• There is a need for consolidation and communication of SLM information perhaps through a virtual network that uses new media solutions
• The grass roots are where the decisions will be made with farmers not necessarily aware of the link between their current environmental problems and their current or past actions
• There is a disjunction between the research, extension, policy and investment people that might be bridged with shared data platforms, shared indicators, country peer-review and a communications effort
• Engagement with the farmer is critical, would identify the key barriers that once removed would see a rapid uptake of SLM tactics on the farm

It seems as though we might be aware of the problems that SLM aims to solve at all levels (the scale issue that seems always to be part of such discussions) but depending on our experience we see the problems in a particular way.

I know that my former academic colleagues in soil and ecological research see the problem of sustainability very differently when they are thinking about their experiments and fieldwork, to when they are in the coffee room at the University, to when they are writing the next research grant application.

No surprise that they also think differently to the extension officer, the policy maker, investor and farmer.

Are our ways of thinking too disparate to bring together?

Mark
1 October, 2009

As SLM experts we are aware of the bigger picture, the need for solutions to landscape, region and country scale problems of balancing food security with social and economic well-being without degrading the environment. But this is not the picture that an African farmer sees – interestingly it is not the picture that graziers or cotton growers in Australia see either.

In the end farms are businesses that must be viable even if produce for family consumption is their primary output.

Maybe this is the problem, for the transactions that go on in business are for the benefit of the transacting parties and not the resource base.

So engagement with farmers will need to be about the benefit to their business.

This may also explain Stephen’s point about the disjunct between research, extension and policy people – 20 years among researchers and academics proved to me that this group at least, know very little about how to do business.

Mark

I think there is a need of raising the SLM profile in the region by informing the policy makers of the large losses that SSA economies suffer through land degradation and therefore the need to invest more in SLM. Current public investment in soil fertility management has been largely on fertilizer subsidy. Investment in organic soil fertility management – such as agroforestry, soil erosion control, etc have largely been funded by donors. This is where there is need to raise the profile of SLM to get policy makers attention. This will definitely pay dividends if SSA countries start investing in promoting organic soil fertility management rather than the current focus on fertilizer subsidy. Doing so will be more effective in adaptation to climate change, and raise the profile for participating in the carbon market.

Clearly, any financing discussion must start with the fact that it is not a simple matter of lack of funding.

Land is an asset worth investing in at all levels. SLM is a development priority because it underpins agriculture (food and fiber crops), rangeland management (livestock), and forest landscape management (wood and fuel) and improved the value and longevity of this asset. Viewed in this way, SLM is the foundation for natural resource uses that drive much of the rural economy in developing countries.

So financing SLM should be considered a genuine economic and development agenda by all countries. But how can we make it happen?

First, governments must create the enabling environment and climate for diversity of investment in SLM. Incentives and opportunities for SLM cannot be harnessed if existing policies or investment climates are not conducive. For example, insecure land tenure has been shown to serve as a major impediment to SLM.

Simple solutions such as empowering local land users with secure tenure, will create incentives for SLM because they will focus on interventions with great potential for long-term sustainability. It is therefore essential that developing countries increasingly facilitate such enabling environments if the growing prospect of funding for climate change mitigation and adaptation is to effectively tapped.

Second, financing for SLM should come from a diversified range of sources, including reflows from production practices. This means harnessing opportunities across a range of sectors, especially those that depend on ecosystem service flows.

Payments for ecosystem services such as hydrological flows and carbon sequestration are being tapped in different parts of the world to foster prudent and judicious use of production landscapes. Much more needs to be done to develop and institutionalize such options.

Third, global financing mechanisms such as the Global Environment Facility (GEF) should be strengthened to play a crucial role in fostering SLM by leveraging mainstream development funding. The GEF as a financing mechanism of multi-lateral environmental agreements has the comparative advantage of financing incremental costs to generate global environmental benefits from mainstream development projects. For example, GEF financing for SLM helps to increase resiliency of agriculture and rangeland systems by emphasizing innovations to maintain or improve ecosystem service flows.

The UNCCD and its 10-Year Strategy offers an exciting global policy backdrop to explore these options by both developed country and affected country partners.

And now is the time to take full advantage of the opportunity before it is too late!

The debates around the traditional routes for financial flows within countries and across borders are well known – proponents and providers each with their own valid reasons for sourcing or controlling ever-thinner slices of a relatively small pie.

We may have to accept that, although important, the donor dollar will always be a weak process – a little like spray irrigation, not enough of the good stuff soaks into the ground.

