ++ Increased biomass / above ground carbon
Inputs Costs (US$) +++ Reduced soil loss
+++ Increased animal diversity
Labour: 10 person-days 15
TOTAL 15
Socio-cultural benefits
++ Conflict mitigation
% of costs borne by land users 100%
+++ Community institution strengthening through mutual aid in technology
Remarks: Establishment of housing infrastruc- implementation
ture is done collectively, involving dozens of +++ Improved cultural opportunities
community members within less than a week. Off-site benefits
Construction material is taken from the wood- +++ Reduced damage on public / private infrastructure
lands; many parts are re-used after moving. +++ Reduced damage on neighbours’ fields
While expenses are expressed in US$, in reality ++ Reduced wind transported sediments
costs are in kind (mutual help) or not paid for
(free lumber). Maintenance activities include: Weaknesses ➜ and how to overcome
maintenance and re-building of dwellings. ·· G rowing costs and decreasing availability of timber and poles for establish-
Costs for crop cultivation (US$ 335-535 annu- ment of infrastructure ➜ re-introduce traditional techniques of long term
ally) are not included. conservation of housing materials.
·· High labour input for implementation ➜ reinforce community structures for
Benefit-cost ratio mutual help.
Inputs short term long term ·· Area treated by the technology is too small regarding the area in need of
treatment (degraded land) ➜ reinforce the solidarity between communities
Establishment positive very positive
to increase the treated area.
Maintenance positive very positive ·· Negative effect on the woodland (brousse tigrée): cutting for building materi-
Remarks: The impact of the measure on soil als, clearing for cultivation ➜ identify new ecological materials for house
productivity is increasing in the mid and long construction; tree plantation.
term. ·· Marginalisation of families with low activity potential ➜ reinforce mutual help
systems to support poor / small families.

Adoption
High spontaneous adoption of this indigenous technology. Its high effective-
ness has helped spread the technology to adjacent areas on the other side of
the river Niger, where farmers contract the agropastoralists for their ‘fertilization
service’. The area covered by the technology is approximately 1,500 km2.
Main contributors: Abdoulaye Sambo Soumaila, Groupe de Recherche d’Etude et d’Action pour le Développement (GREAD), Niamey, Niger; [email protected]
Key references: Caroline Dandois Dutordoir (2006): Impact de pratiques de gestion de la fertilité sur les rendements en mil dans le Fakara (Niger), Université catholique de Louvain,
2006 n Bationo, A., Ntare, B. R. 2000: Rotation and nitrogen fertilizer effects on pearl millet, cowpea and groundnut yield and soil chemical properties in a sandy soil in the semi-
arid tropics, West Africa. Journal of Agricultural Science, 134, p. 277-284 n Ministère du développement agricole (2005): recueil des fiches techniques en gestion des ressources
naturelles et de productions agro-sylvo-pastorales.

SLM Technology: Rotational Fertilization - Niger 151

7_Livestock_Management.indd 151 20.01.11 14:44

 Case study
Integrated Crop-Livestock Management

G r a z i n g L a n d I m p r o v e m e n t - E t hi o p i a
Grazing land improvement is based on enclosures and planting of improved SLM measure Management, agronomic and
grass and fodder trees to enhance fodder and consequently livestock produc- ­vegetative
tion and simultaneously control land degradation. This case study focuses on SLM group Integrated Crop-Livestock
the highly populated, humid highlands of Ethiopia where the little remaining ­Management
grazing land areas are overused and under enormous pressure. Land use type Extensive grazing (before),
The technology involves a combination of management, agronomic and veg- ­silvopastoral (after)
etative measures: fencing to exclude open access, application of compost Degradation Soil erosion by water; Fertility
to improve soil fertility, planting of improved local and exotic fodder species, addressed decline
including multipurpose shrubs / trees (including nitrogen fixing species) leg- Stage of intervention Rehabilitation
umes, and the local desho grass (Pennisetum pedicellatum). Desho has a high
Tolerance to climate Tolerant to rains with high intensity,
nutritive value and ensures regular cuts. It is planted by splits, which have high change storms
survival rates and establish better than grasses which are seeded. Other grass
seeds and legumes are mixed with fodder tree seeds and then broadcast.
Legumes include alfalfa (Medicago sativa) and clovers in some cases. The area Establishment activities
is permanently closed for livestock. Fodder is cut and carried for stall-feeding 1. Delineate the area to be conserved and
and once a year, grass is cut for hay, which is stored to feed animals during establish a fence (deadwood).
the dry season. 2. Subdivision of protected (communal) land
In the study area, the fenced and protected communal grazing land has been into individual plots of 0.3 – 0.5 ha.
divided into small plots (<0.5 ha) and distributed to individual users for cutting 3. Prepare seedlings in nurseries (grass splits
hay, as an incentive to stimulate proper management. The government pro- and tree seedlings).
vides training, technical assistance, close follow-up, and some inputs for initial 4. Prepare seedbed (with a hand hoe, partly
establishment. with oxen plough).
5. Prepare compost / manure (ash, animal
manure, leaf litter, soil, water).
6. Plant grass splits and tree / shrub species
in lines and on conservation bunds; sow
grass seed by broad­casting (early rainy
season).
7. Compost application (one month after
planting).
8. Weeding.
Maintenance / recurrent activities
1. Cut and carry grass and leaves to feed
stall-fed animals (after 2-3 months growth,
during rainy season, end of August).
2. A final cut for hay making is taken early in
the dry season (end of October) when the
grass has matured well.
3. Weeding.
4. Enrichment planting and gap filling (once a
year), combined with application of com-
post / manure (mixed with soil).

Labour requirements
For establishment: high
For maintenance: low
Knowledge requirements
For advisory service: high
For land users: moderate

Photo 1: Desho grass and multipurpose trees established to

increase productivity of grazing lands.
Photo 2–3: Cut and carry of grass for stall-feeding from
improved pasture. (All photos by Daniel Danano)

152 SLM in Practice

7_Livestock_Management.indd 152 20.01.11 14:44

 Case study area: Chencha, Ethiopia Ecological conditions
··  limate: humid (local term: wett dega)
C
·· Average annual rainfall: 1,000-1,500 mm
·· Soil parameters: good drainage; mostly medium soil organic matter, partly low
·· Slope: moderate (5-8%) to rolling (8-16%), partly hilly (16-30%)
Gondar Mek'ele ·· Landform: ridges and hillslopes, partly footslopes
·· Altitude: mostly 2,000-2,500 m
Bahir Dar
Socio-economic conditions
Dire Dawa
Addis Ababa ·· S ize of land per household: < 1 ha
·· Type of land user: small-scale farmers (individually), mainly poor land users,
Jimma Nazret
partly average level of wealth
Case study area ·· Population density: 200-500 persons/km2
·· Land ownership: state
·· Land use rights: individual for cropland, usually open access (communally
used) for grazing land, except for the case study area where the rights to
rehabilitated grazing land are given to individuals
·· Market orientation: subsistence (self-supply)
·· Level of mechanisation: manual labour
Establishment inputs and costs per ha
Inputs (for 1 ha with 15 cattle) Costs (US$) Production / economic benefits
+++ Increased livestock production
Labour 320
+++ Increased fodder production and fodder quality
Equipment 22 ++ Increased income (selling animals and their products)
Agricultural inputs 710 + Increased wood production
TOTAL 1,052 Ecological benefits
% of costs borne by land users 56% ++ Improved soil cover
+++ Increased soil fertility
+++ Reduced soil loss
Maintenance inputs and costs per ha per year
+++ Increased soil moisture
Inputs Costs (US$) + Biodiversity enhancement
Labour 35
Socio-cultural benefits
Equipment 4 +++ Improved household diets (milk), improved health
Agricultural inputs 87 +++ Community institution strengthening
TOTAL 126 +++ Increased willingness of the national institution to assist and support
organised farmer groups (i.e. community institutions)
% of costs borne by land users 100%
+++ Improved conservation / erosion knowledge
Remarks: Seedlings are given by the govern- ++ Increased availability of livestock products on the market (lowers prices
ment for initial establishment. For further exten- for the consumers)
sion of area and replanting, the land users set Off-site benefits
up their own nurseries. After 2–3 years mainte- +++ Reduced transported sediments
nance costs decrease substantially as the grass ++ Reduced downstream flooding
cover closes up and maintenance activities ++ Reduced downstream siltation
such as replanting and compost application are ++ Increased stream flow in dry season
reduced or cease. The local daily wage is about
US$ 0.70 a day. Weaknesses ➜ and how to overcome
·· A t the initial stage of establishment it is very labour intensive ➜ use of
Benefit-cost ratio improved land preparation methods such as oxen ploughing.
Inputs short term long term ·· It is an expensive technology (availability of cash for inputs, particularly seed-
lings) ➜ produce seedlings of improved species and compost in backyards.
Establishment slightly positive very positive
·· Needs high fertiliser application ➜ focus mainly on organic fertilizers.
Maintenance positive very positive ·· High pressure on remaining grazing areas ➜ keep animals in stall (stable) or
Remarks: Milk production compensates for park, at least part of the day and during the night and introduce cut-and-
some of the high investment costs (previously, carry more widely.
production was low).
Adoption
The 50 households who accepted the technology in the initial phase, did so
with incentives. They were provided with planting material and hand tools. The
rate of spontaneous adoption is very high. At present over 500 households
have taken up the technology and the total area covered is about 20 km2.

Main contributors: Daniel Danano, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; [email protected]
Key references: Adane Dinku, Chencha Wereda, Natural Resources Management Annual Report, 2001 and 2002 n Danano, D (2008, unpublished): Soil and Water Conservation
Practices for Sustainable Land Management. WOCAT. 2007. n WOCAT database on SLM technologies. www.wocat.net

SLM Technology: Grazing Land Improvement - Ethiopia 153

7_Livestock_Management.indd 153 20.01.11 14:44

 Case study
Integrated Crop-Livestock Management

Sm a ll s t o c k M a n u r e P r o d uc t i o n - T o g o
Smallstock manure production is an easy and efficient method to produce SLM measure Management and agronomic
organic fertilizer for the conservation and improvement of soil fertility. The main SLM group Integrated Crop-Livestock
item within this practice is the so-called fosse fumière - a 1-2 m deep and 3-4 Management
m diameter circular pit, enclosed by a stone wall. The pit has a double func- Land use type Mixed: Agropastoralism
tion: it is the place where manure is produced and it serves as shed for small
Degradation Fertility decline, reduced organic
ruminants (goats, sheep), particularly to avoid uncontrolled grazing / browsing addressed matter content
during the cropping season (from April until November). Animals are fed in the
Stage of intervention Mitigation and rehabilitation
fosse, and they drop their faeces, which together with chopped organic mate-
rial accruing from the kitchen and field activities, piles up in the pit for decom- Tolerance to climate Technology not much affected by
position. change climatic extremes or changes
The fosse is partly roofed to provide optimal micro-climatic conditions: partial
shading, partial exposure to sunlight and appropriate moistening through rain- Establishment activities
fall. Inside the pit, one or more circular terraces (0.5 m high, 0.5 m wide) serve 1. Delimitation of the perimeter of the pit and
as resting area for the animals. The terrace riser need to be plastered or rein- the position of the steps.
forced with stones, particularly in case of loose soil, to avoid damage caused 2. Excavation of the pit, shaping a terraced
by animal trampling. structure: 1-3 circular, 0.5 m high and
After decomposition the manure is removed from the pit and distributed on 0.5m wide terraces.
the fields beginning of each cropping season (March). Then straw bedding 3. Build up a stone wall around the pit,
is renewed and the process starts from scratch. During the dry season from spaced at minimum 0.5 m from the pit,
December to March smallstock is left to graze freely on the fields and pastures. with an integrated gate.
4. Build a roof, which partly covers the pit.
5. Put straw on the ground and corral the
animals.
6. After one year (April to March) the compost
is ready for application on the field.
All activities carried out by manual labour.
Maintenance / recurrent activities
1. Continuous depositing and piling up of
vegetative material (dung, kitchen waste,
crop residues).
2. Let decompose the organic material inside
the pit (during 1 year).
3. Twice a year (between April and November)
the material is actively mixed for aeration.
4. Distribute the manure on the fields (during
rainy season).

Labour requirements
For establishment: high
For maintenance: moderate
Knowledge requirements
For advisory service: moderate
For land users: moderate
The technology was early traditional and passed
from father to son. It was improved in 1987.

Photo 1: Manure production with small ruminants. (Idrissou

Bouraima)
Technical drawing: Dimensions and main components of a
manure production pit: (1) open part of the roof; (2) covered
part of the roof; (3) stone wall; (4) poles (holding the roof);
(5) terraces (where animals can rest).(Mats Gurtner)

154 SLM in Practice

7_Livestock_Management.indd 154 20.01.11 14:44

 Case study area: Lassa, Kara, Togo Ecological conditions
··  limate: subhumid
C
·· Average annual rainfall: 1,000-1,500 mm
·· Soil parameters: good drainage; low soil organic matter
·· Slope: mostly flat (0-2%), some gentle (2-5%)
·· Landform: mostly plateaus / plains, some footslopes
Case study area
·· Altitude: < 100 m a.s.l.
Kara
Socio-economic conditions
Sokodé
·· S ize of land per household: 1-2 ha
·· Type of land users: small-scale farmers; average level of wealth, partly rich land
users; technology implementation mostly done individually, sometimes in
groups
·· Population density: 300 persons/km2 in the region
·· Land ownership: individual, titled
Kpalimé ·· Land use rights: mostly leased, some individual
·· Level of mechanisation: manual labour
Lomé
·· Market orientation: mainly mixed (subsistence and commercial), partly sub-
sistence
Establishment inputs and costs per ha
Inputs Costs (US$) Production / economic benefits
+ Increased crop yields
Labour (36 person-days) 200
+ Increased farm income
Equipment* 182
Ecological benefits
Agricultural inputs 0 ++ Increased soil fertility / soil organic matter
TOTAL 382 + Increased soil moisture
% of costs borne by land users 100% Socio-cultural benefits
*poles, crossbars, stones / bricks, rope, etc ++ Increased conservation / erosion knowledge
+ Improved food security
Maintenance inputs and costs per ha per year
Inputs Costs (US$)
Weaknesses ➜ and how to overcome
·· M anual construction is very labour-intensive ➜ mechanised excavation.
Labour 150
·· Air pollution through smelly animal dung ➜ add products which attenuate
Equipment 0 the smell; establish the manure pit outside the residential area.
Agricultural inputs 0 ·· Accident risk for children ➜ establish the manure pit outside the residential
area.
TOTAL 150
% of costs borne by land users 100% Adoption
Remarks: Main cost-relevant factor is labour. The technology covers an area of 0.15 km2. All land users in the study area
Material such as stones and straw are available (totally 60) have adopted the technology voluntarily, without any external sup-
on the farm (no monetary costs). port other than technical assistance. There is a moderate trend towards further
spontaneous adoption (about 60 %), depending mainly on the availability of
livestock.
Benefit-cost ratio
Inputs short term long term
Establishment slightly positive positive
Maintenance slightly positive positive

Main contributors: Mawussi Gbenonchi, Ecole Supérieure d’Agronomie, Université de Lomé (ESA UL), Lomé, Togo; [email protected]
Key references: WOCAT. 2007. WOCAT database on SLM technologies. www.wocat.net

SLM Technology: Smallstock Manure Production - Togo 155

7_Livestock_Management.indd 155 20.01.11 14:44

 Pa s t o r a l i s m a n d r a n g e l a n d m a n a g e m e n t

Silvopastoral system, Senegal. (Christoph Studer)

In a nutshell Development issues addressed

Preventing / reversing land degradation ++

Definition: Pastoralism and rangeland management refer to extensive production
of livestock using pastures and browse, and is mainly found in arid and semi-arid Maintaining and improving food security ++
areas. In SSA the term ‘pastoralism‘ is usually associated with the use of common Reducing rural poverty ++
property resources subject to some group agreements rather than ‘open access’. Creating rural employment +
‘Ranching’ on the other hand implies individual, privatised land ownership. Pasto-
Supporting gender equity / marginalised groups +++
ralism is based on open grazing lands, e.g. savannas, grasslands, prairies, steppes,
and shrublands, managed through herding. Pastoralists adopt opportunistic land Improving crop production +
use strategies, that is they follow resources of grazing / browsing and water, destock Improving fodder production +++
in times of drought (often de facto through livestock mortality rather than stock
Improving wood / fibre production ++
sales) but have rapid response post-drought restocking strategies (commonly
Improving non wood forest production ++
based first on the high reproduction rates amongst indigenous sheep and goats).
There are many types and degrees of pastoral mobility, which vary according to Preserving biodiversity +++
environmental conditions or the given household situation. Mobility can be sea- Improving soil resources (OM, nutrients) ++
sonal, regular between two well-defined pasture areas, or following erratic rain. It
Improving of water resources ++
is rarely the same from one year to another. Movement is not necessarily under-
taken only for resource-based reasons; it can be for trade or because of conflict. Improving water productivity ++
Pastoral activities have conventionally been considered uneconomic and eco- Natural disaster prevention / mitigation ++
logically destructive. Current thinking increasingly recognises these strategies Climate change mitigation / adaptation ++
as economically viable, environmentally sustainable, and compatible with devel-
opment. The challenge is to adapt traditional pastoralism to today’s changing Climate change mitigation
environmental conditions. Establishment of feed banks, improvement of herd Potential for C Sequestration 0.1 - 0.3*
composition and health, a more dense distribution of wells, collection and stor- (tonnes/ha/year)
age of surface water by, for example, ‘charco dams’, adaptive grazing, land use C Sequestration: above ground +
plans, access to markets, and empowerment are such opportunities.
C Sequestration: below ground ++
Applicability: A production system for marginal, dry lands: relatively low inher-
ent productivity due to aridity, altitude, temperature and / or a combination of all Climate change adaptation
factors. Pastoralism is becoming increasingly constrained because of weakening
Resilience to extreme dry conditions +++
of traditional governance over communal natural resources, restricted mobility,
sedentarisation, boundaries and advancing agriculture. Resilience to variable rainfall ++
Resilience to climate variability: By definition pastoralism is based on continu- Resilience to extreme rain and wind storms ++
ous adaptation to highly uncertain environments, especially climate. Traditional
Resilience to rising temperatures and +++
pastoralism has / is losing flexibility and options for coping with drought (e.g. loss evaporation rates
in mobility due to encroachment of cropping and growing human populations)
Reducing risk of production failure ++
leading to increased risk.
Main benefits: Mobile herding systems combine economic production in mar- *for proper rangeland management in US$ and for a duration of the
ginalised land and environmental protection (biodiversity) of vulnerable ecosys- first 10-20 years of changed land use management (Schumann et
tems, which have been modified over time by pastoralism itself; improved food al., 2002 in FAO, 2004).
security and livelihood of marginalised and disadvantaged people. The vast areas
of degraded rangeland play a vital role in sequestering carbon. Dry soils are bet-
ter longer term sinks for C than soils in more humid environments.
Adoption and upscaling: Effective pastoral management of the drylands
depends on livestock mobility (access to dry season grazing sites and water
points), effective communal tenure and governance systems, and herd adaptation.

156 SLM in Practice

8_Pastoralism_Rangeland.indd 156 20.01.11 14:45

 Origin and spread
Origin: Pastoralism is one of the most ancient forms of agricultural activity and
pastoralists maintain diverse cultures, ecological adaptations, and flexibility in
management systems. It evolved in arid and semi-arid regions as a result of
increasing population densities and domestication of livestock. Pastoralism made
efficient use of the extensive rangelands, and could cope with climate variability -
particularly uneven and erratic distribution of rainfall. Between 1960s and 1980s
international donors invested heavily in rangeland and livestock projects by intro-
ducing ‘ranching’ models where boundaries were delineated and destocking
programmes encouraged or enforced. These misguided efforts to develop live-
stock systems have contributed to the current vulnerability of many pastoralists.
Mainly applied in: the arid and semi-arid zones extending from Mauritania to
the northern parts of Chad, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Mali, Niger, Somalia, Sudan,
Tanzania and Uganda. Pastoralists who are principally dependent on camels are
confined to areas north of the equator. Communities practicing agropastoral- Modelled distribution of livestock production systems in
ism are found throughout: opportunistic cropping (sometimes based on RWH) is ­Eastern Africa (Source: Cecchi et al, 2010).
common in ‘pastoral’ areas.
Also applied in: arid zones of Namibia, parts of Botswana and southern Angola.

Principles and types

Traditional pastoral systems utilise, modify and conserve ecosystems by exten-
sive grazing / ranching with rotational grazing and by using a variety of live-
stock: sheep and cattle, principally as grazers; and goats, donkeys and camels
as browsers.
The Fulbe / Fulani herders in Nigeria, for example, faced with rapidly vanishing
grass, switched from the Bunaji cattle breed, which depends on grass, to the
Sokoto Gudali, which readily browses (FAO, 2001).
Nomadism: Nomads are livestock producers who grow no crops and depend
on the sale or exchange of animals and their products to obtain food (e.g. Tuareg
and Fulbe). Their movements are opportunistic and follow pasture and water
resources in a pattern that varies from year to year according to the availability
of resources.
Transhumance is the regular movement of herds between fixed points in order
to exploit the seasonal availability of pastures. A feature of transhumance is herd
splitting; the herders take most of the animals to search for grazing, but leave the
resident community with a core of lactating female cows and / or camels (e.g.
Maasai and Fulbe). For the Fulbe it follows a century–old grazing route northward
to the borders of the Sahara, and southward to the moist savanna during the wet
and the dry seasons, respectively. Available grazing lands are diminishing and
movement channels are blocked through land use change, urbanisation, and
frontiers. In West Africa, governments have tried to demarcate transhumance
corridors and to legislate for trans-boundary mobility.
Agropastoralism describes settled pastoralists, who live in villages and cultivate
sufficient areas to feed their families and keep livestock as valued property (herds
are usually smaller). Mixing of crops and livestock primarily serves to minimise
risk: failed crops provide animal fodder for example.
Mixed systems: Traditionally some systems are mixed where crops and live-
stock are managed by different communities based on a long standing relation-
ship. After harvest of the crop, pastoralists are allowed to feed their livestock
on the residues. However, since keeping livestock has been promoted amongst
crop farmers, this practice is diminishing in importance.
Enclosed systems and ranching: Land is individually owned and usually
fenced. In the colonial era, livestock ranches were established in Botswana,
Kenya, Namibia, Mozambique, South Africa and Zimbabwe and a substantial
proportion of these remain today. Animal movement and pressure are adjusted
to the available fodder within the ranch by controlled and rotational grazing and Top: Cattle and camels in a pastoral system, Kenya. (Wiliam
well distributed water points thus reducing degradation as much as possible. Critchley)
Middle: Livestock in a pastoral system, Mali.
(William Critchley)
Bottom: Livestock ranching close to a water point on a private
estate, South Africa. (William Critchley)

SLM Group: Pastoralism and Rangeland Management 157

8_Pastoralism_Rangeland.indd 157 20.01.11 14:45

 PA S T O R A L I S M A N D R A N G E L A N D M A N A G E M E N T
Applicability Land degradation

Land degradation addressed Erosion by water High

In the pre-colonial era, pastoralists were limited principally by disease and inse- Erosion by wind Moderate
curity. In the twentieth century occupation of land by cultivators (competition for Chemical degradation Low
water and land) and the presence of boundaries impeded free movement of live- Physical degradation Insignificant
stock which led to overgrazing of vegetation and soil resources. Overgrazing is a Biological degradation
function of time (grazing and recovery) and not simply numbers of animals. Most Water degradation
of the environmentally harmful effects of livestock production in dry areas occur
around local water points and settlements.
Biological deterioration: Grazing reduces soil cover and changes the compo-
sition of the vegetation. Both, heavy and light grazing can reduce the density of Land use
palatable perennial species, which are replaced by less palatable ones as their Cropland
competitive ability declines. Grazing land
Water degradation: Low and unreliable rainfall, pasture degradation leading to
Forests / woodlands
reduced water infiltration and limited permanent sources of surface water can
Mixed land use
exacerbate competition for water.
Other
Land use
Mainly extensive grazing land: natural, semi-natural grasslands, savannas, shrub-
land (brousse). Climate Average rainfall (mm)

Ecological conditions Humid > 3000

Marginal lands and challenging climates with heterogeneity and high variability of Subhumid 2000-3000
resources in space and time. Low in tsetse infestation. Semi-arid 1500-2000
Climate: pastoralism: in semi-arid zones with <600mm annual rainfall and a Arid 1000-1500
growing season of less than 120 days; seasonal mobility: every wet and dry 750-1000
season; agro-(silvo-) pastoralist systems: semi-arid zones with rainfall ranging 500-750
between 650 - 1,000 mm. Length of growing period: 130–170 days.
250-500
Terrain and landscape: no restrictions - whole range from flat to hilly.
< 250
Soils: no restrictions; camels, cattle, donkeys, sheep and goats can utilise a
broad range of poor quality forage thriving on marginal soils.

Socio-economic conditions Slopes (%) very steep (>60)

Pastoralists are usually the most politically and economically marginalised, have steep (30-60)
the least access to resources (land, water, pasture) and basic services such as hilly (16-30)
health and education and suffer from insecurity, conflicts, poverty, environmental rolling (8-16)
degradation and exposure to climatic risks. moderate (5-8)
Market orientation: Pastoralists sell livestock products (meat and milk) and live- gentle (2-5)
stock to local and domestic markets through both formal and informal chan- flat (0-2)
nels. Cross-border trade is common. In contrast to crops - where crop failure
due to drought results in price increase - livestock destocking, in response to
drought, results in price decrease due to a market flooded with poor quality ani-
mals. Caravan trade, for example using camels to carry salt, still exists in inac- Farm size Land ownership
cessible regions of the pastoral zone, but its economic importance has been Small scale State
much reduced by modern transport. Medium scale Company
Land ownership and land use / water rights: Pastoralists, due to their oppor-
Large scale Community
tunistic grazing strategies, have fluid tenure systems that are traditionally based
Individual, not titled
in customary arrangements. However, in some places these have broken down,
and uncontrolled open-access regimes have emerged. Traditional wells are Individual, titled
often collective property of a community who dug and / or maintained them,
but access rights for other groups are usually negotiable. Surface water sources
Mechanisation Market orientation
have less clear ownership. A combination of land ‘privatisation’, fragmentation
of communally grazed land, loss of key resources (e.g. water points on tran- Manual labour Subsistence
shumance routes), creation of barriers (fences, national parks, roads), imposition Animal traction Mixed
of state and district boundaries hamper these rights. Mechanised Commercial
Skill / knowledge requirements: High but exist traditionally and are passed on
through the generations.
Labour requirements: A weak relationship between herd size and labour up to
Required labour Required know-how
the point at which herds beyond a certain size cannot be managed with household
labour alone, and outside herders must be hired. In pastoral societies women are High High
typically responsible for milking and dairy processing and for feeding the ­family. Medium Medium
Men are responsible for herding and selling livestock products. In systems with Low Low
split herds, women stay at the homesteads while men move with the animals.

158 SLM in Practice

8_Pastoralism_Rangeland.indd 158 21.07.11 12:19

 Economics Example: African pastoralism has been
shown to out-produce ranching
Establishment and maintenance costs In Botswana, communal area produc-
Pastoralism entails high marketing and transaction costs, especially because of tion (in cash, energy and protein terms) per
the absence of formal markets and existing monopolies, high transport costs, hectare exceeds - by at least three times
poor infrastructure, long distances to processing plants, poor access to infor- per hectare - returns from ranches in Aus-
mation, lack of financial services such as credit facilities, and excessive govern- tralia and North America. The difference in
ment bureaucracy and fees. Transaction costs reduce the returns to labour under soil erosion levels between the two produc-
pastoralism. tion systems is negligible, despite much
higher stocking rates under the commu-
Production benefits nal areas (in Hatfield and Davies, 2006).
Pastoral production provides multiple products. It tends to focus on animal prod-
ucts (especially milk), rather than animals for slaughter. Example: Transhumant pastoral systems
Annual direct values accruing per TLU* of cattle in Afar (Ethiopia) In Mali, transhumant pastoral systems yield
on average at least two times the amount
Direct value US$
of protein per hectare per year compared to
Estimated annual value of milk 54 both sedentary agropastoralists and ranch-
Mean annual livestock sales 15 ers in the US and Australia (in Hatfield and
Davies, 2006). Pastoralism is economically
Annual herd growth rate 9
viable to the extent that it contributes signifi-
Total 78 cantly to the economy of many developing
* Tropical Livestock Unit, 4 hectares of rangeland per TLU (Source: Hatfield and Davies, 2006) countries despite continued underinvest-
ment (Hatfield and Davies, 2006).
This data does not capture the full direct value of pastoralism in Afar as it omits
the value of leather, the value of processed butter and the transportation values Pastoralism as a percentage of agricultural GDP1
of camels and donkeys. Nevertheless, the data provides an estimated mean pas- Sudan 80
toral livestock productivity of US$ 78 per 4 hectares. This range of products and
Senegal 70
species can make pastoral systems significantly more cost-effective and produc-
tive than the meat-focussed ranching models that have been promoted. Niger 84

Transhumance in particular is an extremely productive system, yielding between Mauritanien 33

50 and 600% more protein per ha than ‘modern’ ranching in comparable eco-
Mali 33
logical areas within the USA and Australia (Ogle, 1996). In Sub-Saharan Africa
Kenya 50
the economic importance of livestock rises as rainfall declines.
Ethiopia 35

Benefit-Cost ratio Chad 34

Pastoralism has considerable economic value and latent potential in the drylands
Burkina Faso 24
but little is known or has been quantified. It encompasses less tangible benefits
including financial services (investment, insurance, credit and risk management),
ecosystem services (such as biodiversity, nutrient cycling and energy flow) and a 1 Gross Domestic Product

range of social and cultural values.

The value of livestock production in the drylands is often grossly underestimated
in official statistics, and thus does not attract the investment attention that it
deserves.

SLM Group: Pastoralism and Rangeland Management 159

8_Pastoralism_Rangeland.indd 159 20.01.11 14:45

 Pa s t o r a l i s m a n d r a n g e l a n d m a n a g e m e n t
Impacts
Benefits Land users / community level Watershed / landscape level National / global level
Production +++ increased animal productivity +++ maximising production in a ++ improved food security
++ greater production and better survival of arid ­rangeland highly variable environment
plants (fodder) ++ reduced risk of production
++ greater diversity of livestock and goods that are
­produced
+ improved crop yields

Economic +++ high overall returns due to multiple benefits ++ can contribute ‘significantly’ to + improved livelihood and
++ provides a stable livelihood (e.g. Maasai, Fulbe the national economy well-being
­pastoralists) ++ diversification and rural
employment creation
++ less damage to off-site
infrastructure
+ enables drylands to be
economically exploited

Ecological ++ increasing live plant cover ++ reduced degradation and ++ maintained ecosystem integrity
++ reduced soil erosion (by water / wind) sedimentation and resilience to climate
++ efficient and flexible way of managing sparse ­vegetation ++ efficiency of opportunism in variability
and relatively low soil fertility environments that are charac- ++ reduced degradation and
++ biodiversity enhancement terised by uncertainty (intact desertification incidence and
++ reducing old vegetation (threat of fires) ecosystem) intensity
+ improved water availability + increased water availability ++ enhanced biodiversity
+ improved micro-climate + increased water quality

Socio-cultural ++ pastoralists traditional knowledge of environment, live- + increased awareness for +++ protection of national heritage
stock genetics, livestock breed selection, medicinal environmental health ++ knowledge leading to sustain-
plants and weather forecasting ++ attractive landscape ability
++ reduced conflicts

Constraints How to overcome

Production l 
Availability of feed / fodder in quantity and quality during the dry ➜ a llow sufficient flexibility to move and destock; In SSA products
season such as cotton seed, groundnut cakes and molasses are now regu-
l Increase productivity without adverse environmental consequences larly sold to pastoralists, together with mineral licks

Economic l P oor livestock prices due to lack of marketing infrastructure and ➜ processing facilities for dairy products and better marketing
knowledge of prices ­strategies
l Access to markets and financial services (credits and savings) ➜ Encourage banking facilities: spread of mobile phones and mobile
l Milk (mainstay of most pastoral economies) not well marketed lead- phone-based banking; create alternative saving and investment
ing to a shift in production towards meat opportunities
l Many young people now go to school, while others are moving to the ➜ improve image of pastoralism and show its potentials
cities to do unskilled jobs (availability of labour)

Ecological l 
Sufficient and efficient recovery of nutrients that were relocated from
grazing land to cropland
l Bush encroachment ➜ reinforce customary ability to manage rangelands
l Risk and vulnerability of the system ➜ human capital development (education and health)

Socio-cultural l 
Limited livestock mobility ➜ e.g. demarcation of transhumance corridors and legalisation for
l Competition and conflicts over rangelands of pastoralists, farmers trans-boundary mobility
and foragers
l Wealthier farmers and urban farmers invest their surplus capital in
livestock (competition)
l Sedentarisation ➜ make use of group or collective rights (policies often exist)
l Traditional tenure systems (usually gained through cultivation), land re-aggregation of fragmented grazing land to still use land
access and fragmentation communally and / or leasing arrangements
l Marginalisation of pastoralists (often seen as backward, archaic and ➜ qualify what pastoralists contribute to the economy
a political threat) ➜ political empowerment
l Low education of pastoralists ➜ capacity building
l Inappropriate training of extension agents and absence of useful ➜ technical and institutional reforms
extension packages
l Inappropriate policies aiming at transforming rather than enhancing ➜ put in place or emphasise land reforms and land use rights that
pastoralism support pastoralism

160 SLM in Practice

8_Pastoralism_Rangeland.indd 160 20.01.11 14:45

 Adoption and upscaling Enabling environment: key factors for adoption

Inputs, material incentives, credits +

Adoption rate
Training and education +
Despite the high investments that were made in rangeland development projects
during the last 30 years, they have generally been a failure because they based Land tenure, secure land use rights +++
their assumptions on concepts of equilibrium systems developed for individually Improved marketing ++
owned ranching systems. The projects, by changing traditional patterns of land
use, weakened the indigenous pastoral production systems by misidentifying Research ++
‘pastoral crisis’. Collective action arrangements are emerging: Enabling policies +++
– Awareness of pastoralists themselves
Maintain mobility (trans-boundary) +++
– Economic diversification
– Intensification and diversification of livestock production strategies Safety net (risk and emergencies) ++
– Empowerment of communities through Community-Based Natural Resource Access to services ++
Management (CBNRM)
– Reinforcement of favourable land and water use rights, access to resources Example: Ethiopia
and regional planning Communal grazing lands are important
sources of livestock feed in developing coun-
Upscaling tries. In the highlands of Tigray, northern
Planning for / with pastoral societies must have a long term perspective, and Ethiopia rural communities have a long tra-
needs to recognise that herds will recover eventually, as they always have in the dition of developing and enforcing use and
past, and that the utilisation of ‘inaccessible’ zones will always be the preserve regulations of grazing areas. Restricted use
of pastoralists. New policy must address issues of diversity without undermin- of grazing lands tends to be maintained once
ing the common factors that unite pastoralists everywhere in Africa. A key is to it is established. Village organisations are
enable pastoralists themselves to adapt and enhance their production system responsible for the management with tech-
(e.g. through improved animal health). Adequate attention needs to be placed on nical assistance from the regional Bureau of
learning from pastoralists’ production methods and finding ways to fit new tech- Agriculture (Gebremedhina et al, 2004).
nologies into those systems.
One problem that is rarely addressed is the lack of security (e.g. theft) which
acts as an inhibitor to outside investment and which leads people to invest a lot
of their resources in providing their own security. Furthermore, in many places
where smuggling and trade are key sources of income, pastoralists’ economic
dependence on livestock is low. Therefore herders may not make investments
required in their livestock because their attention is directed elsewhere.

Incentives for adoption

Incentives for key elements of pastoralism such as communal tenure, seasonal
movements, flexible stocking rates that can be adopted afresh are:
– legal support for communal arrangements
– legislation for transhumance
– relevant services that are tailored to the needs of communal and mobile man-
agement
– infrastructure / investments and technologies for access to water
– insurance and credit services
– animal health programmes
– market integration to survive on smaller herds than would be possible with
exclusive subsistence
– promotion of mobile phones for information sharing (animal prices; climate pre-
diction) and for banking
– contingency planning for disaster mitigation / emergency relief

References and supporting information:

Briske D. D., J. D. Derner, J. R. Brown, S. D. Fuhlendorf, W. R. Teague, K. M. Havstad, R. L. Gillen, A. J. Ash, and W. D. Willm. 2008. Rotational Grazing on Rangelands:
­Reconciliation of Perception and Experimental Evidence. Rangeland Ecol Manage 61:3–17.
Cecchi, G., W. Wint, A. Shaw, A. Marletta, R. Mattioli and T. Robinson. 2010. Geographic distribution and environmental characterisation of livestock production systems in Eastern
Africa. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 135 (2010) 98–110.
Davies, J., M. Niamir-Fuller, K. Kerven and K. Bauer. 2010. Extensive livestock production in transition: the future of sustainable pastoralism. In Livestock in a Changing Landscape,
Volume 1, Drivers, Consequences, and Responses. Steinfeld, H., H. A. Mooney, F. Schneider and L. E. Neville (eds). Washington, DC: Island Press.
Davies, J. 2008. Turning the tide: Enabling sustainable development for Africa’s mobile pastoralists Natural Resources Forum 32 (2008) 175–184.
Derry, J.F. and R.B. Boone. 2010. Grazing systems are a result of equilibrium and non-equilibrium dynamics. Journal of Arid Environments 74( 2): 307-309.
FAO, 2009. Grasslands: Enabling their potential to contribute to greenhouse gas mitigation. A submission by The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations1.
­workshop held at FAO Rome 15 -17 April 2009.
FAO. 2004. Carbon Sequestration in drylands soils. World Soil Resources Reports 102. FAO.
FAO. 2001. Pastoralism in the new millennium. Animal Production And Health Paper 150. FAO.
Gebremedhina, B., J. Pender and G. Tesfay. 2004. Collective action for grazing land management in crop–livestock mixed systems in the highlands of northern Ethiopia. Agricultural
Systems Volume 82, Issue 3 pp 273-290.
Hatfield, R. and J. Davies. 2006. Global Review of the Economics of Pastoralism. The World Initiative for Sustainable Pastoralism, IUCN, Nairobi
Homann, S., B. Rischkowsky, J. Steinbach and M. Kirk. 2005. Towards endogenous development: Borana pastoralists’ response to environmental and institutional changes.
­Deutscher Tropen tag. Stuttgart-Hohenheim, October 11-13, 2005.
Oba, G., N.C. Stenseth and W.J. Lusigi. 2000. New perspectives on sustainable grazing management in arid zones of SSA. BioScience, Volume 50: pp 35 - 51.
Ogle, B. 1996. Livestock Systems in Semi-Arid Sub-Saharan Africa, Integrated Farming in Human Development – Workshop Proceedings.
http://www.ardaf.org/NR/rdonlyres/E0E2790E-F1FF-4F65-818E-1716735E1070/0/199618BrianOgle.pdf

SLM Group: Pastoralism and Rangeland Management 161

8_Pastoralism_Rangeland.indd 161 20.01.11 14:45

 Case study
Pastoralism and rangeland management

N g i t i l i D r y- S e a s o n F o d d e r R e s e r v e s - Ta n z a n i a
Ngitili are traditional enclosures for in-situ conservation and rehabilitation of SLM measure Management and vegetative
vegetation, practiced by the Wasukuma agropastoralists in Shinyanga, Tan- SLM group Pastoralism and Rangeland
zania. Shinyanga is a semi-arid area characterised by shortage of fodder Management
associated with problems of deforestation, fuelwood scarcity, food insecurity, Land use type Extensive grazing
declining soil fertility, severe soil erosion and unsecure land use rights. Ngitili is
Degradation Vegetation degradation; Decreased
a dry-season fodder reserve, an indigenous practice which has been revived addressed soil fertility; Loss of topsoil
by a government programme from 1986-2001.
Stage of intervention Rehabilitation
For initial regeneration of the vegetation and rehabilitation of denuded land
absolute exclusion of up to 5 years is needed. Then, areas of standing vegeta- Tolerance to climate Increased tolerance to climatic
tion are enclosed seasonally from the onset of the rainy season till the peak / change extremes (e.g. prolonged dry spells
and droughts)
end of dry season, before they are opened up for grazing. Two distinct vegeta-
tion strata are identifiable, an upper stratum dominated by trees and shrubs Establishment activities
(Acacia tortilis, A. nilotica, A. polyacantha and A. seyal) and a lower stratum 1. Demarcation and closure of sites usually
of grasses, herbs and forbs. Structure and composition of the ngitili areas on degraded land around homesteads.
are closely influenced by location, age, management practices and intensity 2. Total enclosure during up to 5 years for
of use. The reserves are established on degraded land and around home- initial regeneration of vegetation (if land is
steads. Individual plots usually reach 2-5 ha in size, while communal ngitili degraded).
cover 10-200 ha. Mostly, the boundaries are not rigidly marked, and physical 3. Establishment of tree nurseries to produce
barriers are not established. Local guards and community by-laws are used to seedlings of native species.
protect and enforce the system. 4. Enrichment planting.
Ngitili alleviates dry season fodder shortages and prevents land degradation 5. Removal of large trees (deterring grass
through reducing soil erosion and deforestation. The reserves provide a wide growth), while protecting fodder trees.
range of woodland goods - such as timber, fodder, fuelwood, medicinal herbs,
wild fruits and honey. They help to enhance livelihoods, provide a vital safety Maintenance / recurrent activities
net during dry seasons and droughts and generate additional income of up 1. Closure of ngitili area at onset of rainy sea-
to US$ 500-1,000 per year and household. Ngitili greatly reduced women’s son. No management during rainy season.
labour, cutting the time spent on fuelwood collection by over 80%, and have a 2. Open area for grazing in July or August,
highly positive impact on biodiversity. after the crop residues and fallow vegeta-
tion have been depleted.
3. Temporary demarcation of paddocks for
specific periods for rotational grazing within
ngitili (controlled by experienced elders;
based on utilisation level and fodder avail-
ability).
4. Controlled pruning and thinning (for fire-
wood and poles).

Labour requirements
For maintenance: low
For establishment: low to medium (depending
on the extent of enrichment planting)
Knowledge requirements
For land users: low
For advisors: low

Photo 1: Cattle grazing in a dry season fodder reserve.

(Edmund Barrow)
Photo 2: Regeneration of trees has multiple benefits such a
production of timber, fruit and honey.
(Edmund Barrow)

162 SLM in Practice

8_Pastoralism_Rangeland.indd 162 20.01.11 14:45

 Case study area: Shinyanga region, Ecological conditions
Tanzania ·· C limate: semiarid, unimodal rainfall
·· Average annual rainfall: 600-900 mm; rainy season: October–May
·· Soil parameters: medium to poor drainage; vertic soils are very extensive
Mwanza covering 47% of all soil types in the region
Moshi ·· Slopes: flat (0-2%) – gentle (2-5%)
Case study area ·· Landform: plains and hill slopes
Kigoma Tanga ·· Altitude: 1,000-1,500 m a.s.l.
Dodoma Zanzibar Socio-economic conditions
··  ize of land per household: no data
S
Morogoro Dar es Salaam ·· Type of land users: no data
·· Population density: no data
Mbeya
·· Land ownership: individual (cropland), individual / communal 50% / 50%
(grazing land)
·· Land use rights: individual / communal
·· Market orientation: no data

Production / economic benefits

Establishment inputs and costs per ha +++ Increased income (from selling timber / fuelwood; to purchase agricultural
Inputs Costs (US$) inputs, manpower)
+++ Increased wood production (timber, fuelwood)
Labour no data
+++ Increased fodder production (dry season!)
Equipment no data +++ Increased livestock production
Agricultural inputs no data +++ Reduced workload (collection of fuelwood / fodder by women)
+++ Increased production of non-timber forest products (fruit, honey, medi-
TOTAL no data
cines, edible insects)
Maintenance inputs and costs per ha per year Ecological benefits
Inputs Costs (US$) ++ Biodiversity conservation / restoration (152 plant species; 145 bird spe-
cies; also mammals returning)
Labour no data
+++ Vegetation regeneration / improved soil cover
Equipment no data +++ Reduced loss of top soil through erosion
Agricultural inputs no data ++ Increased soil fertility
TOTAL no data ++ Increased water availability
Socio-cultural benefits
Benefit-cost ratio +++ Food security, diet diversification, improved health
Inputs short term long term ++ Improved housing (thatched grass for roofs)
Establishment slightly positive very positive ++ Improved education (school fees payment due to income from ngitili)
+ Income from communal ngitili used for village development (schools,
Maintenance slightly positive very positive
health centres)
Adoption Weaknesses ➜ and how to overcome
300,000-500,000 ha of woodland restored
·· D amage to livestock and crops caused by growing wildlife populations ➜
1986-2001 (most of Ngitilis are individual, but
outweighed by the benefits gained from ngitili (in most areas).
area-wise half-half), over 800 villages; 60-70%
·· Increased local inequity: benefit gap between richer and poorer house­holds
of all households have Ngitilis.
(who have no ngitilis); growing sales of ngitilis ➜ local institutions have to
enable people to hold on to land and maintain ngitilis; allow poorer house-
holds to benefit from communal ngitilis.
·· Scarcity of land, growing pressure (rising human and livestock populations);
conflicts over grazing rights ➜ encourage villages to establish by-laws for
protecting ngitilis.
·· Insecurity of tenure impedes establishment of ngitilis (individual and commu-
nal) ➜ increase local people’s and groups ownership and control over their
resources; clearly acknowledge in national law the secure tenure of both pri-
vate and communal ngitili.
·· Productivity could still be improved ➜ introduction of improved fodder
grasses. Planting of fast growing fodder trees and / or shrubs.

