Desire for Greener Land

The costs of a technology are difficult to assess, especially in
cases where the costs are actually less than for the normal or
conventional practice (e.g. with no tillage). Low-cost technologies
(mostly below 100 US$/ha) are primarily found within the
cropping management and grazing land management group,
although their maintenance costs can be considerable. The
water management technologies are the most expensive (2000
– 10,000 US$/ha), but this group also has the highest potential
of increasing the profits, thus making the investments very
worthwhile. Furthermore, the maintenance costs are usually
rather low, i.e. below 300 US$ / ha / year.
The cost-benefit analysis showed that nearly half of the land
users earn most of their income outside of their farm. It was
also found that, for the most part, technologies are profitable
in the long run, but less, and in some cases not at all, profitable
in the short run. Furthermore, land users themselves
were found to pay around a third of the implementation costs
(often in the form of labour), but usually all of the maintenance
costs. This suggests that providing funding to implement
technologies, e.g. through revolving funds or payments
for ecosystem services, can be an effective way to enhance
adoption, as the implementation costs are what makes measures
unprofitable in the short run. This is especially the case
for the more expensive cross-slope barriers and water management
technologies. However, despite the constraints due to
investment costs, there was a growing spontaneous adoption
trend for more than half of the technologies.
SLM Approaches
Eight SLM approaches were studied within DESIRE and are
discussed in detail in this book. In at least half of these cases,
the local community was involved right from the very beginning.
The decision to implement certain measures was still
often taken by SLM specialists, but always in consultation
with land users. All approaches work with an existing advisory
service system, which ensures the long-term continuation
of the approach activities. In many countries, agricultural
advisory services have been reduced due to economic pressure.
However, these services have proven to be a key for
up-scaling SLM and should, as a result, be strengthened to
enable promotion, further development and adaptation of
SLM to changing environments and needs.
Approaches were perceived to have moderate to great
impacts on SLM, and most approaches were found to contribute
to improved livelihoods, decreased poverty and improved
situations for socially and economically disadvantaged groups.
The main reasons that land users choose to implement SLM
Conclusions and policy points DESIRE – WOCAT 2012
Turkey, Erik van den Elsen
measures were found to be increased production, profitability,
and/or payments or subsidies. Environmental consciousness
played a minor role. Thus, the challenge is to devise
policies that are beneficial to environmental, economic and
social concerns, i.e. decreasing degradation and improving
ecosystems, while at the same time enhancing agricultural
productivity and the livelihoods of land users. Research is
needed to show and quantify these desired impacts of SLM
practices. Making land users more aware of environmental
issues and short- and long-term advantages, such as
increased profitability, as well as including them in assessing
the benefits of SLM – by being part of the research – will
increase their motivation to implement SLM measures.
Policy points
This final section summarises the main conclusions arising from
the DESIRE project that are of relevance to policy makers:
K SLM options need to be developed and evaluated by capitalising
on close collaboration of scientists with stakeholders,
and tailoring options to local needs and priorities.
K It is important to consider local knowledge and traditional
approaches to land management alongside the latest technologies
emerging from the research community and work
to combine insights from both of these sources.
K A structured process where stakeholders work together at
a local level to identify, evaluate and select SLM options for
field testing has proven to be effective. The implementation
and monitoring phase needs to take into account the
criteria for success, as identified by the stakeholders during
the participatory planning process.
K Standardized assessment and documentation, with the
help of the WOCAT tools, enables the evaluation of current
practices, the comparison of implemented SLM technologies
and approaches across sites, and the mutual sharing
of experiences through a variety of formats. 4
K Rigorous impact assessment is required to evaluate whether
the expected bio-physical and socio-economic benefits
have been realised.
K SLM has multiple ecological, economic and social benefits,
which go beyond the potential to reduce land degradation
and desertification, e.g. addressing global concerns of
water scarcity, resource use efficiency, energy supply, food
security, poverty alleviation, climate change and biodiversity
conservation.
K When taking into account the multiple benefits, investments
in SLM are completely justified and may require funding
schemes from private and public sectors, especially when
involving small-scale land users and marginalized people.
3 IAASTD, 2009. Summary for Decision Makers of the Global Report.
International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and
Technology for Development. Island Press, 46 pp.
4 Accessible at www.wocat.net and through the DESIRE Harmonised
Information System at www.desire-his.eu
67