The great opportunity for SLM is that this may all change. Climate change brings with it carbon finance and with that the notion that other environmental services could be financial vehicles. The land makes money over and above the products it produces.

We could see carbon, water, biodiversity, even nutrient replenishment as tradable stocks and a big part of the asset value of land.

The question is how will it change and what mechanisms and institutions will need to emerge to access and channel funding to SLM initiatives? This is unknown, although many people, including some of the expert contributors to this debate, are starting to make it happen.

So, do we see climate change as an opportunity or a threat? That surely is one for the financial minds… or is it?

Mark

• Land tenure may be a crucial barrier to SLM uptake, especially for the poor, displaced and disadvantaged
• Lack of land tenure shortens the decision horizon – people are less likely to invest in their land when they are under stress or duress.
• SLM may not work for the greedy – fast returns from land are still attractive to some. Fast returns will usually mean that the soil reserves are mined.
• Networks, both real and virtual, are important for the success of SLM programs
• We have evidence-based SLM investment programs and they make a difference.

Perhaps the network idea can be a part solution to the tenure problem. People who are in touch with other people in the same position as themselves have a point of connection and gain strength from each other – enough perhaps to adopt some SLM practices on their land, even when they are not sure of their tenure.

Maybe the programs that will work are those that are more about community than they are about SLM practices. The Social Carbon standard in Brazil is a good example of how this idea can be effective.

We have some answers but we are  still left with the question

SLM works, why aren’t we using it everywhere?

Mark
28 September, 2009

Changes in precipitation and the timing of the rainy season are already becoming visible in Eastern Africa and other regions. Across the continent there will be changes in temperature and in the timing, amounts and intensity of rainfall with a tendency towards wetter conditions in the tropics and drying in the sub-tropics.

In many parts the length of the growing period is likely to decrease over time with projected losses in yield of up to 50% by 2020 in some countries.

The land area suitable for rainfed agriculture is expected to significantly decrease affecting adversely land productivity potential of the continent.

These production challenges as a result of climate change will sit alongside increasing population pressures.

Should agriculture continue with ‘business as usual’ food scarcity will become more widespread reaching critical state in more and more locations and regions. Without reliable food supply it will be ever harder for governments and civil society to maintain economic growth and social stability.

Adaptation in farming systems through the adoption of SLM is a necessity.

Only though changes to the way farming is carried out will production be secured. This is not just a problem for Africa but one that will affect all countries on all continents.

Those of us who work with SLM in Africa know this – the question is, will this knowledge be shared, heard and acted upon in Copenhagen?

Mark

Mark

SLM represents the best opportunity for such farmers, especially if it goes beyond meeting their subsistence needs. With the vast amount of knowledge and experience amassed from evaluating various options, it is simply inexcusable to merely keep smallholder farmers at subsistence level. Food security needs to include options for generating income and creating pathways out of poverty. This would actually create incentives for adoption and upscaling, which is precisely what the world needs to sustain an ever increasing population.

Practices that improve water management and soil health (including biology, moisture) are two such measures that provide multiple benefits (mitigation, adaptation, and productivity).  These are not necessarily new, but their potential impact values have escalated.

A major difficulty is related to the incentives for investing in SLM.  In lands that are not under household management, property rights are often too unclear to attract any particular individual or entity to undertake investment.

The way around this is for strong local institutions to emerge, but history has shown that is not an easy endeavor.  In farm lands, property rights are generally sufficient for households to make long term investments in Africa (exceptions:  women’s rights, some migrant communities, some areas with strong state control over land).  However, smallholder rainfed agriculture has not been highly profitable for many reasons and as a consequence, has received little long term or short term investment (notable exceptions are for the higher value commodities, especially exported ones).

This will continue to hinder investment in SLM, because the payoffs to the longer term SLM are highest when farmers also invest in shorter term payoffs from good varieties and fertilizer.  Notwithstanding this general concern, other factors inhibiting investment in SLM are its often steep knowledge requirements and the availability of equipment or materials where needed (e.g. water irrigation equipment, germplasm for leguminous species).

So far we have seen that

• A challenge and great need is to align SLM with agricultural production programs across all scales
• As SLM is proven “what is hindering high and widespread adoption of SLM?”
• Climate change can be a catalyst with carbon offset payments a great incentive for change
• Across Africa (and everywhere else where people grow food); soil organic matter, root biomass, vegetative cover need to increase while burning, livestock wastes, unnecessary tillage, soil erosion need to decrease
• Farmers will have an increasingly crucial role in maintaining ecosystem services
• Sharing training and advice across and between nations will help
• Land tenure and rights to land may be much more important for SLM than we realize

These points seem to boil down to

SLM works, why aren’t we using it everywhere?