Key references: Kamwenda G.J. 2002. Ngitili agrosilvipastoral systems in the United Republic of Tanzania. Unasylva 211, Vol. 53, 2002. n World Resource Institute. 2010. Regen-
erating Woodlands: Tanzania’s HASHI Project. http://www.wri.org/publication/content/8108; n Equator initiative. 2010. Nomination Form Equator Initiative. http://www.equatorinitia-
tive.org/knowledgebase/files/2002-0128_Nom_HASHI_Tanzania.pdf; n Blay D., E. Bonkoungou, S.A.O. Chamshama and B.Chikamai. 2004. Rehabilitation of Degraded Lands in
Sub-Saharan Africa: Lessons Learned from Selected Case Studies. Forestry research network for Sub-Saharan Africa (fornessa) n WRI (2005): World Resources 2005: The Wealth
of the Poor—Managing Ecosystems to Fight Poverty. World Resources Institute (WRI) in collaboration with United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Environment
Programme, and World Bank.

SLM Technology: Ngitili Dry-Season Fodder Reserves - Tanzania 163

8_Pastoralism_Rangeland.indd 163 20.01.11 14:45

 Case study
Pastoralism and rangeland management

C o u l o i r s d e pa s s a g e - N i g e r
The ‘couloirs de passage’ are formally defined passageways which channel SLM measure Management and vegetative
the movements of livestock herds in the agropastoral zones of Niger, by link- SLM group Pastoralism and Rangeland
ing pastures, water points and coralling areas, be it within village areas (inter- ­Management
nal couloirs) or on open land (external couloirs). The main goal of the couloirs Land use type Cropland or agropastoral (before),
is the prevention of conflict between agriculturalists and pastoralists regarding (silvo-)pastoral (after)
the use of limited land and water resources. These conflicts are often provoked Degradation Soil erosion by water; Soil erosion
by cattle entering cropping areas. addressed by wind; Biological degradation;
The establishment of demarcated passageways allows the livestock to access ­Primary problem addressed is
water points and pastures without causing damage to cropland. The corri- ­conflicts between livestock and
agriculture producers around
dors are regulated through the ‘code rural’ – a national law defining the land
­natural resources
use rights of the pastoralists. Demarcation of couloirs is based on a consen-
sual decision of all concerned interest groups. Internal couloirs are negotiated Stage of intervention Prevention
in a general on-site assembly involving all stakeholders (farmers, breeders, Tolerance to climate Technology is sensitive to climatic
women’s groups, local authorities). For the demarcation of external couloirs change extremes (such as droughts and
floods)
the involvement of transhumance herders and neighboring villages is indis-
pensable.
Establishment activities
Once an agreement on the course of the couloir is achieved, demarcation with
1. Identification of an existing couloir or defi-
stones and / or boundary planting with selected tree species is carried out by
nition of a new passageway by means of a
the local land users - with financial and technical assistance of the govern-
general assembly (photo 1).
ment or NGOs. Common species involve: Euphorbia balsamifera, Acacia spp.
2. Alignment of corridor boundaries e.g. by
(A. nilotica; A. senegal); and Faidherbia albida. Management committees at
establishing stone lines. Internal couloirs
the community level draw up regulations for the management of the couloirs
are 10 to 50 m wide, whereas external
(maintenance and protection of vegetation). Protection of plants is achieved
couloirs exceed a width of 50 m.
through dead branches (at the initial stage), daily control by forest guards,
3. Digging 40 cm deep pits; tree planting
and information campaigns. The technology is a sustainable solution to the
along boundaries (with a spacing of 1-3
described conflicts. As a valuable by-product the trees along the demarcation
meters, depending on the species selected
lines provide wood and non-woody by-products.
and the secondary objective) (photo 2).
Maintenance / recurrent activities
1. Protection of trees (through dead
branches, guards, information campaigns).
2. Replanting tree seedlings to fill gaps (annu-
ally, beginning of rainy season).

Labour requirements
For establishment: low
For maintenance: low
Knowledge requirements
For advisors: high (facilitator of code rural)
For land users: low (pastors and workers)

Photo 1: Demarcation of a couloir de passage with two lines

of Euphorbia seedlings. (LUCOP / Abdoulaye Soumaila)
Photo 2: A herd of small ruminants passing a well estab-
lished couloir. (Fodé Boubacar Camara, PAFN)

164 SLM in Practice

8_Pastoralism_Rangeland.indd 164 20.01.11 14:45

 Case study area: Tillabéri North, Niger Ecological conditions
·· C limate: semi-arid
·· Average annual rainfall: 250-500 mm
·· Soil parameters: sandy soils, with medium fertility, low soil organic matter
and good drainage (low in case of soil crusting)
·· Slope: mostly flat (0-2%)
·· Landform: mainly plains / plateaus, valley floors
·· Altitude: 0-100 m a.s.l.
Socio-economic conditions
Agadez
··  ize of land per household: 1-2 ha
S
·· Type of land user: mainly poor; land user groups / community
Case study area ·· Population density: 10-50 persons/km2
Maradi Zinder ·· Land ownership: mostly individual, titled
Niamey ·· Land use rights: individual, communal (organised)
·· Level of mechanisation: animal traction
·· Market orientation: mostly subsistence (self-supply), partly mixed
­(subsistence and commercial)

Establishment inputs and costs per km Production / economic benefits

Inputs Costs (US$) +++ Increased crop yield
+++ Increased farm income
Labour: 25 person-days 38
+++ Increased animal production
Agricultural Inputs: 670 tree seedlings 1374 +++ Increased fodder quality and fodder production
TOTAL 1412 Ecological benefits
% of costs borne by land users 5% ++ Increased soil cover
++ Reduced wind velocity
Maintenance inputs and costs per km per year ++ Increased soil fertility
++ Increased biomass / above ground carbon
Inputs Costs (US$)
++ Reduced soil loss
Labour: 4 person-days 6 ++ Reduced fire risk
Agricultural inputs: 67 tree seedlings 137 ++ Increased animal diversity
TOTAL 143 Socio-cultural benefits
% of costs borne by land users 100% +++ Cultural benefits
+++ Conflict mitigation
Remarks: The costs of the planning meeting
+++ Community institution strengthening through mutual aid in technology
(general assembly) and the stones for delimitation
implementation
were not taken into account. Daily salary for field
+++ National institution strengthening (code rural secretariat)
work is US$ 1.5. Costs for seedlings were calcu-
+++ Improved cultural opportunities
lated for a couloir length of 1 km and a spacing of
3 m between plants (one tree line on each side). Off-site benefits
Seedling production is financed by projects, only +++ Reduced damage on public / private infrastructure
transport costs are met by land users. +++ Reduced damage on neighbours’ fields
+++ Reduced wind transported sediments
Benefit-cost ratio
Weaknesses ➜ and how to overcome
Inputs short term long term ·· Implementation constraints: plant production is very expensive and reaching
Establishment positive very positive a consensus on the transformation of private cropland to communal pas-
Maintenance positive very positive sageways is very difficult ➜ definition of the couloirs as public infrastructure
and enhancement of organisational capacities of the local population
Remarks: Peace between communities is the through training and information sessions.
key result in the short and long term. Ecological ·· Maintenance constraints: maintenance can only be realised by adjacent
and economic benefits are linked to the planta- land owners, as the community organisations are weak ➜ reinforce the
tion of trees and the improved management of institutional capacities of livestock owners and farmers to manage the cou-
natural resources. loirs.
·· In the pastoral zone the couloirs lead to conflicts between pastoralists and
Adoption private ranches ➜ establish community-based land tenure commissions
High growing spontaneous adoption (for pre- and introduce new laws on land property in the pastoral zone.
vention of conflicts and land degradation).

Main contributors: Abdoulaye Sambo Soumaila, Groupe de Recherche d’Etude et d’Action pour le Développement (GREAD), Niamey, Niger ; [email protected]
Key references: Projet LUCOP/Tillabéry. 2004. Referential des measures techniques de recuperation, de protection et d’exploitation durable des terres, 2nd edition, 2004, 51 pp n
Soumaila A.S. 2003. Base de données du code rural (online): www.case.ibimet.cnr.it/den/Documents/code_rural/start.html n Hiernaux P., E. Tielkes, E. Schlecht. 2001.Elevage et
gestion des parcours au Sahel, Workshop proceedings organised by Eric Tielkes et Abdoulaye Soumaila, Verlag Ulrich E. Grauer, Beuren, Stuttgart, Germany, 2001

SLM Technology: Couloirs de Passage - Niger 165

8_Pastoralism_Rangeland.indd 165 20.01.11 14:45

 Case study
Pastoralism and rangeland management

Improved Well Distribution for Sustainable Pastoralism - Niger

Pastoralism, as practised in the case study area, is the traditional mode of SLM measure Management
extensive livestock husbandry, based on the movement of herds between the SLM group Pastoralism and Rangeland
rich pastures in the northern pastoral zones (rainy season) and the southern Management
areas (dry season) according to seasonal availability of water and grazing land Land use type Extensive grazing; Mixed
/ fodder (including residual vegetation of cropland). Both forms of pastoralism (agro-silvo-pastoral)
– nomadism and transhumance – are facing increasing water and fodder avail- Degradation Soil erosion by water; Soil erosion
ability problems, due to a variety of reasons: change of climatic conditions, addressed by wind; Biological degradation
expansion of cropland, overstocking and overgrazing, amongst others. In view (overgrazing)
of these problems, the govern­ment of Niger has defined by law a pastoral Stage of intervention Mitigation and rehabilitation
zone, where crop production is limited to subsistence.
Tolerance to climate Technology is sensitive to droughts
Within this area ‘Pastoral Modernisation Zones’ have been implemented, change and rainfall decrease
based on a new concept of semi-pastoralism to assure the sustainability of
the pastoral land use system. Several practices are promoted at field level: Establishment activities
improved distribution of water points, establishment of water harvesting struc- Preparation:
tures, improved passageways for herds, improved fodder production, etc. 1. Information and awareness raising cam-
An optimal and efficient network / distribution of water points is a key element paign in village. Participatory planning (1-2
of modern sustainable pastoralism: it assures a balanced distribution of herds, days).
and thus avoids overuse of vegetation around a limited number of wells. Since 2. Identification of sites by population,
1998, the number of traditional wells within the 3,000 km2 of Akoubounou accompanied by field technicians
pastoral area has increased from 7 to 58. Construction is done by the local 3. Formation and training of members of well
community – through trained well diggers. Support is provided by different management committee: laws, responsi­
development actors (government and NGOs). Well committees on community bilities, steering, evaluation, organisation,
level are responsible for proper management of the wells. A fund for mainte- etc. (3-4 days).
nance is established and is topped up through contributions of well users. 4. Training of traditional sinkers (by external
As a result of the improved well distribution, pastoral areas have been utilised experts 1998-2000, then farmer-to-farmer
in a more balanced manner, and overgrazing problems have been reduced by training).
30-40% compared to the situation in 1990. Establishment of well:
5. Dig well shaft: 0.8-1.5 m in diameter and
20-60 m deep (using pickaxe, shovel,
bucket).
6. Install a scoop device (with cow leather or
tire-tube; wire and poles).
7. Optional: Lining of the well shaft with stones
/ cement (e.g. if soil is not compact enough).
8. Build a wall with stones and cement
around the well for protection (0.2-0.3 m
wide, 0.5-1 m high).
Maintenance / recurrent activities
1. De-silting of wells (beginning of rainy sea-
son; May-June).
2. Reinforce walls of wells with cement (end
of rainy season, October-November).
3. Deepen the well in case of descending
groundwater level (dry season).
4. Constant monitoring of the wells by the
Management Committee.

Labour requirements
For establishment: medium
For maintenance: medium
Knowledge requirements
For advisors: medium
For land users: low

Photo 1: One of the traditional wells that have been built to

achieve a more balanced grazing throughout the pastoral
area of Akoubounou.
Photo 2: Touareg family with a cattle herd in the pastoral
zone during the rainy season.
Photo 3: Small ruminants around a traditional well during dry
season. (All photos by Abdoulmohamine Khamed Attayoub /
ADN)

166 SLM in Practice

8_Pastoralism_Rangeland.indd 166 20.01.11 14:45

 Case study area: Akouboubou, Abalak, Ecological conditions
Tahoua region, Niger ·· C limate: semi-arid
·· Average annual rainfall: 300 mm; rainy season May-October
·· Soil parameters: good drainage, in case of soil crusting low drainage, mainly
low soil organic matter but high in swampy area
·· Slope: mostly flat (0-2%)
·· Landform: mainly plains / plateaus, valley floors
·· Altitude: 0-100 m a.s.l.
Socio-economic conditions
Agadez
··  ize of land per household: < 1 ha
S
·· Type of land user: community, mainly average level of wealth
Case study area
·· Population density: 9 persons/km2
Maradi Zinder ·· Land ownership: mostly individual, titled
Niamey ·· Land use rights: individual, communal (organised)
·· Market orientation: mostly mixed (subsistence and commercial)

Production / economic benefits

+++ Increased animal production
Establishment inputs and costs per well +++ Increased fodder quality and fodder production
Inputs Costs (US$) Ecological benefits
Preparation (information campaign, 800 ++ Increased soil cover
planning, establishment of commit- +++ Increased soil fertility
tee, etc.) +++ Increased biomass / above ground carbon
Construction of well (labour, equipment 1,200 +++ Reduced soil loss
and material) +++ Increased animal diversity
TOTAL 2,000 Socio-cultural benefits
% of costs borne by land users 9% +++ Conflict mitigation
+++ Community institution strengthening through mutual aid in technology
Maintenance inputs and costs per well per year implementation
+++ National institution strengthening (code rural secretariat)
Inputs Costs (US$)
+++ Improved cultural opportunities
Labour, equipment and material 280
Off-site benefits
TOTAL 280
+++ Reduced damage on public / private infrastructure
% of costs borne by land users 100% +++ Reduced damage on neighbours’ fields
Remarks: A management fund is established +++ Reduced wind transported sediments
and managed by each well committee. Well
users contribute annually, or each time mainte- Weaknesses ➜ and how to overcome
nance work is needed. Amounts of contribution ·· H
 igh cost of implementation and maintenance ➜ active participation of pas-
are not fixed but up to the individual, and gener- toralists in establishment and maintenance activities; public investments;
ally proportionate to herd size. Committee can national funding system.
fine land users who damage the wells. ·· Extinction of pastoral culture and traditional practices ➜ integrate pastoral-
ists into structural transformation process; promote capacity building of
pastoralists.
Benefit-cost ratio
Inputs short term long term Adoption
Establishment positive very positive The technology is well adopted in the case study area. 50 wells have been built
in 12 years within a pastoral area of 3000 km2. Implementation is based on
Maintenance positive very positive
incentives (establishment costs mainly paid by projects). However, there is a
medium trend towards spontaneous adoption (by new actors).

Main contributors: Abdoulaye Sambo Soumaila, Groupe de Recherche d’Etude et d’Action pour le Développement (GREAD), Niamey, Niger; [email protected]
Key references: Soumaila A.S. 2003. Base de données du code rural (online): www.case.ibimet.cnr.it/den/Documents/code_rural/start.html n Hiernaux P., E. Tielkes, E. Schlecht.
2001. Elevage et gestion des parcours au Sahel, Proceedings de l’atelier organisé par Eric Tielkes et Abdoulaye Sambo Soumaila, Verlag Ulrich E. Grauer, Beuren, Stuttgart, Alle-
magne, 2001 n Project documents and annual monitoring reports of develpment projects by ADN Nourriterre and HEKS EPER Suisse (2003-2009) n Jochen Suchantke, Abdoulaye
Sambo Soumaila (2001): Etude cadre pour le programme NIGETIP IV, KfW, Niamey, Niger, 2001

SLM Technology: Improved Well Distribution for Sustainable Pastoralism - Niger 167

8_Pastoralism_Rangeland.indd 167 20.01.11 14:45

 Case study
Pastoralism and rangeland management

Rotational Grazing - Sout h Afr ica

Rotational grazing is a management system based on the subdivision of the SLM measure Management
grazing area into a number of enclosures and the successive grazing of these SLM group Pastoralism and Rangeland
paddocks by animals in a rotation so that not all the veld (grazing area) is Management
grazed simultaneously. Consequently, rotational grazing allows higher stocking Land use type Grazing land
rates than continuous grazing. The main principles of rotational grazing are: (1)
Degradation Mainly biological degradation:
Control the frequency at which pasture is grazed: adjustment of the rotation addressed reduction of vegetation cover,
cycle ensures a good forage quality in each paddock. Pasture plants (includ- decreasing vegetation diversity
ing the most preferred and therefore overused species) are provided with a
Stage of intervention Prevention (partly mitigation and
period of recovery or rest following grazing; (2) Control the intensity at which rehabilitation)
the pasture plants are grazed by controlling the number of animals which graze
Tolerance to climate The technology is tolerant to climatic
each paddock and their period of occupation; (3) Reduce the extent of selec- change changes: land users can adjust graz-
tive grazing by confining a relatively large number of animals to a small portion ing and resting periods according to
of the veld: little opportunity for selection prevents domination of undesirable changing conditions
species.
Intensity of grazing should be adapted to the climatic conditions: in drier areas Establishment activities
recovery periods should be longer due to limited plant recovery potential and 1. Farm planning: including technical design
high sensitivity to misuse and degradation. The ratio between periods of occu- of farm plan with grazing paddocks, rota-
pation and absence determines the plant yield and vigour: the shorter the tional system and livestock watering
period of occupation in a paddock the greater will be the yield of the veld: system conducted mostly by extension
a second ‘bite’ is avoided and consequently the recovery period is at least workers or specialists from Dept. of Agri-
equal to the period of absence. However, the shorter the period of occupation culture.
and the longer the period of absence, the greater is the number of paddocks 2. Fencing.
required in a rotational grazing system. 3. Establishment of stock watering system
Ideal resting periods vary with growth rate, and with the rate at which the including the construction of a dam, wind-
veld loses its quality with maturity. Depending on the season, the climate and mill, drinking trough, pipeline and borehole.
the use of irrigation, resting periods vary between 14 and 70 days, and even Maintenance / recurrent activities
longer in the semi-arid grasslands (90–150 days). Appropriate stocking rates 1. Fencing.
are assessed through 4 rating factors (defining the veld condition): species 2. Maintenance of windmill, pipeline, dam and
composition, basal cover, topography and soil erodibility. drinking trough.
3. Implementing the system (moving livestock
from one paddock to another, attend to
livestock watering requirements (open-
ing and closing of valves and attending to
windmill brake on windy days).

Labour requirements
For establishment: medium
For maintenance: low
Knowledge requirements
For advisors: high (layout of the camps and
design of stock watering and grazing system)
For land users: medium (implementation of
the system, building of fences and stock
watering system, maintenance)

Photo 1: Cattle drinking from a water trough near a windmill

which pumps the water from a borehole into the dam or res-
ervoir. From there drinking troughs are supplied. These have
to be spread in a paddock to avoid local overgrazing.
Photo 2: Typical steel gate used in a rotational grazing sys-
tem to allow access to and from grazing paddocks.
Photo 3: An example of a rested paddock (on the left) and a
lightly grazed camp (on the right) with a barbed wire dividing
the paddocks. (All photos by Lehman Lindeque)

168 SLM in Practice

8_Pastoralism_Rangeland.indd 168 20.01.11 14:45

 Case study area: Crecy area, Springbokv- Ecological conditions
lakte region, Limpopo Province, South ·· C limate: mainly semi-arid, partly subhumid
Africa ·· Average annual rainfall: 500 – 1,500 mm
·· Soil parameters: shallow soils, medium soil organic matter, good to medium
soil drainage / infiltration, soils with high fertility are used for cultivation
·· Slope: 0-8 %
Case study area
·· Landform: plateau / plains and valley floors
Pretoria ·· Altitude: 500 - 1000 m a.s.l.
Johannesburg
Socio-economic conditions
Kimberley ·· S  ize of land per household: 100-500 ha
·· Type of land user: mainly large-scale commercial livestock farmers
Bloemfontein
Durban (large areas allow for many grazing paddocks)
·· Population density: < 10 – 200 persons/km2
·· Land ownership: mainly individual not titled or partly communal village
Cape Town East London ­ownership
Port Elizabeth ·· Land use rights: mainly individual, partly communal organised
·· Level of mechanisation: mechanised
·· Market orientation: commercial
Establishment inputs and costs per 500 ha
Inputs Costs (US$) Production / economic benefits
+++ Increased fodder production (in available dry-material)
Labour: 85 person-days 6,080
+++ Increased water availability / quality for livestock (through improved
Equipment / tools: specify 1,160 ­livestock watering systems)
Agricultural Inputs: specify – ++ Increased animal production (due to increased and better fodder)
++ Reduced risk of production failure
Construction material: specify 45,173
++ Increased farm income
TOTAL 52,413
++ Increased production area (due to better drinking water availability)
% of costs borne by land users 100%
Ecological benefits
++ Increased soil moisture and reduced surface runoff
Maintenance inputs and costs per 500 ha per year ++ Reduced evaporation (through better plant cover)
Inputs Costs (US$) ++ Reduced hazards towards adverse events (floods, droughts, etc.)
Labour: 32 person-days 3,173 ++ Improved soil cover
++ Increased biomass / above ground carbon
Equipment / tools: specify –
++ Increased plant diversity and increased / maintained habitat diversity
Agricultural inputs: specify –
Socio-cultural benefits
Construction material: specify 10,213
+++ Improved food security / self-sufficiency
TOTAL 13,386
Off-site benefits
% of costs borne by land users 100%
+ Reduced groundwater and river pollution
Remarks: Estimated establishment time for a + Increased water availability (groundwater, spring)
500 ha farm with 8 paddocks more or less 6
months. The establishment and maintenance Weaknesses ➜ and how to overcome
costs depend on farm size and the details of the ·· C ost of construction or initial implementation ➜ convince farmers to see it
farm plan / design of the paddock system as a long term investment to ensure sustainable production.
including variables such as number of pad- ·· Veld fires damage fences and drinking troughs ➜ prevent accidental veld
docks, number of stock watering points, number fires by making fire bunds at the start of the dry season.
of boreholes, etc. Above mentioned costs are
merely an indication for a typical livestock farm Adoption
of 500 ha. Since 1994 rotational grazing is no longer subsidised by the government (sub-
sidies restricted to small-scale communal and subsistence farmers). There is a
moderate trend in adoption of the technology. Farmers realise the importance
Benefit-cost ratio
of vegetation management in sustainable livestock production, in view of the
Inputs short term long term increasing pressure on grazing land and the risks of drought and climate
Establishment very negative positive change.
Maintenance slightly negative positive

Remarks: Establishment costs are very high

and discourage many farmers from using a
multi-paddock grazing system.

Main contributors: Lehman Lindeque, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, South Africa; [email protected]
Key references: Tainton N.M. 1988. Veld and Pasture Management in South Africa. Shuter & Shooter, Pietermaritzburg in association with University of Natal Press, Pietermaritz-
burg. n Department of Agriculture and Water Supply. 1989. Veld management in the Eastern Cape. Government Printer, Pretoria

SLM Technology: Rotational Grazing - South Africa 169

8_Pastoralism_Rangeland.indd 169 20.01.11 14:45

 S u s ta i n a b l e p l a n t e d f o r e s t m a n a g e m e n t

Protective pine plantations on degraded slopes and in gullies, Tanzania. (Hanspeter Liniger)

In a nutshell Development issues addressed

Preventing / reversing land degradation +++

Definition: Planted forests, or ‘plantations’, comprise trees established through
planting seedlings and / or through direct seeding. Species may be native or intro- Maintaining and improving food security +
duced. Establishment may be on previously forested land or land that was not for- Reducing rural poverty +
est before. The purpose of planted forests can be either (1) commercial; or (2) for Creating rural employment ++
environmental / protective use; or (3) for rehabilitation of degraded areas. It may
Supporting gender equity / marginalised groups +
be a combination of more than one of these. The challenge is to develop planted
forests that are financially viable as well as ecologically sustainable. The applica- Improving crop production na
bility and sustainability of planted forests depends on what they replace and how Improving fodder production +
they are managed and harvested. Planted forests cannot act as a substitute for
Improving wood / fibre production +++
natural forests, they should rather complement and mutually reinforce the envi-
Improving non wood forest production +
ronmental and production services of the latter. In developing countries seventy
percent of people depend on trees and forests as their major source of fuelwood. Preserving biodiversity +
Due to declining supplies, planted forests are an increasingly important source of Improving soil resources (OM, nutrients) +
fuelwood and other forest products. Proper sustained management of planted for-
Improving of water resources +/-
ests is the only way to avoid shortages of wood and further deforestation of natural
forests - planted forests lessen the need to log natural forests. However, there are Improving water productivity +
very controversial opinions about the sustainability of planted forests, especially Natural disaster prevention / mitigation ++
related to industrial large-scale monoculture plantations. On-going debate con- Climate change mitigation / adaptation ++
cerns whether planted forests constitute the best answer to the growing demand
for wood, and whether they are an efficient way of ‘carbon-offsetting’. In some Climate change mitigation
situations planted forests can be excellent to rehabilitate degraded land, leading to Potential for C sequestration
improvements of the environment, whereas a similar plantation can have negative (tonnes/ha/year) 1.2 – 2*
impacts elsewhere. A further key aspect is whether the mature trees are harvested, C Sequestration: above ground +++
and if so, whether the stand is replanted (or left to coppice) or abandoned. It is at
C Sequestration: below ground ++
establishment and harvesting when most environmental damage can be done.
Environmental guidelines need to be adhered to, or developed where inexistent. Climate change adaptation
Applicability: Planted forests with fast-growing species should only be estab-
Resilience to extreme dry conditions +
lished in areas with no water constraints.
Resilience to climate variability: Even small areas of planted forests (given Resilience to variable rainfall ++
the warning about water consumption above) can positively influence the micro- Resilience to extreme rain and wind storms ++
climate, which can enhance the resilience to climate variability.
Resilience to rising temperatures and ++
Main benefits: Rehabilitation of degraded areas (e.g. eroded or overgrazed
evaporation rates
areas), increased availability of wood products, fuelwood, and some non-wood
Reducing risk of production failure +
forest products. They can lead to employment and income generation. There is
reduced pressure on natural forests; planted forests are carbon sinks (unless they *for the first 20-30 years of afforestation in drylands, depending on
replace natural forests), especially on marginal agricultural land and degraded the selected tree species (FAO, 2004 and GTZ, 2009)
soils – and only if replanted / left to coppice after use.
Adoption and upscaling: Delineation of clear resource rights with respect to
planted forests is essential. Research is important for scientifically based infor-
mation about appropriate management, species compositions and the impact
on the ecosystem. Capacity building and training should be provided to all stake-
holders. Incentives may be needed for the establishment of planted forests,
especially for the rehabilitation of degraded areas.

170 SLM in Practice

9_Planted_Forests.indd 170 20.01.11 14:57

 Origin and spread in Africa
Origin: Large-scale plantation of exotic tree species in Africa originated dur-
ing the colonial period with foreign investments and regulated by governments.
Nowadays, there is a shift from previously government controlled management
towards increased involvement of the private sector and small-scale producers.
Since the 1960s, the emphasis has been maintained on fast-growing species pri-
marily grown for supplying industrial wood (pulp and paper industry, fuelwood). In
2000, the total plantation area in Africa was 8,036,000 ha of which 42% are com-
> 10% planted forests
mercial-industrial plantations. Planted forests represent, only a very small fraction of total forest area
of the total forest cover in SSA (between 0.3% - 2.3% of the total). 2-10% planted forests
Mainly in (more than 10% planted forests of total forest area): Burundi, Cape of total forest area
Verde, Lesotho, Malawi, Rwanda, Swaziland, South Africa.
Partly in (between 2-10% planted forests of total forest area): Benin, Ivory Coast, Spread of planted forests in SSA.
Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Mali, Madagascar, Nigeria, Sudan, Senegal, Togo.
Plantation forestry is negligible in countries with large tracts of natural forests.

Principles and types

Technical aspects of sustainable planted forest management:
– Sustaining soil fertility: confining harvesting of forest products to stem wood,
use of soil conservation measures, and application of fertilizer, etc.
– Proper harvesting planning, e.g. careful re-use of extraction routes.
– Selection of species: diversity of trees enhances resilience to pests and dis-
eases and to climate variability / change.
– Natural corridors to enhance biodiversity especially of industrial plantations.
– Fire breaks to limit the extent of fires, often combined with access roads.
Planted forests vary from strictly protected conservation forests to highly produc-
tive, short rotation plantations. In this continuum the boundary between different
categories is often indistinct.
Plantations for industrial purposes are mainly ‘fast-wood’ plantations, and
are intensively commercially managed. They are usually blocks of single species
producing round wood at high growth rates - often initiated with government
support or through corporate investment projects. They may also have an envi-
ronmental protection rationale. To be sustainable, industrial plantations should
provide fair job opportunities, consider the environmental aspects of monocul-
ture plantations, not be established on productive agricultural land nor replace
natural forests. Commercial industrial plantations may also focus on the produc-
tion of non-wood forest products (NWFP) such as gum arabic. There is a recent
trend towards plantations to lock up carbon in ‘carbon-offsetting schemes’. One
risk is of farm land being taken out of production for this.
Out-grower schemes bring in private landowners (individuals / communities) into
wood production. Forest companies are guaranteed a steady supply without being
involved in land acquisition, whereas out-growers profit from employment opportu-
nities and income. Out-grower schemes have potential to contribute to rural wealth
creation, resulting in smaller and diverse production units.
Plantations for energy production form a main source of fuelwood in SSA.
Most of these fuelwood plantations are within the public sector and the main-
tenance is often relatively neglected. For sustainable management clear land
resource use rights must be given to land users.
Environmental / protective plantations have the purpose of protection and
provision of environmental stabilisation. They can decrease soil erosion, stabilise
slopes, fix sand dunes, serve as windbreaks, etc. Usually they are initiated with
government support or project funding. Environmental plantations are gaining
more importance with the increasing awareness of desertification.
Farm / home plantations and woodlots can provide a substantial amount of
fuelwood and timber. Trees may be within an agroforestry system, homestead
gardens or woodlots. Woodlands around small-scale farms can protect against
shortages of fuelwood and construction poles, can be used for fodder produc- Top: Watering nursery seedlings for desertification control,
­Senegal. (Lyes Ferouki)
tion or for NWFPs, and have the potential to produce industrial wood.
Middle: Eucalyptus plantation for timber and fuelwood
Wood is the most important energy source in SSA, and the pressure on wood ­production, Ethiopia. (Hanspeter Liniger)
resources rises. Therefore farm plantations should be encouraged and alternative Bottom: Environmental protective plantations on steep slopes,
renewable energy resources (wind, solar) and energy-saving stoves promoted. Eritrea. (Mats Gurtner)

SLM Group: Sustainable Planted Forest Management 171

9_Planted_Forests.indd 171 20.01.11 14:57

 S U S TA I N A B L E P L A N T E D F O R E S T M A N A G E M E N T
Applicability Land degradation

Erosion by water High

Land degradation and causes addressed
Erosion by wind Moderate
Biological degradation: loss of biodiversity in monocultures
Chemical degradation Low
Physical soil deterioration: little soil cover and undergrowth can lead to sealing
Physical degradation Insignificant
and crusting
Chemical soil deterioration: loss of soil nutrients due to short rotations of Biological degradation
industrial plantations Water degradation
Soil erosion: especially in fast growing and high rotation industrial plantations
with insufficient soil cover, and during establishment and harvesting phases
Planted forests can rehabilitate badly degraded land, helping to restore protec-
Land use
tive and environmental functions.
Planted forests which are under government tenure are very often poorly man- Cropland
aged and financially not viable, leading to illegal logging and fires. Grazing land
Forests / woodlands
Land use
Mixed land use
Mainly forest and mixed land.
Other
The species planted vary in different regions; overall, conifers account for 52
percent, broadleaves for 37 percent, and unspecified for 11 percent. In order of
importance the main coniferous genera by area are Pinus, Cunninghamia, Picea,
Larix and Cryptomeria whilst the main broadleaf genera are Eucalyptus, Acacia, Climate Average rainfall (mm)
Tectona, and Populus species.
The majority of the trees are exotics with emphasis on short rotation plantations, Humid > 3000
only little emphasis on growing valuable indigenous trees due to slow growth rate Subhumid 2000-3000
and low economic return. Semi-arid 1500-2000
Arid 1000-1500
Ecological conditions 750-1000
Climate: Humid zones emphasis on high value industrial plantations. Planta-
500-750
tions used for commercial purposes are not suitable for water scarce areas due
250-500
to restricted water availability for fast growing tree species and their ability to
deplete already dry soils. In the dry zone (e.g. Sahelian region) planted forests are < 250
mainly for fuelwood production and for providing improved environmental condi-
tions (e.g. sand dune stabilisation, windbreaks, etc.).
Terrain and landscape: There are terrain restrictions for planted forests related Slopes (%) very steep (>60)
to very steep slopes and respecting riparian buffer zones. steep (30-60)
Soils: No restrictions. hilly (16-30)
rolling (8-16)
Socio-economic conditions moderate (5-8)
Farming system and level of mechanisation: Commercial fuelwood and envi-
gentle (2-5)
ronmental plantations are often owned and managed by the public sector: little
flat (0-2)
mechanisation is involved. Large-scale industrial plantations are usually man-
aged with a high degree of mechanisation – especially for harvesting. Farm plan-
tations can be found in highly populated areas where not enough fuelwood from
public forests is available. Farm size Land ownership
Market orientation: Very large-scale commercial industrial plantations; planta-
Small scale State
tions providing fuelwood and timber for subsistence and some commercial use;
Medium scale Company
small-scale farm plantations for subsistence and some commercial use.
Land ownership and land use / water rights: Plantations are mainly owned by Large scale Community
governments, partly by large industrial corporations and some by individual farm- Individual, not titled
ers. Industrial plantations in SSA are more than 50% publicly owned and about Individual, titled
34% privately owned. Non-industrial plantations are 62% publicly owned and 9%
privately owned, and 29% are unspecified. In South Africa plantations are mainly
owned by companies and small growers. Mechanisation Market orientation
Skill / knowledge requirements: Theoretically a very high level of knowledge
Manual labour Subsistence
about the impacts of planted forests on the ecosystem is required.
Labour requirements: The establishment and the harvesting of large-scale Animal traction Mixed
plantations can be very labour demanding. Maintenance of farm plantations do Mechanised Commercial
not need much labour input.

Required labour Required know-how

High High
Medium Medium
Low Low

172 SLM in Practice

9_Planted_Forests.indd 172 21.07.11 12:21

 Economics Example: Industrial wood production
by small farmers in the central highlands
Establishment and maintenance costs of Kenya
Establishment costs: The establishment of a new forest usually implies very Economic analyses of cropping and tree enter-
high initial investments, especially if established on a large-scale. prises have been carried out in some loca-
The extra investments for a management change from an ‘old’ planted forest tions in the central highlands of Kenya. The
system to ‘sustainable management’ does not involve very high ‘establishment’ average gross margin from trees per farm per
costs. Those are mainly related to the development of a management plan, year was Kshs 57,808 (US$ 734). This figure
resource rights, regulations, etc. includes the contribution of coffee and tea,
Seedling production: 500 US$/ha which was 65% of the total. Fruits contribute
Land preparation, planting: ≈ 1,500 US$/ha 28%, while timber and firewood contribute
Maintenance costs: Tending, maintenance, pest and fire control: 600 US$/ha 8%. For 70-80% of the households the trees
grown on farms function also as major sources
Comment: It is very difficult to provide figures to the costs of planted forests. of fuelwood. The remainder obtain their supply
There are large differences by the type of planted forests, by initial conditions and of firewood from neighbours or nearby forests.
by country. Following a temporary ban in 1999 on the sale
of timber from government-owned forest plan-
Production benefits tations and natural forests, there has been
Tree Rotation length Productivity an increase in the sale of timber from farms,
(year) (m3/ha/year) and some farmers have formed associations
Eucalyptus to facilitate the marketing of timber. Accurate
Congo 7 30 information on the profitability of this new tim-
Rwanda 8 8.5 ber enterprise is not available. However, the
South Africa 8-10 18-20 farmers also face many problems like lack of
Pines knowledge about tree management and mar-
Malawi 20-25 17 ket, permits needed for the felling and trans-
Madagascar 15-18 6-10
port, etc. (Chamshama and Nwonwu, 2004).
Mozambique 18-28 11

(Source: FAO, 2001) Example: South Africa

Small-scale out-grower schemes in South
Comment: The figures above show the rotation length and the productivity of Africa represent an investment of more than
different commonly used tree species in planted forests. R 50 million (US$ 7 million), which should gen-
erate revenues of about R 175 million (US$
Benefit-Cost ratio 24 million) for growers when the plantations
Planted forests short term long term quantitative are harvested. The small timber growers sup-
(by purpose) plement their livelihoods with growing of food
Industrial Benefit-cost ratio at 10% crops on the periphery of their woodlots. They
discount ratio, Ghana: make good profits and many have extended
– ++ Teak: 4.9 (<10 ha) their operations from a single woodlot to three
Cedrela: 3.5 (<10 ha) or four. Furthermore, the local community
Pine: 1.8 (<10ha)
benefits from increased participation in the
Energy production –– + monetary market and from job opportunities
Environmental –– – /+ created by the contracting by the companies
of support services for planting, maintenance,
Farm plantations – ++
harvesting and transportation. Small growers
– – negative; – slightly negative; –/+ neutral; + slightly positive; ++ positive; +++ very positive and rural communities also benefit from train-
(Source: FAO, 2002) ing programmes offered by the forest com-
panies (Chamshama and Nwonwu, 2004).
Comment: Generally there is very limited data available related to the benefit-
cost ratio of planted forests. However, the internal rate of return achievable with
well-managed planted forests ranges between 5 and 20% depending on soil fer-
tility, topography, species choice, growth performance, incidence of pests and
fire and market prices for timber.
Efficiency in plantation management and success in achieving sustainable wood
supply depends mainly on whether a plantation is publically or privately owned,
and how it is managed. It is important here to distinguish between financially
well managed plantations and sustainably managed. Usually, privately owned,
forest plantations are well managed in financial terms - being aimed at profit
maximisation. In Southern Africa it has been demonstrated that privately owned
plantations can be profitable due to the integration of the plantation with wood
processing companies. Many public sector plantations are poorly managed in
financial terms being not profit oriented; however, often they have environmental
and social benefits as objectives, which are not quantifiable.

SLM Group: Sustainable Planted Forest Management 173

9_Planted_Forests.indd 173 20.01.11 14:57

 S u s ta i n a b l e p l a n t e d f o r e s t m a n a g e m e n t
Impacts
Benefits Land users / community level Watershed / landscape level National / global level
Production +++ increased availability of fuelwood +++ reduced risk and loss of + improved food and water
+ diversification of production production security
+ increased availability of NWFP +++ decreased pressure on natural
forests
+ improved access to clean
drinking water
Economic + job creation (depending on the previous land use) +++ less damage to off-site +++ improve livelihood and human
+ increased and diversified household income of small- infrastructure well-being
scale land users (through farm plantations) ++ stimulation of economic growth
++ diversification and rural
employment creation
Ecological ++ improved soil cover +++ reduced degradation and ++ reduced land degradation and
++ regulation of micro- and meso-climate sedimentation desertification incidence and
++ rehabilitation of degraded areas and restoring produc- + intact ecosystem intensity
tive and environmental functions (e.g. due to over- ++ increased resilience to climate
grazing) change
++ prevent soil erosion ++ carbon sequestration (when ­
++ used as windbreaks, shelterbelts, etc. applied on degraded land / soil)
++ reduced pressure on farm manure
++ stabilisation of slopes, riverbanks, etc.
++ less nutrient mining than cropland
+ increased biodiversity
+ regulation of ground water (e.g. salinity)
+ increased soil organic matter and soil fertility

Socio-cultural +/- can help to preserve the social and cultural + increased awareness for
values attached to forests environmental ‘health’
+ community institution strengthening

Constraints How to overcome

Production l Large-scale plantations are often monocultures ➜m
 ixed plantations, with intercropping, use of natural corridors to
enhance biodiversity, etc.

Economic l 
Lack of markets and access to markets ➜furthering the establishment of market and value chain
l Establishment of plantations can be expensive and often rely on ➜credit schemes for small-scale land users to establish farm
donor funding plantations
l Long time period between planting and harvesting of trees with ➜providing of credits from timber companies
no or only limited income (especially a problem in out-grower
schemes)
l Availability of fertilizers (e.g. phosphorous)
l Availability of land and competition with other land use (e.g. ➜ s upport for small woodlots and farm plantations and regulations for
demand for cropland and grazing land) and land grab for establish- new plantations, assessment of the economic, environmental and
ment of industrial plantations for wood or NWFP can lead to a loss social sustainability of new forests, ensure land use rights for small-
of agricultural land affecting small-scale land users with no clear scale users and promotion of out-grower schemes
land tenure
l Can increase pressure on natural forests by replacing tree diversity
with monocultures that flood the market with cheap / fast growing
wood.

Ecological l E xotic tree species can spread at the expense of native forests, ➜ appropriate selection of species
affecting the entire ecosystem
l Water need: fast growing species can have a very high demand of ➜ considering the demand for water of the selected species, take into
water and can have an irreversible negative impact especially in account sensitive and water scarce areas
water scarce areas
l Plantations can have high water use leading to lower streamflows, ➜ watershed management planning, considering off-site effects of
etc. and strongly influence the hydrological system of an area plantations
l Water competition with crops e.g. eucalyptus trees and limited ➜ select less competitive tree species (e.g. Grevilla robusta) with a
availability of water in dry areas reduced water demand and high water use efficiency, manage trees
by pruning

l 
Susceptibility of planted forests to pest and diseases especially in ➜ diversification of species can remarkably reduce the risk to pest and
plantations diseases, maintaining optimum stocking levels
l Monoculture plantations can damage the ecosystem

Socio-cultural l L ack of know-how in management, species composition, improper ➜ needs good training and education in the proper management of
establishment, etc. planted forests

174 SLM in Practice

9_Planted_Forests.indd 174 20.01.11 14:57

 Adoption and upscaling Enabling environment: key factors for adoption
Inputs, material incentives, credits +
Adoption rate
There is an increase in the area of planted forests in SSA, the annual rate of plant- Training and education ++
ing in Africa is estimated to be about 194,000 ha. However, the adoption rate for Land tenure, secure land use rights +++
sustainable management of planted forests is not known and is rather difficult to
Access to markets ++
assess, since a clear delineation of what is sustainable and what is not, is very
difficult. The out-grower scheme has been adopted with great success in South- Research +
ern Africa (especially South Africa, Swaziland and Zimbabwe).
Example: Ethiopia
Upscaling The Government of Ethiopia has initiated
Policy framework: Forest management must be integrated into a coordinated collaborative plantation management pro-
national framework with a clear forest policy. The forestry sector needs to be grammes to address growing problems of
strengthened, and formulation and implementation of national and sub-national illegal logging and forest encroachment by
sustainable forest policies and programmes are necessary. involving local communities. The govern-
Land tenure: Publicly owned and managed plantations tend to display low pro- ment expects cooperation by allocating
ductivity. Public bodies should seek the involvement of the private sector (small- communities rights to establish and man-
holders, communities, companies, etc.) to support and encourage the efficient age plantations for certain periods and
financial management of planted forests. by guaranteeing them a share in the prof-
Capacity building: Capacity building and good training in sustainable manage- its from the timber. The guaranteed equal
ment of planted forests is needed for all stakeholders involved (e.g. smallholders, and fair profit-sharing agreements between
communities and forests services, commercial users). state and community groups have attracted
Research: More research is required about the impacts of planted forests on many smallholders to tree planting and can
water resources (decreasing or increasing water availability) and on biodiversity, help strengthen the communities’ commit-
for a better understanding of the behaviour of different tree species, etc. Knowl- ment to sustainable forest management.
edge and expertise should be enhanced - related also to suitable indicators for Since the 1990s the government has increas-
monitoring planted forest resources. ingly granted community management rights
Timber market: (1) Small-scale land users and communities need to be empow- favouring more community involvement in
ered by improving their access to markets and market information; (2) Certifica- forest management, including planted for-
tion of planted forests provides an opportunity but needs clear regulations and ests, leading to some plantations allocated
standards for declaration of the source of wood, and also considers social and to communities. New regional land admin-
ecological aspects. (3) Promotion of the out-grower scheme, as a successful way istration policies allow issue of landowner-
for private landowners to participate in wood production. ship certificates to landholders, and owners
Farm plantations: The establishment of farm plantations should be further pro- have the right to lease their plots to others for
moted and supported through an enabling policy framework and financial incentive up to 25 years; however, land still cannot be
packages for private investors. Farm plantations can strengthen the economic situ- ­officially bought or sold (Nawir et al., 2007).
ation of land users as well as reduce the pressure on natural forests.

