1 / 15

Costs and Benefits of Soil and Water Conservation in farmland

Costs and Benefits of Soil and Water Conservation in farmland. Davies Onduru Fredrick Muchena Esther Njuguna. Content. Introduction and objectives Methodology Results Conclusions. Introduction and objectives.

hayes-nguyen
Download Presentation

Costs and Benefits of Soil and Water Conservation in farmland

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Costs and Benefits of Soil and Water Conservationin farmland Davies Onduru Fredrick Muchena Esther Njuguna

  2. Content • Introduction and objectives • Methodology • Results • Conclusions

  3. Introduction and objectives • What are the costs and the benefits of Soil and Water Conservation practices of smallholders in the Upper Tana Catchment?

  4. Approach and Methodology • Three sub-catchments covered Map of the three sub-catchments.docx • 433 smallholders interviewed • Range lands: • Two Focus group discussions-Lower reaches of Mutonga catchment

  5. 13 Soil and Water Conservation Practices

  6. Quantifying Costs of SWC Practices-1 collected • Type of investment and maintenance costs: • Lay-out • Tools and equipment • Labour • Seeds/planting materials for stabilisers • Fertilisers/manures • Pesticides • Other input costs (mulches, stones etc.) etc. • Investments Costs: • Costs of laying out the SWC practices along the contours • Costs of construction and or establishment of the practices and • Costs of establishing stabilizer materials (e.g. grasses).

  7. Quantifying Costs of SWC Practices-2 • Maintenance/annual costs: • Repairs/cleaning trenches (where relevant) • Gapping, • Fertilization, weeding; • Pruning (where relevant) • Application of trash and mulch. • Data on benefits: • Fodder and trees on SWC structure embankments/risers • Grasses/fuel wood/poles etc. from Riverine areas • Yields of crops grown on terraces/in conserved land (grains + stovers) etc.

  8. Results 1. Profitability in the year of study BCR: Benefit Cost ration; GM = Gross margins

  9. Results 2. Financial efficiency of conservation measures with perennial crops • INB: Incremental Net Benefits • Benefit of SWC practices calculated as the difference between • plots with SWC practice and those • without(the difference in benefits)

  10. Results 3. Financial efficiency of structural measures (15 year time horizon) Structures + Maize + Beans; Values for INB x 1000

  11. Results 4. Financial efficiency of non-structural measures (15 year time horizon) Structures + Maize + Beans; Values for INB x 1000

  12. Results 6. Focus Group Discussions in the rangelands • Rangelands: Land predominantly used for livestock and covers parts of semi-arid and arid areas • Farmers perceptions on causes of deterioration • Overgrazing; no mechanism for enforcing herd sizes • Cutting down of trees • Charcoal burning • Uncontrolled burning of vegetation prior to cultivation • Suggested measures of control • Soil and water conservation practices; tree planting • Fenced grazing; about 3 acres of enclosed grazing area is charged Ksh 3000-5000 during dry period. • Controlled grazing in hilly areas • Community action and sensitization (building structures for enforcement)

  13. Conclusions • The 13 practices were profitable in the agro-ecological zones covered • The initial high cost of conservation is mainly in the form of labour and materials. • This study has shown that when high value fodder crops (Napier grass) are used in stabilising SWC structures and when high value crops are planted in the conserved land, then the structures pay-off within a short period of time (one-two years). • Combine structural measures whose benefits are realised in the long-term with measures that are profitable in the short term to address farmers needs in a holistic way • Despite the positive indicators of Costs and Benefits, the implementation of SWC practices is not automatically done by farmers: • This is caused by the time lag between investments/costs and the returns/benefits.

  14. Conclusions • Main observations for the Commercial Sustainable Investment Package • (CSIP) are: • Because of the time lag between investments and returns, soft loans or grants are • needed to make farmers interested to invest inSoil and Water Conservation works; • Farmers need support to develop an ‘entrepreneurial’ farm plan, e.g. introduce high value • crops or livestock in the farm plan, in order to make the SWC practices attractive for the • farmer; >this means a high Cost Benefit Ratio and net returns. • Farmers need technical advice and support tailored to their farm and natural resources • conditions; and • To make the investments operational and effective, the farmers will require adequate • institutional support, e.g. on how to apply for loans, technical assistance, cooperation • between the several institutions etc.

  15. Thank you for your attention

More Related