OPENING DISCUSSION

This discussion will begin by looking broadly at the potential of SLM as a primary adaptation and mitigation strategy in Africa.

Reversal of land degradation will secure food supply

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

SLM is a critical interface between climate change mitigation and adaptation in that some SLM strategies serve as a carbon sink to mitigate climate change (and therefore possibly attract carbon finance) as well as to locally mitigate the effects of climate change through provision of ecosystem services and thereby reducing the need for more drastic mitigation efforts (e.g. new crop varieties).

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).

SLM and Food Security sounds like a perfect “jackpot” in development terms. It is an undeniable fact that ensuring food security requires managing the production system carefully to ensure long-term delivery of the services that underpin agriculture. This includes soil quality, biodiversity, and water services. Farmers tend to take these services for granted because those who can afford to simply replace them. But a great majority of the world’s farmers simply don’t have options beyond those provided by nature.

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.

Again thank you everyone for your contributions – keep them coming.
The last few days we have seen that

• 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