Incentives for adoption

Incentives for the establishment of new planted forests are very often needed due
to the long period before economic benefit is gained. However, only those affor-
estation projects which are known to be ecologically and socially viable should
be financially supported. Incentives for private tree planting and the establish-
ment of farm plantations should be created, since they can provide fuelwood
and other woody products and decrease the pressure on natural forests. For the
creation of new large-scale planted forests, e.g. for rehabilitation of degraded
areas, investments either from donors or from the government / public sector are
needed, and the involvement of local communities should be guaranteed.

References and supporting information:

Arborvitae. 2006. Forest plantations: the good, the bad and the ugly. The IUCN/WWF Forest Conservation Newsletter. September 2006. Vol.31.
Chamshama, S.A.O. and F.O.C. Nwonwu. 2004. Forests Plantations in Sub-Saharan Africa – A short report prepared for the project ‘Lessons Learnt on Sustainable Forest
Management in Africa.
Chamshama S.A.O., F.O.C. Nwonwu, B. Lundgren and G.S. Kowero. 2009. Plantation Forestry in Sub Saharan Africa: Silvicultural, Ecological and Economic Aspects. Discov.
Innov., 2009; 21 (SFM Special Edition No. 1)
CIFOR. 1998. Centre for International Forestry Research. CIFOR Annual Report 1998. http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/publications/Html/AR-98/Plantation.html, accessed on 17
November 2009.
Cossalter, C. and C. Pye-Smith. 2003. Fast-wood forestry: Myths and realities. CIFOR, Jarkata, Indonesia. 50 p.
Ekisa G.T. 2009. Community Participation in Afforestation and Agroforestry Programmes in Kenya: The influence of biophysical environmental in the case of Teso District.
FAO, 2001. Mean annual volume increment of selected industrial forest plantation species. Luis Ugalde and Osvaldo Pérez. Working Paper FP/1, FAO Rome (Italy)
FAO. 2002. Hardwood plantations in Ghana. F. Odoom. June 2002. Working Papert FP/24.
FAO. 2003. Forestry Outlook Study for Africa – Subregional Report West Africa. African Development Bank, European Commission.
FAO. 2003. Forestry Outlook Study for Africa. African Development Bank, European Commission.
FAO. 2004. Carbon sequestration in dryland soils. World Soil Resources Reports, No. 102, Rome, Italy.
FAO. 2006. Responsible management of planted forests: voluntary guidelines. Planted Forests and Trees Working Paper FP37E, Rome, Italy
FAO. 2006. Global planted forests thematic study: results and analysis, by A. Del Lungo, J. Ball and J. Carle. Planted Forests and Trees Working Paper 38. Rome.
FAO. 2009. Planted Forests. http://www.fao.org/forestry/plantedforests/en/ accessed on 22 September 2009.
FAO. 2010. Forestry Photos. http://www.fao.org/mediabase/forestry/, accessed on 6 June 2010.
GTZ. 2009. Running dry? Climate change in drylands and how to cope with it. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), GmbH. Oekom Verlag, München
Kanowsky P. and H. Murray, 2008. Intensively Managed Planted Forests – Toward best practice. Summary and Recommendations from TFD’s IMPF Initiative June 2005 –
June 2008. The Forests Dialogue. TFD Publication Number 1 2008.
Nawir, A.A., H. Kassa, M. Sandewall, D. Dore, B. Campbell, B. Ohlsson and M. Bekele. 2007. Stimulating smallholder tree planting – lessons from Africa and Asia, Unasylva
228, Vol. 58.

SLM Group: Sustainable Planted Forest Management 175

9_Planted_Forests.indd 175 20.01.11 14:57

 Case study
Sustainable planted forest management

C a s u a r i n a T r e e B e lt f o r S a n d D u n e F i x at i o n - S e n e g a l
The bande de filao, a 200 m wide belt of Casuarina equisetifolia trees, was SLM measure Vegetative
established along the Senegalese coast from Dakar to St.Louis, to protect the SLM group Sustainable Planted Forests
adjacent Niayes region from wandering sand dunes. The Niayes, a territory ­Management
of 5-30 km width covering a surface of 4,200 km2, is known for its favoura- Land use type Forest (afforestation); Off-site land
ble conditions for vegetable production. However, droughts, deforestation and use: annual crops (vegetables) and
overgrazing have caused gradual desertification and loss of stabilising veg- fishery
etation cover on sand dunes. The dunes began to advance at a rate of up to Degradation Biological degradation: reduction of
10-12 m per year and threatened villages and production areas. addressed vegetation cover; Erosion by wind:
The establishment of the tree belt started in the 1970s and continued until the loss of topsoil: uniform displace-
ment, off-site degradation
late 1990s. The exotic nitrogen-fixing Casuarina equisetifolia was found to per-
fectly fit into the harsh ecological environment with its poor sandy soils, strong Stage of intervention Prevention and rehabilitation
winds, shifting sand and proximity to the sea. Seedlings were raised in nurser- Tolerance to climate Increased tolerance towards
ies, then planted on a 2.5 x 2.5 m grid – protected by palisades and irrigated change drought, floods, storms
at the initial stage. The filao belt covers an area of about 9,700 ha and effec-
tively halts wind erosion and movement of sand dunes, resulting in multiple Establishment activities
positive impacts on the environment and the 120,000 people living in the area: 1. Initial protection with palisades (1 m high;
it provides protection of villages, allowing vegetable production in inter-dunal 70 m from the coast; 1 year before plant-
depressions, and last but not least - builds up resources of wood. Without the ing).
tree belt, life in the Niayes would not be possible. Furthermore, wind speed 2. Establish 0.5 m high palisades at a spac-
was reduced also on the sea side, making inshore fishery possible during the ing of 10 - 20 m (depending on dune
whole year (before it was limited to 3 months). slope) perpendicular to wind direction;
The big challenge is to gradually replace the stands of Casuarina trees that made of Guiera senegalensis on poles of
have reached senescence (after approx. 30 years). A management plan has ­Euphorbia balsamifera (before planting,
been developed to assure the continuity of this important protective system. November-June).
3. Enclosure: wire fence protects young
plants from roaming animals.
4. Excavation of wells for watering of seed-
lings in nurseries and initial irrigation of the
planted seedlings.
5. Production of seedlings in tree nurseries
(January-February).
6. Plantations of seedling on a 2.5 x 2.5 m
grid (1,600 plants/ha).
7. Guarding the plantation site (for protection
of seedlings).
Maintenance / recurrent activities
1. Watering filaos during first year.
2. Guarding the plantation.
3. After 25-30 years replace the whole stand
with new seedlings.

Labour requirements
For establishment: high
For maintenance: low (maintenance is needed
only in 1st year after establish­ment; if high
inputs for replacing the whole stand after
25-30 years are taken into account, overall
maintenance is medium)
Knowledge requirements
For advisors: medium
For land users: high

Photo 1–2: Tree plantation in Lompoul. (Julie Zähringer)

Photo 3: Casusarina seedlings ready for planting (front),
establishment of palisades to protect planted seedlings (mid-
dle), and a Casuarina plantation aged seven years (in the
background). (Mailly et al. 1994)
Photo 4: Areal view: the tree belt protects not only the settle-
ments and vegetable production areas in the south-west, but
also the inshore area of the Atlantic ocean, making fishery
possible all year round. (Google)

176 SLM in Practice

9_Planted_Forests.indd 176 20.01.11 14:57

 Case study area: Lompoul, Niayes, Ecological conditions
Senegal ·· C limate: semi-arid
·· Average annual rainfall: 250-300 mm
·· Soil parameters: low soil fertility, low organic matter content (< 1%); sandy
texture, good infiltration and drainage, low storage capacity
·· Slope: no data
Saint-Louis ·· Landform: sand dunes (slopes and interdunal depressions)
Case study area ·· Altitude: < 100 m a.s.l.
Dakar
Thiès Socio-economic conditions
·· S ize of land per household: no data
Kaolack Tambacounda ·· Type of land user: poor medium-scale land users; technology is imple-
mented in groups / by community
·· Population density: 65 persons/km2
Ziguinchor ·· Land ownership: state / individual (not titled)
·· Land use rights: communal (organised)
·· Level of mechanisation: manual labour / animal traction / mechanised
·· Market orientation: mainly subsistence (forest land)

Establishment inputs and costs per ha Production / economic benefits

Inputs Costs (US$) +++ Increased wood production
+++ Increased production of litter used as mulch and for composting by
Labour no data
­vegetable farmers or by fishermen to smoke fish
Equipment no data
Ecological benefits
Agricultural inputs: 1600 seedlings 225 +++ Reduced wind velocity
TOTAL no data +++ Reduced soil loss
% of costs borne by land users 0% +++ Increased biomass
++ Increased soil organic matter / below ground carbon
++ Reduced hazard towards adverse events (drought, floods, storms)
Maintenance inputs and costs per ha per year
++ Increased soil cover (with litter)
Inputs Costs (US$) ++ Improved carbon storage
Labour; Equipment; Agricultural inputs; no data
Socio-cultural benefits
TOTAL no data ++ Increased recreational opportunities
Remarks: Costs for establishment are high. All ++ Community institution strengthening
inputs were fully subsidised. Implementing Off-site benefits
agency was governmental ‘Service des Eaux et +++ Reduced wind transported sediments
Forêts’ with funding from ACDI and USAID. +++ Sand dune stabilisation
Reestablishment starts after 25-30 years when +++ Improved vegetation cover
trees reach senescence. +++ Making establishment of settlement possible in the region
+++ Making horticulture possible in the region
Benefit-cost ratio +++ Making fishery possible all year round and therefore creating an additional
Inputs short term long term income source
+++ Reduced damage on public / private infrastructure
Establishment slightly positive very positive
+++ Reduced damage on neighbours fields
Maintenance slightly positive very positive
Remark: The technology focuses on off-site benefits!
Remarks: Land users emphasise that without
the technology they would not be able to live in Weaknesses ➜ and how to overcome
this area. ·· H igh establishment costs for large scale plantations.
·· Casuarina equisetifolia trees reach senescence after 30-50 years and do not
Adoption regenerate naturally ➜ plantation activities need to be taken up again; In the
The Casuarina tree was established along the hinterland reforestation with local Cocos should be tried.
littoral between St. Louis and Dakar, covering ·· Increased demand for irrigation water.
an area of 97 km2. Project support included ·· Making all year round fishery possible and therefore loosing labour force for
provision of tree seedlings, technical assistance vegetable cultivation.
and rewarding labour. High establishment costs ·· Increased amount of plastic waste (due to attraction of tourists).
make a spontaneous spread of the technology
difficult.

Main contributors: Julie Zähringer, Master Student, Centre for Development and Environment, Bern, Switzerland; [email protected]; Déthié Soumaré Ndiaye; CSE, Dakar,
Senegal; [email protected]
Key references: Mailly, D., Ndiaye, P., Margolis, H. A., & Pineau, M. (1994). Fixation des dunes et reboisement avec le filao (Casuarina equisetifolia) dans la zone du littoral nord du
Sénégal. The Forestry Chronicle, 70(3); Julie Zähringer, [email protected] / Déthié Soumare Ndiaye, [email protected]

SLM Technology: Casuarina Tree Belt for Sand Dune Fixation - Senegal 177

9_Planted_Forests.indd 177 20.01.11 14:57

 Case study
Sustainable planted forest management

A f f o r e s tat i o n a n d H i l l s i d e T e r r a c i n g - E r i t r e a
Tree plantations in combination with hillside terracing to protect upper catch- SLM measure Vegetative and structural
ment areas are a widespread technology in the Central and Northern Highland SLM group Sustainable Planted Forest
Zone of Eritrea. In the early 1990s a large area was treated in the Toker catch- ­Management
ment, northwest of Asmara. The first step was to establish hillside terraces on Land use type Plantations, afforestation
the steeper slopes where it is essential to conserve soil and water for improved
Degradation Surface and gully erosion; Decline
growth of trees and other vegetation. The terraces comprise earthen embank- addressed of vegetation cover, diversity and
ments laid out along the contour, reinforced with stone risers, combined with a biomass; Loss of surface water;
trench on the upper side to harvest runoff water. The trenches are subdivided Lowering of ground water level
into basins (by ties) to avoid lateral flow of runoff water. In a second step, trees Stage of intervention Rehabilitation
were planted at a spacing of 2 m (in the trenches).
Tolerance to climate Sensitive to climatic extremes (e.g.
Mostly fast growing eucalyptus was used, with a very small percentage of the change rainfall decrease, especially in case
indigenous African olive (Olea africana) - which has good survival rates but of monocultures)
grows very slowly. Afforested areas are closed for any use until the trees reach
maturity: they are protected by guards. In 1995, the Ministry of Agriculture Establishment activities
handed over user rights to communities allowing cut-and-carry of grass and 1. Mark contour lines using a line level. Spac-
cutting of trees (with permission of the government). ing between terraces depends on slope,
The technology requires appreciable expense, labor and expertise, but if main- vegetation status, soil depth. In the case
tained well, it results in multiple ecological and economic benefits: Soil cover has study area horizontal spacing between ter-
improved, water is conserved, the severe problems of soil erosion have been races is 2.5 m.
reduced, and dams further downstream are protected from siltation. Trees have 2. Terraces are built (inward-sloping) by dig-
become an important source of income for the rural communities, wood is a ging out trenches (0.5 m deep) and piling
valuable resource mainly needed for construction, and also as fuel. up risers (minimum 0.75 m high). Risers
Since the 1960s, several afforestation campaigns have been initiated by the should be reinforced with stones (where
government, mainly using food-for-work or cash-for-work approaches as available).
incentives. Nowadays, local tree planting initiatives (on community or individual 3. The trenches are separated into basins by
level) without external support are dominant. ties at an interval of 2-5 m to avoid even-
tual lateral movement of water.
4. Dig planting pits (0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 m), at 2 m
intervals, in the trenches.
5. Plant tree seedlings (mainly eucalypts,
some African olives); fill pit with top soil
(optional: mix with 1 spade of manure).
6. Spot weeding and softening soil around
the pits to improve percolation of water
and soil aeration (during rainy season).
7. Supplementary irrigation during dry spells
(using jerry / watering cans).
8. Prohibit open grazing. Area closure is done
collectively.
All activities are carried out manually.
Maintenance / recurrent activities
1. Maintenance of structures (before onset of
rainy season).
2. Replacement of missing plants at onset
of rains (10% replacement of seedlings is
expected in the 1st year).
3. Spot weeding and softening soil.
4. Supplementary irrigation.
All activities are carried out manually.

Labour requirements
For establishment: high
For maintenance: low
Knowledge requirements
For advisors: medium
For land users: high

Photo 1: Construction of hillside terraces: trees will be

planted in the ditches at a spacing of 2 meters between
plants. (Fikreyesus Ghilay)
Photo 2: An upper catchment area protected by hillside ter-
races and tree planting in the Central Highlands of Eritrea.
(Mats Gurtner)

178 SLM in Practice

9_Planted_Forests.indd 178 20.01.11 14:57

 Case study area: Serejeka, Central Ecological conditions
Highlands, Eritrea ·· C limate: semi-arid
·· Average annual rainfall: 400 -450 mm
·· Soil parameters: low fertility; shallow depth; low organic matter content;
sandy-loam texture
·· Slope: more than 50%
·· Landform: hill slope, mountain slopes, ridges
·· Altitude: 2,300 - 2,400 m a.s.l.
Keren Massawa
Case study area Socio-economic conditions
Asmara ··  ocio-economic conditions
S
·· Size of land per household: 0.5-1 ha cropland and 0.01-0.05 ha forest land
·· Type of land user: small-scale, poor, land user groups
·· Land ownership: state
Assab ·· Land use rights: communal (organised)
·· Level of mechanisation: manual labour and animal traction
·· Market orientation: subsistence (self-supply), partly mixed (subsistence and
commercial)

Establishment inputs and costs per ha Production / economic benefits

Inputs Costs (US$) +++ Increased wood production
+++ Increased fodder production (cut-and-carry of grass)
Labour: 660 person-days 1,760
+++ Diversification of income sources (selling timber and grass)
Equipment / tools: hand tools 50
Ecological benefits
Agricultural inputs: seedlings and 600 +++ Improved soil cover; increased biomass / above ground carbon
­transportation
+++ Reduced surface runoff
Construction material: stones 0 +++ Reduced soil loss
(locally available)
++ Increased soil moisture
TOTAL 2,410 ++ Increased soil organic matter
% of costs borne by land users 73% ++ Recharge of ground water
Socio-cultural benefits
Maintenance inputs and costs per ha per year +++ Community institutions strengthened
Inputs Costs (US$) +++ Improved food security / self sufficiency
Labour: 180 person-days 480 +++ Improved conservation / erosion knowledge
++ Conflict mitigation
Equipment / tools: specify 0
+ Increased recreational opportunities
Agricultural inputs: seedlings and 100
transportation Off-site benefits
TOTAL 580
+++ Reduced downstream flooding and siltation
+ Increased stream flow in dry season
% of costs borne by land users 83%

Remarks: Labour costs include construction of Weaknesses ➜ and how to overcome

hillside terrace, pitting, planting and spot weed- ·· E stablishment cost is high and labour-intensive ➜ provision of hand tools
ing and cultivation. According to the work and and demanded seedlings.
payment norms of the Ministry of Agriculture ·· Fast growing eucalyptus trees have a high rate of water consumption; Indig-
the cost of 1 person-day is US$ 2.66. Produc- enous trees are not favoured ➜ encourage people to protect naturally
tion cost of one seedling is US$ 0.2. Mainte- regenerated indigenous trees, assist villagers to get market channels for
nance costs include terrace maintenance, products of indigenous trees.
re-pitting and replanting of seedlings. Costs are ·· Community mobilisation and high knowledge of land users is required ➜
calculated for gentle slopes with terraces spaced awareness raising campaigns, strengthen village institutional arrangements,
at 2.5 m. assist villages by-laws.
·· Land use rights: because the afforestation area is communal, nobody feels
Benefit-cost ratio responsible for maintenance ➜ promote plantations by individual households.
Inputs short term long term
Adoption
Establishment slightly negative very positive Acceptance of afforestation areas has increased, since user rights have been given
Maintenance neutral positive to land users: Communities located in Toker upper catchment areas have taken the
initiative to maintain and protect their woodlots. Moreover, there is a trend toward
Remarks: Initial labour inputs payout on the
locally initiated hillside terracing and tree planting without external initiative / incen-
long term.
tives, apart from the provision of seedlings (through Ministry of Agriculture). The
afforestation area covers approx. 30 km2 with high potential to enlarge.

Main contributors: Iyob Zeremariam, Ministry of Agriculture, Asmara, Eritrea; [email protected]; n Bereket Tsehaye, Toker Integrated Community Development, Asmara, Eritrea;
[email protected]
Key references: Zeremariam I. 2001. Assessment of upper catchment development technologies in the Central High Land zone of Eritrea. MSc Thesis; The Royal Veterinary and
Agricultural University, Denmark.  n Amanuel Negasi et al. 2002. Soil and water conservation Manual for Eritrea. RELMA.  n Zeremariam I.2001. Assessment of upper catchment
Development Technologies and Approaches in the Central High Land zone of Eritrea. MSc Thesis; The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Denmark

SLM Technology: Afforestation and Hillside Terracing - Eritrea 179

9_Planted_Forests.indd 179 20.01.11 14:57

 Case study
Sustainable planted forest management

S a n d D u n e S ta b i l i s at i o n - N i g e r
Stabilisation of mobile sand dunes is achieved through a combination of SLM measure Structural and vegetative
mechanical measures including palisades, and biological measures such as SLM group Sustainable Planted Forest
live fences and sowing of grass. These measures seek to stop sand encroach- ­Management
ment and stabilise sand dunes on-site, in order to protect villages, cultivated Land use type Agro-silvopastoral
land, roads, waterways and other infrastructure. The technology is currently
Degradation Desertification; Soil erosion by wind
applied on a very large-scale in the Niger river basin. addressed and water; Biological degradation
Palisades are made either of millet stalks, or doum or date palm fronds,
Stage of intervention Prevention (partly mitigation)
according to availability in the region. They are established in a perpendicular
direction to the wind, at a spacing of 10 – 20 meters depending on severity Tolerance to climate Tolerant to temperature increase
of sand encroachment and level of land degradation. The closer the spacing, change and rainfall decrease, but sensible
to droughts and floods
the more effective is the protection. Tree seedlings or cuttings are planted on a
5 m x 5 m grid, with a density of 400 trees per hectare. Species include Establishment activities
Euphorbia balsamifera, Prosopis chilensis, Ziziphus mauritiana, Acacia sen- 1. Preparation of tree cuttings or seedlings.
egal and Bauhina rufescens. Grass seeds are broadcasted. 2. Preparation of palisades made either of
The increasing speed at which desertification is progressing in Sahelian coun- millet stalks, Leptadenia pyrotechnica, or
tries makes this technology one of the main instruments for combating the doum or date palm fronds, according to
impacts of climate change. Land that has been sown with grass needs to be availability in the region.
enclosed in the early years to avoid interference by animals. 3. Marking of planting lines perpendicular to
wind direction.
4. Preparation of soil (April-May): dig holes for
the cuttings or seedlings.
5. Dig trenches for the palisades.
6. Set up the palisades (spacing: 10 m).
7. Transport cuttings or seedlings to the sites.
8. Planting of cuttings or seedlings
(spacing: 5 m).
9. Sowing of grass.
10. Spreading of manure (for grass and trees).
Maintenance / recurrent activities
1. In the first years: weeding and protection
against animals, maybe using enclosure of
land that has been sown with grass seeds.
2. Replacing of missing plants.
3. Strengthening of palisades and replacing
those that have been destroyed.
4. Regular trimming of trees and shrubs to
reduce competition with agricultural crops.

Labour requirements
For establishment: high
For maintenance: high
Knowledge requirements
For advisors: low
For land users: moderate

Photo 1–2: Palisades with growing vegetation.

10 Photo 3: Two SLM experts examine a sand dune in the Niger
m
river basin near Niamey. (All photos by Moussa Inja).
Drawing: Layout of palisades and tree planting for sand dune
5m
5m stabilisation. (Ministry for Agricultural Development, Niger)

180 SLM in Practice

9_Planted_Forests.indd 180 20.01.11 14:57

 Case study area: Kareygorou, Tillabéry, Ecological conditions
Niger ··  limate: semi-arid
C
·· Average annual rainfall: 250-500 mm
·· Soil parameters: good drainage; low soil organic matter
·· Slope: high dunes with steep slopes (> 20%)
·· Landform: mainly dunes
·· Altitude: 0-100 m a.s.l.
Socio-economic conditions
··  ize of land per household: 1-2 ha
S
Agadez ·· Type of land user: mainly poor land user groups / community
·· Population density: 10-50 persons/km2
·· Land ownership: mostly individual, untitled
Case study area ·· Land use rights: individual, communal (organised)
Maradi Zinder
·· Market orientation: mostly subsistence (self-supplying), partly mixed (sub-
Niamey sistence and commercial)
·· Level of mechanisation: manual labour

Production / economic benefits

Establishment inputs and costs per ha +++ Increased crop yield (indirectly; through protection from moving sand
Inputs Costs (US$) dunes)
+++ Increased farm income
Labour: 75 person-days 113
+++ Increased animal production
Palisades: 1,000 bundles 200 +++ Increased fodder quality and fodder production
Agricultural inputs: Ecological benefits
- Seedlings / cuttings (400) 80
- Organic manure (1.5 t) 75
+++ Increased soil cover
+++ Increased biomass / above ground carbon
Transport: palisades, seedlings and 200
+++ Reduced wind velocity
organic manure
+++ Reduced soil loss
TOTAL 668 +++ Increased animal diversity
% of costs borne by land users 100% ++ Increased soil fertility
Socio-cultural benefits
Maintenance inputs and costs per ha per year +++ Conflict mitigation
Inputs Costs (US$) +++ Strengthening of community institutions through mutual help with tech-
Labour: 10 person-days 15 nology implementation
+++ Improved cultural opportunities
Palisades: 15 bundles 3
Agricultural inputs: seedlings (20) 4
Off-site benefits
+++ Less damage on public / private infrastructure
TOTAL 22
+++ Less damage on neighbours’ fields
% of costs borne by land users 100% +++ Less wind-transported sediments
Remarks: Figures are based on estimates.
Weaknesses ➜ and how to overcome
Costs for seedlings / cuttings are indicated for
·· Implementation constraint: high implementation costs ➜ improve access to
Euphorbia balsamifera. For other tree species
technical and financial support.
costs need to be doubled or tripled (higher pro-
·· Maintenance constraint: the nature of the land discourages people from
duction costs at the nursery).
maintaining the established measures ➜ establish management commit-
tees for maintenance of the implemented measures.
Benefit-cost ratio ·· Labour constraint: the technology requires high input in terms of labour ➜
Inputs short term long term strengthen community work and solidarity between communities.
Establishment positive very positive ·· Ecological constraint: negative impacts on existing Leptadenia plants due to
excessive cutting for palisades ➜ find other species for making the pali-
Maintenance positive very positive
sades.
Remarks: The technology is efficient in the mid ·· Legal constraint: conflicts arise when land is claimed by people ➜ define
to long term when it supports natural regenera- tenure before land is claimed.
tion of ecosystems. In the Niger River basin,
however, the benefits are lower. Adoption
Spontaneous adoption of the technology is growing because desertification is in
progression and sand dunes endanger people’s livelihoods.

Main contributors: Abdoulaye Sambo Soumaila, Groupe de Recherche d’Etude et d’Action pour le Développement (GREAD), Niamey, Niger; [email protected]
Key references: Ministère du développement agricole (2005) : recueil des fiches techniques en gestion des ressources naturelles et de productions agro-sylvo-pastorales n Abdou-
laye Soumaila A.S., E. Tielkes, P. Sauter. 2004. Rapport final de l’atelier sur les techniques de conservation des eaux et des sols, et les données wocat Niger organisé à Niamey en
novembre 2002 n ROSELT. 2009. Magazine d’information, N° 1, mars 2009, Niamey, Niger.

SLM Technology: Sand Dune Stabilisation - Niger 181

9_Planted_Forests.indd 181 20.01.11 14:57

 S U S TA I N A B L E F O R E S T M A N A G E M E N T I N D R Y L A N D S

Natural dryland forest with high biodiversity, Tanzania. (Hanspeter Liniger)

In a nutshell Development issues addressed

Preventing / reversing land degradation +++

Definition: Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) in drylands aims to ensure
that the goods and services derived from the forests meet present-day needs, Maintaining and improving food security +
while at the same time securing their continued availability and contribution to Reducing rural poverty ++
long term development. Creating rural employment ++
In Sub-Saharan Africa, forests and trees contribute significantly to rural liveli-
Supporting gender equity / marginalised groups ++
hoods in the drylands accounting for more than 25% of rural household income.
Forests have multiple functions and uses. They play a significant role in conser- Improving crop production +
vation of biodiversity adapted to the harsh ecological conditions. They provide Improving fodder production ++
ecosystem goods including fruits, gum arabic, shea nut (karité) butter, fodder for
Improving wood / fibre production ++
livestock, medicines and provide services such as desertification control, conser-
Improving non wood forest production +++
vation and improvement of water quality. However they are relatively fragile and
easily affected by drought, erosion, fires, browsing, and particularly, cutting for Preserving biodiversity +++
firewood. Forestry needs to be part of a comprehensive and sustainable land use Improving soil resources (OM, nutrients) +++
planning and management strategy, and there is an urgent need for the forestry
Improving of water resources ++
sector to show clear commitment and to work with other sectors in improving
and designing appropriate policies and mechanisms. In addition SFM in drylands Improving water productivity ++
has to move towards participatory and community-based management with an Natural disaster prevention / mitigation +++
integrated landscape planning approach. Climate change mitigation / adaptation +++
SFM in drylands includes actions aimed at safeguarding and maintaining the for-
est ecosystem and its functions, reduced deforestation, fire management, res- Climate change mitigation
toration through natural regeneration or assisted natural regeneration, selective Potential for C Sequestration no data
tree planting and felling. Main techniques used for sustainable management are: (tonnes/ha/year)
spatial zoning for various users, restricted interventions, protective measures, C Sequestration: above ground ++
best practice in non-wood forest products harvesting, grazing management
C Sequestration: below ground ++
planning and improved governance.
Applicability: SFM is applicable to, and crucial for, any type of primary or sec- Climate change adaptation
ondary forests in the drylands.
Resilience to extreme dry conditions ++
Resilience to climate variability: SFM for forest diversity is a prerequisite to
ensure a functioning ecosystem, and to maintain resilience to climate variabil- Resilience to variable rainfall +++
ity and change. A well-managed and diverse natural forest can adapt better to Resilience to extreme rain and wind storms +++
changes. Resilience to rising temperatures and ++
Main benefits: Protection of biodiversity, protection against water and wind ero- evaporation rates
sion, improved water management and quality, improved livelihoods and human
Reducing risk of production failure +++
well-being through income diversification (e.g. beekeeping, ecotourism, etc.) and
hence increased food security and poverty alleviation as well as improved gov-
ernance. Hindering further deforestation and expanding the restoration of natural
forests can provide an immense contribution to CC mitigation and adaptation.
Adoption and upscaling: A legal and institutional framework, including the
integration of forests in overall sustainable landscape and rural development
planning is needed in order to ensure a sustainable use of forest resources in
drylands, and sustainable provision of the related social, economic and environ-
mental goods and services.

182 SLM in Practice

10_Natural_Forest_Dry.indd 182 27.01.11 10:35

 Origin and spread
Origin: The sacred character of many forests helped to conserve them, as part
of traditional community resource management systems. Forest degradation and
deforestation began during the colonial era. Responses to degradation of forests
also started during these times. As pressure on forests has increased, because
of population growth, efforts were made to create protected forest areas. In the
1970s and 1980s many countries - with donor support - attempted to bring more
forests under state tenure and protection. In recent times sustainable forest man-
agement based on community plans has been given increasing priority in the dry-
lands of SSA. Successes are still only at the pilot stage.
Spread: 582 million ha are covered by forests in SSA of which 270 million ha
(46%) are dry forests. Approximately 5% of Africa’s forests are protected. How-
ever, protected areas are often still destroyed by illegal logging and overuse. No
clear data is available about the spread of SFM in drylands, but it is only a very
small area.
Dry forests are mainly situated in: Angola, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cameroon,
Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, DRC, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guinea, Kenya, Spread of dry forests in SSA. (Source: CIFOR, 2006)
Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Sen-
egal, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Principles and types

Securing forest resources: National and local forest authorities need to be
strengthened to assess, maintain and protect the remaining forest resources.
Protected areas must be safeguarded through adhering to laws and regulations
for effective management. The delimitation of forests should be made clear, and
sufficient cropland made available to people neighbouring the forests. Simultane-
ously, productivity of cropland and grazing land need to be improved to reduce
pressure on the natural forests. Plans must correspond to the ecological, eco-
nomic and social concerns of the people living within and around the area: thus
community-based approaches and management plans are the most promising
way forward. Compensation to communities – ideally through judicious rights to
forest products - can be considered as a means for ensuring sustainable use of
the resources.
Maintaining or enhancing biodiversity: Building better knowledge of forest
ecology can help to preserve their biodiversity. Capacity needs to be strength-
ened to conduct biological inventories and a monitoring system of forest con-
dition. There is also a need to include fauna within the forest in management
decisions.
Promoting healthy and vigorous forests and rehabilitating forests: The
health of overused forests can be improved through the adoption of adaptive for-
est management, including aspects such as review of rotation length, enhance-
ment of natural regeneration (e.g. social fencing), enrichment planting, selective
felling and controlled logging. Upgrading species diversity and richness are also
a means to improve ‘forest productivity’, and to ensure high value production in
a well managed natural forest.
Fire management: Knowledge and awareness raising about fire (incidence and
behaviour) and how to avoid uncontrolled fires is key in successful prevention.
Lack of funding and of sustainable fire management strategies are prominent
in SSA. Fire management is largely an agricultural issue, and therefore the key
is to involve the agricultural sector in the controlled use of fire. Monitoring and
reporting mechanisms should be established, and the regional collaboration that
started through AfriFireNet should be built upon.
Alternative livelihoods options help reduce unsustainable felling and logging
activities. Non-wood forest products (NWFP) provide a sustainable input to peo-
ples’ welfare. NWFP can be honey from beekeeping, mushrooms, medicinal
plants, shea nut butter (from Vitellaria paradoxa) for the cosmetic industry, gum
arabic (from Acacia senegal), baobab for ropes and baskets, etc. New niche Top: Fencing of dryland forests for natural regeneration,
Burkina Faso. (NewTree)
markets for ‘green’ and ‘fair trade’ products and payments for ecosystem serv-
Middle: Women carrying gathered fuelwood, Senegal.
ices provide new income opportunities for forest users (see group Trends & new (Roberto Faidutti)
Opportunities). Bottom: Close-up of shea nuts (karité) ready to be processed,
Burkina Faso. (Roberto Faidutti)

SLM Group: Sustainable Forest Management in Drylands 183

10_Natural_Forest_Dry.indd 183 27.01.11 10:35

 S U S TA I N A B L E F O R E S T M A N A G E M E N T I N D R Y L A N D S
Applicability Land degradation

Land degradation and causes addressed Erosion by water High

Dryland forests are fragile and are affected by drought, degradation / deforesta- Erosion by wind Moderate
tion and desertification. The main direct and indirect drivers include: population Chemical degradation Low
increase, growing demand for resources (grazing, cultivation, urban develop- Physical degradation Insignificant
ment, logging, etc.), poverty, social conflict, lack of market opportunities, no Biological degradation
recognition of the importance of dryland forests, lack of appropriate policies, Water degradation
governance and investment, lack of integration among different sectors, lack of
technical capacity etc. All these drivers are potentially exacerbated by climate
change.
Land use
Biological degradation: loss of forest ecosystem, loss of biodiversity, followed
by physical and chemical soil deterioration and water degradation. Cropland
The loss of natural forests in the drylands is immense and the trend still contin- Grazing land
ues. Annual loss of natural forests - between 1.2% and 1.7% - is highest in West
Forests / woodlands
and Southern Africa.
Mixed land use
Other
Land use
Primary and secondary forests can be defined as natural forests. Dry forests
cover a spectrum of vegetation types from deciduous forests with a continuous
tree canopy to moist savannas, dry deciduous woodlands, dry savannas and Climate Average rainfall (mm)
very dry scrub (bush, brousse). Dry forest landscapes are very variable, with crop
lands, grazing lands and woodlands existing side-by-side. Humid > 3000
Dry forests are used as mixed land for agricultural production and grazing. Beside Subhumid 2000-3000
wood products such as fuelwood and building material, non-wood forest prod- Semi-arid 1500-2000
ucts used are honey, mushrooms, fruits, medicinal plants, spices, shea nut but- Arid 1000-1500
ter, gums, fodder, tree bark, etc. 750-1000
500-750
Ecological conditions
250-500
Climate: scarce and unreliable rainfall with long dry spells; dryland forests cover
< 250
arid, semi-arid and subhumid areas.
Terrain and landscape: no restrictions, however in many countries (e.g. Ethio-
pia) forests have been reduced to marginal areas like steep hills, etc.
Soils: no restrictions Slopes (%) very steep (>60)
steep (30-60)
Socio-economic conditions hilly (16-30)
Farming system and level of mechanisation: Sustainable management rolling (8-16)
mainly on small-scale basis, mainly manual labour (e.g. hand felling) and low level moderate (5-8)
of mechanisation. gentle (2-5)
Market orientation: Subsistence to commercial system, by selling non-wood flat (0-2)
and or wood products on local market and also for increasing national / global
market for special high value niche products.
Land ownership and land use / water rights: Land ownership is mainly state:
some forests are on customary and trust lands, and may be managed through Farm size Land ownership
agreements with the chiefs or local councils on behalf of communities. Forests on Small scale State
private land are very limited with exceptions in South Africa and Zimbabwe. The Medium scale Company
areas of forests jointly managed with local communities or under the full respon-
Large scale Community
sibility of local communities are very limited. Open access forests and woodlands
Individual, not titled
give rise to problems with destructive forest resource use.
Skill / knowledge requirements: Sustainable forest management requires a Individual, titled
high level of technical knowledge. Sound education of forest management serv-
ices for supporting the land users in the sustainable use of the forests resources
Mechanisation Market orientation
is needed.
Labour requirements: Labour requirements vary depending on the interven- Manual labour Subsistence
tions needed (see principles and activities). Animal traction Mixed
Mechanised Commercial

Required labour Required know-how

High High
Medium Medium
Low Low

184 SLM in Practice

10_Natural_Forest_Dry.indd 184 21.07.11 12:22

 Economics Example: Burkina Faso
The Kaboré Tambi National Park is situated
Costs approximately 100 km south of Ouagadougou
Since Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) is mainly a management and in the south-central part of Burkina Faso, and
organisational issue, the assessment of costs for establishment and mainte- covers 155,000 ha. Nine villages surround-
nance is limited. ing the park were surveyed, and 298 house-
holds completed a survey in 2008. Land
Production benefits cover in the park mainly consists of open
Apart from wood, natural forests provide a huge variety of products (non-wood forest with patches of savanna. The contri-
forest products), which makes it difficult to quantify the production benefits of bution of non-timber forest products to the
sustainable management in dryland forests. Recent studies are helping to put a rural household income was analysed. Fuel-
price on the full range of forest goods and services. However research is needed wood is the most important product col-
on the value of environmental services such as water quality and supply, soil lected from the forest: it accounts for 28% of
retention and fertility, carbon storage, and conservation of biodiversity, among household environmental and forest income
other aspects. Furthermore, methodologies are required to calculate the direct or on average. Fruits and shea nuts from Vitel-
indirect cost of unsustainable forest management for comparison. laria paradoxa are the second most eco-
nomically important wild forest product in the
Benefit-Cost ratio survey area (21%). Grass for roof thatching is
short term long term quantitative another important non-timber forest product
in the region, contributing 14% of household
Community based – ++ No data available
forest management
environmental and forest income. While fuel-
wood and thatching grass are mostly used
– – negative; – slightly negative; –/+ neutral; + slightly positive; ++ positive; +++ very positive; for subsistence at the household level (86%
(Source: FAO, 2002) and 84%), shea nuts and fruits are mainly
source of cash income (66%) (CIFOR, 2008).
An estimated 65% of the population of Sub-Saharan Africa is rural and depends
directly or indirectly on forests and woodlands for food, fuelwood, building mate- Example: Making Shea butter, Ghana
rials, medicines, oils, gums, resins and fodder. The World Bank estimates that The production of shea butter is an impor-
forests generate at least 20% of the disposable income of landless and poor tant income earning activity for women in
families (WFSE, 2009). rural areas. Shea trees (Vitellaria paradoxa)
Communities must be willing and economically able to involve themselves in grow wild in the semi-arid parts of the equa-
sustainable forest management - they must receive greater economic benefits torial belt of central Africa. Shea butter is
from conserving forests than from degrading them. Sustainable natural forest made out of the kernels and is used for cook-
management should tangibly improve local economic welfare, and generate local ing and for cosmetic purposes. The butter is
economic benefits to sufficient levels, and in appropriate forms, to make SFM increasingly valuable as an export commodity.
economically sound in the drylands also. However, lack of group business and man-
Since SFM is not yet widespread in SSA, it is difficult to make a realistic assess- agement skills, competition from large-scale
ment of the economic aspects of natural forest management and the probability enterprises, inflation, and international com-
of change to sustainable management during the next two decades. modity price fluctuations may hinder suc-
A mechanism for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation cessful implementation of the technology.
(REDD), currently under negotiation, may provide incentives to reduce emissions Bridge presses can now be used to mechani-
from forests. cally extract shea butter and reduce the work-
load needed as they are easy to operate. The
presses can be locally made and serviced.
Although costs of processing by the improved
and traditional methods are comparable, the
benefits of the new technology are environ-
mental (no need for fuel), time-saving (releas-
ing time for other activities) and process
simplification. However, the profitability of the
shea butter production depends very much
on high market prices (TECA-FAO, 2010).

SLM Group: Sustainable Forest Management in Drylands 185

10_Natural_Forest_Dry.indd 185 27.01.11 10:35

 S U S TA I N A B L E F O R E S T M A N A G E M E N T I N D R Y L A N D S
Impacts
Benefits Land users / community level Watershed / landscape level National / global level
Production ++ diversification of production +++ reduced risk and loss of + improved food and water
++ enhanced long term forest ­productivity ­production security
++ increased production of NWFP + improved access to clean
+ increased wood production drinking water

Economic ++ provides a wide range of wood and non-wood products +++ less damage to off-site + improved livelihood and
++ income diversification infrastructure well-being
+ increased farm income ++ diversification and rural
employment creation (e.g. eco-
tourism)
+ stimulation of economic growth

Ecological +++ improved protection of forest species and habitats +++ reduced degradation and +++ reduced degradation and
+++ rehabilitation of natural forests ­sedimentation desertification incidence and
+++ improved micro-climate ++ water availability intensity
+++ biodiversity enhancement ++ water quality +++ increased resilience to climate
++ helps to maintain soil and hydrological systems (e.g. ++ intact ecosystem change
clean water) ++ reduced C emissions
++ reduced soil erosion (by wind / water) ++ increased C sequestration
++ reduced wind velocity and dust storms ++ enhanced biodiversity
++ less frequent uncontrolled forest fires
++ increased soil organic matter and soil fertility
++ improved forest cover
+ improved water availability

Socio-cultural +++ community institution strengthening +++ increased awareness for +++ protecting national heritage
++ less conflicts among different users environmental ‘health’
++ improved SLM / conservation / erosion knowledge +++ attractive landscape
++ reduced conflicts

Constraints How to overcome

Production l Restricted short-time use (‘exploitation’) of forests can have ➜ a wareness of long term benefits and increase of other valuable
negative effect on income ecosystem services provided through natural forests

Economic l Inadequate budget for fire management ➜ integration of fire management into overall forest
management plan
l Availability of market for non-woody products and ecotourism ➜ support the diversified production and establishment of markets for
NWFP and ecotourism

Ecological l Impossibility of reconstituting forests exactly as they were ➜ promote the role of secondary forests and allow most suitable con-
ditions for regeneration towards natural forests

Socio-cultural l Increasing population leading to increased demand on fuelwood ➜ promote alternative renewable energy resources (wind, solar) and
energy saving stoves, establishment of home woodlots
l  management: weak capacity and social and political environ-
Fire ➜ allocation of land use rights as well as training and education in
ments that do not sufficiently enable or empower the affected popu- fire prevention and management
lation to deal with the fire problem
l Political constraints: secure land tenure of communities is often not ➜ allocation of land use rights and consolidating / harmonisation of
given and regulatory constraints, with modern and customary laws legal situation including customary laws
that are often in conflict
l Poverty leading directly to indiscriminate extraction of forest ➜ supporting poor communities in and around forests to improve
resources their livelihoods and make them independent from destructive for-
est use, introduce alternative income options through non-woody
forests products (e.g. beekeeping) or ecotourism
l K nowledge is inadequate, scattered and poorly disseminated ➜ compilation and exchange of experiences made with SNFM, learn-
in many of the spheres involved in sustainable forest resource ing from others and capacity building of both government staff and
­management community members
l Lack of knowledge in terms of appropriate techniques to ensure sus- ➜ better linkages to research and regular monitoring and reporting
tainability and on the current state of forest resources about state of natural forests

References and supporting information:

Blay, D., 2007. Multi-stakeholder forest management: A case from the humid zone in Ghana. Forest Management Working PaperWorking Paper FM/32. FAO, Rome (Italy).
CIFOR. 2006. African Dry Forest Website. http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/dryforest/_ref/home/index.htm, accessed on 15 February, 2010.
CIFOR. 2006. Map of Location. http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/dryforest/_ref/home/map.htm, accessed on 17 May 2010.
CIFOR. 2006. Miombo Woodland – Policies and Incentives. http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/miombo/project.htm, accessed on 23 September 2009
CIFOR. 2008. Poverty Environment Network – A comprehensive global analysis of tropical forests and poverty. http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/pen/_ref/news/penews/2010/
penews-1-2010.htm#burkina, accessed on 17 Mai 2010.
CIFOR. 2009. CIFOR annual report 2008: Thinking beyond the canopy (2009).
FAO. 1997. R. Bellefontaine, A. Gaston and Y. Petrucci (online 2000), Management of natural forests in dry-tropical zones. Series title: FAO Conservation Guide - 32. http://www.fao.
org/docrep/005/w4442e/w4442e00.htm#Contents
FAO. 2003. Forestry Outlook Study for Africa – Subregional Report West Africa. African Development Bank, European Commission.
FAO. 2003. Forestry Outlook Study for Africa. African Development Bank, European Commission.
FAO. 2006. Fire management – global assessment 2006 A thematic study prepared in the framework of the Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005, Series title: FAO Forestry
Paper-151.