Let us be bold. I am sure that with a bit of thought and goodwill we can answer this question over the coming days.
Mark
23 September, 2009

There is great and persistent pressure on African land to produce food, fibre and shelter for a growing population of 717 million people.

Yet many of the farming systems in use today came about when the demand for food was much lower, when fewer people relied on the land for their livelihood.

Pushed to deliver ever-greater volume of production, farming systems have worked the land harder. In places the need to produce has stretched the land beyond the innate capacity of the local soil–water–plant system to recover. Before natural renewal could replenish nutrients and soil carbon another crop was planted or hungry domestic stock returned to graze again. This pushing of the limits has mined the stocks of nutrients and carbon from soil and the common result is land degradation.

Degraded land is defined by a loss of production potential. This is exactly the opposite to what is needed – increased and secure food production.

Climate change can only intensify this challenge. Changes to rainfall patterns, temperature regimes and the frequency and intensity of severe weather events will further test the resilience of natural and production systems.

Fortunately there is a solution.

Degraded land can be rehabilitated, restored and returned to resilience through SLM practices, mainly because plants are managed not only for production but also for sequestration and retention of carbon.

Land where carbon is sequestered, rather than mined, can grow beyond its original capacity to produce and sustain production in spite of changing conditions. And we know how to do it.

We also know that security of food supply underpins the stability of all other economic, social and cultural systems.

It would seem that rehabilitation and restoration that leads to resilience of land should be a given, it should be happening as a matter of course.

Curiously it isn’t.

Mark

So should we be promoting awareness to generate tenure opportunity or promote (the harder issue I think) of tenure first?

Mark

For instance, arable cropping that is dominated by heavy tillage exposes the soil in croplands to erosion. This causes huge soil losses on one hand, and siltation on the other. Tillage coupled with low use of inputs, exploitation of fragile/marginal lands, and mono-cropping, are key factors leading to soil nutrient mining, severe soil degradation, and declining levels of soil organic matter. These practices undermine African agriculture’s ability to lead the fight against poverty and food insecurity.

This is happening even when there are proven technologies and practices that would enable high and sustainable yields consistent with environmental resilience and biodiversity protection objectives.

Sustainable land Management highlights key principles and practices on sustainable natural resource management specific to various socio-economic and ecosystem circumstances. Given its proven performance on one hand, and the growing land degradation consequences on the other, the question is “what is hindering high and widespread adoption of SLM?”

Perhaps it is because much of the farming activities inherently give precedence to “today’s needs” in production or productivity as opposed to “future needs”.

Currently, addressing land degradation will be cardinal to Africa’s ability to sustain efficient natural resource use. This will include enhancing its ability to respond to shocks including extreme weather conditions, climate change as well as building the desired economic base for a growth agenda.

We can use SLM actions to supply current and future needs and so avoid self-destruction.

Climate change could be the catalyst for achieving that alignment. For farmers to sustain yields and become more resilient in the face of climate change, it will be essential to increase soil organic matter, root biomass, vegetative cover of crop fields and grasslands and agroforestry, while reducing agricultural burning, livestock wastes, unnecessary tillage and soil erosion. These same SLM practices slow climate change by sequestering and storing carbon from the atmosphere in soils, roots and vegetation. Carbon offset payments could help to finance their promotion and adoption.

To further protect and increase productivity, seeds for crops, grasses and trees must be adapted to new climate conditions; supplemental nutrients will be needed for some soils. Markets must function effectively for both farmers and consumers, to ensure rural and urban food supply as climate risks and uncertainties increase. Critical habitat for wildlife will move with climate change beyond the boundaries of national parks and protected areas into farmland. Farmers will have a critical role to play as well in regulating water supply, to ensure rainfall is absorbed and stored in soils, aquifers and surface water sources.

Most SLM programs today are run separately from programs for agricultural productivity, water management, and biodiversity conservation—even in the very same landscapes. To meet these diverse challenges efficiently, leaders in African rural landscapes will need to align action among different sectors and stakeholders, to achieve ‘ecoagriculture’ landscapes.

After an interesting first week we now discuss the challenges in financing SLM initiatives.  Please click here for the latest.

His professional career spans several aspects of integrated natural resource management including biodiversity conservation, agroforestry land use and ecological restoration. Mohamed holds a MS and PhD in Tropical Ecology from the University of Miami.