186 SLM in Practice

10_Natural_Forest_Dry.indd 186 27.01.11 10:35

 Adoption and upscaling Enabling environment: key factors for adoption
Inputs, material incentives, credits +
Adoption rate Training and education ++
The adoption rate of SFM in drylands tends to be very slow, and despite various
efforts, sustainable management is not in place in most countries. However, in Land tenure, secure land use rights +++
some areas of dry forests of savanna woodlands, progress has been made in this Access to markets ++
regard. Most of these areas are under community control. Research ++
Infrastructure +
Upscaling
The following aspects need to be considered for adoption and upscaling: Conflicts of interest ++
Legal and institutional framework: Integration of forest planning in an over-
all sustainable landscape planning approach, including all sectors from agricul- The Network for Natural Gums and
tural, pastoral, urban / rural and forest systems, is needed. Government and local Resins in Africa (NGARA) was estab-
administration must create enabling conditions for the establishment of proper lished in May 2000 to assist African producer
SFM frameworks with clear regulations and control mechanism. countries and partners in formulating a co-
Legal titles, or at least confirmed land-use rights, are a prerequisite for villagers ordinated strategy for the sustainable develop-
to define their forests boundaries and for community-based forest management. ment of their natural gums and resin resources
Community-based approaches: Communities must be enabled to establish in order to improve rural livelihoods and
a clear management plan. Clear regulations and control mechanism need to be environmental conservation. NGARA brings
developed by forest services and local communities for the sustainable use of together members from varied fields, includ-
forests, and to avoid illegal use of the forests. ing farmers / collectors, traders, governments,
Awareness raising, education and capacity building: Local forestry serv- non-governmental organisations, exporters
ices, land users and communities should be appropriately trained. Improved and importers – all of whom have the com-
understanding of forestry issues through stakeholder meetings, user-friendly mon desire to improve the production and
materials, documents in local language etc. is needed. It is necessary to become quality of locally produced gums and resins
organised, coordinate efforts, share information and develop campaigns so that for domestic, regional and international mar-
the governments adopt enabling policies, and to make sure people are informed kets. NGARA consists of 15 member coun-
about benefits of SFM. tries. Since inception, NGARA has played an
Inventories and long term monitoring: Knowledge and expertise should be increasingly important role in the exchange of
enhanced to assess and monitor forests and tree resources systematically. information on production and trade, training,
Research related to SFM: This includes better knowledge of forest pests and technology transfer, assessment of resources
diseases, and conditions related to adoption and upscaling, as well as better and their sustainable use, enhancing capaci-
linkages to research institutions and networks for knowledge exchange. ties of stakeholders in beneficiary countries
Sustainable markets and networks for NWFP: So far there are many obsta- and harnessing efficient use of available
cles hindering the commercialisation - especially of NWFP of small-scale land resources by strengthening synergies. The
users. The development of forest-based small enterprises and the establishment establishment of NGARA was considered a
of local markets can enhance small-scale production of NWFP and hence reduce significant step in the development of the gum
the pressure on timber harvesting. Priority should be given to strengthening the arabic and resins sector in the dryland Sahel
capacity of local producers of forest products, processors and traders, to ensure for ensuring food security, rural development
sustainable harvesting and management of forest resources while increasing the and hence poverty alleviation (www.ngara.org).
quality and added-value of the derived products.

Incentives for adoption

Micro-credit to establish small industries (e.g. for NWFP) can help build incen-
tives towards better SFM. Furthermore, incentives are needed to bridge the time
until trees become productive (e.g. for areas under natural regeneration). Recent
discussions and development promote Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES)
as an incentive for sustainable management. Clear commitment is needed to pay
for the maintenance of the remaining forest resources.

References and supporting information (continued):

FAO. 2008. Towards sustainable forest management. http://www.fao.org/forestry/sfm/en/ accessed on 23 September 2009.
FAO. 2008. Understanding forest tenure in Africa: opportunities and challenges for forest tenure diversification. Forestry Policy and Institutions Working Paper 19
FAO. 2010. Guidelines on sustainable forest management in drylands of Sub-Saharan Africa. 17th AFWC Session, revised draft version. (final document under publication in June
2010)
FAO. 2008. Links between National Forest Programmes and Poverty Reduction Strategies, by R.McConnell.
FAO. 2010. Forestry Photos. http://www.fao.org/mediabase/forestry/, accessed on 6 June 2010.
FARMAFRICA. 2009. Tanzania Participatory Forest Management Project. http://www.farmafrica.org.uk/smartweb/tanzania/tanzania-participatory-forest-management-project
accessed on 23 September 2009 Forestry Policy and Institutions Working Paper No. 22. Rome.
German L.A. (ed.), Karsenty, A. (ed.), Tiani A.M., (ed.). 2009. Governing Africa’s forests in a globalised world. Earthscan Publications. London.
Mogaka, H., Simons, G., Turpie, J., Emerton, L. and Karanja, F. 2001. Economic Aspects of Community Involvement in Sustainable Forest Management in Eastern and Southern
Africa. IUCN - The World Conservation Union, Eastern Africa Regional Office, Nairobi.
NGARA. 2010. Network for Natural Gums and Resins in Africa (NGARA), http://www.ngara.org/index.htm, accessed on 18 March 2010.
Odera, J. 2004. Lessons Learnt on Community Forest Management in Africa. A report prepared for the project ‘Lessons Learnt on Sustainble Forest Management in Africa.’
TECA-FAO. 2010. Technology for Agriculture – proven technologies for smallholders. http://www.fao.org/teca/content/replacing-need-labour-intensive-traditional-methods-mechani-
cal-press-making-shea-butter-nort, accessed on 25 March 2010.
WFSE, 2009. Making Sub-Saharan African Forests work for People and Nature – Policy approaches in a changing global environment. Published by Special Project on World Forests,
Society and Environment (WFSE) of the International Union of Forest Research Organisations (IUFRO), World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), the Center for International Forestry
Research (CIFOR) and the Finish Forest Research Institute (METLA).

SLM Group: Sustainable Forest Management in Drylands 187

10_Natural_Forest_Dry.indd 187 27.01.11 10:35

 Case study
Sustainable Forest Management in drylands

ASSISTED NATURAL REGENERATION OF DEGRADED LAND - BURKINA FASO

Assisted natural regeneration, as promoted by newTree in Burkina Faso, starts SLM measure Management and vegetative
with enclosing 3 ha of degraded land with a solid fence. Fence materials (iron SLM group Sustainable Forest Management
posts and galvanic wire) are externally sponsored and locally assembled and in Drylands
installed. Along the fence a dense living hedge of thorny trees (local tree spe- Land use type Before: Agro-silvopastoralism,
cies: e.g. Acacia nilotica, A. senegal, Prosopis sp, Ziziphus mauritiana) is wastelands; After: Agroforestry /
planted. A strip of 10 m along the hedge is dedicated to agriculture. This area Natural forest
is equivalent to approximately 10% of the protected area. The rest is dedicated Degradation Soil erosion by water and wind;
to natural regeneration of the local forest. addressed Fertility decline; Sealing and crust-
Once protected, natural vegetation rich in endogenous species can actively ing; Reduction of vegetation cover;
Aridification
regenerate. Annual vegetation species inventories are made to monitor the
biomass, biodiversity and the growth rate of the trees. The forest reaches a Stage of intervention Rehabilitation
tree density of approximately 500 trees per hectare and consists of around Tolerance to climate High tolerance
120 local species. Some enrichment planting of rare species enhances the change
allotments. The protected area is of paramount importance for biodiversity
conservation. Establishment activities
Management activities in the protected area includes (1) seeding / planting 1. Select an area of 3 ha of degraded land.
of improved fodder species; and (2) establishing stone lines and half-moons 2. Establish a 1.5 m high fence around the
(demi-lunes) for soil erosion control and water harvesting, (3) installing bee- selected area: install metal posts, manufac-
hives for honey production; and (4) fodder production: the grass is cut, tied ture / assemble chain-link fence materials
and carried to feed livestock outside the regeneration area. (manually).
Property rights for the protected area are clearly established through a con- 3. Plant a living hedge of spiny trees at a dis-
tractual agreement that includes / respects traditional and government land tance of 1 m to the fence, plants spaced
rights. The local land users select the area, provide all labour inputs and ensure at 0.4 m.
the long term management of the sites according to mutually agreed goals. 4. Reserve a 10 m strip along the fence /
Training is provided to enhance income generating activities – ranging from hedge for improved agriculture.
beekeeping and the production of high-value vegetable crops to the process- 5. Plant a living hedge of Jatropha curcas to
ing of non-timber forestry products – and to promote the use of fuel-efficient separate cropland from regeneration area.
cooking stoves. 6. Seed / plant improved fodder species
within protected area.
7. Establish stone lines and half-moons for
soil erosion control and water harvesting
within protected area.
8. Install beehives (2-10 hives per protected
area); purchase protection and harvesting
equipment.
9. Construct fuel efficient cooking stoves.
Maintenance / recurrent activities
1. Supervise fence and protected area;
repairing where necessary.
2. Replant / replace dead seedlings in living
hedges.
3. Improved agriculture: agroforestry, water
harvesting, compost application.
4. Beekeeping: monthly control of beehive;
yield 2-3 times per year (manually with pro-
tection equipment).
5. Improved fodder production: cut grass and
tie hay with simple tying machine (once a
year after rainy season).

Labour requirements
For establishment: high
For maintenance: medium
Knowledge requirements
For advisors: medium
For land users: medium

Photo 1: The components of the system (from right to left):

Metal fence, living hedge (recently planted seedlings), agri-
cultural zone with SLM measures (e.g. agroforestry), forest
regeneration area.
Photo 2: Fabrication of chain-link fence by land users.
Photo 3: Dense vegetation cover in the protected area behind
the fence. (All photos by Franziska Kaguembèga-Müller)

188 SLM in Practice

10_Natural_Forest_Dry.indd 188 27.01.11 10:35

 Case study area: Soum Province; Ecological conditions
Burkina-Faso ··  limate: arid, semi-arid
C
·· Average annual rainfall: 300 - 600 mm per year
·· Soil parameters: soils are often very poor and overexploited; laterite
·· Slope: mostly flat 0-2%
·· Landform: mainly plains / plateau
Case study area ·· Altitude: 0-100 m a.s.l.
Ouahigouya
·· Altitude: 2,300 - 2,400 m a.s.l.
·· NewTree works in 2 different climatic zones with different ecological conditions
Ouagadougou
Koudougou Socio-economic conditions
Bobo Dioulasso ·· S ize of land per household: 3 ha
·· Type of land user: small-scale, very poor or poor, implementation by families
(up to 60 members) or groups (e.g. women’s groups)
·· Population density: 30 persons/km2 in the Nord, 70 persons/km2 in the centre
·· Land ownership: state (officially); traditional family property rights (factually)
·· Land use rights: families

Production / economic benefits

Establishment inputs and costs for 3 ha +++ Increased wood production
Inputs Costs (US$) +++ Increased farm income and diversification of income sources
++ Increased fodder quality and quantity
Labour 1,300
++ Increased crop yield
Equipment / tools: pick, shovel, hammer, 100
glove, tong, iron rod Ecological benefits
+++ Increased biomass / above ground carbon
Agricultural inputs: training, seeds, 260
compost
+++ Increased soil organic matter / below ground carbon
+++ Improved soil cover
Components for fence construction: 2,900
+++ Increased nutrient cycling / recharge
sand, gravel, rock and water, poles,
galvanised wire, cement, tree seedlings +++ Increased plant diversity / habitat diversity
+++ Improved harvesting / collection of water
TOTAL 4,560
+++ Reduced soil compaction and crusting
% of costs borne by land users 33% ++ Reduced surface runoff / soil loss
++ Increased beneficial species (predators, earthworms, pollinators)
Maintenance inputs and costs for 3 ha per year ++ Reduced evaporation
Inputs Costs (US$) ++ Reduced wind velocity
++ Increased soil moisture
Labour 730
Training 40
Socio-cultural benefits
+++ Improved food security / self-sufficiency
Agricultural inputs: seeds 40
+++ Improved health
TOTAL 810 ++ Improved conservation / erosion knowledge
% of costs borne by land users 95% + Improved situation of socially and economically disadvantaged groups

Remarks: A unit relates to a protected area of 3 Weaknesses ➜ and how to overcome

hectares (average size; feasible and beneficial ·· 
High investment costs ➜ introduce income generating activities which
for participating land users, namely farm fami- amortise (help pay off) the initial investments and the waiting time until land
lies / womens’ groups). Labour for establish- users can harvest non-woody products from the forest; relocate the fence
ment includes: digging of planting pits / ditches, to enclose other degraded land when the living hedge is dense enough and
post installation, fabrication of chain-link fence takes over the function of protection.
materials, all plantations, stone lines, half- ·· Insecurity of land rights is a constraint for implementation (government is
moons, etc. Components for fence construc- official land owner) ➜ conclude contractual agreements which include /
tion are locally available. respect traditional and government land rights.

Benefit-cost ratio Adoption

Inputs short term long term All land users have implemented the technology through receiving incentives (pay-
ment for labour and other inputs). Regeneration sites have been established in 5
Establishment neutral very positive
different provinces (Soum in the North, Kadiogo, Kourweogo, Boulkiemde and
Maintenance positive very positive Oubritenga in the centre of Burkina Faso). There is high demand for establishment
of further sites. The demonstration effect of improved agriculture within the fence
(agroforestry, etc. resulting in higher yields) encourages farmers to adopt these
measures in their fields outside the protected area also.

Main contributors: Franziska Kaguembèga-Müller, Coordinatrice ONG newTree, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso; [email protected]; www.newtree.org
Key references: Diatta, M; Albergel, J.; Perez, P.; Faye, E.; Séne, M. et Grouzis, M. 2000. Efficacité de la mise en défens testée dans l’aménagement d’un petit bassin versant de
Thysse Kaymor (Sénégal). 15 p. n Guinko S., 1984. Végétation de Haute Volta, Volume I. Thèse de Doctorat : Université de Bordeaux III (France). Tome, 394p.

SLM Technology: Assisted Natural Regeneration of Degraded Land, Burkina-Faso 189

10_Natural_Forest_Dry.indd 189 27.01.11 10:35

 Case study
Sustainable Forest Management in drylands

INDIGENOUS MANAGEMENT OF TAPIA WOODLANDS - MADAGASCAR

For centuries, the population of the highlands of central and south-western SLM measure Management
Madagascar has sustainably managed and conserved the local tapia wood- SLM group Sustainable Forest Management
lands. These woodlands play an important economic role as a source of in Drylands
non-timber forest products (NTFP) such as wild silk, fruit, mushrooms, edible Land use type Natural forest; silvopastoralism
insects, and herbal medicines. Tapia trees (Uapaca bojeri) comprise up to 90%
Degradation Reduction of vegetation cover;
of all trees in these woodlands, bear an edible fruit, and their leaves nourish addressed Quantity biomass decline
an endemic silkworm (landibe). Landibe silk is used to produce ritual burial
Stage of intervention Prevention and mitigation
shrouds throughout the highlands. Trading silk products and tapia fruits is a
crucial source of cash income for the local communities. Tolerance to climate Silk and fruit harvests vary from
The tapia woodlands are maintained by the local villagers through burning and change season to season but drivers are
poorly understood (could include
selective cutting. Burning favours the dominance of pyrophytic (fire-tolerant) precipitation and temperature)
tapia trees and protects silkworms from parasites. Selective cutting of non-
tapia species and pruning of dead branches also favours tapia dominance Establishment activities
and perhaps growth. Other common species include the endemic Sarcolaena The management of the tapia woodlands has
eriophora and the invasive Pinus patula / khasya. The tapia woodland is clearly evolved over centuries and in recent times has
an anthropogenically shaped forest. However, the creation and maintenance been supported by state imposed regulations.
of the woodlands should be seen as positive transformation rather than a form Thus no establishment activities can be listed
of degradation. here.
Local and state-imposed regulations protect the woodlands from overexploi-
tation. The Forest Service has placed restrictions on forest cutting and burn- Maintenance / recurrent activities
ing while allowing for traditional use rights. The collection of forest products is 1. Selective cutting of non-tapia species,
regulated through a type of common-property regime. For example, fuelwood especially invasive pines.
collection is limited to dead trees or fallen branches. It is forbidden to break 2. Pruning of dead branches.
off large branches to access cocoons. Thanks to these protective regulations, 3. Controlled burning mainly through under-
forest boundaries are mostly stable, and woodland density has increased in story fires after the rainy season (January-
several cases. May).
4. Collection of non-wood forest products
such as fruits (September-December),
medicinal plants, mushrooms, berries,
insects, and hunting of mammals etc.
5. Collection of landibe silkworm twice a year
(November-December and May-June). The
cocoons are cooked, spun and woven into
silk fabric.
6. Collection of fuelwood, limited to dead or
downed wood.

Labour requirements
For establishment: na
For maintenance: low
Knowledge requirements
For advisors: na (traditional practice)
For land users: low (children often harvest
fruit; silk cocoon harvest is easy)

Photo 1: Typical tapia woodland south of Antsirana.

Photo 2: Tapia woodland with some invasive pine trees
­bordering highland rice fields.
Photo 3: Small late wet season fire in a tapia woodland.
Photo 4: Landibe wild silk cocoon.
Photo 5: Bags of tapia fruit for sale on the side of the road.
(All photos by Christian Kull)

190 SLM in Practice

10_Natural_Forest_Dry.indd 190 27.01.11 10:35

 Case study area: Antsirabe and Ambositra, Ecological conditions
Col des Tapia, Madagascar ·· C limate: subhumid; 7 months of dry season
·· Average annual rainfall: 1,000 – 1,500 mm
·· Soil parameters: mostly nutrient-poor or rocky soils; low organic matter;
high drainage; rockier, silica-rich soils compared to the main lateritic soils of
highland Madagascar
Mahajanga ·· Slope: hilly to steep (20-80%)
·· Landform: hill slopes
·· Altitude: 800 - 1,800 m a.s.l.
Toamasina ·· Tapia woodlands are short, endemic, sclerophyllous formations, resembling-
Antananarivo
Mediterranean oak forests or southern Africa’s Miombo woodlands.
Case study area
Socio-economic conditions
·· S ize of land per household: na (woodlands are communal)
·· Population density: 20-40 persons/km2 in the central highlands and 10-20
in the western highlands
·· Type of land user: mainly small-scale, poor households
·· Land ownership: state
·· Land use rights: communal (organised)
·· Level of mechanisation: manual labour
Establishments inputs and costs per ha ·· Market orientation: subsistence (self-supply) and mixed (subsistence-
Traditional method; no establishment phase and ­commercial)
costs. Woodlands are officially state-owned, but in practice managed by neighbour-
ing communities (either unofficially, or increasingly through community-based
Maintenance inputs and costs per ha per year management contracts).
Inputs Costs (US$)
Production / economic benefits
Labour: 10 person-days for harvest of 20 ++ Increased cash income (through selling silk-fabrics and other NTFP)
NTFP +++ Production of NTFP as important dietary supplements (berry, mushrooms,
Equipment / tools: specify 0 protein (insect), etc.)
Agricultural inputs: specify 0 ++ Stable supply of fuelwood
++ Provisioning of medicinal plants
Construction material: specify 0
TOTAL 20 Ecological benefits
+++ Maintenance of biomass,
% of costs borne by land users 100%
++ Maintenance of soil cover and regulation of soil loss
Remarks: The estimation of costs is difficult - ++ Maintenance of endemic biodiversity
fruit are gathered over a two month period by Socio-cultural benefit
school children going out for an hour in the early +++ Improved food security / self-sufficiency (different forest products)
morning each day; the silkworms are collected +++ Maintained cultural value (sacred forest)
by individuals (usually experienced collectors)
on free days. In some areas, projects exist that Weaknesses ➜ and how to overcome
run silkworm nurseries, establish firebreaks in ·· P artly individual indiscriminate cutting and / or strong use of fires leads to
the woodlands, grow and plant tapia seedlings, overuse of the forest resources ➜ needs clear regulations, guidelines and
and finance the purchase of silk looms. These observation of the rules by the local authorities as well as awareness raising
projects obviously require much larger budgets. about the multiple benefits of the forests.
·· Invasion of exotic tree species such as pine and eucalyptus from private and
Benefit-cost ratio village woodlots ➜ the forest service has rightly been encouraging commu-
Inputs short term long term nities to cut these trees from the tapia forests without the need for compli-
Establishment na na cated permits.
·· Insecure land use rights ➜ in 1996 a new legislation opened the way to offi-
Maintenance positive positive
cially decentralise management of state-owned renewable natural resources
Remarks: The larger rainy season silk harvest to adjacent communities, which would aid woodland protection by increas-
provides crucial cash income during the meagre ing stakeholder involvement.
months before the rice harvest. In 1998, the ·· In some areas, silkworm populations have been very low for decades ➜
price of 200 cocoons was between US$ 0.10- recent projects seek to establish silk nurseries and reintroduce the worm.
0.15. For a basket of tapia fruits villagers earned
between 0.02-0.06 US$/kg. During the harvest Adoption
the tapia woodlands produce about 4 kg of fruits This system of woodland management is applied in almost all endemic tapia
per ha (= US$ 0.1-0.25/ha). Dependence upon woodland areas. The area of these woodlands is 2,600 km2 (study area: approx.
woodlands for cash income varies from 0-40%. 50 km2), affecting perhaps 100,000 people. It is a traditional practice – no incen-
tives necessary.
Main contributors: Christian Kull, School of Geography and Environmental Science, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia; [email protected]
Key references: Kull CA (2002): The ‘Degraded’ Tapia Woodlands of Highland Madagascar: Rural Economy, Fire Ecology, and Forest Conservation. Journal of Cultural Geography
Spring/ Summer 2002.

SLM Technology: Indigenous Management of Tapia Woodlands - Madagascar 191

10_Natural_Forest_Dry.indd 191 27.01.11 10:35

 S u s ta i n a b l e R a i n f o r e s t M a n a g e m e n t

Rainforest as natural habitat for mountain gorillas, Rwanda. (Hanspeter Liniger)

In a nutshell Development issues addressed

Preventing / reversing land degradation +++

Definition: Sustainable Rainforest Management (SRFM) in tropical and moun-
tain areas aims to ensure that the goods and services derived from natural for- Maintaining and improving food security +
ests meet present-day needs while at the same time securing their continued Reducing rural poverty ++
availability and contribution to long term development. Central Africa contains Creating rural employment +
the world’s second largest area of rainforests and shelters some of the great-
Supporting gender equity / marginalised groups +++
est biological diversity within the continent, and thus plays a vital role in global
ecological services. Yet, illegal logging, agriculture and hunting seriously threaten Improving crop production na
the diversity and values of these forests. In many countries rainforests are now Improving fodder production +
restricted to mountain areas, and to coastal and river areas. Mountain forests in
Improving wood / fibre production ++
particular play a crucial role in providing freshwater resources, and feeding rivers
Improving non wood forest production +++
and groundwater tables which provide life to dry lowlands.
SRFM combines political and technical issues. On the political side, despite clear Preserving biodiversity +++
commitments of governments and local administrations (ratification of conven- Improving soil resources (OM, nutrients) +++
tions, laws / regulations, etc.), effective measures for protection and sustainable
Improving of water resources +++
management of the remaining natural forests must be better implemented at
ground level. One major issue is improving country level integrated and participa- Improving water productivity ++
tory land use planning with a better recognition of the need for land tenure and Natural disaster prevention / mitigation +++
customary rights to be afforded to the local populations. On the technical side, Climate change mitigation / adaptation +++
there are two main aspects: the protection and maintenance of undisturbed for-
est areas for conserving its rich biodiversity, and the sustainable management Climate change mitigation
of forests for productive purposes either commercially or under a subsistence Potential for C Sequestration no data
system, in other words how to balance profitability while still maintaining ecologi- (tonnes/ha/year)
cal and social integrity. Some critics say that conservation of biodiversity is not C Sequestration: above ground +++
compatible with any use of the forests. However, for most of the population living
C Sequestration: below ground +++
in, or around, rainforest areas the use of forest products represents a vital means
for food security. New trends and opportunities such as paying for ecosystem Climate change adaptation
services should be further assessed and supported. This provides a promising
Resilience to extreme dry conditions +
solution to better integrate conservation and economic aspects.
Applicability: Applicable and crucial for any type of natural primary or second- Resilience to variable rainfall +++
ary rainforests in tropical and mountain areas. Resilience to extreme rain and wind storms +++
Resilience to climate variability: Rainforests are a common resource pool and Resilience to rising temperatures and +++
how well the forest is maintained will determine how vulnerable community liveli- evaporation rates
hoods and national development will be to climate change impacts.
Reducing risk of production failure +++
Main benefits: Improved livelihoods and human well-being through income
diversification and salaries from industrial forest sector, improved water availabil-
ity since mountain rainforests are water towers for dryland areas, maintaining an
ecosystem with rich biodiversity; hindering further deforestation can contribute
immensely to the global carbon balance, providing a critical buffer against global
climate change.
Adoption and upscaling: Success of SRFM depends on the establishment of
policies based on poverty reduction and the active involvement of various stake-
holders at the local, national, regional and international levels. Furthermore it
requires financial resources, a political will, and social investment.

192 SLM in Practice

11_Natural_Forest_Rainforest.indd 192 20.01.11 14:59

 Origin and spread
Origin: Prior to the colonial era, the sacred character of forests helped to conserve
them as part of traditional community resource management systems. After the
1992 Earth Summit, Central African countries adopted laws and regulations includ-
ing sustainable management plans, community involvement and conservation
objectives. However, the execution of these regulations is not sufficiently successful.
Spread of rainforests: 180 million ha are covered by rainforests (out of 582
million ha of forests). They are mainly found within the Central African Republic
(CAR), the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Equatorial Guinea (EG), Gabon
and the Republic of Congo. Rainforests are also found in Cameroon, the high
mountain areas of Ethiopia, Kenya, West Africa (e.g. Benin, Ghana, Guinea Bis-
sau, Guinea, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Togo) and in costal
zones in South Africa, Madagascar, etc. Area of rainforests in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Sustainable rainforest management mainly in: Forest management plans are
in effect in Cameroon, Congo, Gabon and CAR. Cameroon and CAR have more
than 75% of the concession with agreed management plans, whereas the larger
DRC has none. In Central Africa, the forest area certified by the Forest Stew-
ardship Council (FSC) was about 4.7 million ha in 2009: Cameroon (0.9 million
ha), Congo (1.9 million ha) and Gabon (1.9 million ha). Cameroon, CAR and EG
have more than 20% of their land under protection, whereas in Congo, DRC and
Gabon the protected area ranges between 9-11% of the total land area.

Principles and types

Good Forest Governance is a prerequisite for sustainable rainforest manage-
ment (SRFM). It is presently pursued through three approaches: (1) the Forest
Law Enforcement and Trade (FLEGT) process; (2) independent third party observ-
ers; and (3) forest certification and / or legal systems operating in the Congo Basin.
Land use planning: SRFM needs to be part of a broader national land use
planning process. All stakeholders from small farmers, communities, NGOs, the
private sector and government technical services should be involved and col-
laborate very closely - giving special emphasis to social and ecological aspects.
A collective assumption of responsibilities is needed, to bring a transformation of
responsibilities from state to private structures such as communities, NGOs, and
concession-holders. SRFM for carbon, biodiversity and water resources needs
global planning and compensation mechanisms.
Community forestry: The management of forests with or by local communities
is an important mechanism for addressing social equity while pursuing the sus-
tainability of the forest resources. Maintenance and protection of forest resources
can only be achieved through awareness raising and active involvement of com-
munities. For maintaining valuable natural forest resources, clear land tenure and
user rights must be given to communities.
Management plan procedures: Inventories on resources potentially available
for annual allowable cut / harvest and logging maps are, today, standardised
features of any management plan. Through these documents, sustainable log-
ging practices are encouraged and promoted within a forest concession. This
includes the demarcation of annual felling coupes (quotas), adherence to mini-
mum harvest diameters, respect for seed-trees to conserve the biodiversity and
economic value of the forest – and so forth. The construction of access roads
must be carefully planned, as well as timber extraction procedures.
Diversification of production: New niche markets for non-woody forest prod-
ucts, ‘green’ and ‘fair trade’ products can increase the competitiveness and
income of small-scale producers. Ecotourism involving local communities and Pay-
ments for Ecosystem Services (PES) can be promising new income and market
opportunities for forest users.
Biodiversity conservation: Beside national and international protected areas,
small-scale protected areas may be established at the local level which can pre-
serve habitats and serve as refuges for animals. Protected area management Top: Teaching the sustainable use of rattans, Democratic
Republic of Congo. (Robert Nasi)
needs to be integrated within the framework of land use planning. These areas,
Middle: Pit sawing eucalypt log, Uganda. (Jim Ball)
including their buffer zones, must contribute to local economic development Bottom: View of natural rainforests in Guinea. (Jim Carle)
through the promotion of NWFP, ecotourism and community forestry. Hunting,
where legally permitted, should be controlled and reduced to a sustainable level.
Mechanisms to pay for biodiversity conservation need to be established.

SLM Group: Sustainable Rainforest Management 193

11_Natural_Forest_Rainforest.indd 193 20.01.11 14:59

 S U S TA I N A B L E R A I N F O R E S T M A N A G E M E N T
Applicability Land degradation

Land degradation and causes addressed Erosion by water High

Small-scale agriculture represents the main threat to the forest since expanding Erosion by wind Moderate
cropland and grazing land at the expense of forest land continues in many areas: Chemical degradation Low
it is effectively an intensification of the traditional system of slash and burn. In Physical degradation Insignificant
Central Africa, 32% of the rainforest is allocated to commercial logging conces- Biological degradation
sions granted by governments to companies and individuals. Extensive forest Water degradation
logging does not generally lead to a significant loss of forest cover, and does not
compromise forest sustainability directly. Yet forest roads penetrate and open
up previously untouched forests, making them accessible, especially for hunt-
ing and illegal logging. Logging activities and the selective felling of certain tree Land use
species lead to a change in the biodiversity of the forests. Lack of buffer zones Cropland
lead to polluted water courses. Increasing population pressure and the increas- Grazing land
ing demand for biofuels, or other NWFPs, may further heighten the threat to the
Forests / woodlands
remaining rainforest areas.
Mixed land use
Biological degradation: loss of forest ecosystem, biodiversity, and wildlife
Water degradation: decline of water quality and regularity of flow Other
Physical and chemical soil deterioration: soil compaction, loss of nutrients

Land / forest use Climate Average rainfall (mm)

Primary and secondary forests can be defined as natural forests. Within a tropical
rainforest, different layers can be distinguished: the ground layer (the forest floor), Humid > 3000
the shrub layer, the understory, the canopy and the emergent layer. Subhumid 2000-3000
Naturally, there is only limited use of dense tropical forest, mainly by hunter- Semi-arid 1500-2000
gatherers. However, conversion to agricultural land and the application of shifting Arid 1000-1500
cultivation have made it possible to use the land for agricultural production. In 750-1000
tropical rainforests the timber market and logging activities play an important role 500-750
in the use and abuse of the forests.
250-500
< 250
Ecological conditions
Climate: Tropical rainforests thrive under an annual rainfall of 1,750 - 3,000 mm,
and mountain forests between 1,400-2,500 mm. In tropical rainforests, mean
monthly temperatures exceed 18°C. Slopes (%) very steep (>60)
Terrain and landscape: No restrictions; however, in many countries forests steep (30-60)
have been reduced to inaccessible areas – especially steep hills. hilly (16-30)
Soils: Soils of rainforests are very susceptible to soil degradation after removal or rolling (8-16)
change of vegetation cover (e.g. after clear cutting). moderate (5-8)
gentle (2-5)
Socio-economic conditions flat (0-2)
Farming system and level of mechanisation: From small-scale land use to
mechanised commercial logging activities.
Market orientation: Rainforests are used by subsistence small-scale land users
using wood and NWFP as well as for commercial timber or NWFP extraction. Farm size Land ownership
The forestry sector is a main job provider for rural population in many Central Small scale State
African countries. Medium scale Company
Land ownership and land use / water rights: In most tropical African coun-
Large scale Community
tries, the state has claimed legal ownership of forest land since the colonial
Individual, not titled
period, even though the customary ownership of the same areas dates back
centuries, perhaps millennia. Africa lags behind other tropical forest regions in Individual, titled
forest tenure reform with less than 2% of the continent’s tropical forests legally
owned by, or designated to, forest communities or indigenous groups. To ensure
sustainable management of forests, land tenure rights must be ensured for local Mechanisation Market orientation
communities. Manual labour Subsistence
Skill / knowledge requirements: SRFM requires a very high level of know-how Animal traction Mixed
and technical knowledge regarding appropriate techniques. Good education of
Mechanised Commercial
forest management services and local communities is a prerequisite.
Labour requirements: Labour requirements vary depending on interventions
needed (see principles and types).
Required labour Required know-how

High High
Medium Medium
Low Low

194 SLM in Practice

11_Natural_Forest_Rainforest.indd 194 21.07.11 12:23

 Economics Example: Forest certification
There has been some international recognition
Establishment and maintenance costs of progress made towards sustainable forest
Since Sustainable Rainforest Management (SRFM) is mainly a political and man- management in Central Africa through forest
agement issue, the assessment of costs is limited and depends closely on the certification. Among several competing proc-
specific technical and political aspects implemented. esses, the Forest Stewardship Council’s (FSC)
certification system is considered the most
Cost (US$/ha) demanding at the international level - focus-
ing not only on technical, but also social and
Establishment Maintenance
(2-4 year set up phase) (25 years operation) environmental aspects of forest management.
From zero hectares at the end of 2005, FSC-
Community forestry, Cameroon 2,600 – 32,000 2,000
certified forest area ballooned to a total of
(can be up to 59,000)
about 4.7 million hectares in July 2009, spread
(Source: Ingram Verina, see case study on Community Forestry) over three countries: Cameroon (0.9 million ha),
Congo (1.9 million ha) and Gabon (1.9 million ha)
Community forestry in Cameroon includes very high establishment costs includ- (FSC, 2010 and based on expert knowledge).
ing marking the boundaries and agreeing on forest use zones, inventory of forest
resources, management plans, etc. However, once established the operation of Example: Ecotourism Cameroon
the system is at a low price. In Cameroon the ecological and cultural diver-
sity of the country is an asset for tourism. This
Production benefits could be a means to develop the forest sector
It is difficult to give estimation about the production benefits of SRFM, since outside of timber, woodcrafts and NWFP. Even
the benefits are related to management changes. However, recent studies are though Cameroon is trying to make money
helping to put a price on the range of forest goods and services. Yet more from biodiversity, through ecotourism, this
research is needed on the value of environmental services such as water qual- sector is still underdeveloped. In 2007, tour-
ity and supply, soil retention and fertility, carbon storage, and conservation of ism revenues, namely ecotourism in protected
biodiversity, etc. Furthermore, methodologies are needed to calculate the cost and hunting areas, amounted to € 297,260
of unsustainable forest management for comparison (FAO, 2008). People liv- (appr. US$ 365,000 ). Although some pro-
ing in, and around, rainforests need to be rewarded as stewards / custodians tected areas are visited by tourists there is a
of natural forests. Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) comprise voluntary lack of adequate structures to valorise their
transactions for well-defined environmental services. New PES related markets resources. In 2008, 20 protected areas had
for greenhouse gases, carbon, water and biodiversity are emerging around the information centres (Eba’a Atyi R. et al., 2009).
world. The PES approach is still recent in Central Africa, and not widely imple-
mented. Yet many sub-regional actors are beginning to pay close attention to Example: Compensation payments
this type of mechanism. As for donors, the African Development Bank launched There are several initiatives in Central Africa
a ‘Congo Basin Forest Fund’ in 2008 with more than US$ 110 million, which will to compensate protectors of biodiversity.
be partly devoted to setting up PES, including the fight against climate change. There are three types: (1) ‘freezing’ potentially
Similarly, the World Bank, with its Forest Carbon Partnership Facility, and the exploitable areas to promote conservation;
United Nations - UNDP, UNEP, FAO - have significant funding for implementing (2) the labeling of goods produced in compli-
sub-regional programs for reforestation or avoided deforestation. Finally, the Glo- ance with specific environmental standards;
bal Environment Facility has started a ‘Strategic Program to Support Sustainable and (3) restrictions on practices impacting
Forest Management in the Congo Basin’, which is also targeted towards PES. biodiversity in and around protected areas.
All this funding is for three main environmental services – carbon sequestration, Conservation concessions represent the
biodiversity conservation, and watershed maintenance – which are just starting most recent approach in the Congo Basin.
to be implemented in Central Africa. The objective is to convert areas earmarked
for logging into protected areas. No projects
Benefit-cost ratio have started yet, but WWF and Conserva-
short term long term quantitative tion International (CI) have made propos-
als with the goal to conserve the habitat of
Community based forest –– ++ No data available several major species of large mammals.
management
These conservation concession propos-
– – negative; – slightly negative; –/+ neutral; + slightly positive; ++ positive; +++ very positive; als have yet to convince the national gov-
ernments to whom the land belongs. The
Since sustainable forest management is not yet widespread in SSA, it is difficult reluctance of public authorities can almost
to make a realistic assessment of the economics, either current or potential, and certainly be attributed to the opportunity cost
the likely change to sustainable management during the next two decades. of these conservation concessions - esti-
If communities are willing and economically able to involve themselves, they must mated at 10-13 million Euros (US$ 12-16 mil-
receive greater economic benefits from conserving forests than from degrading lion) per year - as well as the complexity of
them. Sustainable natural forest management must tangibly improve local eco- national and local institutional arrangements
nomic welfare, and generate local economic benefits to sufficient levels and in to put in place. (Based on expert knowledge)
appropriate forms to make SRFM economically sound.

SLM Group: Sustainable Rainforest Management 195

11_Natural_Forest_Rainforest.indd 195 20.01.11 14:59

 S u s ta i n a b l e R a i n f o r e s t M a n a g e m e n t
Impacts
Benefits Land users / community level Watershed / landscape level National / global level
Production ++ diversification of production +++ reduced risk and loss of + improved food and water
++ increased production of NWFP production security
++ enhanced long term forest productivity +++ improved access to clean
+ increased wood production ­drinking water

Economic ++ provides a wide range of wood and non-wood products +++ less damage to off-site + improved livelihood and
++ income diversification (e.g. beekeeping, ecotourism) infrastructure well-being
+ increased income ++ markets for non-woody forest
products (diversification)
++ new employment (e.g. ecotour-
ism) and stewardship
+ stimulation of economic growth

Ecological +++ improved protection of biodiversity, endangered forest +++ water availability +++ decreased degradation and
species and habitats +++ water quality desertification incidence and
+++ improved forest cover and stocking +++ reduced degradation and intensity
+++ reduced soil erosion (by water / wind) sedimentation +++ increased resilience to climate
+++ improved water availability +++ intact ecosystem change
+++ increased soil fertility ++ reduced C emissions
+++ improved micro-climate ++ increased C sequestration
++ restoration and protection of remaining natural forests ++ enhanced biodiversity

Socio-cultural +++ recognise value of stewards of natural forests +++ increased awareness for +++ protecting national heritage
+++ community involvement and strengthening environmental ‘health’
++ less conflicts among different users +++ attractive landscape
++ improved knowledge and awareness raising on SRFM ++ reduced conflicts

Constraints How to overcome

Production l Restricted short time use (‘exploitation’) of forests ➜ a wareness of long term benefits and increase of other valuable
ecosystem services provided through natural forests

Economic l  ommercial constraints due to uncontrollable international wood

C
markets
l Availability of market for non-woody products and ecotourism ➜ support the establishment of markets for NWFP and ecotourism
l Insufficient payments for ecosystem services (PES) ➜ improved national and international support and more efforts
needed in establishing fair PES mechanisms
Ecological l Impossibility of reconstituting forests exactly as they were ➜ promote the role of secondary forests and allow most suitable
l Difficult to assess the long term impact of a management practice conditions for regeneration towards natural forests
due to the slow-growing of trees
l Forest resources are still not sufficiently understood – lack of ➜ more investment in research is needed esp. on the contribution of
knowledge and monitoring biodiversity, provisioning of water, etc.

Socio-cultural l P olitical constraints: secure land tenure of communities often not ➜ allocation of land use rights and consolidating / harmonisation of
given, modern and customary laws are often in conflict legal situation including customary laws
l Poverty leading directly to indiscriminate extraction of forest ➜ improving the livelihoods of poor communities in and around for-
resources and dependency on timber market ests and make them independent from destructive forests use,
introduce alternative income options through NWFP or ecotourism

l Knowledge is inadequate, scattered and poorly disseminated ➜ compilation and exchange of experiences made with SRFM, learn-
ing from others
l Lack of knowledge on the current state of forest resources ➜ capacity building of both government staff and community mem-
bers and regular monitoring and reporting about state of natural
forests
l L aws and regulations exist but are not adequately supported, com- ➜ needs a clear political commitment and supervision of activities
munity forest plan may exist, but communities have not enough going on
possibilities to stop illegal logging

References and supporting information:

Blay, D. 2007. Multi-stakeholder forest management: A case from the humid zone in Ghana. Forest Management Working PaperWorking Paper FM/32. FAO, Rome (Italy).
Central African Regional Program for the Environment (CARPE), 2010. http://carpe.umd.edu/, accessed on 15 February 2010.
Eba’a Atyi R., Devers D., de Wasseige, C and Maisels F. 2009. State of the forests of Central Africa: Sub-regional synthesis. In Dewasseige, C., Devers D., de Marcken P., Eba’a Atyi R.,
Nasi R. et Mayaux Ph., (eds) The forest of the Congo Basin: State of the forest 2008. P:127-140. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
FAO. 1997. R. Bellefontaine, A. Gaston and Y. Petrucci (online 2000), Management of natural forests in dry-tropical zones. Series title: FAO Conservation Guide - 32.
FAO. 2003. Forestry Outlook Study for Africa – Subregional Report West Africa. African Development Bank, European Commission.
FAO. 2003. Forestry Outlook Study for Africa. African Development Bank, European Commission.
FAO. 2003. Sustainable management of tropical forests in central Africa. Forestry Paper -143 http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/y4853e/y4853e03.htm#P169_7514
FAO. 2008. Towards sustainable forest management. http://www.fao.org/forestry/sfm/en/ accessed on 23 September 2009.
FAO. 2008. Understanding forest tenure in Africa: opportunities and challenges for forest tenure diversification. Forestry Policy and Institutions Working Paper 19
FAO. 2009. State of the Worlds Forests 2009.
FAO. 2008. Links between National Forest Programmes and Poverty Reduction Strategies, by R.McConnell.
FARMAFRICA. 2009. Tanzania Participatory Forest Management Project. http://www.farmafrica.org.uk/smartweb/tanzania/tanzania-participatory-forest-management-project.
FSC. 2010. Forest Stewardship Council. http://www.fsc.org, accessed on 15 February 2010
German L.A. (ed.), Karsenty A. (ed.), Tiani A.M. (ed.). 2009. Governing Africa’s forests in a globalised world. Earthscan Publications. London.
ITTO, 2010. International Tropical Timber Organisation. http://www.itto.int/en/feature09/, accessed on 15 February 2010.

196 SLM in Practice

11_Natural_Forest_Rainforest.indd 196 20.01.11 14:59

 Adoption and upscaling Enabling environment: key factors for adoption

Inputs, material incentives, credits +

Adoption rate
Considerable efforts have been made to implement sustainable forest management Training and education ++
approaches to forest concessions in Central Africa (from 125,000 ha in 2000, to Land tenure, secure land use rights +++
over 11.3 million ha in 2008). These figures are likely to increase. However, the rate
Access to markets ++
of SRFM adoption differs greatly between countries. Global concern about sourc-
ing wood from sustainably managed areas is encouraging thanks to the launching Research ++
of the Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) process and to
Infrastructure ++
the progressive adoption of certification. FSC-certified forest area increased from
zero in 2005 to a total of about 4.7 million ha in 2009. However, the overall extent Conflicts of interest ++
of certification still remains low. Currently, Cameroon is the only country where
community and communal forestry concepts are translated into concrete actions. Forest Governance
Improving forest governance in Central Africa
Upscaling is pursued through three approaches:
Political and institutional commitment: Governments must have the politi- (1) The FLEGT (Forest Law Enforcement and
cal will to shift from industrial logging to community forestry and take actions to Trade) process initiated by the European Union
do so. SRFM should be integrated into a coordinated national framework with a (EU), aims to culminate in the signing of a
clear forest policy. bilateral Voluntary Partnership Agreement
Land tenure rights: Without clear land tenure rights and ownership for commu- (VPA) between each timber exporting country
nities there is little scope for improving forest management. of the sub-region and the EU. Once signed,
Decentralisation and new forest management plans: All stakeholders from small the VPAs will restrict timber exports to the EU
farmers, local communities, NGOs, the private sector, and government technical to wood that meets the legal conditions
services must be involved in the development of a management plan. A collective agreed.
assumption of responsibilities is needed, bringing a transformation of responsibil- (2) In most countries of the sub-region, the
ities from state structures to private structures (NGOs, concession-holders, etc.). process of linking Independent Observers (IO)
Environmental sustainable logging concession: Logging cannot be banned with the monitoring of forest operations for
totally in rainforests, therefore environmentally and socially sound solutions must greater transparency has been adopted. The
be considered under new concessions. Forest concession should not threaten IOs are generally recruited among international
the livelihoods of local communities and lead to their marginalisation, therefore NGOs working to promote transparency.
local management and enterprises should be supported. Clear rules and guide- Cameroon, Congo and Gabon have also
lines must be available and enforced. worked with the World Resource Institute (WRI)
Research and improving knowledge of the forest resources: Multidisciplinary to develop interactive forestry atlases, making it
approaches are needed to take into account the various aspects of sustainability. available to users interested in basic information
Inventories of biodiversity / wildlife habitat are required as well as information and on forest concession management. In develop-
knowledge related to appropriate / reduced impact logging techniques. Further ment by the Commission for the Forests of
collaboration with research for an all-encompassing view of natural resources Central Africa (COMIFAC), the OFAC (Observa-
and ecosystems is needed. tory for the Forest of Central Africa) will help all
Awareness raising and capacity building: Local forestry services should be Central African countries to make a wide variety
well educated and trained to coordinate and maintain SRFM. Local communities of forest sector data available in a transparent
/ land users need to have a good understanding of all aspects of SRFM - tradi- fashion, including: Forest cover, logging, bio­
tional knowledge supported by more scientific concepts. diversity conservation and biodiversity develop-
Protected forests need better involvement of local communities in order to ment statistics. The private sector is also
reduce damaging and illegal use of the forests. A prerequisite is establishment of involved in initiatives to improve the law on
clear regulations and control mechanisms by forest services and local communi- ­forestry operations and enhance transparency.
ties to ensure commitment to safeguarding protected forests and benefit sharing By the end of 2009, 25 certificates of legality
(e.g. through ecotourism) among all stakeholders. (total area 2.6 million ha) have been granted to
­logging companies following audits by private
Incentives for adoption auditors. Many companies are also involved in
Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) can, and must, increasingly be an incen- the Forest Transparency Initiative.
tive for sustainable management. Clear commitments are needed to pay for the (3) Forest certification and / or legality systems
maintenance of the remaining forest resources. Certification is another tool to operating the Congo Basin.
enhance the adoption of sustainable rainforest management. (Based on expert knowledgement)

References and supporting information (continued):

Karsenty, A., and Gourlet-Fleury, S. 2006. Assessing Sustainability of Logging Practices in the Congo Basin’s Managed Forests: the Issue of Commercial Species Recovery. Ecology
and Society 11(1): 26. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art26/
Lescuyer, G., Eba’a Atyi, R. and Cerutti, P. 2009a. Consommations nationales de bois d’œuvre en Afrique Centrale: un enjeu majeur pour la gestion forestière durable. Paper presented
at the world forestry congress. Buenos Aires, Argentina. 18-23 Octobre 2009.
Lescuyer, G., Karsenty, A., and Eba’a Atyi R. 2009b. A new tool for sustainable forest management in Central Africa: Payments for Environmental Services. In Dewasseige, C., Devers D.,
de Marcken P., Eba’a Atyi R., Nasi R. et Mayaux Ph., (eds) The forest of the Congo Basin : State of the forest 2008. P:15-41. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
Mogaka, H., Simons, G., Turpie, J., Emerton, L. and Karanja, F. 2001. Economic Aspects of Community Involvement in Sustainable Forest Management in Eastern and Southern Africa.
IUCN - The World Conservation Union, Eastern Africa Regional Office, Nairobi.
Nasi, R., B. Cassagne, A. Billand. 2006. Forest management in Central Africa: where are we? International Forestry Review 8(1):14-20.
Nasi, R., J.-C. Nguinguiri, D. Ezzine de Blas (Eds.). 2006. Exploitation et gestion durable des forêts d’Afrique Centrale : la quête de la durabilité. ITTO, CIFOR, CIRAD, L’Harmattan, Paris, 429p.
Odera, J., 2004. Lessons Learnt on Community Forest Management in Africa. A report prepared for the project ‘Lessons Learnt on Sustainble Forest Management in Africa.’
Owen, J., 2004. Can Central Africa’s Rain Forests Live With Logging? National Geographic. Novemter 2004.
Tropical Forest Update. 2009. Owning Africa’s forests. A newsletter from the International Tropical Timber Organistion to promote the conservation and sustainable development of
tropical forests. Vol.19-2
Tropical Forests and Climate Change Adaptation (TroFCCA). 2010. http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/trofcca/_ref/home/index.htm, accessed on 15 February 2010.

SLM Group: Sustainable Rainforest Management 197

11_Natural_Forest_Rainforest.indd 197 20.01.11 14:59

 Case study
Sustainable Rainforest Management

Forest Beekeeping - Cameroon

Apiculture (beekeeping) has been traditionally practiced for at least a century SLM measure Management
in Cameroon, with forest-based apiculture increasing in the last two decades. SLM group Sustainable Rainforest Management
The ancient art of honey hunting, and the more recent apiculture and its prod-
Land use type Natural forest
ucts like honey, wax, propolis, bee venom and royal jelly, are examples of
non-timber forest products (NTFP). A number of projects were supporting pro- Degradation Indirectly deforestation / overuse of
addressed natural forests
duction and marketing, due to the conservation and development benefits of
beekeeping. Beekeeping has low establishment costs and requires little land Stage of intervention Prevention
or labour, and by providing a suitable environment for the hives in a favourable Tolerance to climate Unknown sensitivity of bees to cli-
location (i.e. forest with a range of melliferous trees and plants and sufficient change matic extremes; resilience of bees
water available year round) it is possible to sustainably harvest a range of bee is assumed, but changes in honey
quality and quantity depending on
products on an annual basis. forage available with changes in
For processing of the honey, the honeycomb is filtered and honey can be bot- forest cover / structure
tled and sold. Higher value is obtained by packaging and labelling. In Cam-
eroon up to 4 US$/kg can be achieved for good quality honey. It can also be Establishment activities
sold for industrial use – for example bakeries, sweets. If combs are washed, 1. Construction of hives (traditional or modern,
the resulting honey-water can be made into wine. Wax needs to be melted and depending on skills and availability / cost of
cleaned, and can then be sold ‘raw’ for a price of about 2-6 US$/kg, or further materials).
processed into candles, soaps and creams. 2. Place hives on forest trees or on stands,
In Cameroon, the consumer market is expanding and a small, niche export above the level of fires, as well as away from
market for high quality, certified organic and fair trade wax, honey and propo- ant and termite colonies.
lis, is emerging. The exports to Europe and the US require quality assurance
Maintenance / recurrent activities
schemes that entail costs, expertise and collaboration between government
1. Wait for natural colonisation or capture a
and beekeepers. The number of hives per bee-farmer can vary considerably
swarm and transfer to hive.
from a few up to 150 hives. Approximately 15 hives can be installed per hec-
2. Regular (weekly or monthly) checking of
tare. Beekeepers can be good ‘guardians of the forests’, because they know
hive conditions to ensure that the colony
that the forest provides both forage and water for the bees, and the water and
is not disturbed by pests or damaged
materials needed to make hives and process apiculture products.
through wind / rain. In drought periods a
shallow bucket of water is provided to the
bees. Reparation activities if needed.
3. Harvest honey (as soon as sufficient is
available), wax and propolis, using a
‘smoker’ and clean bucket, leaving brood
combs to maintain the colony (usually
annually at end of rainy and / or flowering
season; depends on location). Harvest-
ing of honey combs often done at night to
minimise disturbance of the bees.
4. Filter honey from combs to separate honey
and wax; then bottle and pack.
5. Process wax (e.g. washing comb and boil-
ing in water or solar melting box) and melt
into moulds, using a press or centrifuge.
Comb washing water can be used in honey
beer or wine in lidded buckets / basins or
bottles or using as fermentation airlock.

Labour requirements
For establishment: low
For maintenance: low
Knowledge requirements
For advisors: medium to high
For land users: low

Photo 1: View of the case study area: mountainous forests in

Mount Oku region, Northwest Cameroon.
Photo 2: Women carrying harvested wax.
Photo 3: Modern bee hive.
Photo 4: Traditional bee hive. (All photos by Ingram Verina)

198 SLM in Practice

11_Natural_Forest_Rainforest.indd 198 20.01.11 14:59

 Case study area: Mount Oku region, North- Ecological conditions
west Cameroon ··  limate: subhumid
C
·· Average annual rainfall: 2,000-2,400 mm
·· Soil parameters: lateritic clay
·· Landform: plateau, valleys, mountain slopes
Maroua ·· Altitude: mountain forests
·· Each forest type produces its own honey, with a specific taste, colour, con-
Garoua sistency and moisture content determined by the pollen and nectar from the
forest plants.
Socio-economic conditions
Ngaoundéré ·· T ype of land user: small to medium scale, very poor to average level of
Case study area wealth; individuals or groups; cooperatives are mainly used for marketing
Bafoussam products and / or buying material
Kumba ·· Population density: 70-100 persons/km2
Yaoundé ·· Land ownership: community forest or individual (titled and not titled)
Douala
·· Land use rights: legal form of community management; many people keep
bees by the forest edge on their farms, usually on privately owned land
·· Market orientation: mixed (subsistence and commercial)
·· Level of mechanisation: manual labour
Establishment inputs and costs per beehive
Inputs Costs (US$)
Production / economic benefits
+++ Subsistence use and sales of apiculture products e.g. wax / honey /
Labour: 10 person-days 40
­propolis soaps, cosmetic, creams, wine, candles etc.
Equipment / tools: +++ Increased income
bee suit 10 ++ Own consumption of honey for food and medicinal use
smoker 15
4 buckets 12 Ecological benefits
filtering materials 10 +++ Conservation of forests and particularly melliferous trees
bottles for honey 5
+++ Pollination of forests and crops
Construction material 2-15
Off-site benefits
TOTAL 94-107 +++ Pollination in area approx 4-6 km from hive
% of costs borne by land users 100%
Weaknesses ➜ and how to overcome
Remarks: For a start up, 5 beehives are needed.
·· Pests destroy hives / eat honey (e.g. honey badgers, ants, termites, civets)
Labour includes collection / purchase of materi-
➜ relocate hives, stronger / different hive construction, regular checks.
als. Hives can be made from local materials (e.g.
·· Theft of hives ➜ patrol forest, make agreements in community, locate hives
raffia palm, mud, rattan, lianas, grasses, wood, or
near farms / houses, chain or lock hive.
sawn planks for top bar hives) and by using availa-
·· Low production ➜ relocate hives to more forested areas, ensure hive
ble tools (machete, axe, knife; lifespan 2-5 years).
located with < 2 km from water source in dry season.
·· Bush fires can destroy hive ➜ agreements with farmers / pastoralists about
Maintenance inputs and costs per beehive
per year bush fire patrols in dry season, create fire breaks around hive and support
trees.
Inputs Costs (US$)
·· Rain can destroy hive ➜ use of metal, sheet, grass, raffia or wood as pro-
Labour: 15 person-days (US$ 4/day) 60 tective ‘roof’, place in a ‘bee house’ of locally constructed materials, or
Construction materials for: replacement / 5 under a simple shelter, and experiment with different designs.
repair hive materials, filtering / harvesting
TOTAL 65 Adoption
Established and knowledgeable beekeepers in a community aid dissemination
% of costs borne by land users 100%
of technology and spontaneous adoption. The technology of hive building
Remarks: Labour costs depend on number of hives needs to be learned but there are many low-tech, local material designs
and distance from household. Costs vary with pro- known, as well as simple designs for ‘modern’ hives. In the mountainous for-
duction level and availability of equipment (knife, ests of Northwest Cameroon, both traditional practices are passed on around
mesh filter, buckets). Harvest equipment can be Mt. Oku as well as being stimulated through cooperatives, associations and
basic and includes smokers (bunch of grass / metal business groups, covering some 4,500 beekeepers mainly in Bui, Boyo,
smoker) and bee suits (also made locally). Mezam and Donga Mantung divisions.

Benefit-cost ratio
Main contributors: Ingram Verina, CIFOR-Cameroon; Yaounde, Cameroon; [email protected]
Inputs short term long term
Key references: Bradbear N. 2004. Beekeeping and Sustainable Livelihoods. Diversification booklet 1. F.
Establishment slightly negative positive A. S. S. Division. Rome, FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations.  n Bradbear N. 2009.
Bees and their role in forest livelihoods. A guide to the services provided by bees and the sustainable har-
Maintenance neutral positive vesting, processing and marketing of their products. NON-WOOD FOREST PRODUCTS 19. FAO. Rome:
204. n Ingram V. 2009. Bees, trade and success. LEISA Magazine 25: 22-24. n Paterson P. 2000. The basis
for success in beekeeping projects.Bees for Development Journal 57.
Remarks: Initial investment in hives often recouped
in 2-5 years, depending on level of production.

SLM Technology: Forest Beekeeping - Cameroon 199

11_Natural_Forest_Rainforest.indd 199 20.01.11 14:59

 Case study
Sustainable Rainforest Management

C o mm u n i t y F o r e s t s - C a m e r o o n
The 1994, Cameroon forestry law introduced the concept of community for- Type of approach
ests (CF), which gives communities the right to access forest resources in or Project / programme based innovation, incor-
around their villages, for an area up to 5,000 ha, over a period of up to 25 porated into legal framework
years. Villagers are allowed to manage, conserve and exploit the products of
Problems / constraints addressed
their CFs in a participatory manner. A manual of procedures guides the proc-
– Often low level of management and adminis-
ess of creating and managing a CF. Basic stages include:
tration skills to obtain and then manage a CF
(1) Inform the community of their rights, obligations and procedures;
– Overcoming competing interests in forest use
(2) Select / create a suitable, legal community entity to manage the forest;
by communities
(3) Mark the boundaries and agree forest use zones;
– Ensuring that all forest users benefit equitably
(4) Inventorise the forest resources, such as timber species and NTFP;
from their community forest
(5) Hold consultation meetings to agree on forest use, zones and plans;
(6) Complete application file by the community and send to government; Aims and objectives
(7) Draw up a management plan for a 5-year period, including the distribution – Devolve forest management and exploitation
of revenues in the community; rights to local communities adjacent to forests
(8) Obtain the necessary felling permit for timber; – Communities benefit from exploitation of for-
(9) Exploit forest and implement activities according to the management plan; est resources
(10) Carry out annual review of logging exploits by ministry; – Forest conservation
(11) Monitor revision of, and approve, the management plan (5-yearly). Target groups
Once the exploitation permit based on the management plan has been Local communities
obtained, communities can start to exploit on an annual basis. Often small
logging enterprises are contracted for timber extraction. Where the focus is on Participation and decision-making
non-timber resources - e.g. Prunus africana in the Northwest and Southwest All stakeholders / users in a community should
– these may be exploited collectively or individually. Activities also include hunt- be represented in the local institution set up
ing, farming, and management of the forest to secure environmental services. to demarcate, apply for, managing and exploit
Revenues from forest resources should be distributed according to the man- a community forest, implemented through a
agement plan, involving payments for extraction and control services (patrolling management committee, often incorporates
for checking on fires, etc.), as well as contributions to the forest management traditional authorities in a community, and in
institution and to community development projects (e.g. schools). collaboration with local Ministry of Forests and
Results in Cameroon are mixed: Over 400 CFs have been requested since Wildlife.
1996, of which 174 are operating while the rest are still waiting to be approved. Implemented SLM / other activities
In 40% of the operating CFs timber is exploited. Issues of concern however – SLM measures: participatory demarcation
include: (1) inequitable distribution of benefits and ‘capture’ by elites, contrac- and landuse and forest use planning
tors and NGOs; (2) low profits resulting from artisanal extraction methods and – Other activities: sometimes community group
scale, and (3) the long and difficult process to obtain the permission. Deter- work e.g. negotiation and conflict resolution,
minants of CFs’ success include: (1) communities’ technical and manage- management and book-keeping skills
rial capacities; (2) access to market information about timber and non-timber
prices and buyers; (3) access to finance and equipment. Implementing bodies
International institutions and NGOs with
national government and national NGOs and
local communities
Land users’ motivation for
­i mplementing SLM
Profitability: harvest of timber
Prestige: social pressure to manage their own
forest
Improved livelihood: by conserving forest val-
ues e.g. water source protection, sacred areas
Rules / regulations: agree on farm and forest
land, hunting zones

Photo 1: Communities placing a boundary market at the edge

of a forest. (Verina Ingram)
Photo 2: People with their beehives, in a community forest.
(Verina Ingram)

200 SLM in Practice

11_Natural_Forest_Rainforest.indd 200 20.01.11 14:59

 Case study area: mainly southern part of Training and awareness rising
Cameroon in the humid and mountain forest ·· F orm of training: on-the-job; forest visits, public meetings, training courses,
areas; 100,000 ha for 404 community forests exchange visits
·· Topics: community group management, participative planning, financial
management, timber exploitation, forest inventory. Training was provided to
villagers and selected community representatives.
Maroua
Advisory service
Garoua
The communities have been made aware of the possibility to manage their for-
ests and exploit timber. They were assisted to set up CF’s, by projects / pro-
grammes, and sometimes also in the operation of the forests.
Method and key elements: advice (by NGOs, government, village elites) on
Ngaoundéré group management, participative planning, financial management, contract
negotiation, timber and non timber exploitation, inventories.
Bafoussam
Research
Kumba
Research has been conducted on successes, failures and contentious issues
Yaoundé
Douala of CF in Cameroon; does it work? Is it really participative? Who benefits and
Case study area how much? How can governance arrangements be reformed to create impacts
intended in the forestry law?
Organisation / capacity development
Costs and subsidies Most CF’s start with a capacity building and awareness raising phase by
Budget: Large set-up costs: average 2,600- informing the communities of the CF concept, followed by on-the-job capacity
32,000 US$/ha (max. 59’000 US$) over 2-4 building to set up a suitable functioning community organisation, inventorying
years; operating costs: average 2,000 US$/ha/ forest resources, holding consultation meetings, and how to draw up and
year over the 25 year period of a CF. implement a management plan.

Approach costs were met by the following Benefits of SLM Approach

contributors / donors: ++ Improved sustainable land management: cost-benefit analysis indicate
National government 5% there are slightly more environmental and economic benefits than costs
from CF than not having a CF
International NGO 20%
++ Adoption of Approach by other land users / projects: multiplier effect to
National NGO 20% other communities in Cameroon - also across Central African region
Local government 5% ++ Improved livelihoods and human well-being: revenues for community from
Local community, land users 50% legal timber exploitation, conservation of forest environmental services

Total 100% Strengths

·· O ffers legal, long term route for communities to zone and exploit forests, par-
ticularly for timber but also non timber products and environmental services.
Subsidies financed under the approach:
·· Devolves responsibility for forest management and conservation from national
Externally financed inputs government to community level.
Labour not financed (in kind) ·· Gives priority to communities to extract timber, rather than to logging
Equipment / tools Differs by CF: financed by ­companies.
project, leased, owned by a
timber contractor Weaknesses ➜ and how to overcome
Agricultural inputs not financed ·· Implementation costs and time can be higher and take longer than revenues
➜ good initial inventory needed to asses revenues.
Construction material not financed
·· Usually external assistance or informed local community members needed
Infrastructure not financed for implementation, is a long and complicated process.
·· Requirement only to use artisanal logging methods mean profits can be low
Access to credits and losses of timber high, due to wasteful artisanal methods ➜ proposals
In most cases no credit was provided. If a CF was to modify legislative framework are emerging that make it possible to use
supported by a programme / project, some more mechanisation and export to more profitable overseas markets.
receive financial credit to commence logging ·· Danger of capturing revenues by elites and / or inequitable distribution ➜
operations. support / needed to ensure equitable distribution of benefits.

Sustainability of activities
Once community forestry is up a running and exploitation activities show prof-
itably, communities do continue the approach, but few CFs in Cameroon have
more than 3 to 4 years of experience.

Main contributors: Ingram Verina, CIFOR-Cameroon; Yaounde, Cameroon; [email protected]

Key references: Adeleke, W. 2006. Analysis of community forest processes and implementation in Cameroon. WWF-CARPO. Yaounde, Cameroon, WWF-CARPO: 32. n De Blas
E., D., M. R. Perez, J. A. Sayer, G. Lescuyer, R. Nasi and A. Karsenty. 2008. External Influences on and Conditions for Community Logging Management in Cameroon. World
Development 37(2): 445-456. n Oyono, P. R., M. B. Biyong and S. Kombo. 2009. Les Nouvelles Niches de Droits Forestiers Communautaires au Cameroun: Effets Cumulatifs sur
les Moyens de Subsistance et Les Formes Locales de Vulnérabilité. RRI Project. CIFOR. Yaoundé, CIFOR: 101. n Poissonnet, M. and G. Lescuyer. 2005. Amenagement forestier
et participation: quelles leçons tirer des forêts communales du Cameroun? VertigO – La revue en sciences de l’environnement 6(2). n SNV. 2005. Guide d’accompagnement à la
mise en oeuvre de la Foresterie communautaire au Cameroun: Se renforcer par les expériences vécues en forêt humide S. Cameroun. Yaounde, SNV: 20. n Topa, G., A. Karsenty,
C. Megavand and L. Debroux. 2009. The Rainforests of Cameroon: Experience and Evidence from a Decade of Reform. Washington, World Bank,.

SLM Approach: Community Forests - Cameroon 201

11_Natural_Forest_Rainforest.indd 201 20.01.11 14:59

 TRENDS AND NEW OPPORTUNITIES

Weaving baskets from sisal: women at work in Eastern Kenya. (William Critchley)

In a nutshell
To make Sustainable Land Management (SLM) and its products, – Genetically modified crops (BT Maize in South Africa) in combi-
impacts and services more valuable, and / or to connect SLM with nation with conservation agriculture
emerging g l environmental issues, promising new technologies – Markets for ecotourism and agro-ecotourism
and opportunities need to be continually explored. Trends and – Markets for bio-energy / fuel
opportunities encompass both technologies and approaches, – Markets related to compensation payments e.g. payment for
and are based on new markets and market demands. They often ecosystem services (PES)
involve new financial mechanisms. – Establishing training, research and agricultural information centers
In various areas of agricultural production and agribusiness there – Productive gullies for producing cash crops
is investment potential for small-scale land users, ranging from Furthermore, investment opportunities are related to support
primary production and food processing to providing services. services such as establishing farm machinery and equipment
Some promising trends and opportunities in SSA include: plants; tractor hire centers; operating agriculture mechanisation
– Processing agricultural products or ‘value chain’ development centers; developing human and animal power technologies; seed
– New markets for certified agricultural products e.g. Fair Trade, multiplication farms; training of extension specialists and agricul-
Organic Farming, Forest Certification, etc. tural researchers. It is likely that increasing attention will be paid to
– Markets for endemic plants grown under organic / fair trade addressing SLM concerns through new marketing opportunities,
conditions (e.g. rooibos tea in South Africa) including wide ranging possibilities for accreditation and labe-
– Markets for medicinal plants (many indigenous to Africa, includ- ling schemes to command market premiums. Payment schemes
ing ‘devil’s claw’; Harpagophitis procumbens) based on PES are almost certainly forerunners for a new breed
– Origin labeling (e.g. traditional coffee varieties in Ethiopia, grown of programmes and projects. Currently the most promising and
under shade) important trends and opportunities for SSA are organic farming,
– Biotechnology for higher yield, improved fruits, new varieties ecotourism and PES.

202 SLM in Practice

12_Trends_Opportunities.indd 1 24.05.11 11:58

 Payments for Ecosystem Services
Payments for ecosystem services (PES) are economic instruments designed to
provide incentives to land users to continue supplying an environmental ser­vice
that benefits society. The payments cover positive externalities, i.e. measures
taken in one place that have positive impacts on another location, where cur-
rently people benefit from it without paying - which can be viewed as a ‘mar-
ket failure’. Therefore the costs can be internalised; those who benefit from the
services pay and those who provide the services receive payment. PES includes
voluntary transactions for well defined environmental or ecosystem services (ES)
between an ES buyer and an ES provider. The transaction may vary from direct
payments to upstream providers from downstream beneficiaries, or between
companies paying to compensate for their emissions made in another country.
What is being bought must be well defined and can be either a measurable ser­
vice (e.g. tonns of carbon stored) or a change of land use. The payment will natu-
rally only be made if the provider of the services implements the agreed changes.
The voluntary nature of the ‘transaction’ differentiates PES from the conventional
command-and-control approach of many governments. Many PES-projects
have been started in SSA, paying for carbon storage in forests, watershed serv-
ices, Green Water Credits, etc. However, there are still many constraints to
Example: Green Water Credits
implementing PES. These include the lack of clearly defined property rights; the Green Water Credits (GWC) attempts to bridge the incentive
measurable and quantifiable input and service that improved land management gap between upstream and downstream water users. The
achieves; assessing and setting the price for ES; limited institutional capacity to project implements a regular compensation system by water
set up payment systems, etc. users to water providers for specified water management
services (e.g. for hydropower and irrigation) (Source: ISRIC,
2010).
Ecotourism
Ecotourism can be defined as the purposeful travel to natural areas to under-
stand the culture and natural history of the environment, taking care not to alter
the integrity of the ecosystem, while producing economic opportunities that
make the conservation of natural resources beneficial to local people. Ecotour-
ism seeks to minimise impacts on the areas visited and contributes to the con-
servation of these locations and the sustainable development of adjacent areas
and communities. Community involvement in ecotourism is important, provid-
ing income opportunities and compensating for protecting and limiting use of
the ecosystem by the community. Africa is an important ecotourism destina-
tion, e.g. the Kenyan Wildlife Service recorded a revenue of US$ 54 million from
wildlife tourism in 1995. The protection of forests and other natural habitats are
an important aspect of ecotourism. However, the ‘ecotourism carrying capacity’
is usually not precisely known and facilities are often established without prior
assessment of the likely ecological impacts. There is future potential for agro-
Elephants crossing the Samburu river in Kenya. (Hanspeter
ecotourism, where the focus of attention is on – for example – ancient terraces Liniger)
combined with traditional farming methods.

Biogas Production
Biogas is gas that is naturally produced during the decomposition of organic
waste. The gas is captured in a storage tank (on site) to be used for household
energy needs such as cooking, heating and lighting. The most common form of
input material is cow dung making it very appropriate for rural settings in SSA.
The technology offers two major advantages: (1) On-site and low-cost energy
production based on internal inputs; (2) Reduced usage of fuelwood which trans-
lates into less cutting down of trees leading to reduced deforestation and land
degradation. The biogas plant generally consists of three main chambers: (1) The
digester pit where all the microbiological reactions / decomposition of the mate-
rial takes place; the digester has to be air-tight with the released gas only escap-
ing into the gas holder; (2) The gas holder is connected to the digester through
a pipe and collects all the gas that has been fermented; (3) The mixing pit is the
input chamber where the dung is mixed with water and fed into the digester. Gas collection tank resting on the concrete-built digester.
Pipes / tubes at the top of the gas tank supply the house with
Biogas is suitable either for a farm, cattle post or rural setting where the inputs
methane gas, Botswana. (Reuben Sebego)
(cow dung) are easily available. Energy can be saved at every level of use, i.e.
individual or institutional. In Botswana for example this technology was intro-
duced by the Rural Industries Innovation Center which is a government funded
research institution.

SLM Group: Trends and New Opportunities 203

12_Trends_Opportunities.indd 2 24.05.11 11:58

 TRENDS AND NEW OPPORTUNITIES
Organic Agriculture
Organic agriculture is a holistic production management system that avoids
the use of synthetic fertilizer, pesticides and genetically modified organisms. It
minimizes nitrogen pollution, conserves soil and water, and optimizes the health
and productivity of interdependent communities of plants, animals and people.
Organic agriculture farmers need to implement a series of practices that optimize
nutrient and energy flows and minimize risk. These include: crop rotations and
enhanced crop diversity; different combinations of livestock and plants; symbi-
otic nitrogen fixation with legumes; application of organic manure; and biologi-
cal pest control, such as ‘push-pull’. All these strategies seek to make the best
use of local resources. Findings in a 2008 report issued by UNEP that assessed
114 projects in 24 African countries stated that ‘yields had more than doubled
where organic, or near-organic practices had been used’ and that soil fertility and
drought resistance improved. Organic agriculture — with its emphasis on closed
nutrient cycles, biodiversity, and effective soil management — has the poten-
tial to be more conducive to food security as well as sustainable in Africa than
most conventional production systems and has the capacity to mitigate and even
reverse the effects of climate change.
Demand for organic and fair trade products is increasing on the international
market. These niche markets offer opportunities for small farmers in SSA. How-
ever, they demand high quality products and farmers need to meet certification
requirements, which can be costly to establish. Furthermore, farmers depend
closely on efficient marketing, and need support to access niche markets and
fulfil the demand (for example) for specific organic products – including fibres Top: Rooibos tea bushes in Western Cape, South Africa – and
the product marketed in Europe. (William Critchley)
as well as food. Organic agricultural methods are internationally regulated and
Bottom: Development agencies are promoting export of
legally enforced by many nations, based in large part on the standards set by the organic products from Africa. By now more than 50,000
International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), an interna- ­certified organic growers in Uganda. (William Critchley)
tional umbrella organisation established in 1972.

Fair Trade
Fair trade is ‘aimed at equitable social relations’. It aims to enhance trading con-
ditions for small-scale businesses, improve labour conditions for employees and
empower communities through ethical and sustainable trade. It includes pro-
ducers, traders, retail, support organisations and, of course, consumers of fair
trade products. Furthermore, it provides market access to otherwise marginal-
ised producers, connecting them to customers and allowing access with fewer
middlemen. Fair trade aims to provide higher wages than those typically paid to ‘Fairtrade’ logos for fair trade products.
producers, as well as helping producers develop knowledge, skills and resources
to improve their lives. Fair trade products are traded and marketed either by a
‘MEDC* supply chain’ whereby products are imported and / or distributed by
fair trade organisations (alternative trading organisations, e.g. Max Havelaar) or Example: Cooperation for Fair Trade in
by ‘product certification’ whereby products complying with fair trade specifica- Africa – COFTA.
tions are certified by them, indicating that they have been produced, traded, COFTA is a network of Fair Trade producer
processed and packaged in accordance with the standards. Use of labels or organisations in Africa involved and work-
certifications for fair trade is mainly a market-driven approach. Fair trade governs ing with disadvantaged grass root produc-
land management through consumers’ preferences and production demand. A ers to eliminate poverty through Fair Trade.
label for organic production or for ecological wood production (FSC) serves as COFTA was established by African produc-
an incentive to implement SLM and allows the land user to gain a higher price for ers in 2004 and aims to be the African voice
certain products. There are wide-ranging possibilities of labelling schemes. This in lobbying for greater market access and
may even go beyond fair trade and eco-labels and eventually into the realms of Fair Trade advocacy for African Producers,
‘SLM-friendly’ certified products. thus striving to empower the marginalised
The ‘Fairtrade certification system’ covers a growing range of products in SSA, and disadvantaged to become organised,
including, coffee, cocoa, tea, cotton, fresh fruits, honey, spices, shea nut butter active and self-reliant African entrepreneurs.
(beurre du karité), wine, flowers and handicrafts. The cooperation is currently composed of
over 70 member organisations from 20 Afri-
* ‘Management and Executive Development Centre’ can countries. COFTA members are pre-
dominantly handicraft producers, but are
also involved in tea, coffee, vanilla, honey,
dried fruit and juices, textiles among other
income generating activities (COFTA, 2010).

204 SLM in Practice

12_Trends_Opportunities.indd 3 24.05.11 11:59

 Biotechnology and genetically modified crops
Non-GM (Genetic modification) biotechnological practices, such as traditional
breeding, grafting / budding, cloning, radiation for mutations, where the organ-
ism’s genes are manipulated indirectly, are more readily accepted and still have
more potential in SSA. Practices that can improve the yield and quality of fruits
e.g. grafted mangoes, grafted ziziphus, and budded citrus increase their value on
local markets, and hence provide a good source of improved income.
Genetic modification (GM) is a specialised form of biotechnology and involves
the manipulation of an organism’s genetic make-up by introducing genes with
desired traits from other species. GM is considered by some to be an opportunity
because of its potential for ‘pro-poor’ production benefits. However, the whole
debate about GM is still very controversial and any prospects for small-scale Afri-
can land users are estimated to be 20 years away.

Productive gullies
Gullies can be rehabilitated for productive use: thus from an erosion problem
they can be converted into a source of extra income. Untreated gullies can con-
stitute a significant loss of productive agricultural land. Tree planting, natural
grass regeneration and structural measures such as check dams of soil, stones,
branches, and micro-basins are common practices that are used to avoid fur- Ziziphus fruit in Africa wild (top) grafted (bottom); the grafted
‘Pomme du Sahel’ (Ziziphus sp.) is proving very popular and
ther soil erosion and for rehabilitation. In all cases the gullies then need to be
commands a good market both for fruit and graftlings.
protected from livestock. Such ‘treated’ gullies can furthermore offer an oppor- (William Critchley)
tunity to produce more resource-demanding, higher yielding and better revenue
crops e.g. fruit trees, banana and sugar cane (e.g. as in Tigray, Ethiopia), nut
trees (e.g. cashew), vegetables, rubber, etc. Gully-gardens constitute rich ‘micro-
environments’ being well supplied with water and sediment from above. For this
practice to become upscaled, research is required to investigate resource own-
ership issues related to the gullies and runoff. There may potentially be upstream:
downstream conflicts.

Diverse herbaceonsplants, bushes and trees turing the gullies

into productive land. (Hanspeter Liniger)

References and supporting information:

CIFOR. 2006. Payments for Environmental Services. http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/pes/_ref/about/index.htm, accessed on 15 January, 2010.
COFTA. 2010. Cooperation for Fair Trade in Africa. http://www.cofta.org/en/en/index.asp, accessed on 21 June 2010.
Critchley W., 2010. Sustainable Land Management course presentation: “Biodiversity, GM and Organic Production”. VU-University Amsterdam.
DESIRE. 2010. DESIRE-Project. http://www.desire-project.eu/
Ethiocat. 2007. Soil and Water Conservation Practices for Sustainable Land Management in Ethiopia.
Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International & International Fair Trade Association. 2008. A Charter of Fair Trade Principles. http://activistnotes.wordpress.com/2008/06/06/a-
draft-charter-of-fair-trade-principles-flo-and-ifat/, accessed on 1 June 2010.
Falkenmark,M., P. Fox, G. Persson and J. Rockström. 2001. Water Harvesting for Upgrading of Rainfed Agriculture - Problem Analysis and Research Needs. SIWI Report 11.
Stockholm International Water Institute.
FAO. 2003. Workshop on Tropical Secondary Forest Management in Africa: Reality and Perspectives. Proceedings. http://www.fao.org/Docrep/006/J0628e/J0628E30.htm,
accessed on 15 January 2010.
FAO. 2004. The state of food and agriculture 2003-2004: agricultural biotechnology - meeting the needs of the poor? Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations,
Rome, Italy.
FAO. 2007. The State of Food and Agriculture – Paying Farmers for Environmental Services. FAO Agriculture Series No. 38.
FAO. 2010. Organic Agriculture. http://www.fao.org/organicag/oa-home/en/, accessed on 29 March 2010.
FAO. 2010. Payments for Environmental Services from Agricultural Landscapes http://www.fao.org/ES/esa/pesal/index.html, accessed on 15 January 2010.
ISRIC - World Soil Information. 2010. Green Water Credits. http://www.isric.org/UK/About+ISRIC/Projects/Current+Projects/Green+Water+Credits.htm, accessed on 14 June 2010.
Meleca, A., 2008. The Organic Answer to Climate Change. http://www.organicguide.com/community/education/the-organic-answer-to-climate-change/
Moges A. and N. M. Holden. 2008. Estimating the rate and Consequences of Gully Development, a Case Study of Umbulo Catchment in Southern Ethiopia. Land Degrad. Develop.
19: 574–586 (2008).
Müller-Lindenlauf M. 2009. Organic Agriculture and Carbon Sequestration. Possibilities and constrains for the consideration of organic agriculture within carbon accounting systems.
FAO. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/012/ak998e/ak998e00.pdf, accessed on 29 March 2010.
Salami A., B. Abdul Kamara and Z. Brixiova. 2010. Smallholder Agriculture in East Africa: Trends, Constraints and Opportunities, Working Papers Series N° 105 African Develop-
ment Bank, Tunis, Tunisia.
The Katoomba group. 2008. http://www.katoombagroup.org/regions/africa/documents/2009_scoping_report.pdf, accessed on 15 January 2010.
UNEP-UNCTAD. 2008. Organic Agriculture and Food Security in Africa. United Nations, New York and Geneva.
UNESCO. 2005. Teaching and learning for a sustainable future. http://www.unesco.org/education/tlsf/TLSF/theme_c/mod16/uncom16t03.htm, accessed on 15 January.
Wikipedia. 2010. Fair trade. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_trade, accessed on 1.June 2010.
WOCAT. 2007. Where the land is greener – case studies and analysis of soil and water conservation initiatives worldwide. Editors: Hanspeter Liniger and William Critchley.
WOCAT. 2009. WOCAT Database on SLM Technologies. www.wocat.net

SLM Group: Trends and New Opportunities 205

12_Trends_Opportunities.indd 4 24.05.11 11:59

 Case study
Trends and new opportunities

ORGANIC COTTON - BURKINA FASO

In the Ioba province of Burkina Faso, the production, storage, processing and SLM measure Agronomic
marketing of organic cotton has been promoted since 2004 by Helvetas. SLM group Trends and New Opportunities
Organic cotton production adheres to the principles and standards of organic
Land use type Annual crops / perennial crops
farming. Any application of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides and the use of
genetically modified varieties are forbidden. Organic cotton relies on a combi- Degradation Fertility decline and reduced OM
addressed content; Biodiversity decline
nation of different measures: (1) the use of organic fertilizers (manure or com-
post) and recycling of organic matter; (2) crop rotation and / or intercropping; (3) Stage of intervention Prevention and mitigation
careful selection of varieties adapted to local conditions (climate, soil, pests and Tolerance to climate Tolerant to climatic extremes due
diseases); (4) biological pest management (in combination with careful monitor- change to higher water retention capacity
ing of crops); (5) clear separation of organic and conventional cropland, e.g. by of soils, reduced erosion and crop
diversification (reduced risk of total
growing border crops (to avoid contact with chemical substances through spray crop failure)
drift or surface runoff); and (6) soil and water conservation measures. Timely
crop management (e.g. weeding) is very important. Establishment activities
In Ioba rotations crops include sesame (a cash crop), cereals and legumes (food 1. Purchase equipment (knapsack, etc).
crops), while intercrops include leguminous green manure and trap plants. The 2. Establish compost pits.
best adapted cotton variety is FK-37. Bio-pesticides are produced based on
neem seeds (Azadirachta indica). The measures listed above help to improve Remark: Certification requires a converting
soil fertility, reduce production costs (and thus financial risk) and avoid the nega- period of 3 years.
tive effects of conventional farming: declining yields, resistance to pests and
diseases, health hazards and environmental problems caused through the use Maintenance / recurrent activities
of chemicals. 1. Compost production.
By relying on inputs available / produced on the farm and by getting a better 2. Clear crop residues on fields where cotton
price for certified organic products, profitability of the farm is improved in the will be planted, use for mulch or compost
long run despite of lower productivity compared to conventional or genetically production (no burning).
modified (GM) cotton. Farms need to complete a 3-year conversion period to 3. Apply organic manure: 7.5 t/ha.
change their production system from conventional to organic. Farmers have to 4. Ploughing (for incorporation of manure,
maintain records and documents for periodic inspection and certification (Inter- pest and weed control).
nal control system). 5. Sow cotton and intercrops (such as Hibis-
cus esculentus – a trap plant for pests; or
Mucuna – a green manure plant); Thin out
cotton after 10-20 days (1-2 plants per
pocket).
6. Weeding (3 to 4 times: 20/40/70/100 days
after sowing).
7. Pest control (manual collection); Spray-
ing of bio-pesticide (64 liters/ha, based on
neem seeds): according to infestation: up
to 3 times.
8. Ridging (form furrows and ridges using
plough or manually).
9. Pre-harvest weeding.
10. Harvesting.
11. Cut cotton stems / residues and incorpo-
rate into the soil.

Labour requirements
For establishment: high
For maintenance: medium
Knowledge requirements
For advisors: high
For land users: medium

Photo 1: Land preparation using an oxen-drawn plough.

(Helvetas)
Photo 2: Spraying bio-pesticides – one ­element of organic
pest management. (Helvetas)
Photo 3: Harvesting cotton. (Jörg Böthling)

206 SLM in Practice

12_Trends_Opportunities.indd 5 24.05.11 11:59

 Case study area: Dano, Ioba province, Ecological conditions
Burkina Faso ·· C  limate: subhumid (tropical, with high rainfall variability)
·· Average annual rainfall: 750-1,000 mm per year
·· Soil parameters: medium soil fertility, medium organic matter content; sandy
or sandy-clayey texture; medium drainage
·· Slope: mainly flat (0-2%), partly gentle (2-5%)
·· Landform: mainly plateaus / plains, valleys
Ouahigouya ·· Altitude: 300-500 m a.s.l.
·· Cotton prefers dry, hot and sunny climate, a minimum of 500 mm of rain dis-
Ouagadougou tributed over the vegetation period (5 months), deep clay soils (vertisols)
Koudougou Socio-economic conditions
Bobo Dioulasso
·· S ize of land per household: average cotton production area ca. 1 ha
Case study area ·· Type of land user: individual small-scale farmers; men and women; certain
activities carried out in mutual help groups
·· Population density: 60 persons/km2
·· Land ownership: group (family clans) / state
·· Land use rights: individual
·· Level of mechanisation: mainly manual labour, partly animal traction
·· Market orientation: mixed (organic products for market; other crops such as
Establishment inputs and costs per farm cereals, legumes and root crops for subsistence)
Inputs Costs (US$)
Production / economic benefits
Labour: 2 person-days 2
+++ Improved income: better price due to organic premium (50% more than
Equipment / tools: 15-liter-knapsack 50 for conventional cotton) compensates initial decrease of yields
Agricultural inputs na +++ Reduced production costs: less expenses for inputs (- 90% compared to
TOTAL 52 conventional cotton), gross margin is 30% higher
++ Reduced financial risk, less indebtedness for input provision
% of costs borne by land users 100%
Ecological benefits
+ Increased soil fertility and increased soil organic matter
Maintenance inputs and costs per ha per year + Increased water holding capacity of soils
Inputs Costs (US$) + Increased biodiversity; Eco-balance between pests and beneficial insects
+ No pollution of the environment through toxic chemicals
Labour: 145 person-days (at 1.1 US$) 160
Socio-cultural benefits
Equipment / tools (see establishment) 0
+ Income opportunity for women
Agricultural inputs: cotton & intercrop 28 + Enhanced health of humans and livestock (no health risks due to pesti-
seeds, manure, neem seeds
cides, diversified and organic food crops)
TOTAL 188 + Enhanced organisation (farmers groups)
% of costs borne by land users 100%
Off-site benefits
Remarks: Standard equipment (hoe, plough, + Reduced water pollution
wheel-barrow) is not included in costs, knapsack
is provided by producer’s association (UNPCB) Weaknesses ➜ and how to overcome
on credit; transport bags are donated. Labour ·· C oexistence of organic and GM cotton resulting in high risk of contamina-
and other inputs for erosion control measures tion ➜ intensify training of farmers; set up a coordination platform between
(e.g. stone bunds) are not included in costs. organic and GM farms; establish a sampling and testing system.
Neem biocide costs US$ 0.7 per liter; organic ·· Insufficient application of manure / compost ➜ training on compost production;
cotton seeds cost US$ 1.7 per 50 kg. Promote supply / production of organic manure (e.g. through small enterprises).
·· Large distance to cotton fields (resulting in high transportation costs) due to
Benefit-cost ratio interfering of browsing livestock close to village ➜ hay-making and cor-
ralling of livestock.
Inputs short term long term
·· Lack of land, land ownership and land security ➜ promote land leasing;
Establishment slightly positive very positive resolve tenure problem on political level.
Maintenance very positive very positive ·· Lack of equipment (e.g. plough) ➜ access to credits for small-scale farmers.
·· Lack of water ➜ establish water retention structures.
Remarks: Establishment costs are higher than
revenues due to investments & initial decrease Adoption
in yield (conversion period). On the long term, Cotton is the top export product in Burkina Faso and other West-African coun-
advanced farmers can achieve same or even tries (50-60 % of export revenues). The proportion of organic cotton is grow-
higher yields than conventional cotton systems. ing. Actually 1% is produced organically. Around 7,000 farmers are producing
organic cotton in Burkina Faso, of whom 28% are women.

Main contributors: Lazare Yombi, Programme coton biologique et équitable, Helvetas Burkina Faso; [email protected]  n  Frank Eyhorn and Raphael Dischl;
[email protected], www.helvetas.org
Key references: Helvetas. 2008. Guide de production - Un manuel de reference (Authors: Ouedraogo A, Yombi L, Doumbia S, Eyhorn F, Dischl R)  n Eyhorn F., S.G. Ratter,
M. Ramakrishnan. 2005. Organic Cotton Crop Guide – A Manual for Practitioners in the Tropics; Research Institute of Organic Agriculture FiBL, Frick, Switzerland

SLM Technology: Organic Cotton - Burkina Faso 207

12_Trends_Opportunities.indd 6 24.05.11 11:59

 Case study
Trends and new opportunities

PUSH-PULL INTEGRATED PEST AND SOIL FERTILITY MANAGEMENT – KENYA

In the Lake Victoria region - like in many other parts of Sub-Saharan Africa – SLM measure Vegetative
stemborer pests, striga weeds and poor soil fertility are the main constraints SLM group Trends and New Opportunities
to efficient production of cereals. In combination they often lead to complete
Land use type Annual cropping
crop failure. The ‘Push-Pull’ technology efficiently controls the pests and pro-
gressively improves soil fertility. It involves intercropping maize with a repellent Degradation Fertility decline and reduced organic
addressed matter content; Increase of pests /
plant, such as desmodium (‘push’); an attractant trap plant, such as napier diseases
grass (Pennisetum purpureum) is planted as a border crop around this inter-
Stage of intervention Prevention and mitigation
crop (‘pull’).
The stemborer moths are attracted to volatile compounds emitted by the Tolerance to climate Technology is tolerant to climatic
napier grass which at the same time serves as a haven for the borers’ natural change extremes
enemies. When moths lay eggs on napier grass a sticky substance secreted
by the grass physically traps the moths’ larvae. Napier is also an important car- Establishment activities
bohydrate-rich fodder grass. Desmodium, a perennial cover crop, produces 1. Plant 3 consecutive rows of napier grass
repellent volatile chemicals that push away the moths, and the plant effectively (Bana variety) around the plot: make plant-
suppresses striga weeds through its root exudates. Furthermore, desmodium ing holes, apply fertilizer (or manure), place
fixes nitrogen, conserves soil moisture, enhances arthropod abundance and 3-node canes or root splits, cover with soil
diversity and improves soil organic matter, thereby making cereal cropping (before rains).
systems more resilient and adaptable to climate change. Being a low-growing 2. Land preparation for desmodium: plough
plant it does not interfere with the crops’ growth. and harrow the land (to get fine soil), make
Push-pull simultaneously improves cereal productivity; enables production of furrows between the rows where the maize
year-round quality fodder - thereby allowing for integration with livestock hus- will be planted (using strong pointed stick;
bandry; diversifies income streams and enables smallholders to enter into the before rains).
cash economy. It also improves soil fertility; protects fragile soils from ero- 3. Mix desmodium seed with super phos-
sion and enables a minimum tillage system. The technology is appropriate to phate fertilizer (ratio 1:2), or alternatively
resource-poor smallholder farmers as it is based on locally available plants, with fine soil. Sow into the furrows and
affordable external inputs, and fits well with traditional mixed cropping systems cover with soil (onset of rains).
practiced in SSA. 4. Plant maize.
5. Weeding of maize, desmodium and napier
grass (3 and 5-6 weeks after planting maize).
6. Manage napier grass: 1st harvest after 3
months (plants are 1-1,5 m high), leave
stem height of 10 cm for quick regrow,
start with inner row.
7. Cut desmodium for livestock fodder, leave
a stubble height of 6 cm; or let it flower for
seed production (and cut at a later stage
for fodder).
Maintenance / recurrent activities
1. Land preparation for maize: carefully dig /
plough between desmodium lines not to
disturb / uproot the desmodium.
2. Plant maize.
3. Trim the desmodium so that it does not
overgrow in between the maize plants
(after 3 and 6 weeks).
4. Repeat activities 5.-7. listed under estab-
lishment.

Labour requirements
For establishment: medium
For maintenance: low
Knowledge requirements
For advisors: medium
For land users: low

Photo 1: A dense barrier of napier around the maize plot;

Spacing of napier plants should be 75 cm between rows and
50 cm between plants within a row.
Photo 2: Desmodium is drilled in between maize rows at 75
cm row to row distance.
Photo 3: Overview of a push-pull plot (max 50 m x 50 m). (All
photos by ICIPE)
Technical drawing: Layout of push-pull plot with1 m spacing
between napier border and maize field. (ICIPE)

208 SLM in Practice

12_Trends_Opportunities.indd 7 24.05.11 11:59

 Case study area: Lake Victoria region, Ecological conditions
East Africa ·· C limate: mainly subhumid; bi-modal rainfall pattern, with main rainy season
March-May; short rainy season October-November
Lodwar ·· Average annual rainfall: 700-1,100 mm per year
·· Soil parameters: low fertility, low to medium depth, medium drainage, low
organic content; texture is mostly loamy clay, partly sandy
·· Slope: < 10 %.
·· Landform: mainly valleys, plains, and footslopes.
Eldoret
·· Altitude: 1,200 – 1,250 m a.s.l.
Kisumu Meru
Socio-economic conditions
Nakuru ·· S ize of land per household: 2 ha; production area: 0.9 ha
Case study area
·· Type of land user: small-scale; very poor to poor; mainly Individual farmers,
Nairobi
some organised in informal groups
Lamu ·· Population density: 440-850 persons/km2
·· Land ownership: mainly individual (titled or not titled); communal; state
Mombasa ·· Land use rights: mainly individual, leased; seldom communal (organised)
·· Level of mechanisation: equally manual labour, and animal traction
·· Market orientation: mainly subsistence (self-supply), starting small-scale
Establishment inputs and costs per plot commercial
Inputs Costs (US$)
Production / economic benefits
Labour: 8 person-days 10
+++ Increased crop production: maize yields increase by 25-50% where stem-
Equipment / tools: planting stick / hoe 0 borer is the only problem and by 300% in areas affected by stemborer
Agricultural inputs: 1,200 napier root 200 and striga weed
splits or canes; 0.5 kg desmodium +++ Increased fodder production: all-year round quality fodder for cattle
seeds; 47 kg superphosphate fertilizer (napier grass and desmodium)
TOTAL 210 +++ Increased income: selling cereal grains, desmodium seed, napier grass (if
% of costs borne by land users 100 % not fed to own livestock), and milk
+++ Reduced financial constraints: reduced fertilizer inputs thanks to nitrogen-
fixing by desmodium
Maintenance inputs and costs per plot per year
++ Reduced workload: weeding is minimised
Inputs Costs (US$)
Ecological benefits
Labour: 6 person-days 7
+++ Increased soil fertility
Equipment / tools: planting stick / hoe 0 +++ Increased soil organic matter
Agricultural inputs: 47 kg 32 +++ Reduced soil loss: soil protected from erosion through desmodium (cover
superphosphate fertilizer crop) and napier grass (barrier)
TOTAL 39 +++ Increased ground cover (cover crop, live mulch)
+++ Increased soil moisture (cover crop, live mulch)
% of costs borne by land users 100%
+++ Reduced wind impacts due to napier barriers
Remarks: Size of push-pull plot for the cost cal-
Socio-cultural benefits
culations above = 0.25 ha.
+++ Social capital generated through common learning and implementing
Input prices (in US$): 1 person-day = 1.2 US$;
agricultural ‘best practices’
1 napier root split / cane = 0.14 US$.; 1 kg
desmodium seeds = 18.9 US$.; 1 kg super-
Off-site benefits
+++ Improved nutrition and both on-farm and off-farm employment
phosphate fertilizer = 0.68US$.

Benefit-cost ratio Weaknesses ➜ and how to overcome

·· N apier grass is an aggressive plant that spreads through rhizomes under the
Inputs short term long term ground ➜ regular control and weeding.
Establishment positive very positive ·· The older napier stems and leaves are less palatable for livestock ➜ regu-
Maintenance positive very positive larly cut young, tender leaves and stems.
·· Minor adjustment of the smallholder farming system to introduce desmo-
Adoption dium in traditional maize-bean intercrops ➜ desmodium (fodder crop) and
The technology is based on low external inputs beans (food crop, important protein source) can both be intercropped with
and is adapted to the traditional mixed cropping maize. In areas where striga weed is not a problem, farmers can plant
systems in Africa. To date it has been adopted by desmodium after every 3 or 5 rows of maize, and use the other rows for
over 29,000 smallholder farmers in East Africa, beans. Stemborers will still be repelled.
mostly without incentives. Where the technology
is being introduced for the first time, farmers only
need demonstration and technology information.

Main contributors: Zeyaur R. Khan (Principal Scientist and Programme Leader) and Jimmy Pittchar, Push-pull Programme, International Centre of Insect Physiology & Ecology (ICIPE),
Mbita Point, Kenya; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] n Flurina Wartmann; Programme Coordination Officer; Biovision Foundation for eco-
logical development; Zurich, Switzerland; [email protected]
Key references: Biovision. 2010. www.biovision.ch n icipe - African Insect Science for Food and Health. 2010. www.push-pull.net n Khan Z.R. et al. 2007. A Primer on Planting and
Managing ‘Push-Pull’ Fields for Stemborer and Striga Weed Control in Maize n Fischler M. 2010. Impact assessment of Push-pull technology . Intercooperation, Switzerland.

SLM Technology: Push-Pull integrated pest and soil fertility management – Kenya 209

12_Trends_Opportunities.indd 8 24.05.11 11:59

 Case study
Trends and new opportunities

E Q U I TA B L E PAY M E N T S F O R W AT E R S H E D S E R V I C E S - TA N Z A N I A
Equitable Payments for Watershed Services (EPWS) is a programme using Type of approach
Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) to improve rural livelihoods. Incen- Traditional / indigenous and project / pro-
tive mechanisms are used to reward upstream landowners for maintaining a gramme based.
beneficial land use or for adapting a particular land use practice which affects
Problems / constraints addressed
the availability and / or quality of downstream water resources. The EPWS
– Land cover changes due to extensive culti-
approach has enormous potential to advance a new conservation revolution
vations
based on a compensation mechanism encouraging and financing conserva-
– Deforestation and forest degradation
tion efforts as well as improving the livelihoods of the rural poor.
– Soil erosion, loss of soil fertility
Equitable Payments for Watershed Services (EPWS) aims to spread SLM tech-
– Low storage capacity of the Uluguru Moun-
nologies to communities, to raise awareness of the benefits of SLM and to
tains due to land cover change
improve land productivity. Farmer groups are formed to lead the implementa-
– Declining amount of available water in the
tion of SLM. The approach includes supervision, support and training of farm-
river coming from Uluguru Mountains
ers to ensure appropriate implementation of SLM and efficient soil erosion
– Increase run-off and sediment load in water
control. Methods include demonstration plots and farmer-to-farmer extension.
system due to bare lands
Capacity building to farmers (on gender mainstreaming, good governance and
relevant laws and policies) and monitoring of hydrological and livelihood status Aims and objectives
are important components of the approach. Efforts to ensure good women – Improve livelihoods through SLM
integration resulted in a relatively high proportion within the farmer groups – Improvement of hydrological system
(>35%). – Mechanism to ensure effectiveness, growth
A payment mechanism has been established to compensate farmers for deliv- and sustainability of EPWS
ering watershed services (in form of freshwater) through implementation of – Enhance quality of program implementation
SLM. Compensation payments – paid in cash and through material support Target groups
– are made first to establish land use changes, and thereafter for service deliv- Land users and land use groups (village farm-
ery and maintenance. They are mainly covered through international donors ers, women), SLM specialists (experts on
­(DANIDA) and ‘buyers’ from the private sector, investing in watershed man- hydrology, GIS, SWC, economics, forests,
agement. etc.), politicians and policy makers (district
This PES approach is very new in the country and there is little expertise within commissioners, ward councillors)
the government – which therefore needs to take deliberate efforts to groom
experts through seminars and courses on PES mechanisms and its operation- Participation and decision-making
alisation. The EPWS team consisting of CARE International, WWF staffs and – Interactive implementation and decision
short term workers (such as students) is always involving government staff in making
various activities to induce them to knowledge on EPWS in particular and the – Participatory feasibility studies to identify the
PES concept at large. core problems
– PRA to identify and agree on SLM technolo-
gies
– Government staff was involved in various
activities e.g. planning, training, data collec-
tion and analysis, extension, etc.
Implemented SLM / other activities
Excavation of terraces (esp. Fanya juu / chini,
bench terraces), agroforestry and reforestation,
agronomic practices (intercropping, legume
crops), grass strip planting, applications of
manure and indigenous pesticides.
Apart from SLM sustainable livelihoods activi-
ties were implemented.

Implementing bodies
Care International Tanzania, WWF Tanzania
Country Office, DAWASCO and Coca Cola
KLtd, Morogoro district council through agri-
culture officers, communities
Land users’ motivation for i­ mplementing
SLM
Affiliation to the project, environmental con-
sciousness, well-being and livelihoods
improvement, payments according to PES.

Photo 1: Man observing maize growth after changing his

practices to Fanya juu terraces. (Erasto Massoro)
Photo 2: Farmers excavating Fanya juu terraces to reduce
run off and improve crop production. (Erasto Massoro)

210 SLM in Practice

12_Trends_Opportunities.indd 9 24.05.11 11:59

 Case study area: Uluguru Mountains, Training and awareness raising
Morogoro, Tanzania; 10-100 km2 covered Training was provided to land users by SLM specialists and agricultural advi-
by EPWS Approach sors. Farmer-to-farmer exchanges with neighbouring communities have
improved the capacity of local leaders and farmers’ representatives on practi-
cal skills on SLM measures, leadership skills, governance, gender mainstream-
ing, policies and laws to ensure their understanding on the implementation of
Mwanza
the EPWS project in their locality.
Moshi
Advisory service
Kigoma Tanga Included: technical support on monitoring, provision of extension services for
Dodoma Zanzibar improved land use, situation analysis, awareness creation, capacity building on
legal issues and mapping of interventions.
Morogoro Dar es Salaam People involved: University, foresters, hydrologists, Ministry of Agriculture, land
Case study area use planners.
Mbeya
Research
Research is a main part of PES as an approach to facilitate SLM adoption and
has been very effective in guiding programme design; it included SLM assess-
ment, hydrological analysis, economic analysis, social and livelihoods assess-
ment, etc. All interventions applied were proposed by research conducted
before and during implementation.
Costs and subsidies
Organisation / capacity development
Annual budget: 100,000 -1,000,000 US$ Country with limited experts to operationalise the new PES approach. Govern-
Approach costs were met by the following con- ment needs to take deliberate efforts to groom experts through courses.
tributors / donors: ­Government staff is involved in various activities to induce them with know­
International (DANIDA) 60 % ledge on EPWS.
Private sector (buyers)* 9%
Benefits of SLM Approach
Local community (through labour power) 31 % The project is still in initial stage - impacts can not be fully assessed yet
TOTAL 100% ++ Improved sustainable land management: increased production
*‘buyers’ are downstream beneficiaries who pay or provide rewards ++ Improved livelihoods / human well-being
for managers of the watershed upstream (=‘sellers’)
++ Improved situation of socially / economically disadvantaged groups:
Subsidies financed under the approach: women have gained training in improving land use practices
Farmers are being compensated (paid in cash) ++ Poverty alleviation: through change of crop production
for labour and area provided for the implemen-
Strengths
tation of SLM (opportunity costs). Material sup-
·· A pproach rewards land users for providing watershed services
port through manure, seeds and working tools
·· PES as an additional argument for supporting property claims
is given as well.
·· To ensure services are delivered and payments are made and a reliable
Externally financed inputs monitoring mechanism has been put in place
Labour fully financed (paid in cash) ·· Poor people are in the centre of the objectives
·· PES as an incentive for conservation, helping to change
Agricultural inputs partly financed
(seeds, fertilizers)
Weaknesses ➜ and how to overcome
Equipment partly financed ·· M ay reduce the effectiveness of non-incentive based approaches as people
Remarks: The PES system pays for delivering of will now demand rewards / payments ➜ awareness creation is important to
watershed services which is freshwater (quan- all players including government and local communities.
tity and quality). Payments are made first as ·· Payments / rewards are realised before service delivery ➜ ensure integra-
compensation to establish land use changes, tion of PES with other approaches to ensure effectives short and long term
later for service delivery. EPWS Tanzania is cur- benefits. Paying labour cost upfront while waiting for the service delivery
rently facilitating payments for establishment rewards.
and maintenance of the land use change.
Sustainability of activities
Participant land users can continue the activity without additional support-
maintenance costs are low and the technologies will improve productivity and
resilience of the farming system. Upscaling to neighbouring villages will be
facilitated by the establishment of networks of farmers groups to receive train-
ing by local extension services. A steering committee, with representatives of
the farmers, investors and government offices will facilitate replication in other
parts of the country.

Main contributors: Lopa Dosteus, CARE International in Tanzania, Morogoro, Tanzania. [email protected]

SLM Approach: Equitable Payments for Watershed Services - Tanzania 211

12_Trends_Opportunities.indd 10 24.05.11 11:59

 Case study
Trends and new opportunities

C O N S E R V AT I O N A P P R O A C H F O R K O U R É G I R A F F E S - N I G E R
The giraffe population in Kouré, Niger is unique because: (1) it includes the last Type of approach
representatives of white giraffes (Giraffa camelopardalis peralta) worldwide; (2) Project based (PURNKO - Projet Utilisation des
it thrives in an unprotected environment without any natural enemy (besides Ressources Naturelles de Kouré)
man); (3) it is in direct contact with rural communities and its livestock. The
Problems / constraints addressed
giraffe, reduced to only 49 individuals in 1996, was in danger of extinction
– Conflicts between giraffes and local popula-
due to a variety of reasons, the main one being the progressive deforesta-
tion (damage to crops)
tion in their habitat: the brousse tigré savanna vegetation. From 1996-2000, a
– Extinction of giraffes
government programme funded by international development agencies (SNV*,
– Deforestation (giraffe habitat deterioration)
FFEM and the EU) has been carried out to sustainably protect the giraffes and
– Rural poverty
their habitat. This program is based on a participatory approach which actively
– Negative perception of fauna by the ­population
involves local people in conservation activities, while simultaneously strength-
– Absence of titled land ownership and of
ening local development and promoting ecotourism. Its revenues are redis-
adapted forestry laws
tributed to all local actors. A main pillar of the approach was the transfer of
responsibilities in natural resources management to local organisations. User Aims and objectives
groups, a guides’ association, a project steering committee, etc. were formed – Durable and sustainable conservation of the
and its members were trained. giraffe population in the Kouré area and pro-
Tourism and wildlife observation infrastructure was established – including tection of their habitat.
a visitor’s centre, lodging, watch towers, etc. – and tourism activities were – Building organisational and management
organised: Guides are trained, registered and organised into an association. capacity of the local population for protecting
They receive a fixed salary and accompany tourists in turns. Furthermore they the giraffes.
support project technicians and researchers in monitoring giraffes and collabo- – Fight against poverty by offering supplemen-
rate with the network of government-employed foresters, which has been set tary revenue to population through ecotourism
up to control the conservation of the habitat. (diversification of income).
Tourists pay an entry fee for wildlife watching tours. The revenues and dona- Target groups
tions are partly used for management and conservation of the giraffe habitat – Agropastoral land users (individuals / groups)
and partly for socio-economic development of the villages (such as infra- – SLM specialists / advisors
structure projects). These revenues are managed directly by the ‘communes’ – Planners and decision-makers
(municipalities). – Tourists, women, artisans, teachers and
Thanks to the protection of the savanna vegetation through enclosures for ­students, national visitors
regeneration, prohibition of cutting and closing down of rural wood markets
the giraffe population has recovered considerably, comprising 200 individuals Participation and decision-making
in 2008. Initiation: Ministries of planning, environment,
tourism and artisan, EU, Association of French
*SNV: Netherlands Development Agency; FFEM: French Fund for World Environment; EU: European Union Volunteers for Progress (AFVP), SNV, beneficiaries
Planning / implementation: Kouré Guides
Association (AGK), groups of beneficiaries,
project advisors and animators
Monitoring / evaluation: AGK, groups of
beneficiaries, project advisors and animators,
department of Environmental Protection
Research: French Center for Agricultural
Research for Development (CIRAD), University
of Niamey, National Agricultural Research
Institute of Niger (INRAN), International Union
for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the
International Crops Research Institute for the
Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT)
Implemented SLM / other activities
SLM measures: planting of palatable trees, semi-
circular micro-catchments and planting pits for
water harvesting, rill and gully rehabilitation,
trenches, small dams, stone lines, enclosures
and assisted natural regeneration
Other activities: health, education, infrastructure,
trade, micro-credit, river works, forest surveillance
Implementing bodies
International institutions / agencies, national
and local government, local communities, land
users, researchers

Photo 1: Giraffes around the village of Kouré. (Ahmed Oumarou and ECOPAS*) * ECOsystèmes Pro-
Land users’ motivation for implementing
tégés en Afrique Sahélienne SLM
Increased revenue, profitability, improved liveli-
hood

212 SLM in Practice

12_Trends_Opportunities.indd 11 24.05.11 11:59

 Case study area: Kouré, Tillabéri / Dosso Training and awareness raising
region, Niger; 840 km2 covered by approach ·· B eneficiaries of training program: members of community management
committee, land users (women and men), professional guides, advisors
·· Form: on-the-job, farmer to farmer, demonstration areas, public meetings,
courses, site visits and field trips
·· Topics: Conservation technologies and SLM, ecotourism, professional guide
skills, organisation of associations, accountancy, agriculture
Advisory service
Dissemination of the approach was by rural animation tools (village planning,
Agadez rapid PRA, etc.). The Youth Association for Preservation of Natural Resources
(AJPREN), U.S. Peace Corps, AFVP and local departments for Environmental
Protection ensured a continuous programme of training, environmental educa-
Niamey Maradi Zinder tion and awareness raising of guides and local people.
Case study area Research
Research had been conducted on-farm in collaboration with local populations.
Research topics treated were socio- economical, ecological, technical, giraffe
habitat and genetics and agricultural.

Costs and subsidies Organisation / capacity development

The second phase of the project (1996-1998) was entirely dedicated to organi-
Annual budget: US$ 189,000 sational development including creation of a Monitoring Committee, a decentral-
Approach costs were met by the following ised Development Board, a professional Association of Guides, an Informants
­contributors / donors: Network, an Association of Artisans, women groups, 20 management commit-
International: EU 63,3% tees of village development funds, etc. On one hand partners have implemented
capacity building programmes to train the different stakeholders and on the
International NGO: SNV 18,9%
other hand for financial and logistic support.
International: FFEM 17,8%
TOTAL 100% Benefits of SLM Approach
+++ Improved sustainable land management: one director for the planning
Remarks: Contribution of local populations
and management of the giraffe area was appointed
hadn’t been estimated.
+++ Adoption of Approach by other land users / projects: the ECOsystèmes Pro-
tégés en Afrique Sahélienne (ECOPAS) project adopted (2002) this approach
Subsidies financed under the approach:
which became the basis for national planning action for giraffes in Niger
Externally financed inputs +++ Improved livelihoods / human well-being: 3,811 €/village had been distrib-
Labour of populations not financed uted to the population of 20 villages through village development funds
Labour of project technicians fully financed
+++ Improved situation of socially / economically disadvantaged groups: finan-
cial support to women for agricultural production
Agricultural inputs & construction material fully financed
+++ Poverty alleviation: creation of 13 permanent guide jobs; 900 woman
Infrastructure (tourism, etc.) fully financed developed agriculture production for marketing
Village development funds fully financed +++ Other: conflicts mitigation (between giraffes and population)
Giraffe habitat management fully financed Strengths
·· P opulations organisation and mobilisation
·· Economic, financial and ecological impacts
Access to credits
·· Scientific research tools for decision making
Through village development fund; micro-credit
was allocated without interest to women of
Weaknesses ➜ and how to overcome
women groups for agriculture or livestock pro-
·· A bsence of local and national financial contribution ➜ provide regressive
duction. Repayment occurred after six months.
grants and promote endogenous funding of activities.
After termination of the project, ‘Care Interna-
·· Approach resulted from exterior initiatives ➜ awareness raising and environ-
tional’ continued giving credit however with
mental education to develop ‘conservation behaviour’ in Niger.
interest.
·· Uncontrolled fast growth of giraffe population ➜ transfer of giraffes to other
protected habitats in West Africa.
Repartition of revenues (2007)
Repartition of tourism revenues: 50% for local
Sustainability of activities
communities / villages, 30% for giraffe habitat
After the project was terminated, land users continued this approach without
management and 20% for the government.
external support based on local development organisations, Association pour la
Sauvegarde des Giraffes du Niger (ASGN) and Kouré Guides Association (AGK).
Since 2002, the research component is being continued by ECOPAS / EU.

Main contributors: Abdoulaye Sambo Soumaila, Groupe de Recherche d’Etude et d’Action pour le Développement (GREAD), Niamey, Niger; [email protected], Ahmed Oumarou,
Ministry of Environment, Niger
Key references: Oumarou A. 2006. Elaboration d’une stratégie de conservation à long terme de la girafe au Niger, communication à l’atelier organisé du 22-24 novembre 2006 à
Niamey (Niger) par le Ministère de l’environnement et de la lutte contre la désertification en partenariat avec ECOPAS / Union Européenne. n Compte rendu de l’atelier international sur
la cogestion faune sauvage et bétail, organisé par Abdoulaye Sambo Soumaila et Marlis Lindecke, DED Niger et GTZ Eschborn, février 2001 n Graham R.T.1999. Rapport de consulta-
tion sur l’évaluation et l’appui à la cellule Faune du projet PURNKO, août 1999, Niamey, Niger

SLM Approach: Conservation Approach for Kouré Giraffes - Niger 213

12_Trends_Opportunities.indd 12 24.05.11 11:59

 Hanspeter Liniger

SLM APPROACHES AND CASE STUDIES

Awareness of the best SLM technology options is a pre- In the following section, successful experiences and
condition for spreading SLM. However, how to implement promising current trends in approaches are presented, in
and adapt these practices on the ground and how to order to assist land users under their specific conditions,
create an enabling environment to facilitate this process is and to help indicate what are the most favourable enabling
a major challenge. Despite continuous efforts over many environments for uptake of SLM practices. This is sup-
years the spread and upscaling of SLM practices in SSA ported by six selected case studies illustrating the variety
has been slow. of approaches that underpin the trend towards successful
implementation and adoption of SLM.

SLM approache and case studies 215

Layout_Part_1_2.indd 63 24.05.11 11:13

 SLM APPROACHES

Land users and technicians planning SLM interventions in a watershed, Kenya. (Hanspeter Liniger)

In a nutshell

Definition: A SLM Approach defines the ways and means used Intended beneficiaries: Individuals, communities, common
to promote and implement a SLM Technology - be it project / pro- interest groups, watershed / catchment / village associations.
gramme initiated, an indigenous system, a local initiative / innova-
tion - and to support it in achieving better and more widespread Adoption and upscaling: Clearly identified causes of degrada-
sustainable land management. It may include different levels of tion and corrective measures, an enabling policy and regulatory
intervention, from the individual farm, through the community environment are basics for the adoption of the most appropriate
level, and the extension / advisory system at regional or national SLM measures. Furthermore, the extent of community involve-
levels. It may be set within an international framework. Critical ment at different stages from problem identification to deci-
analyses of approaches should assist in answering questions sion making and implementation will influence adoption and the
about how land users learn about improvements or ‘new’ tech- potential of an approach to be upscaled. Land users or commu-
nologies, how they obtain skills to apply them, how they are stim- nities need to feel ownership or identify with the approach and
ulated to adapt technologies and innovate, and how they gain the technology. Approaches and technologies need to go hand
access to required inputs, equipment and financial resources. in hand and be matched: technologies influence the approach
A successful approach is usually characterised by being people- needed and vice-versa.
centred, responsive and participatory, practical, multilevel and
multi-stakeholder, part of a partnership, sustainable (in its socio- Development issues addressed are: Food security, rural, urban
economic, institutional and ecological dimensions) and dynamic. and peri-urban poverty alleviation, preventing and reversing land
An effective SLM Approach comprises the following elements: degradation, biodiversity and adaptation to climate change.
(1) participants / actors at all levels: policy-makers, administra-
tors, experts, technicians, land users; (2) inputs: labour, material Distribution:
and financial, etc.; (3) know-how: technical, scientific, practical; Participatory Research and Development: Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya,
and (4) the enabling environment: socio-cultural, legal and politi- Senegal, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia;
cal (discussed in Part 1). Participatory Catchment Approaches and Community Based
Approaches that have demonstrated success in SSA include: Natural Resource Management (CBNRM): Burkina Faso, Ghana,
community-based natural resource management (gestion des Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Niger, Tanzania, and Zambia;
terroirs), farmer field schools, animation rural, various approaches Information and Communication Technologies (ICT): Kenya and
that support farmers’ innovations, and the ‘Landcare’ Approach Uganda;
based on its success in Asia and Australia. Contracting Extension Services to NGOs and other third parties:
promising in Madagascar and Mali;
Problems addressed: Lack of technical knowledge, lack of cash Farmer Field Schools (FFS): large number of countries, recent
to invest in SLM, limited access to inputs, conflicts over resource developments in Eastern Africa;
use, poverty, social inequity, lack of a supporting environment such Payment for Ecosystem Services: Ghana, Kenya, Tanzania and
as markets, prices, infrastructure and services, institutional sup- Uganda.
port, with appropriate laws and regulations. These are intended
to address the root causes of low agricultural production through
stimulating the adoption and spread of improved SLM.

216 SLM in Practice

13_Approach.indd 1 24.05.11 12:06

 Evolution of SLM approaches
Approaches can be grouped into three major types: top-down inter- largely rejected the ‘conventional’ transfer of technology (ToT)
ventions, farmer-first and trans-disciplinary. This typology reflects the model (see above). New approaches based on collaboration
broad evolution of approach types and methods over time. between people with local knowledge and researchers devel-
oped and were put into practice. The difficulties of implement-
Top-down interventions: Most of the early soil and water con- ing land user-led participatory approaches have in turn led to a
servation - the forerunner of SLM - approaches in SSA during more focussed approach, in which farmer innovation is driven by
the colonial and immediate post-independence era focused on the economic, social, institutional and policy environment. In the
top-down interventions. These were characterised by lack of last few years, the concept has moved from soil conservation
land user’s participation and ‘forced’ implementation of externally towards SLM both at the farm and landscape level. The focus
developed measures (typically coercive terracing and compulsory now is on empowerment of local community groups by delegat-
destocking). In the associated conventional research and exten- ing authority, accountability and resources to the most appropri-
sion systems, a form of linear Transfer of Technology (ToT) indi- ate level and focusing on local technologies.
cated the one-way flow from researcher to extension worker to
land users. This model viewed land users, extension agents and Trans-disciplinary approach: Research and development is
researchers as three separate levels with links in one direction now widely seen as a ‘holistic’ learning process suggesting that
only, and no feedback mechanism. In the 1950s and 1960s, the it is a joint process requiring the participation of a wider range
common explanation of non-adoption of technologies was that of stakeholders (multi-level and multi-stakeholder). More impor-
land users were ignorant. The answer was more extension teach- tantly, it redefines the role of local people from being merely recip-
ing. In the 1970s and early 1980s non adoption by land users ients and beneficiaries to actors who influence and provide key
was attributed to farm level constraints. The ‘cure’ was to remove inputs to the process; it links scientific and local knowledge in
the constraints by input supply and introduction of Farming Sys- an interdisciplinary mode, emphasises multi-agency collaboration
tems research (FSR). During the late 1980s, and early 1990s the and is problem- and impact-driven.
central role of land users was recognised and their non-adoption However, SLM is often beyond the means, responsibility and deci-
was explained by technologies that do not fit. The solution was to sion-making power of single resource users. Instead of solely con-
emphasise land user participation. sidering local needs the focus has to be expanded towards regional
(watershed / landscape, upstream, downstream) and even national
Farmer first: The new approach made the land user central to needs (for example irrigation schemes), which might restrict individ-
programme design and implementation of soil and water con- ual freedom of decision-making. At this higher level of intervention,
servation activities. It stressed small-scale and bottom-up par- interagency collaboration and the responsibilities of different minis-
ticipatory interventions, often using indigenous technologies and tries and institutions should be clearly defined and strengthened.

Main principles
Participatory (collaborative): Involving and giving land users / of the management and development process, sustaining and
communities responsibility at all stages. enhancing both human and natural capital. Integrated approaches
A participatory approach serves a number of important purposes: imply a shift from simply bringing together representatives of
– builds trust and understanding among stakeholders at local, each sector or projects, towards having them absorb each oth-
regional and even national level; ers’ messages and integrating these ideas into their own core
– ensures that the perspectives and realities of the intended ben- work. It must involve researchers, extension agents, communica-
eficiaries are accurately reflected; tors and land users in a continuous and interactive way, with the
– empowers marginalised and disadvantaged groups (down- objective of solving land users’ problems, using local resources
stream ‘end’ users, female land users, disaffected youth, mem- and personnel, and using equipment and buildings in a low-cost
bers of minority ethnic groups, etc.); manner. Experience has also shown that integrated processes
– fosters ownership of both resources and the process – and thus are assisted enormously when they are supported at the highest
increases the prospects for adoption. levels of government. Examples of integrated approaches are:
Participatory methods are relevant from initial policy formulation landscape approach (integrated watershed management), liveli-
and programme appraisal, through the different evaluation stages hoods approach (integrated rural community development), and
including implementation and improvement, and monitoring and multi-stakeholder decision-making.
impact assessment at later stages. Key elements are: awareness
raising / capacity building, research, extension / advisory service, Partnership-based: In a collaborative approach the role of part-
and organisational development. There is increased use of par- nerships, platforms and coalitions is to mobilise scientific knowl-
ticipatory methods in organisational strengthening, understand- edge for agricultural investments that are pro-poor, pro-growth
ing and negotiation of stakeholders’ perceptions and increased and pro-environment, to have more equitable partnerships by
public accountability. Participatory methods attempt to deal with coupling science and traditional knowledge, achieve a common
issues of ownership and control of knowledge, and to reach clar- vision about SLM, provide the right framework to work together
ity or consensus between stakeholders as to how, by whom, and to develop policy, govern programs and share information and
against what criteria, the programme is to be measured. Exam- to target a broad spectrum of stakeholders: policymakers, civil
ples of approaches that are underpinned by a strong participatory society (NGOs), land users / owners, community-based organi-
philosophy are: participatory rural appraisal, participatory tech- sations, research institutions, mass media, and the private sector.
nology development and learning for sustainability. TerrAfrica is such a platform.
In addition to these principles and as with technologies, important
Integrated (multilevel and multi-stakeholder): An integrated criteria for an approach to be adopted, adapted and upscaled are
approach places people and supportive institutions at the centre that it should be relatively cheap, practical, flexible and sustainable.

SLM Approaches 217

13_Approach.indd 2 24.05.11 12:06

 SLM APPROACHES
Types Example: Zimbabwe
An Intermediate Technology Development
Approaches are basically social processes; they do not necessarily follow any sys- Group project is located in southern Zim-
tematic classification and there is no absolute best approach - though clearly some babwe, where drought occurs in three out
work better in certain situations than others. Approaches need to be developed - not of every five years. The approach combines
selected, transferred or copied - depending on the situation, the people involved, low-cost technologies (water harvesting and
objectives, possible solutions and resources available. In the following, established subsurface irrigation) with building farmers’
and contemporary, proven and promising approaches are briefly described: capacities to participate in research, exten-
sion and within group structures. The ben-
Participatory Research and Development (PRD) is a pool of concepts and efits of the project, beside doubling the yield,
practices that enable people to enhance their knowledge of SLM and strength- include farmers having acquired new skills for
ens land users’ innovative capacity. It is bottom-up, demand-driven and has food production; local institutions having been
partly evolved from efforts to improve technology development and dissemina- strengthened in tackling their own problems;
tion. Participatory approaches are envisioned to (1) respond to problems, needs training has increased confidence among local
and opportunities identified by users; (2) identify and evaluate technology options people, particularly poorest groups; there
that build on local knowledge and resources; (3) ensure that technical innova- is increased involvement of women in com-
tions are appropriate for local socio-economic, cultural and political contexts; munity decision-making; there is also greater
and (4) promote wider sharing and use of agricultural innovations. capacity amongst farmers to articulate their
needs to service providers, and research
Participatory Learning and Action (PLA): This is a new, alternative name and extension systems have become more
for what was initially (and still often is) termed PRD. Instead of outsiders trying responsive to farmers’ needs (Pretty, 2001).
to understand the knowledge of the local people, PLA tries to facilitate local
people to develop their capabilities. The emphasis is on participation as a sys-
temic learning process linked to action and change. PLA is the latest term for the
­basket of ‘P’ technologies including those that follow below.

Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA): PRA is an approach developed mainly

by NGOs. The approach aims at analysis by people themselves of their own reali-
ties and thus the incorporation of the knowledge and opinions of rural people in
the planning and management of projects. It includes the use of transect walks,
maps, calendars, matrices, and diagrams using locally available materials. PRA
evolved from Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) - which was modified more in name
than in nature as ‘participation’ was not thought to be compatible with ‘rapid’.

Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation (PME) is primarily used in impact

assessment and project management. Local people, community organisations,
NGOs and other stakeholder agencies decide together how to measure results and
what actions should follow once this information has been collected and analysed.
It goes beyond the choice of particular methods and techniques to who initiates
and undertakes the evaluation process and who learns or benefits from the findings.

Participatory Land Use Planning (PLUP) for planning of communal or com-

mon property land, which is particularly important in many communities where
communal lands are the most seriously degraded and where conflicts over land
use rights exist. Rather than trying to regulate communal lands through national
policy, new arrangements can be regulated through negotiation among all stake-
holders and communally binding rules for SLM, based on planning units, such as
social units (e.g. village) or geographical units (e.g. watershed) can be developed.

Gestion des Terroirs is the best-known example of a participatory catch-

ment approach in francophone West Africa. It associates groups and communi-
ties with a traditionally recognised land area, aiding these communities in building
skills and developing local institutions for the implementation of sustainable man-
agement plans. It has focused on natural resource management at the village
or community level through: (1) technical projects, such as those related to the
conservation of soil, etc; (2) socio-economic factors related to the organisational
structures within which people arrange their livelihood strategies; and (3) the legal
system and its administration, by which use rights are enforced in practice.
Top: Gestion des Terroirs meeting of village members and
technical staff of a SLM project, Niger. (Hanspeter Liniger)
Participatory and Negotiated Territorial Development (PNTD) is rural devel-
Middle: Participatory Planning with drums in a village, Ghana.
opment through negotiation, participation and dialogue. Developed by FAO, (William Critchley)
the dialogue process starts with the establishment of international partnerships Bottom: Community’s participation at all stages. Treasurer of
between the FAO and local government that will lead to the consolidation of a ter- a forest management project in Niger. (Hamadou Mamoudou)
ritorial social pact to overcome the social and economic inequalities that affect rural
populations, for the eradication of hunger, and for the promotion of social inclusion.

218 SLM in Practice

13_Approach.indd 3 24.05.11 12:06

 Community-Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM): The nature Example: Community-Based Natural
of CBNRM is not simple to define. The concept is related to, and embraces, a Resource Management (CBNRM)
variety of terms, including participatory, community, community-based, collabo- In practice, CBNRM is mostly about ways in
rative, joint and popular natural resource management. It tends to be associated which the state can share rights and respon-
with approaches where the focal unit for joint natural resource management is sibilities regarding natural resources with local
the local community and resources are subject to communal rights. communities. At one end of the scale is com-
Decentralisation is a promising means of institutionalising and scaling-up the munity participation in protecting, for instance,
popular participation that makes CBNRM effective. However, most current a national park, without actually involving
‘decentralisation’ reforms are characterised by insufficient transfer of powers to them in park management. At the other end
local institutions. Decentralisation reforms present the opportunity to move from of the scale is a complete handover of own-
a project-based approach toward legally institutionalised popular participation. ership of land and natural resources from
the state to communities. Between these
Landcare is a community-based approach focused on building social capital two extremes are joint management mod-
to voluntarily resolve local problems affecting the community while preserving els, where representatives of the state, act-
land resources. The unique aspect of ‘Landcare’ is its effective partnership with ing within the terms of negotiated contracts,
government and the broader society, including the business sector, in the form manage a state-owned natural resource (for
of financial and technical advice. In this way, technical knowledge from scientific example a lake or forest reserve) together with
sources can be integrated with indigenous knowledge and the skills of local peo- one or several communities (DANIDA, 2007).
ple. Although not yet common in SSA (found only in South Africa and Uganda) it
is very promising. Example: Agroforestry Extension project,
Malawi
Community development / investment funds: Part of a decentralisation pol- The Agroforestry Extension project (MAFE)
icy often includes making funds available to communities for their own devel- works with some 20,000 farmers on 4,200
opment efforts. Depending on the specific situation - which is a function of the hectares to encourage the adoption of vari-
donor, the country, and the local needs - the funds may be open or earmarked ous agroforestry practices within farms
for specific purposes. The basic concept is that the community has sovereignty (e.g. undersowing of pigeon pea and ses-
over these funds - in other words within a specific domain (for example agricul- bania in maize for soil fertility improvement).
tural intensification), the community decides how to use the funds. Commonly, The project uses participatory approaches.
when allocated to individuals they are paid back into the pool after a number of Farmers are formed into farmer associations,
years, and thus form a local ‘revolving fund’. Some such schemes broaden their trained as trainers and can ask for specific
scope and become, effectively, savings and credit schemes benefiting the com- services from government and non-govern-
munity as a whole. mental organisations. As a result, maize yields
have improved from 700 kg/ha to 1,500-2000
Extension, advisory service and training can be devided into: kg/ha, farmers have become less depend-
1) ‘Multiple strategy’ which includes several or all of the following: aware- ent on fertilizers and more households have
ness-raising, extension worker to farmer visits, training workshops and semi- become both food and woodfuel secure.
nars around specific themes, exposure visits, hands-on training, and the use Some 6.98 million trees were planted in 1999
of de­monstration plots. This is what is adopted by the majority of the project / by 1,155,900 households, and the project
programme-based approaches. expects to see reduced pressure on natu-
2) Informal farmer-to-farmer extension and exchange of ideas. Farmer-to-farmer ral forests as these mature (Pretty, 2001).
transmission was the only form of ‘extension’ for thousands of years, and not
only has it not died out, but it is being rejuvenated through progressive projects.
3) Trained ‘local promoters’ that become facilitators / extension workers under
a project.
None of these are mutually exclusive. Investment in training and extension to
support the capacity of land users and other local and national stakeholders is a
priority to adapt better to changing environmental, social and economic condi-
tions, and to stimulate innovation. Examples of innovative extension approaches
are: Participatory Technology Development (PTD), Promoting Farmer Innovation
(PFI), Participatory Innovation Development (PID) (an umbrella term now covering
PFI); Training and Visit (T&V) for promoting technology packages developed by
subject matter specialists, Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs),
market driven extension, entrepreneurship to support value chains, etc.

Contracting extension services to NGOs and other third parties: NGOs are
playing an evolving role in linking and bridging sectors. Many NGOs are forming
strategic partnerships with government agencies, private sector and grassroots
organisations, and strengthening their technical capacities for scaling-up suc-
cessful initiatives while continuing to pilot innovative approaches. Over the past
few decades, governments in SSA have shifted considerably, from viewing NGOs
as a threat, to recognising their valuable role in grassroots implementation of Savings and loans: micro-finance in Burkina Faso. (William
Critchley)
public agendas, often filling gaps in government services and capacity.

SLM Approaches 219

13_Approach.indd 4 24.05.11 12:06

 SLM APPROACHES
Learning for Sustainability (LforS) is an innovative extension approach for
facilitating group learning processes concerned with issues relevant to sustain-
able development. Its main characteristics are: group learning, learning in the
local context, a multi-level and multi-stakeholder approach and an active, proc-
ess-oriented and situated learning. LforS fosters an in-depth understanding of
the local context by linking information, knowledge, perspectives and experience
from different sources, and by focusing on the dynamics of a given system. LforS
is a process-oriented approach that encourages participants to share with each
other, to discover common interests and goals, and to develop their own visions.

Farmer Field Schools (FFS) for SLM (and ‘farmer study circles’ which are more
informal) is a group learning approach which builds knowledge and capacity
among land users to enable them diagnose their problems, identify solutions and
develop plans and implement them with or without support from outside. The
school brings together land users who live in the similar ecological settings and
socio-economic and political situation. FFS provides opportunities for learning-
by-doing. Extension workers, SLM specialists or trained land users facilitate the
learning process.

Initiatives for supporting local innovators identify traditional practices with a

SLM potential and support recent innovations (e.g. self-help groups, self teach-
ing). Here the ‘approach’ is basically through transfer of knowledge within a com-
munity and through generations. Land users continuously adapt and experiment
with new seeds and plants, as well as new practices and technologies, in order
to cope with changing environments and new problems. Spontaneous spread
may have occurred either recently or through the ages as a tradition. Adoption
can be supported by local institutions / community organisations such as land
user groups, marketing cooperatives, irrigation and range management asso-
ciations, women’s groups, land user to land user extension groups etc. More
attention and support should be given to local innovation as well as to traditional
systems, rather than focusing solely on project-based SLM implementation of
standard technologies.

Integrated watershed management (IWM) approach aims to improve both

private and communal livelihood benefits from wide-ranging technological and
institutional interventions. The concept of IWM goes beyond traditional inte-
grated technical interventions for soil and water conservation, to include proper
institutional arrangements for collective action and market related innovations
that support and diversify livelihoods. This concept ties together the biophysical
notion of a watershed as a hydrological landscape unit with that of community
and institutional factors that regulate local demand and determine the viability
and sustainability of such interventions (i.e. SLM).

Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) is a rather new approach and car-
bon markets in particular, offer incentives to mobilise investments to conserve or
rebuild forests and vegetative cover, in favor of higher biomass, higher productiv-
ity, sustainable agriculture and resilience to climate change. A UNDP and UNEP
CDM capacity-building project includes Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania.
The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) allows emission-reduction (or emis-
sion removal) projects in developing countries to earn certified emission reduction
(CER) credits, each equivalent to one tonne of CO2. These CERs can be traded
and sold, and used by industrialised countries to meet a part of their emission
reduction targets under the Kyoto Protocol. The mechanism stimulates sustain- Top: Participants of a training workshop in Mali playing the
LforS simulation game ‘Sustainable household strategies and
able development and emission reductions, while giving industrialised countries community development’. (Ernst Gabathuler)
some flexibility in how they meet their emission reduction / limitation targets. Middle 1: Learning for Sustainability workshop in a shifting
Other projects are: payments for Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and cultivation, Madagascar. (Andreas Kläy)
Degradation (REDD), pro-Poor Rewards for Environmental Services in Africa Middle 2: Farmer Field School on fertilizer micro-dosing in
upper east Ghana. (William Critchley)
(PRESA) is providing technical and policy support to small-holder PES projects.
Bottom: A Farmer Field School group in Bassodawish, Tanza-
nia reflecting on Conservation Agriculture. (Photo CPAR)

220 SLM in Practice

13_Approach.indd 5 24.05.11 12:06

 Adoption and upscaling Methods and key elements of technical
support
Adoption rate – Awareness raising
Participation of land users / communities has often remained wishful thinking – Creating opportunities for information
due to conflicts and a habitude to adopting a passive role. Under pressure of exchange
success, institutions fall back into instruction-oriented behaviour and a lack in – Using appropriate technologies for
confidence in the rural population. Almost the only field of sustained effective information and communication
extension has been with single commodity approaches for cotton, maize, tea, – Training and capacity building
etc. Nonetheless, participatory approaches are gradually gaining ground across – Organisational development
the institutional landscape – from research and academic organisations to NGOs, – Advisory service
development agencies, and local government units. – Research
– Networking
Upscaling
Field experiences show that for innovations to be sustainable there is a need to
address not only the technological but also the socio-cultural, political, economic
dimensions such as: community structures, gender, collective action, property
rights, land tenure, power relations, policy and governance.
However, public sector research and extension, due to several constraints -
including financial - are generally unable to develop technologies tailored to a
set of individual local conditions (agro-ecological and cultural preferences) hence
often produce poorly focused recommendations. The future of extension is in
decentralisation of technology testing in highly diverse environments, or in par-
ticipatory research with land users (inter-disciplinary).
Continuous innovation has been carried out by farmers for millennia. Enabling
external institutions, such as NGOs, can play a supportive role in stimulating Participatory rural appraisal: sharing experiences between
processes of open discussion and conflict resolution. Researchers and exten- Ethiopia, Ghana and Uganda. (William Critchley)
sion workers can further stimulate the ongoing process of innovation and give it
a new dimension.

References and supporting information:

Asiabaka, C. C., 2002. Promoting sustainable extension approaches: Farmer field school (FFS) and its role in sustainable agricultural development in Africa. Int. J. of Agri. and Rural
Dev.; 3(46-53).
Bass, S., S. J. Scherr, Y. Renard, S. Shames. 2009. New Directions for Integrating Environment and Development in East Africa: Key Findings from Consultations with Stakeholders
in Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda. Ecoagriculture Discussion Paper no. 3. Washington, D.C., Ecoagriculture Partners.
Baumann, P., M. Bruno, D. Cleary, O. Dubois and X. Flores. 2004. Applying people centred development approaches within FAO - Some practical lessons. LSP Working Paper
15. FAO.
Curtis, M., 2007. Deadly Combination: The Role of Southern Governments and the World Bank in the Rise of Hunger. Understanding the Issue (2/2007).
Critchley, W., 2007. Working with Farmer Innovators. CTA.
DANIDA., 2007. Community-based natural resource management. Technical Note. http://www.danidadevforum.um.dk/en/servicemenu/News/CommunityBasedNaturalManage-
ment.htm
Eicher, C. K., 2007. Agricultural extension in Africa and Asia. Staff Papers 7431, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
FAO. 2008. Farmer field schools on land and water management in Africa. Proceedings of an international workshop in Jinja, Uganda. 24–29 April, 2006.
Gonsalves, J., T. Becker, A. Braun, D. Campilan, H. De Chavez, E. Fajber, M. Kapiriri, J. Rivaca-Caminade and R. Vernooy (eds). 2005. Participatory Research and Development
for Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resource Management: A Sourcebook. Volume 1: Understanding Participatory Research and Development. International Potato Center
- Users’ Perspectives with Agricultural Research and Development, Laguna, Philippines and International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada.
Hatcher, J., 2008. Dialogue, consensus and vision – PNTD more than a methodology: a strategy for territorial interaction and integration (edited by P. Groppo, FAO). Land and
Water Division, FAO.
Hurni, H., 1996. Precious Earth - From soil and water conservation to sustainable land management. Geographica Bernensia.
Liniger, H.,1995. Endagered water, a global overview of degradation, conflicts and strategies for improvement. CDE.
Pretty, J., 2001. Compendium of Land and SARD Cases: Supporting Document to Task Managers’ Report to CSD+10 on the Land and Agriculture Cluster for Chapters 10, 12 and
14 of Agenda 21. Compendium of Land and SARD Cases: April 2001.
Shiferaw, B. A., J. Okello and R. V. Reddy. 2009. Adoption and adaptation of natural resource management innovations in smallholder agriculture: reflections on key lessons and
best practices. Environ Dev Sustain (2009) 11:601–619.
WOCAT. 2007. Where the land is greener-case studies and analysis of soil and water conservation initiatives worldwide. Editors: Hanspeter Liniger and William Critchley.
WOCAT. 2008. A Framework for documentation and evaluation of sustainable land management Approaches – basic. WOCAT questionnaire.

SLM Approaches 221

13_Approach.indd 6 24.05.11 12:06

 Case study
SLM Approaches

S T R AT É G I E E N E R G I E D O M E S T I Q U E - N I G E R
The SED approach (Stratégie Energie Domestique: domestic energy strategy) Type of approach
aims at sustainable management of forest resources by delegating responsibil- Project / programme based
ity to the communities and increasing their sense of stewardship. The approach
Problems / constraints addressed
was used within PAFN (Project d’ Aménagement des Forets Naturelles) a long
– Overuse of fragile natural resources through
term project in Niger for the management of natural forests. The local people
uncontrolled cutting of trees
are organised to manage and protect forest resources. On the one hand they
– Conflict over natural resources between pas-
carry out controlled, intensive cutting of trees and use of other forest pro­
toralists (Peulhs) and agropastoralists, lack of
ducts (gum arabic, honey, fruits, doum palm leaves etc). On the other hand
social cohesion, exclusion of women
the communities are committed to sustainably managing the forests through
– Lack of financial resources
SLM technologies, ensuring long term preservation and regeneration of for-
– Lack of land titles and inadequate laws
est resources and maintenance of ecosystem services. Rural wood markets
– Weak organisational capacity and technical
created by the project facilitate wood supply for urban centres and generate
expertise
permanent income for the rural communities, thus improving their livelihoods.
Part of the income is reinvested in sustainable forest management practices. Aims and objectives
The main aims of the approach are to simultaneously expand woodland areas, – Stop uncontrolled exploitation of forest
enhance controlled cutting, assure provision of urban centres with wood, and resources and increase the population’s
guarantee a permanent source of income for rural communities living near stewardship of their land
the forests. The approach is based on participatory methods, involving local – Ensure fuelwood supply for large population
actors at all stages of the project and handing over of major responsibilities to centres (e.g. Maradi, Niamey)
the communities. – Combat poverty by providing additional
The main operational unit of the approach is the so-called SLG (structures sources of income in the form of new rural
locales de gestion), a committee at community level, which is responsible for wood markets
resource management, execution of development activities, monitoring and Target groups
evaluation and sustainability of investments. Setting-up these organisational – Land user(s), pastoralists, women, loggers
structures, as well as training and capacity building of its members is carried and local merchants
out by the project. Once the SLGs are established, planning of development – SLM specialists and advisors, planers and
activities and elaboration of forest management plans (PAF) and village forest decision makers, teachers and students
management plans (PVAF) is done. Then, concrete activities are implemented:
establishment of rural wood markets; commercialisation of wood and forest Participation and decision-making
products; establishment of village development funds; implementation of SLM National and sub-regional governmental insti-
activities. Local people implement project activities at field level. The SLGs are tutions, partnering national NGOs and commu-
the institutional beneficiaries of the approach, they participate in the manage- nities were in charge of managing the project.
ment of generated income (e.g. taxes on products sold) and in turn support the Planning as well as monitoring and evaluation
mobilisation of local communities. The project provides technical and financial was done by regional and sub-regional com-
support (for village development funds earmarked for infrastructure projects). A mittees (comités de suivi et évaluation), NGOs
Committee for Science and Technology (CST) with experts from CIRAD France and SLGs. Decision regarding choice of SLM
and University of Niamey supervised programme implementation. technologies was taken by specialists, after
consulting with communities and land users.
The implementation was done by the SLG with
support from field technicians.
Implemented SLM / other activities
SLM measures: enclosures, natural regenera-
tion (e.g. Acacia alibida), vegetative strips (trees /
shrubs, fodder plants, grass), stone lines, half-
moons, passage ways, mulching with straw and
branches, selective clearing, fire control, etc.
Other activities: health, education, infrastruc-
ture, trade and markets, micro-credits, garden-
ing, poultry farming, beekeeping

Implementing bodies
International institutions together with national /
local government, national NGOs, private sec-
tor, local communities and land users
Land users’ motivation for implementing
SLM
Increased revenue, improved livelihoods, pay-
ments / subsidies, environmental awareness /
health

Photo 1: Marché de bois – firewood market of

Awanchalla,Illéla,Tahoua.
Photo 2: Training of SLG members. (All photos by Hamadou
Mamoudou)

222 SLM in Practice

13_Approach.indd 7 24.05.11 12:06

 Case study area: natural forests in Niger; Training and awareness raising
3,723 km2 covered by the approach ·· T raining was provided for the managers of SLGs, advisors, field technicians
(NGOs and government) and land user(s). Twelve by the project trained rural
animators continued to train SLG members and local animators in the villages.
·· Form: On-the-job learning, site visits, farmer-to-farmer, demonstration
Case study area areas, public meetings, courses, field trips.
·· Topics: SLGs approach and organisation, planning at village level, forest law,
principles and measures of sustainable forest resource management, man-
agement of rural wood markets and of village development funds, methods
Agadez of rural animation and literacy campaigns.
Advisory service
Extension is provided by NGOs (Karkara, ABC Ecologie) and governmental tech-
Maradi Zinder nical services (at regional and sub-regional level) who work directly with the land
Niamey users. The methods used are training workshops, training of trainers, monitoring
and evaluation as well as Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA). Financial and material
support for inputs are offered.
Research
Research was conducted by the Institut National de Recherche Agronomique
Costs and subsidies du Niger (INRAN), University of Niamey, CIRAD France, and local communities.
Annual budget: 1,915,061 US$/year It covered: agro-economy, institutional and energy aspects, training and com-
Approach costs were met by the following munication, sociology, forestry and pastoral infrastructure, environmental mon-
contributors / donors: itoring, credit systems.
International institution / agency 89,9% Organisation / capacity development
National government 9% In each village a local forest management body (Structure Locale de Gestion
- SLG) was established. All in all there are 113 SLGs. In addition 12 rural mar-
Local community, land users 1,1%
kets (9 for doum palm leaves and 3 for gum arabic) were established, each
TOTAL 100% managed by a SLG.
Remarks: African Development Fund, Niger Min-
Benefits of SLM Approach
istry of Environment / national departments of
+++ Improved sustainable land management: 6 PAF and 110 PVAF were elab-
environment, beneficiaries (SLG)
orated and applied by the communities.
+++ Adoption of approach by other land users / projects: The SED has become
Subsidies financed under the approach:
an integrated part of ‘Programme National pour un Environnement et un
Externally financed inputs Développement Durable’ funded by UNDP. Since 2005, all environmental
Labour partly financed projects have a SED component.
Agricultural inputs partly financed +++ Improved livelihoods / human well-being: 24 school rooms and 4 wells
were financed; more than US$ 200,000 of credits were distributed to
Construction material fully financed
2,660 men and women from 2004-2006, etc.
Infrastructure fully financed +++ Improved situation of socially / economically disadvantaged groups: pas-
Training, research fully financed toralists, women, loggers.
Project management (technicians, fully financed +++ Poverty alleviation: Production and commercialisation activities increased
­advisors, monitoring, steering, etc.) income in the project zone by over 100%.

Remarks: Labour for SLM technologies is an Strengths

in-kind contribution from the local people. But ·· O rganisation and training of local communities
labour of development activities was paid by the ·· Enhancing local income and level of economic activity
project. Agricultural inputs: seeds, seedlings, ·· Decision support for sustainable management of natural resources (e.g.
imported fertilizers were paid by the project. maps, scientific monitoring methods)
Seeds collected in the forest and organic fertiliz-
ers were supplied by the beneficiaries. Weaknesses ➜ and how to overcome
·· R equires substantial financial and technical means ➜ enhance in-kind con-
Access to credits tributions from local communities.
Credits were (mainly) given to women for ·· Energy and deforestation problems are not solved sustainably ➜ substitute
‘income-generating activities’ (fodder, buying of fuelwood by a more sustainable source of energy.
fertilizers, marketing and small trade activities). ·· Long term control of forest exploitation is needed ➜ establish permanent
They were set for six months with an annual bodies for ecological monitoring.
interest rate of 20%. Credits were managed
by two micro-finance institutions (SICR Kokari,
Sustainability of activities
The local communities continue implementing the approach without external
MCPEC).
support; cutting of trees is controlled by the water and forestry department to
avoid uncontrolled logging.
Main contributors: Abdoulaye Sambo Soumaila, Groupe de Recherche d’Etude et d’Action pour le Développement (GREAD), Niamey, Niger ; [email protected]
Key references: Rapport d’achèvement du projet PAFN, Cellule de gestion du PAFN, Décembre 2006 n Rapport d’évaluation du PAFN, document de projet soumis au FAD, Rapport
de mission internationale, Juin 1998 Manuel de planification et de suivi-évaluation, Cellule de gestion PAFN, Novembre 2002 n fiches de suivi du projet, 2002-2006 n Kimba Hassane.
2003. Talatou Harouna: Protocole de suivi environnemental, septembre 2003 n Bützler W. 2003. Expertise en Faune et Biodiversité, Rapport de la mission d’appui Août - Septembre 2003.

SLM Approach: Stratégie Energie Domestique - Niger 223

13_Approach.indd 8 24.05.11 12:06

 Case study
SLM Approaches

P R O M O T I N G F A R M E R I N N O V AT I O N - K E N YA , TA N Z A N I A , U G A N D A
The objective of Promoting Farmer Innovation (PFI) is to stimulate technical Type of approach
innovation, in the field of land management, by farmers. The PFI approach Recent local innovation (stimulated by project)
seeks to build on technical initiatives – ‘innovations’ in the local context -
Problems / constraints addressed
developed by farmers themselves in dry / marginal areas where the conven-
– Poor supply of relevant recommendations
tional approach of ‘transfer of technology’ from research to extension agents,
from research for small-scale farmers in mar-
and then on to farmers, has so often failed.
ginal areas
The approach basically comprises identifying, validating and documenting
– Poor delivery of SLM technologies (where
local innovations / initiatives. Simple monitoring and evaluation systems are set
they exist) to farmers
up amongst those innovative farmers who are willing to co-operate. Through
– Lack of motivation of research and exten-
contact with researchers, extra value is added to these techniques where pos-
sion staff
sible. Farmer innovators are brought together to share ideas. Finally, ‘best-bet’
– Isolation of promising ‘innovative’ SLM ideas
technologies, in other words those that are considered to be good enough to
which address low crop yields, land degra-
be shared, are disseminated through farmer-to-farmer extension. This takes
dation and poverty
two forms. First, farmers are brought to visit the innovators in their farms. Sec-
– Lack of exchange of innovative knowledge
ondly, farmer innovators are used as teachers / trainers to visit groups of farm-
ers – including FAO’s ‘farmer field schools’ in some cases. Only in this second Aims and objectives
form of extension is an allowance payable to the innovator. A ten-step field Improve rural livelihoods through an increase in
activity methodology has been developed (see figure 1). the rate of diffusion of appropriate SLM / water
At programme level, there is capacity building of in-line extension and research harvesting technologies.
staff, who are the main outside actors in the programme. In each of the coun- – Promotion of farmer-farmer exchange
tries the approach has been implemented through a government ministry and – Capacity building of farmers and supporting
with NGOs in the field. The principle, and practice, is not to create separate organisations
project enclaves, but to work through existing personnel, sharing buildings – Promotion of policy dialogue
and vehicles that are already operational in the area. A ‘programme devel- Target groups
opment process’ methodological framework shows how the ultimate goal of Land users, SLM specialists / agricultural advi-
institutionalisation can be achieved (see figure 2). PFI’s first phase, completed sors, planners, politicians / decision-makers
in 2000, was financed by the Government of The Netherlands, through UNDP,
and was active in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda. Participation and decision-making
PFI is a potentially important direction for research and extension in SSA. Its ‘Best –bet’ technologies were pre-selected by
principles have been taken up by, amongst others, the UNEP-GEF funded extension agents / researchers based on inno-
‘Stimulating Community Initiatives in Sustainable Land Management’ project. vative farmers’ technologies identified in the
field – but the farmers chose which technology
to implement.
Implemented SLM / other activities
– SLM measures: runoff harvesting, gully con-
trol, composting, etc.
– The approach focussed on SLM only

Implementing bodies
National governments, national NGOs, and
land users
Land users’ motivation for implementing SLM
Increased production, profitability; improved
livelihoods; learning from innovative colleagues

Figure 1 Figure 2 Photo 1: ‘Stimulating Community Initiatives in Sustainable

10. FIs as outside trainers Institutionalisation
for scaling up Land Management’ – a project that follows the PFI methodol-
9. Farmers visit FIs and sustaining ogy: active in Ghana (pictured), Morocco, South Africa and
the process
Uganda. (William Critchley)
8. FIs develop new techniques and Policy Dialogue Awareness Raising
experiments as an thro’ documentation Figure 1: Field activities: the ten steps - from identification
7. Study tours for FIs on-going process and publicity through to using innovators as trainers. (Critchley, 2000)
Figure 2: Programme development processes: the framework
6. FI to FI network visits Impact Assessment Networking
thro’ support studies between agencies of a farmer innovation programme. (Critchley, 2000)
5. Set-up monitoring and evaluation (M&E) and regular M&E and projects Acronyms: FI: Farmer Innovator, M&E: Monitoring and
systems
Evaluation
4. Formation of clustered networks of FIs Support Studies Partnership Forging
gender aspects between different
3. Characterisation and analysis of FIs and innovations uptake of innovations disciplines and diffe-
attitude change etc rent organisations

2. Verification of innovations and ‘recruitment’ of FIs Capacity Building

thro’ training and
1. Identification of FIs and innovations hands-on experience

224 SLM in Practice

13_Approach.indd 9 24.05.11 12:06

 Case study area: East Africa (parts of Kenya, Training and awareness raising
Tanzania and Uganda); 15,000 km² covered Staff seconded from Ministries of Agriculture / NGOs provide: (1) methodology
by the approach. Map shows case study area training for participating staff; (2) presentational skill training for farmer innova-
in the districts of Soroti, Kumi and Katakwi, tors and; (3) training in gender aspects. Training has proved very effective –
Uganda.
partially because it was provided on a ‘response to need’ basis and not
predetermined.
Advisory service
Under this approach there are new roles for government / NGO extension staff
Gulu
- as trainers and facilitators. Substantive extension work is carried out by the
Lira innovators themselves, through (a) other farmers visiting their plots / homes, and
(b) the innovators going outside to act as trainers themselves, either to individual
Case study areas Uganda
farmers or to train groups as happens under PFI Kenya, through FAO supported
Mbale ‘farmer field schools’. Farmer-to-farmer extension has been a main strength of
the programme.
Jinja
Kampala Research
Apart from process monitoring of the methodology, which has led to improve-
Mbarara ments, technical research into the innovations has been relatively weak.
Organisation / capacity development
The approach had an articulated ‘Programme Development Process’ proce-
dure, starting with capacity building and moving upwards through networking,
Costs and subsidies impact assessment and awareness raising, towards the final goal of ‘Institu-
Annual budget: No estimates available tionalisation’.

Approach costs were met by the following Benefits of SLM Approach

contributors / donors: +++ Improved sustainable land management: leads to improved production
International institution / agency 60% and soil and water conservation.
National government 20% ++ Adoption of approach by other land users / projects: In each of the three
countries Government and NGOs adopted at least certain elements of the
International NGO – approach. UNDP and FAO in Kenya set up a joint ‘PFI-Farmer Field
National NGO – School’ project.
Private sector – +++ Improved livelihoods / human well-being: All the innovations were directly
related to better livelihoods (as demonstrated in an ‘monitoring & assess-
Local government –
ment’ exercise).
Local community, land users 20% +++ Improved situation of socially / economically disadvantaged groups:
TOTAL 100% After evaluation at the end of the first phase a gender-proactive policy
(which worked well) was put in place to increase the number of women
innovators involved.
Subsidies financed under the approach: +++ Poverty alleviation: The project focussed on poor, small-scale farmers in
Externally financed inputs dry areas.
Labour not financed Strengths
Equipment / tools not financed ··  uilds on local ideas
B
Agricultural inputs partly financed ·· Revitalises the extension service
(planting material) ·· Is attractive to stakeholders at all levels
Construction material not financed
·· Gives land users more confidence in their own abilities
·· Offers new locally tested ideas / technologies which work
Infrastructure na
Other meals during field days, small Weaknesses ➜ and how to overcome
allowances on study tours ·· D ependent on individual commitment and flexibility; does not follow the con-
ventional institutional chain of command ➜ training in skills and methodologies.
Access to credits ·· Sometime confers too much prestige on a particular group of ‘favoured farmers’
Credits were not provided. ➜ ‘rotate’ farmers who are the focus of attention.
·· Researchers reluctant to respond to farmers’ agenda ➜ effort to convince
researchers of benefits of joint research with farmers.

Sustainability of activities
There are examples of spontaneous voluntary continuation of farmer innovator
groups in all three countries – but on a reduced level after initial project support
ended.

Main contributors: William Critchley, CIS, VU-University Amsterdam, The Netherlands; [email protected] n Kithinji Mutunga, FAO Kenya; [email protected]
Key references: Critchley W. 2000. Inquiry, initiatives, and inventiveness: farmer innovators in East Africa. Phs Chem Earth (B), Vol 25, no3, pp 285-288 n Critchley W. and K.
Mutunga. 2003. Local innovation in a global context: documenting farmer initiatives in land husbandry through WOCAT. Land Degradation and Development (14) pp 143 – 162.

SLM Approach: Promoting Farmer Innovation - Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda 225

13_Approach.indd 10 24.05.11 12:06

 Case study
SLM Approaches

FA R M E R F I E L D S C H O O L S - K E N YA
A Farmer Field School (FFS) is a community-based practically-oriented field Type of approach
study programme. It is usually a time-bound activity (generally one agricultural Project / programme based
production cycle), involving a group (commonly 20-30) of farmers, facilitated by
Problems / constraints addressed
agricultural advisors or – increasingly – by other farmers. The FFS provides an
– Land degradation, climatic variability and
opportunity for farmers to learn together, using practical, hands-on methods of
loss of agricultural biodiversity
discovery-based and participatory learning. The methods emphasise observa-
– Farmers focus on their own farms and
tion, discussion, analysis, collective decision-making, presentation and taking
income and lack of interest for wider water-
appropriate action. Discussion and analysis are important ways to combine
shed / environment
local indigenous knowledge with new concepts and bring both into decision-
making. The aim is to develop participants’ decision-making and problem solv- Aims and objectives
ing capacity among farmers. The process builds self-confidence (particularly – Support farmers’ knowledge levels and deci-
for women), encourages group control of the process, and builds management sion-making capacity in relation to sustainable
and leadership skills. Although FFS are time-bound, many groups formalise land and water management
their relations and continue study or action projects, including FFS on other – Raise farmers’ yields in a sustainable man-
subjects, after the FFS learning cycle is completed. ner and ultimately contribute to increased net
The Farmer Field Schools on Integrated Land and Water Management (ILWM) farm income
in eastern and central Kenya focus on learning about how to improve manage- – Strengthen community organisation and col-
ment of land and water resources both on individual plot and farm level and lective efforts
within ‘landscapes’ and communal lands; including local watersheds, river- Target groups
valleys, forested hill-tops, grazing lands, eroded gullies etc. Each FFS group Land users and small-scale farmers / SLM spe-
experiments practically on selected SLM practices / measures. All learning cialists / public rural and agricultural advisors
takes place in the field and farmers usually meet once per week at a selected
host farm in their locality to monitor their field experiments and to discuss Participation and decision-making
emerging issues. Trained facilitators, usually agricultural advisors, guide farm- The land users are actively involved in all
ers in their observation and analysis of what is taking place in the field. Local phases of the approach and the learning cur-
farmer innovations are identified to feed indigenous knowledge into the FFS riculum is based on the problems identified by
process: Innovators visit FFS groups or FFS members visit innovators farms the group. Each group has its own leadership
to share their knowledge. The FFS process combined with the promotion of and management structure and handles its
farmer innovation has proven to contribute to strong and cohesive groups that own funds. Extension staff serves as facilitators
are able to make informed decisions and change cultural and practical behav- rather than teachers and focus on methodologi-
iour in order to improve their production and land management. The process cal aspects of the FFS approach. The techni-
also builds self-confidence, and empowers especially women to take on lead- cal scope of the learning is determined by the
ership roles in the community. The impacts observed of FFS thus have strong group and specific technical support brought
biophysical and social dimensions. in as needed.
Implemented SLM / other activities
– SLM measures: conservation agriculture,
water harvesting, mulching, green manures,
improved pasture, composting, integrated
plant nutrient management, enhancing on
farm biodiversity, etc.
– The approach focuses also on community
organisational building for collective action
and collective storage and marketing of
products.
Implementing bodies
The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO)
of the UN in collaboration with the Ministry of
Agriculture in Kenya
Land users’ motivation for implementing SLM
Increased production levels; increased income;
also prestige and status in the community
(affiliation to a group / network); friendship and
­collective spirit among group members (espe-
cially women)

Photo 1: A FFS group in Nakuru Kenya, monitoring their water

harvesting trials in maize during a regular learning session.
Photo 2: A FFS group on a study visit to the Kenya Institute of
Organic Farming, Thika.
Photo 3: Training of facilitators in Mwingi and practice on
how to use the infiltration ring for measurement of the soil
infiltration rate. (All photos by Deborah Duveskog)

226 SLM in Practice

13_Approach.indd 11 24.05.11 12:06

 Case study area: Eastern and Central Kenya; Training and awareness raising
Mwingi, Kitui and Nakuru Districts ·· A gricultural advisors were trained in the FFS approach and in ILWM topics
through a total of four weeks of training.
Lodwar ·· Farmers were trained in FFS through season-long FFS learning where farm-
ers meet at a ‘host-farm’ weekly to carry study activities.
·· All the training was of practical nature with hands-on practice in the field on
the learning subjects, including site visits to farmers and tours to centres of
expertise.
Eldoret ·· All aspects of ILWM topics were covered in the training.
Kisumu Meru
Advisory service
Nakuru Case study areas ·· P articipatory extension with season-long regular interaction between farm-
ers and agricultural advisors. At a later stage also strong farmer-to-farmer
Nairobi extension.
Lamu ·· The approach requires an attitude shift among agricultural extension workers
to become more client-orientated.

Mombasa Research
·· L
 ocal researchers were involved at the start-up of FFS groups for the sake
of providing technical advice as well as to capture farmers’ demands for
Costs and subsidies future research priorities.
Annual budget: about 100,000 US$ Organisation / capacity development
Approach costs were met by the following ·· T hrough the FFS cycle participants develop skills in financial management,
contributors / donors: leadership, organisational management etc. that form the basis for effective
International institution / agency 60 % institutional capacity.
·· FFS groups regularly interact and visit each other which has led to the crea-
National government 20 %
tion of networks of federated FFS groups that in many cases have devel-
International NGO – oped into local farmer associations or producer organisations.
National NGO –
Benefits of SLM Approach
Private sector – +++ Improved sustainable land management: yield increase of more than
Local government – 200% has been recorded frequently.
Local community, land users* 20 % +++ Improved livelihoods / human well-being: improved gender relations and
division of farm workload, resistance to drought and improved livelihoods
TOTAL 100%
and life satisfaction in general.
Remarks: Community contributions included ++ Adoption of approach by other land users / projects: the applied practices
provision of land, manure, fencing materials, have spread from participants to neighbours in the community.
tools etc. and weekly contributions to the group ++ Poverty alleviation: all participants fall in the poor or medium poor cate-
savings account. gory and therefore the project has contributed to reduced poverty levels.

Subsidies financed under the approach: Strengths

Externally financed inputs ·· T he collective action created in communities to deal with and manage their
Labour not financed own resources.
·· Improved capacity of farmers for problem solving and innovation in ILWM.
Equipment / tools fully financed
Agricultural inputs partly financed Weaknesses ➜ and how to overcome
Construction material not financed ·· A top-down and patronising attitude towards farmers is common among agri-
Infrastructure not financed
cultural staff and experts, which prevents equal and trustful relationships ➜
institutionalisation of participatory extension is thus needed with a change in
Learning materials partly financed
mindset among government and other agricultural support staff.
Remarks: Funding for group level learning; mate- ·· The various government bodies and ministries responsible for land and water
rials and farm inputs were given directly to the issues often operate individually without strong synergies ➜ a stronger collabo-
group as a grant for them to manage. ration is needed between ministries especially Ministry of Water and Ministry of
Agriculture in order to deal effectively with land and water aspects in an inte-
Access to credits grated manner.
No access to credits provided through the ap-
Sustainability of activities
proach.
Graduated FFS groups have organised themselves into a network and farmer
organisations that have taken on collective activities following the end of the
initial project. In some cases this has included starting-up self-financed new
FFS groups.

Main contributors: Deborah Duveskog, regional FFS advisor, FAO Nairobi; [email protected] and Sally Bunning, FAO, Rome, Italy; [email protected]
Key references: Duveskog D. 2001. Adapted from A Study Guide for Farmer Field Schools: Water Harvesting and Soil Moisture Retention. n  FAO-IIRR. 2006. Discovery-based
Learning on Land and Water Management: Practical Guide for Farmer Field Schools.

SLM Approach: Farmer Field Schools - Kenya 227

13_Approach.indd 12 24.05.11 12:06

 Case study
SLM Approaches

PARTICIPATORY NEGOTIATED TERRITORIAL DEVELOPMENT - BURKINA FASO AND GHANA

Participatory Negotiated Territorial Development (PNTD) is a rural develop- Type of approach
ment approach developed by FAO. It offers a structure to build consensus Project based
among individual communities and development partners on natural resources /
Problems / constraints addressed
territorial management and development issues. PNTD facilitates consensus
– Limited commitment from central govern-
based planning within a team that represents different actors at different levels,
ments
including sector offices / technical services (agriculture, environment, etc.) and
– Cross-border planning proved to be consid-
NGOs (involved in community-based rural development) at district / depart-
erably more expensive than regular planning
ment / municipality level; and traditional authorities, user groups and associa-
activities
tions at community / village level.
During the diagnostic phase of the PNTD process, local territorial issues are Aims and objectives
analysed based on the viewpoints of the different actors and on a historical – Testing a PNTD approach for local (trans-
analysis. This step contributes to a coherent, shared understanding of the ter- boundary) territorial planning
ritorial system, thus providing the basis for collective agreements on develop- – Refining the methodological process
ment. These are referred to as Social Territorial Agreements. They are based – Preparing a joint development plan for the
on negotiation within the PNTD team. Main activities of PNTD include: (1) Facil- two areas in Ghana and Burkina Faso
itation of the planning process; (2) Provision of technical expertise; (3) Linkages Target groups
to relevant institutions; (4) Technical advisory to assess viability and costs of Local government (district / department), NGO
joint development proposals; (5) Reporting back to communities and provi- trainers, community leaders; OFZP national
sion with final plans and resource maps; (6) Signing of ‘Social Territorial Agree- coordinators plus ECOWAS-FAO (Economic
ments’ and endorsement by local government; (7) Establishment of a joint Community of West African States) project
monitoring and evaluation system; and (8) Follow-up meetings between gov- managers
ernment institutions and NGOs.
Independent external support by territorial facilitators is essential to assist in Participation and decision-making
various aspects of the process. A PNTD approach was piloted within a project Initial stakeholder meeting with government
in the Onchocerciasis (riverblindess) Freed Zone along the Burkina Faso-Ghana representatives, traditional authorities and
border. This newly opened zone lacked a well defined, accepted management NGOs was held to introduce PNTD, define
structure to support the development process, while cross-border aspects pilot area, set composition and tasks of the
further complicated development, requiring cooperation among the communi- PNTD team, revise timeframe. Decisions on
ties and development partners from both countries. The PNTD team was sup- priority activities were negotiated first within
ported by facilitators from the Netherlands Development Organisation (SNV). each community and then among communities
The team’s capacity to carry out inclusive planning processes has improved of the two countries. The PNTD team mem-
significantly, in terms of proposal development, negotiation and consensus bers acted as facilitators of this process.
building, and in placing the findings of the diagnostic phase in the larger geo- Implemented SLM / other activities
graphical context. Joint development plans were elaborated and agreed upon – SLM measures: re-forestation, improved live-
from the perspective of the communities. FAO has been supporting the exer- stock rearing, soil conservation, dam con-
cise through technical backstopping. struction (between two communities)
– Other activities: a road to link two communi-
Conceptual principles of PNTD ties directly
Territorial based: Social territories (shaped by the social and historical relations between the Implementing bodies
actors and the territory) are the spatial units of analysis. SNV (Netherlands Development Organisation)
Actor based: Recognition of the heterogeneity of the actors’ interests and vision of the Burkina Faso, SNV Ghana, international and
­territory. national NGOs
Dynamic: Understanding of and learning from the changing context and complexity of
Land users’ motivation for implementing SLM
interactions to support positive patterns and mitigate negative patterns.
Social pressure (avoiding potential transbound-
Systemic: Appreciation of the interdependencies within and between territories and ary conflicts) and improving natural resources
their components.
and land management
Multi-sectoral: Integration of environmental, social, economic, political and cultural aspects.
Multi-level: Recognition of different territorial levels and administrative levels.
Participatory and Agreements are developed on the basis of consensus and equal representa-
negotiated tion of all stakeholders.

Photo left: PNTD can help tackle problems related to territorial

disputes and natural resource management. (SNV, Ghana)
Photo right: Dialogue, negotiation and consultation the most
significant elements of PNTD. (SNV, Burkina Faso)

228 SLM in Practice

13_Approach.indd 13 24.05.11 12:06

 Case study area: pilot area covering four Training and awareness raising
communities: Barre and Narquia in the Zecco A local NGO (BADECC) conducted training of PNTD teams on territorial diag-
and Ziou Departements, Nahouri Province, nosis, proposal development, negotiation and conflict resolution. All activities
Burkina Faso; and Namoo and Feo, Bongo were jointly conducted and attended by participants from Ghana and Burkina
district in the Upper East Region of Ghana.
Faso. Capacity development took place within the pilot area through a combi-
nation of formal training sessions and – preferably – on-the-job training. Train-
ing focused on: (1) the PNTD process and its application in the context of
Ouahigouya cross-border natural resource management; (2) PRA tools relevant to the diag-
nostic phase; (3) participatory resource mapping (a tool to support the nego-
Koudougou Ouagadougou
tiation on development proposals).
Bobo Dioulasso Burkina Faso
Advisory service
Case study area This approach focuses on establishing and maintaining social dialogue within the
Tamale
territory and restructuring and / or strengthening territorial institutions.
Organisation / capacity development
Ghana The PNTD team’s capacity to carry out inclusive planning processes has
improved significantly, particularly referring to proposal development, negotia-
Kumasi tion and consensus building, and in placing the findings of the diagnostic
Obuasi
phase in a larger geographical context (interactions between communities).
Less impact was achieved from the diagnostic phase as many team members
Accra had used the PRA tools before. As PNTD team members work for local (non-)
government organisations, the capacity of these institutions to facilitate con-
Costs and subsidies sensus based planning has also enhanced.

Annual budget: No estimates available Benefits of SLM Approach

Approach costs were met by the following +++ Invoked a high level of interest within the targeted communities; increased
contributors / donors: active participation, planning and consensus building capacity at commu-
International institution / agency 100% nity level.
+ Improved sustainable land management: improved soil conservation and
National government –
livestock rearing.
International NGO –

National NGO –
Strengths
·· P rovides a suitable framework for cross-border planning in the West African
Private sector –
context.
Local government – ·· PNTD process raised the level of participation of local government institu-
Local community, land users – tions and NGOs in a negotiated territorial development process through the
PNTD team which comprised technical staff of these organisations.
TOTAL 100%
·· PNTD enabled (and stimulated) the communities on both sides of the border
to interact, and joint development plans were elaborated and agreed upon
Subsidies financed under the approach: from the perspective of the communities.
No subsidies were given. Labour was not ·· Looking beyond community boundaries, and consensus building between
rewarded and inputs were not financed by the communities and stakeholders were new aspects of planning to the team
project. members.

Access to credits Weaknesses ➜ and how to overcome

No access to credits provided through the ap- ·· It took time for team members to grasp the conceptual approach of PNTD.
proach They were used to working within individual communities, and if they were
involved in planning then mostly at a diagnostic level.
·· Language problems required almost continuous translation, and thus effectively
doubling the time required ➜ recruitment of linguistic mediator(s) needs to be
considered in the project budget.

Sustainability of activities
The PNTD-approach has shown applicability. Yet, there are some aspects which
need to be considered: (Local) governments need to take ownership of the
cross-border planning and development processes. This could be realised by
structuring external support differently: (1) Local government (districts, munici-
palities) supported by NGO’s are responsible to carry out all activities; (2) Exter-
nal (project) support focuses on overall coordination, the provision of technical
advice, the provision of operational budgets, and building of partnerships.

Main contributors: Paolo Groppo and Carolina Cenerini, FAO; Rome, Italy; [email protected], [email protected]
Key references: FAO. 2005. An approach to rural development: Participatory and Negotiated Territorial Development (PNTD). Rural Development Division, FAO. OFZ Project
(Socio Economic Development Programme for the Transborder Onchocerciasis Freed Zone of Burkina Faso and Ghana)  n  SNV Burkina Faso - SNV Ghana. 2007. X-border
Participatory, Negotiated, Territorial Development (PNTD) – pilot phase report.

SLM Approach: Participatory Negotiated Territorial Development - Burkina Faso and Ghana 229

13_Approach.indd 14 24.05.11 12:06

 Case study
SLM Approaches
PA R T I C I PAT O R Y L E A R N I N G A N D A C T I O N R E S E A R C H
A P P R O A C H T O I N T E G R AT E D R I C E M A N A G E M E N T - M A DA G A S C A R
The Participatory Learning and Action Research approach to Integrated Rice Type of approach
Management (PLAR-IRM) is a bottom-up, social and experiential learning Programme based
approach, leading to sustainable agricultural improvements, based on mutual
Problems / constraints addressed
support and communication among farmers. Innovation and agricultural
– Low yields in rice production; most farmers
change is aimed for, through capacity strengthening of all major stakeholders
live below subsistence level
involved in the rice sub-sector. IRM refers to the production system and value
– Absence of government and NGO support
chain as a whole. Innovation is not limited to technological change; it also
– Limited access to markets, lack of
includes time management and the building of social networks and institutions
infrastructure
for mutual collaboration between farmers and other stakeholders within the
rice value chain. A step-wise, self-discovery learning mode encourages the Aims and objectives
stakeholders to find solutions for their own site-specific problems. During the – Sustainably improving food security, liveli-
first years, groups of 25-30 producers are supported by a programme facilita- hoods and incomes of poor rice farmers by
tor who animates the learning and innovation sessions. The main instruments boosting the profitability of rice production
are the learning modules dealing with specific crop management practices, and increasing the efficiency and competi-
harvest and post-harvest practices (involving processors and entrepreneurs tiveness of the rice sub-sector
also), as well as the agro-ecological and socio-economic conditions of rice – Capacity strengthening of all stake­holders
production. The sessions aim to strengthen farmers’ and other rice stake- involved in the rice-subsector
holders’ capacity to observe, analyse, interpret, make decisions, innovate and Target groups
share knowledge and experiences. PLAR is based on locally relevant knowl- Mainly: land user groups (rice farmers);
edge, practices and skills. Exchanges about current practices, and their logic in 2nd phase: private service providers (e.g.
or justification, are the starting point in all modules. input suppliers), rice processors and buyers
In a learning-by-doing approach farmers are encouraged to try out any new
ideas identified during PLAR sessions on some parts of their fields reserved Participation and decision-making
for new practices (‘innovation space’). This allows them to assess the impact Land users are actively involved in all phases
of such innovations on their rice yield, or on the profitability of rice growing of the approach. The curriculum is based on
and the rice business as a whole, and consequently to adapt and fine-tune needs assessment. Decisions on SLM activi-
the measures taken according to their needs. These innovation spaces are ties to be implemented are taken by individual
regularly visited as part of learning sessions for knowledge sharing between farmers, and collectively. SLM implementa-
farmers. Since 2005, innovations in land preparation, early transplanting of tion is done by farmers with technical support
seedlings, weeds and water management - basically without external inputs from programme officers. Gradually farmers
- have resulted in three times higher yields, benefitting thousands of farmers. take more responsibility, through the so-called
Rice value chain activities started in 2008 with a view to empowering farm- weaning process: decisions on curriculum of
ers’ position within the chains and improving the competitiveness. Groups are training modules are taken by PLAR groups;
unifying into PLAR centres with common marketing of rice, and contract input Farmers’ Facilitators (FF) are trained and lead
providers and rice processors. the groups (from the 3rd year on). 5-10 weaned
PLAR groups unify in the form of a PLAR cen-
tre, mainly dealing with rice value chain related
activities.
Implemented SLM / other activities
– SLM measures: land preparation; nursery
management; transplanting of young seed-
ling in rows; new rice varieties; improved seed
multiplication and conservation practices
– Other activities: value chain develop­ment: col-
lective storage and marketing of rice; contrac-
tual arrangements with input providers and
rice processors
Implementing bodies
International institution / agency (Aga Khan
Foundation) operating as a local NGO with
support of the local government, local commu-
nities and private sector
Land users’ motivation for implementing
SLM
Production, profitability and affiliation to
movements / groups / networks

Photo 1: Farmers discussing development priorities on the

basis of the lowland map.
Photo 2: Transplanting rice in lines using a ‘fomby’.
Photo 3: Farmer weeding using a rotative weeder.
(All photos by PSSDRI - Programme de soutien de la region
Sofia pour le développement rural intégré)

230 SLM in Practice

13_Approach.indd 15 24.05.11 12:06

 Case study area: Sofia Region, Madagascar; Training and awareness raising
about 10,000 km2 covered by approach. ·· T raining was given to groups of land users and facilitators
·· Form: compulsory and optional PLAR learning modules; on-site experimen-
tation (learning by doing) and farmer-to-farmer exchange during site visits
·· Topics: crop management practices, harvest and post-harvest practices
(incl. storage, marketing), socio-economic and ecological conditions of rice
Mahajanga Case study area farming; curriculum based on needs assessment
·· Current and planned: expansion of numbers of groups, unification into Cen-
tres, value chain activities and extending training sessions for non PLAR-
Toamasina group farmers
Antananarivo
Advisory service
·· M ethod and key elements: modular learning sessions guided by a facilitator,
farmer-to-farmer extension
·· Approach is based on indigenous knowledge
Research
·· L
 ocal researchers were involved at the start-up of FFS groups for the sake
of providing technical advice as well as to capture farmers’ demands for
future research priorities.
Organisation / capacity development
Costs and subsidies PLAR groups are formed (new formation or based on already existing entities)
Annual budget: 400,000 US$ for mutual support and exchange of knowledge. In 2nd phase PLAR groups are
Approach costs were met by the following weaned into higher-level learning and innovation platforms (=PLAR centres) for
contributors / donors: exchange between farmers facilitators and SLM specialists from the pro-
gramme.
International institution / agency 10 %
National government – Benefits of SLM Approach
International NGO – +++ Improved sustainable land management: yields have increased by
> 200% (on innovation spaces).
National NGO 30 % +++ Adoption of approach by other land users / projects: from 2005-2009
Private sector 10 % PLAR groups have increased from 6 up to 102, involving 3,782 families
Local government – and extended to 4,200 non grouped farmers.
+++ Poverty alleviation / improved livelihoods / human well-being: SLM prac-
Local community, land users 50 %
tices result into a net benefit of > 700 US$/ha.
TOTAL 100% +++ Improved situation of socially / economically disadvantaged groups: mar-
ginalised poor rice farmers are targeted.
Subsidies financed under the approach:
Strengths
Externally financed inputs
·· F armers learn basic principles of rice management and develop their own
Labour not financed locally adapted options for improvements; the innovation comes from inside
Equipment fully financed the groups.
·· Farmers build up individual and organisational capacity to find out solutions
Agricultural inputs not financed
to their problems and build confidence as efficient partners with other value
Construction material not financed chain actors.
Infrastructure not financed
Weaknesses ➜ and how to overcome
Remarks: Two sarcleuses (weeding equipment)
·· Labour intensive improvements ➜ provision of group credit to PLAR group
per starting group are provided for free and
members in collaboration with a local microfinance institution.
remain property of the group.
·· L
 earning intensive approach, with regular group learning sessions ➜ PLAR
groups elaborate their own learning programmes and curricula according to
Access to credits their availability and needs.
Was supported by the approach in collaboration
with an existing microfinance institution; loan Sustainability of activities
period: 6-8 months; monthly interest rate: 2.5% In a 2nd phase farmers who are organised in PLAR groups gradually build up
the capacity to manage the innovation and mutual learning approach on their
own without programme support: Farmers’ facilitators are trained to take over
the lead of PLAR groups with backstopping from programme facilitators.

Main contributors: Toon Defoer, Agric. R&D consultant, Najac, France; [email protected] and Marco Wopereis, Africa Rice Center, Cotonou, Benin; [email protected].
Key references: Defoer T., M. Wopereis, S. Diack, and P. Idinoba. 2008. Apprentissage participatif et recherche action pour la gestion intégrée du riz à Madagascar: Manuel du
facilitateur AKF, Genève, Suisse. n Defoer T., M. Wopereis, P. Idinoba T. and Kadisha. 2006. Participatory Learning and Action Reseaerch (PLAR) for Integrated Rice Manage-
ment in inland valleys in sub-Saharan Africa: Facilitators’ manual. WARDA- the Africa Rcie Center, Bouaké, Côte d’Ivoire.

SLM Approach: Participatory Learning and Action Research Approach to Integrated Rice Management - Madagascar 231

13_Approach.indd 16 24.05.11 12:06

 Case study
SLM Approaches

‘ CAT C H M E N T ’ A P P R OA C H - K E N YA
The ‘catchment’ approach promotes sustainable land management systems Type of approach
by conservation of defined areas (termed ‘micro-environments’) through the Project based
active participation of the communities living there. It was launched in Kenya
Problems / constraints addressed
in 1988 to achieve greater technical and social impact - at a more rapid pace,
– Lack of tangible and assessable impact of
than the previous focus on individual farmers. This case focuses on a single
SLM activities, technically or socially
‘catchment’ in a subhumid area of Central Kenya. The emphasis is on struc-
– Slow implementation of SLM programme
tural measures – especially fanya juu terraces - but vegetative systems are pro-
– Underlying problems of poverty, declining soil
moted also. Other activities are supported such as spring protection, improved
fertility, soil erosion and fuelwood shortage
crop and animal husbandry, agroforestry, fodder production, fish ponds and
– Lack of capital hinders farmers from invest-
others. The specific objectives are to stimulate the implementation of a variety
ing in structures
of SLM measures leading simultaneously to improved production.
– Lack of conservation / SLM knowledge
Each approach area is defined by cultural / administrative boundaries rather
than strict hydrological watersheds or catchments (as its name confusingly Aims and objectives
implies). A conservation committee is elected from amongst the focal commu- To contribute to increased and sustained envi-
nity before problem identification begins. Technical staff from relevant govern- ronmental conservation and improved agri-
ment and non-government agencies (NGOs) are co-opted onto the committee. cultural production at farm level, through
The approach then involves participatory methods of appraisal and planning participatory approaches for better land hus-
of solutions. Land users, together with the co-opted subject matter special- bandry / SLM.
ists, pool their knowledge and resources. Common Interest Groups (CIGs) are Target groups
formed, with the aim of self-help promotion of specific farm enterprises. Train- Land users, SLM specialists / advisors,
ing is given to the members of the CIGs by the Ministry of Agriculture. The teachers / students, planners, politicians /
farmers carry out the majority of the work themselves: monetary or other tan- decision makers
gible incentives are few.
The end result is the micro-environment (catchment area) conserved for improved Participation and decision-making
production, and left in the hands of the community to maintain and sustain. The The approach was designed by national spe-
‘catchment’ approach was developed under the National Soil and Water Con- cialists. The community was involved in the
servation Programme – supported by the Swedish International Development initiation, planning (public meetings, PRA) and
Cooperation Agency (Sida) – and continues to be promoted as the Focal Area implementation phase. Choice of the technol-
Approach (FAA) under the National Agricultural and Livestock Extension Pro- ogy was mainly by land users supported by
gramme (NALEP), which is again supported by Sida. However, under NALEP SLM specialists and partly by SLM specialists
there is less emphasis on soil and water conservation than under the previous alone. Decision on the method of implement-
programme, and more focus on promotion of productive enterprises. ing the technology was mainly by land users
supported by SLM specialists.
Implemented SLM / other activities
– SLM measures: fanya juu terraces, level
bench terraces, agroforestry, fodder produc-
tion, improved crop and animal husbandry
– Spring protection
– Fish ponds
Implementing bodies
Implemented by community members
Land users’ motivation for implementing SLM
Increased production, profitability and
improved livelihood

Photo 1: An extension officer showing members of a women

group how to protect young mango seedlings in the catchment
area of Sololo Division, Moyale District, Kenya. (James Njuki)

232 SLM in Practice

13_Approach.indd 17 24.05.11 12:06

 Case study area: Muranga District, Kenya; Training and awareness raising
1 km2 covered by the approach Training included layout of conservation measures; agroforestry; energy con-
servation; food preservation – as well as specific farm enterprises. It was car-
Lodwar ried out for groups and mainly through farm visits by Ministry of Agriculture
extension agents. Impact was good for farmers and extension workers.
Advisory service
Extension methods include farm visits; field demonstrations; field days; on-
farm demonstrations. The extension service was ‘quite adequate’ to take this
Eldoret
process forward into the future. The impact of the advisory service for farmers
Kisumu Meru
and teachers was rated as good, and as excellent for technicians.
Nakuru
Case study area Research
Specific problems were researched as they arose. A strong research-extension
Nairobi
linkage was / is being built up. Monitoring of the progress of the overall pro-
Lamu gramme is part of the approach.
Organisation / capacity development
Mombasa A conservation committee is formed including elected members from focal
communities and technical staff from relevant government and non-govern-
ment agencies (NGOs). Common Interest Groups (CIGs) are formed. Support
Costs and subsidies
to local institutions was given through training.
Annual budget: US$ 4,000-5,000
Approach costs were met by the following Benefits of SLM Approach
contributors / donors: ++ Improved sustainable land management: mainly through fanya juu and
level bench terraces.
International institution / agency 70%
+ Adoption of approach by other land users / projects: the further spread of
National government 20% the approach has been limited to one NGO within the case study area.
International NGO – +++ Improved livelihoods / human well-being: more income generating activi-
ties identified and implemented through common interest groups (CIGs)
National NGO –
for crop production, marketing and livestock.
Private sector – ++ Others: some enhanced collaboration between agencies; Partners under-
Local government – stand each other and avoid activity duplication.
Local community, land users 10% Strengths
TOTAL 100% ·· G enuine community participation
·· ‘Ownership of approach’ by the community: feeling that what has been
Subsidies financed under the approach: achieved is due to communal efforts and belongs to them
·· Improved linkages between extension / training and research
Externally financed inputs
·· Promotion of new and productive farm enterprises alongside better SLM
Labour not financed
Equipment / tools fully financed Weaknesses ➜ and how to overcome
Agricultural inputs partly financed ·· T echnologies tend to be implemented uniformly, not site-specifically ➜ match
SLM to each particular situation (e.g. promote structural measures only where
Construction material not financed
necessary, i.e. where agronomic and vegetative measures do not provide suf-
Infrastructure not financed ficient protection).
Remarks: Incentives (other than education and ·· Uncertainty about continuation in specific areas if direct support stops after only
motivation) have been used at very low ­levels. one year ➜ continue approach for at least two or three years in each catch-
Common Interest Groups (CIGs) were then ment (approach area).
required to solicit help and assistance as need ·· Limited area covered by National Agricultural and Livestock Extension Pro-
arises. gramme ➜ more staff required and more effective use of staff.
·· In many places there is a lack of availability of inputs ➜ provide better credit
facilities for CIGs / farmers generally.
Access to credits
Credit was not provided directly, though a ‘stake- Sustainability of activities
holder kitty’ revolving fund (savings and credit) Interventions are likely to continue and be maintained, but this depends on
was promoted and developed. common interest groups continuing to function actively.

Main contributors: James Njuki, Ministry of Agriculture, Nairobi, Kenya; [email protected] and Kithinji Mutunga, FAO, Nairobi, Kenya; [email protected]
Key references: Yeraswarq A. 1992. The Catchment Approach to Soil Conservation in Kenya. Regional Soil Conservation Unit (now: Regional Land Management Unit, RELMA,
a project under ICRAF, The World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi. n  Pretty JN., Thompson J. and Kiara JK. 1995. Agricultural Regeneration in Kenya: The Catchment Approach
to Soil and Water Conservation. Ambio 24, no 1, pp 7-15.

SLM Approach: ‘Catchment’ Approach - Kenya 233

13_Approach.indd 18 24.05.11 12:06

 ANNEX:
BEST SLM PRACTICES COMPARED

For a concise overview, the 12 SLM technology groups Table 3: Benefits and impacts at land user and community
that are presented in Part 2 of the guidelines are com- level, e.g. yields, labour input, improvement of sol and
pared in the following tables: water, community and institutional strengthening, etc.
Table 1: development issues addressed, e.g. production, Table 4: Key factors for adoption including inputs, ma-
biodiversity, water, climate change mitigation and climate terials, training and education, land tenure, access to
change adaptation. markets, research.
Table 2: Benefit-cost ratio.

Annex: Best SLM practices compared 235

Layout_Part_1_2.indd 65 24.05.11 11:14

 Annex table 1: development issues addressed
Integrated Conservation Rainwater Smallholder Cross-Slope Agroforestry Crop-Live- Pastoralism Sustainable Sustainable Sustainable
Soil Fertility Agriculture Harvesting Irrigation Barriers stock and Range- Planted Forest Rainforest
Management Management Management land Forest Management Management
Management Management in Drylands

Development issues addressed

Preventing / reversing ++ ++ ++ + ++ +++ ++ ++ +++ +++ +++
land degradation
Maintaining and +++ ++ ++ +++ + +++ ++ ++ + + +
improving food
security
Reducing rural poverty ++ ++ + ++ + +++ ++ ++ ++ ++ +

Creating rural + ++ + ++ + + + + ++ ++ ++
­employment

Supporting gender ++ ++ + ++ + ++ ++ +++ na ++ +

equity / marginalised
groups
Improving crop +++ ++ +++ +++ ++ ++ ++ + + + na
­production

Improving fodder + + ++ + ++ ++ ++ +++ ++ ++ +

­production
Improving wood / fibre + na ++ na + ++ + ++ +++ ++ +++
production

Improving non wood na na na na na + + ++ ++ +++ +

forest production

Preserving biodiversity + + + na + +++ ++ +++ + +++ +

Improving soil +++ ++ + + + +++ ++ ++ + +++ +

resources (OM,
­nutrients)
Improving of water + ++ +++ -/+ ++ ++ + ++ na ++ +/ –
resources

Improving water ++ +++ +++ +++ ++ +++ ++ ++ na ++ +

­productivity
Natural disaster + ++ + + ++ +++ + ++ + +++ ++
p­ revention / mitigation

Climate change ++ ++ +++ -/+ ++ +++ ++ ++ ++ +++ ++

­ itigation / adaptation
m

Climate change mitigation

C Sequestration no data 0.57 (+/- 0.26-0.46 0.15 0.5-1 0.3 - 6.5 0.11- 0.81 0.1 - 0.3 1.2 – 2 for no data no data
(t/ha/yr) 0.141) (+/-0.35) (+/- 0.012) (estimation) up to 3 in (Schumann afforestation
(Pretty et al. (Pretty et al. silvo/ agro- et al, 2002 in in drylands
(figures for first 2006) 2006) forestry FAO, 2004) (FAO, 2004
10-30 years of systems and GTZ,
changed land man- (Woodfine, 2009)
agement) 2009)
C Sequestration: + + + + + ++ ++ + ++ ++ +++
above ground

C Sequestration: + ++ + + + ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++
below ground

Climate change adaptation

Increase resilience to ++ ++ +++ + ++ ++ ++ +++ + ++ +
extreme dry conditions
Increase resilience to ++ ++ +++ ++ + +++ ++ ++ + +++ ++
extreme wet conditions

Increase resilience to + + + no data + ++ + ++ + +++ ++

variable rainfall

Increase resilience to + ++ ++ + +. ++ + +++ + ++ ++

rising temperatures
and evaporation rates
Reducing risk of ++ + + ++ + ++ ++ ++ + +++ +
production failure
-- negative; - slightly negative; -/+ neutral; + slightly positive; ++ positive; +++ very positive; na: not applicable

236 Sustainable Land Management in Practice

Layout_Part_1_2.indd 66 24.05.11 11:14

 Annex table 2: Benefit-cost ratio
Benefit-cost ratio

short term long term Comments

Integrated Soil ++ +++ A small input in the form of organic and / or inorganic fertilizer can have a significant and immediate impact on crop
­Fertility Management production. However the profitability depends closely on price and availability of fertilizer.
Conservation + +++ The short term benefit-cost ratio is mainly affected by the initial cost of purchasing new machinery and tools. The
­Agriculture availability and the affordability of these tools can be major obstacles, especially for small-scale land users.
Rainwater Harvesting – /+ ++ / +++ RWH techniques can include high initial labour and material input – though there is a wide range. In the long term
+ the benefit-cost ratio depends on the level of maintenance work needed.
Smallholder ­Irrigation + / ++ +++ The establishment costs for smallholder irrigation management (SIM) vary considerably. Micro-irrigation systems
Management like drip irrigation require relatively high initial investments, which need to be covered though micro-credit. SIM can
help farmers to move towards a mixed subsistence and more commercial system.
Cross-Slope Barriers – ++ Usually require high initial investment and labour input, therefore the short term profitability is often negative. How-
ever vegetative strips can be used as cheap cross-slope barriers option, with much lower establishment costs than
terraces, stone lines, etc. Vegetative strips often develop into terraces over time.
Agroforestry – /+ ++ Analyses mostly take direct utility values of integrated trees into account, because indirect use values, such as envi-
+ ronmental functions, are much more difficult to evaluate. Furthermore, benefit-cost estimates are complicated by
the many sources of annual variation affecting tree and crop production and tree-crop interactions. Hence benefits
may be in general underestimated. Impact over different temporal scales is an issue that is especially relevant to
agroforestry.
Integrated Crop-Live- + ++ / +++ Integration of livestock with crops improves farm productivity and income; and the benefits can be observed quite
stock Management rapidly as well as appreciating over time.
Pastoralism no data no data Pastoralism has considerable economic value and latent potential in the drylands but little is known or has been
and Rangeland quantified. Multiple products and species can make pastoral systems significantly more cost-effective and produc-
­Management tive than meat-focused ranching. The value of livestock production in the drylands is probably greatly underesti-
mated in official statistics.
Sustainable –/–– + / ++ Short-time benefits from planted forests are usually negative due to the long establishment period of the trees.
­Management of Environmental plantations are usually outside the financial perspective of small-scale land users and need therefore
Planted Forests financial incentives and / or support for their establishment. The efficiency of plantation management and success
in achieving sustainable wood supply depends mainly on whether a plantation is publicly, or privately, owned and
managed.
Sustainable ­Forest – ++ Sustainable forest management in drylands is mainly based on community forest management, therefore an esti-
Management in mation of the benefits-costs ratio is very difficult.
­Drylands
Sustainable – ++ Once again this is mainly based on community forest management, therefore an estimation of the benefits-costs
­Rainforest ratio is very difficult.
­Management

– – negative; – slightly negative; – /+ neutral; + slightly positive; ++ positive; +++ very positive

Annex: Best SLM practices in comparison 237

Layout_Part_1_2.indd 67 24.05.11 11:14

 Annex table 3: Benefits and impacts at household and community level
Integrated Conservation Rainwater Smallholder Cross-slope Agroforestry Crop-Live- Pastoralisms Sustainable Sustainable Sustainable
Soil Fertility Agriculture Harvesting Irrigation Barriers stock Man- and Range- Planted Forest Rainforest
Benefits
Manage- Manage- agement land Man- Forest Man- Management Manage-
ment ment agement agement in Drylands ment
Increased +++ ++ ++ +++ ++ ++ +++ + na na na
crop yields
Increased ++ na ++ na ++ na ++ ++ na na na
fodder
­production
Production benefits

Increased na na + na + ++ na na +++ + +
wood
­production
Increased na na na na na + na na + ++ ++
production
of NWFP
Production + + + ++ + +++ ++ ++ + ++ ++
diversifica-
tion
Labour +/ – +(+) – + – +/ – + +/ – na na na
Economic
benefits

reduction

Farm income ++ ++ ++ +++ + ++ ++ ++ + + +

Improved ++ ++ + + + ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ +++
soil cover

Reduced ++ ++ ++ + ++ +++ ++ ++ ++ ++ +++

soil erosion
(by wind /
water)

Improved + +++ +++ +/- ++ ++ + + +/- + +++

Ecological benefits

water
­availability

Increased +++ ++ + + + +++ +++ ++ + ++ +++

organic
matter/ soil
fertility

Biodiversity ++ + + + + +++ ++ ++ + +++ +++

enhancement

Improved + ++ + + + +++ + + ++ +++ +++

micro-
climate

Improved ++ ++ ++ na +++ ++ ++ +++ na ++ ++

SLM/ con-
servation/
erosion
Socio-cultural benefits

knowledge

Chang- + + + ++ na na na na na na na
ing the
traditional
gender roles
of men and
women
Community + na ++ na + + na + + +++ +++
institution
strengthening

-- negative; - slightly negative; -/+ neutral; + slightly positive; ++ positive; +++ very positive
na: not applicable

238 Sustainable Land Management in Practice

Layout_Part_1_2.indd 68 24.05.11 11:14

 Annex table 4: Key factors for adoption
Enabling ­environment: Integrated Conservation Rainwater Smallholder Cross-Slope Agroforestry Crop-Live- Pastoralisms Sustainable Sustainable Sustainable
Key factors for ­adoption Soil Fertility Agriculture Harvesting Irrigation Barriers stock Man- and Range- Planted ­forest ­Forest Rainforest
Manage- Manage- agement land Man- Management Management Manage-
ment ment agement in Drylands ment
Inputs, material +++ ++ ++ +++ ++ ++ ++ + + + +
­incentives, credits
Training and education ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ na ++ + ++ ++ ++

Land tenure, secure ++ ++ +++ +++ ++ ++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++
land use rights
Access to markets ++ ++ ++ +++ + + ++ ++ ++ ++ ++

Research + ++ ++ + ++ +++ ++ ++ + ++ ++

-- negative; - slightly negative; -/+ neutral; + slightly positive; ++ positive; +++ very positive
na: not applicable

Annex: Best SLM practices in comparison 239

Layout_Part_1_2.indd 69 24.05.11 11:14

 References to Part 1

Note: Only references used for Part 1 are listed here. References of Part 2 are listed
after each SLM group and case study.

AfDB, UNECA and OECD. 2009. African Economic Outlook 2008/09. Paris and Tunis: AfDB and OECD.
Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA). 2010. Statement from chairman: Africa’s breadbas-
kets: key to achieving food security. http://www.agra-alliance.org/section/news/chairman_speech/;
accessed 22 March 2010.
Aune, J. B. and A. Bationo. 2008. Agricultural intensification in the Sahel: the ladder approach. Agricul-
tural Systems 98: 119–125.
Bonkoungou, E.G. 2001. Biodiversity in the drylands: Challenges and opportunities for conservation
and sustainable use. Challenge Paper. The Global Drylands Initiative, UNDP Drylands Development
Centre, Nairobi, Kenya.
Bot, A. and J. Benites. 2005. The importance of soil organic matter: key to drought-resistant soil and
sustained food production. FAO soils bulletin 80. FAO, Rome, Italy.
Castillo, G. E., R. E. Namara, H. M. Ravnborg, M. A. Hanjra, L. Smith, M. H. Hussein, C. Béné, S. Cook,
D. Hirsch, P. Polak, D. Vallée and B. van Koppen. 2007. Reversing the flow: agricultural water
management pathways for poverty reduction. In: Molden, D. (Ed.), Comprehensive Assessment of
Water Management in Agriculture: Water for Food, Water for Life. International Water Management
Institute (IWMI)/ EarthScan, London/ Colombo, (Chapter 4), pp. 149–191.
Crepin, C., S. Danyo and F. Sperling. 2008. Land management and climate change. Draft issues paper.
World Bank.
Critchley, W., 2007. Working with farmer innovators. CTA, Wageningen. The Netherlands.
Desanker, P.V., 2002. The impact of climate change on life in Africa: climate change and vulnerability in
Africa. World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), Washington DC, USA.
Desanker, P.V. and C. Magadza. 2001. Africa. In McCarthy J. J., et al. (Eds.), Climate change 2001:
impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Cambridge University Press, pp. 487–531.
Dixon, J., A. Gulliver and D. Gibbon. 2001. Farming systems and poverty: improving farmers’ liveli-
hoods in a changing world. FAO, Rome, Italy.
Drechsel, P., A. Olaleye, A. Adeoti, L. Thiombiano, B. Barry and K. Vohland. 2005. Adoption driver and
constraints of resource conservation technologies in Sub-Saharan Africa. 21pp. http://www.iwmi.
cgiar.org/africa/west_africa/projects/AdoptionTechnology/AdoptionConstraints-Overview.pdf
Envirotrade. 2010. Carbon trading: the market. http://www.envirotrade.co.uk/html/resources_market.php
Eswaran, H., R. Lal and P.F. Reich. 2001. Land degradation: an overview. Responses to land degrada-
tion. Proc. 2nd. International Conference on Land Degradation and Desertification. New Delhi, India:
Oxford Press. http://soils.usda.gov/use/worldsoils/papers/land-degradation-overview.html.
Eswaran H., R. Almaraz, E. van den Berg and P. Reich. 1997. An assessment of the soil resources of
Africa in relation to productivity. Geoderma 77:1–18.
Falkenmark, M., C. M. Finlayson, L. J. Gordon, E. M. Bennett, T. M. Chiuta, D. Coates, N. Ghosh, M.
Gopalakrishnan, R.S. de Groot, G. Jacks, E. Kendy, L. Oyebande, M. Moore, G. D. Peterson, J.
M. Portuguez, K. Seesink, R. Tharme and R. Wasson. 2007. Agriculture, water, and ecosystems:
avoiding the costs of going too far. In: Molden, D. (Ed.), Comprehensive Assessment of Water Man-
agement in Agriculture: Water for Food, Water for Life. International Water Management Institute
(IWMI)/ EarthScan, London/ Colombo, (Chapter 6), pp. 233–277.
Falkenmark, M. and J. Rockström. 2006. The new blue and green water paradigm: breaking new
ground for water resources planning and management. Journal of water resources planning and
management May/ June.
FAO, 2004. The State of Food and Agriculture 2003-2004 – Agricultural Biotechnology. Meeting the
Needs of the Poor? FAO Agricultural Series No. 35.
FAO. 2009a. Food security and agricultural mitigation in developing countries: options for capturing
synergies. FAO, Rome, Italy.
FAO, 2009b. FAO - Profile for climate change. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/012/i1323e/i1323e00.pdf
FAO. 2008a. TerrAfrica – A vision paper for Sustainable Land Management in Sub-Saharan Africa. FAO,
Rome, Italy.
FAO. 2008b. Water and the rural poor: interventions for improving livelihoods in Sub-Saharan Africa,
edited by Faurès J. M. and G. Santini. FAO, Rome, Italy.
FAOSTAT. 2008. Agricultural statistics. Available at http://faostat.fao.org/
FAOSTAT, 2004. Agricultural statistics. Available at http://faostat.fao.org/
Fox, P., J. Rockström and J. Barron. 2005. Risk analysis and economic viability of water harvesting
for supplemental irrigation in semi-arid Burkina Faso and Kenya. Agricultural Systems 83 (3), pp.
231–250.
Gitonga, J.N.L., 2005. Monitoring and modeling crop growth, water use and production under dry-land
environment west and northwest of Mount Kenya. PhD thesis, Dept. of Geography, University of
Bern, Switzerland.

240 Sustainable Land Management in Practice

Layout_Part_1_2.indd 70 24.05.11 11:14

 Harrison, S.G., G.B. Masefield, M. Wallis, and B.E. Nicholson. 1969; 1985. The Oxford Book of Food
Plants. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Henao, J. and C. Baanante. 2006. Agricultural production and soil nutrient mining in Africa: implication
for resource conservation and policy development. IFDC Tech. Bull. International Fertilizer Develop-
ment Center. Muscle Shoals, Al. USA.
Hurni, H. 1997. Concepts of sustainable land management. ITC Journal Vol. Nr. 3/4, 210-215.
ILEIA - the Centre for Learning on sustainable agriculture and the secretariat of the global Agri-
Cultures network. 2001. http://ileia.leisa.info/index.php?url=show-blob-html.tpl&p%5Bo_
id%5D=239119&p%5Ba_id%5D=211&p%5Ba_seq%5D=1; accessed 15.1.2010.
International Assessment of Agricultural knowledge, Science and Technology for Development
(IAASTD). 2009a. Synthesis report - A synthesis of the global and sub-global IAASTD reports,
edited by Beverly D. McIntyre, H. R. Herren, J. Wakhungu and R.T. Watson. http://www.agassess-
ment.org/reports/IAASTD/EN/Agriculture%20at%20a%20Crossroads_Synthesis%20Report%20
(English).pdf
International Assessment of Agricultural knowledge, Science and Technology for Development
(IAASTD). 2009b. Sub Saharan Africa (SSA), sub-global IAASTD reports.
International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM). 2009. The principles of organic
agriculture. http://www.ifoam.org/about_ifoam/principles/index.html; accessed 22 March 2010.
International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). 2010. SLM Advisory Services: Key Institutional,
Financing, and Economic Elements for Scaling Up Sustainable Land Management in Nigeria. Syn-
thesis Report.
International Soil Reference and Information Centre (ISRIC). 2010. Green Water Credits. http://www.
isric.org/UK/About+ISRIC/Projects/Current+Projects/GWC+Introduction.htm; accessed 17 January
2010.
IPCC. 2007. Climate change 2007 – Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of working
group II to the fourth assessment report of the IPCC. Available from: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccrep-
orts/ar4-wg2.htm
ISRIC - World Soil Information. 2010. Green Water Credits. http://www.isric.org/UK/About+ISRIC/
Projects/Current+Projects/Green+Water+Credits.htm, accessed on 14 June 2010.
Lastarria-Cornhiel, S. 2006. Feminization of Agriculture: Trends and Driving Forces (version 1.0). This
document is part of a series of contributions by Rimisp for Rural Development (www.rimisp.org) to
the preparation of the World Development Report 2008 ‘Agriculture for Development’.
Liniger, H.P. and W. Critchley. 2008. Safeguarding water resources by making the land greener: knowl-
edge management through WOCAT. In: Bossio D. and K. Geheb (Eds), Conserving Land, Protect-
ing Water (Comprehensive Assessment of water management in agriculture series). CABI, IWMI,
CGIAR Challenge Program on Water & Food.
Liniger, H.P., 1995. Endangered water, a global overview of degradation, conflicts and strategies for
improvement. Centre for Development and Environment (CDE), Bern, Switzerland.
Liniger, H.P., J. Gikonyo, B. Kiteme and U. Wiesmann. 2005. Assessing and managing scarce tropi-
cal mountain water resources - The case of Mount Kenya and the semi-arid Upper Ewaso Ng’iro
Basin. Mountain Research and Development 25(2); 163-173.
McCann, J.C., 2005. Maize and grace: Africa’s encounter with a new world crop 1500-2000. Harvard
Univ. Press, Cambridge, US.
Molden, D., T. Y. Oweis, P. Steduto, J. W. Kijne, M. A. Hanjra, P. S. Bindraban, B. A. M. Bouman, S.
Cook, O. Erenstein, H. Farahani, A. Hachum, J. Hoogeveen, H. Mahoo, V. Nangia, D. Peden, A.
Sikka, P. Silva, H. Turral, A. Upadhyaya, and S. Zwart. 2007. Pathways for increasing agricultural
water productivity. In: Molden, D. (Ed.), Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agri-
culture: Water for Food, Water for Life. International Water Management Institute (IWMI)/ EarthS-
can, London/ Colombo, (Chapter 7), pp. 279-310.
Mortimore, M. with contributions from S. Anderson, L. Cotula, J. Davies, K. Faccer, C. Hesse, J. Mor-
ton, W. Nyangena, J. Skinner and C. Wolfangel. 2009. Dryland opportunities: a new paradigm for
people, ecosystems and development, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland; IIED, London, UK and UNDP/
DDC, Nairobi, Kenya. x + 86p.
Nkomo, J.C., A. Nyong and K. Kulindwa. 2006. The impacts of climate change in Africa. Report pre-
pared for the Stern Review. Available from: www.sternreview.org.uk
Oldeman, L.R., 1998. Soil degradation: a threat to food security?, Report 98/01. The Netherlands:
International Soil Reference and Information Centre (ISRIC), Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Oldeman, L.R., 1994. The global extent of land degradation. In Greenland D.J. and I. Szabolcs (Eds.),
Land Resilience and Sustainable Land Use, pp. 99–118. Wallingford, UK, CABI.
Oweis, T., and A. Hachum. 2001. Reducing peak supplemental irrigation demand by extending sowing
dates. Agric. Water Manage. 50:109–123.
Pender, J., C. Ringler, M. Magalhaes and F. Place. 2009. The Role of Sustainable Land Management
for Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation in Sub-Saharan Africa. A TerrAfrica partnership pub-
lication, Washington, D.C.
Pender, J. F., 2008. The world food crisis, land degradation and sustainable land management: link-
ages, opportunities and constraints. Mimeo. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI),
Washington, D.C.

References 241

Layout_Part_1_2.indd 71 24.05.11 11:14

 Reich, P.F., S.T. Numbem, R.A. Almaraz and H. Eswaran. 2001. Land resource stresses and desertifi-
cation in Africa. In: Bridges, E.M., I.D. Hannam, L.R. Oldeman, F.W.T. Pening de Vries, S.J. Scherr,
and S. Sompatpanit (Eds.), Responses to Land Degradation. Proc. 2nd. International Conference
on Land Degradation and Desertification, Khon Kaen, Thailand. Oxford Press, New Delhi, India.
Rockström, J., N. Hatibu, T. Oweis, S. Wani, J. Barron, A. Bruggeman, J. Farahani, L. Karlberg, and
Z.Qiang. 2007. Managing water in rainfed agriculture. In: Molden, D. (Ed.), Comprehensive Assess-
ment of Water Management in Agriculture: Water for Food, Water for Life. International Water Man-
agement Institute/EarthScan, London/Colombo, (Chapter 8), pp. 315–352.
Rockström, J., J. Barron and P. Fox. 2003. Water productivity in rainfed agriculture: challenges and
opportunities for smallholder farmers in drought prone tropical agro-ecosystems. In: Kijne, J.W.,
R. Barker and D. Molden (Eds), Water Productivity in Agriculture: Limits and Opportunities for
Improvements, CABI, Wallingford, U.K., pp. 145–161.
Rockström, J. 2003. Water for food and nature in drought-prone tropics: vapour shift in rain-fed agri-
culture. Royal Society Transactions B Biological Sciences 358 (1440): 1997–2009.
Sanchez P.A., 2002. Soil fertility and hunger in Africa. Science 295, 2019- 2020. Available from: http://
www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/295/5562/2019?siteid=sci&ijkey=EMQmOjsSVVbg6
&keytype=ref
Sanchez P.A., K.D. Sheperd, M.J. Soule, F.M. Place, R.J. Buresh, A.-M.I. Izac, A.U. Mokwunye, F.R.
Kwesiga, C.G. Ndiritu and P.L. Woomer. 1997. Soil fertility replenishment in Africa: an investment
in natural resource capital. In: Buresh R.J., P.A. Sanchez and F. Calhoun (Eds.), Replenishing Soil
Fertility in Africa. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, Wisconsin.
Scherr, S.J. and S. Sthapit. 2009. Farming and land use to cool the planet. In: Starke, L. et al (Eds.)
State of the World 2009 – Confronting Climate Change. Earthscan, London, UK.
Schwilch G., F. Bachmann and H.P. Liniger. 2009. Appraising and selecting conservation measures to
mitigate desertification and land degradation based on stakeholder participation and global best
practices. Land Degradation & Development 20: 308-326.
Smith, F., 2008. Women: guardians of West Africa’s crop diversity. Geneflow’08: 27. Bioversity.
Stern, N., 2007. The economics of climate change - The Stern Review. Cambridge University Press, UK.
Stotz, S., 2009. Identification of SLM best bet practices in Sub-Saharan Africa and an analysis of the upscal-
ing potential of different technologies. Bachelor study 03-907-185. University of Bern, Switzerland.
Studer, C., 2009. Management der limitierten Ressource Wasser in der Land- und Forstwirtschaft.
Script, Swiss College of Agriculture.
Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development (SARD). 2007. Conservation agriculture in Africa. SARD
policy brief 18.
Tanner, C.B., and T.R. Sinclair. 1983. Efficient water use in crop production: research or re-search? In
Taylor H.M., W.A. Jordan and T.R. Sinclair (Eds.), Limitations to Efficient Water Use in Crop Produc-
tion. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin.
TerrAfrica. 2009. Sustainable land management in Sub-Saharan Africa. Draft TerrAfrica overview paper.
TerrAfrica. 2008. Policies for scaling up sustainable land management: resource guide for policymak-
ers. Final draft. A TerrAfrica partnership publication.
TerrAfrica. 2007. Assessment of the barriers and bottlenecks to scaling-up SLM investments through-
out Sub Saharan Africa. TerrAfrica SIP Activity 1.4.
UNESCO. 2006. Curriculum rationale. Understanding sustainable development. http://www.unesco.
org/education/tlsf/TLSF/theme_a/mod02/uncom02t02.htm; accessed 3 March 2010.
UN-REDD Programme. 2009. The United Nations collaborative programme on Reducing Emissions
from Deforestation and forest Degradation in Developing countries. http://www.un-redd.org/
Verchot, L., F. Place, K. Shepherd and B. Jama. 2007. Science and technological innovations for
improving soil fertility and management in Africa. A report for the NEPAD Science and Technology
Forum. Working Paper of World Agroforestry Centre.
Versfeld, D.B., D.C.Maitre, and R.A. Chapman. 1998. Alien invading plants and water resources in
South Africa: a preliminary assessment. Water Research Commission Report No. TT 99/98.
Wikipedia. 2010. Integrated pest management. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_pest_manage-
ment; accessed 22 March 2010.
WOCAT. 2008. A framework for documentation and evaluation of sustainable land management: tech-
nologies basic questionnaire. www.wocat.net
WOCAT. 2007. Where the land is greener – case studies and analysis of soil and water conservation
initiatives worldwide. Editors: Hanspeter Liniger and William Critchley.
Woodfine, A. 2009. Using sustainable land management practices to adapt to and mitigate climate
change in sub-Saharan Africa: resource guide version 1.0. TerrAfrica. www.terrafrica.org.
World Bank (WB). 2010. Managing land in a changing climate: an operational perspective for Sub-
Saharan Africa. Draft version Report No.: 54134-AFR. WB, Washington D.C.
World Resources Institute (WRI) in collaboration with United Nations Development Programme (UNDP),
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and World Bank (WB). 2005. World Resources
2005: The Wealth of the Poor—Managing Ecosystems to Fight Poverty. WRI, Washington, D.C.
Zhi You, L., 2008. Africa infrastructure country diagnostic: irrigation investment needs in Sub-Saharan
Africa. Summary of background paper 9. Produced by the International Food Policy Research Insti-
tute (IFPRI) for the World Bank (WB).

242 Sustainable Land Management in Practice

Layout_Part_1_2.indd 72 24.05.11 11:14

 Supporting information:

Bennett, G. W., J. M. Owens, R. M. Corrigan. 2004. Truman’s Scientific Guide to Pest Management
Operations, 6th edition. Purdue University/ Questex Press.
Dixon, J., A. Gulliver and D. Gibbon. 2001. Farming systems and poverty - Improving farmers’ liveli-
hoods in a changing world. FAO and World Bank, Rome and Washington D.C.
FAO. 2009. Country support tool for scaling-up Sustainable Land Management in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Version 1.0. A TerrAfrica partnership publication.
Gabathuler, E., F. Bachmann and A. Kläy (2011). Reshaping Rural Extension. Learning for Sustainability
(LforS) - An Integrative and Learning-based Advisory Approach for Rural Extension with Small-
Scale Farmers. Margraf Publishers: Weikersheim.
GTZ. 2009. Running dry? Climate change in drylands and how to cope with it. Deutsche Gesellschaft
für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), GmbH. Oekom Verlag, München.
Hurni, H., 2000. Assessing sustainable land management (SLM). Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environ-
ment Vol. 81 Nr.  1-10.
Müller-Lindenlauf, M., 2009. Organic agriculture and carbon sequestration - Possibilities and constrains
for the consideration of organic agriculture within carbon accounting systems. FAO, Rome, Italy.
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/012/ak998e/ak998e00.pdf
Neuenschwander, P., C. Borgemeister and J. Langewald (eds). 2003. Biological Control in IPM Sys-
tems in Africa. CAB International.
Noble, A.D., J. Pretty, F.W.T. Penning de Vries and D. Bossio. 2005. Development of bright spots in
Africa: cause for optimism. In: Penning de Vries, F.W.T. (Ed), Bright Spots Demonstrate Community
Successes in African Agriculture. Working Paper 102. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water
Management Institute (IWMI).
Oweis, T. and A. Hachum. 2006. Water harvesting and supplemental irrigation for improved water
productivity of dry farming systems in West Asia and North Africa. Agricultural Water Management
1-3: 57-73.
Patel, R. and E. Holt-Giménez. 2008. The new green revolution and world food prices. http://www.
foodfirst.org/en/node/2083; accessed 22 March 2010.
Reij, C. and A. Waters-Bayer. 2001. Farmer innovation in Africa. Earthscan Publication, London. UK.
Shiferaw, B. A., J. Okello and R. V. Reddy. 2009. Adoption and adaptation of natural resource manage-
ment innovations in smallholder agriculture: reflections on key lessons and best practices. Environ
Dev Sustain 11:601–619.
Sustainet Broschure. 2004. Combating World Hunger Through Sustainable Agriculture. http://www.
sustainet.org/download/sustainet_broch_eng.pdf
Swift, M.J., K.D. Shepherd (Eds). 2007. Saving Africa’s Soils: Science and Technology for Improved Soil
Management in Africa. Nairobi: World Agroforestry Centre
Tripp, R., 2006. Is low external input technology contributing to sustainable agricultural development?
Natural Resource Perspectives 102, Overseas Development Institute (ODI).
Würth, F., 2010. Sustainable Land Management in the Face of Climate Change in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Bachelor study. University of Bern, Switzerland.
Zomer R., A. Trabucco, R. Coe and F. Place. 2009. Trees on farm: analysis of global extent and geo-
graphical patterns of agroforestry. ICRAF Working Paper no. 89. Nairobi, Kenya: World Agroforestry
Centre. 60pp.

References 243

Layout_Part_1_2.indd 73 24.05.11 11:14