The Role of Sustainable Land Management for Climate ... - CAADP

More documents

Recommendations

Info

! 2001). Similarly, high percentages of energy are met from fuelwood and charcoal in most African countries such as The Gambia (85 %), Niger (90 %), Uganda (96%) and Kenya (75%) (Broadhead et al 2001). ! Many case studies have shown that the rate of adoption of soil fertility, soil conservation, and water management practices is low in SSA, although substantial numbers of farmers do use particular practices. Within SSA, there are at least 167,000 certified organic farms operating a total organic area of about 231,000 ha (Willer, Yussefi-Menzler and Sorensen 2008). According to UNEP-UNCTAD (2008), at least 1.9 million farmers in Africa use practices that could be classified as “near organic” on nearly 2 million hectares; i.e., traditional sustainable land management practices that apply similar principles as those applied in organic agriculture. This estimate is based on a review of nearly 300 interventions promoting such practices in developing countries (Pretty et al. 2006; Pretty et al. 2003). In East Africa, Kruseman et al (2006) show that fewer than 5% of farmers in Tigray practice long fallows, improved fallows, mulch, or apply green manures and only 7% plowed crop residues back into the soil. Benin (2006) finds similarly low percentages of plots having been improved by farmers in the Amhara region of Ethiopia. Pender et al. (2004) found in Uganda that fewer than 20% of plots had received inorganic fertilizer, manure, compost, or mulch and only one quarter incorporated crop residues. In the Sahel, some technologies, such as contour ridging and zai pits are becoming widespread. But still, many practices, especially in terms of adding nutrients to soils, remains low (Shapiro and Sanders, 2002). In a study in central Malawi, Place et al (2001) found that just 21% of farmers invested in water management. Wyatt (2002) found terracing investment in the past five years on just 33% of plots, despite the hilly terrain. On the other hand, there have been a few land management practices where adoption rates have expanded noticeably. The expansion of the zai pit system in Burkina Faso and Niger has been well documented (e.g. Shapiro and Sanders 2002; Franzel, et al. 2004). Stone terracing was found to be practiced by almost half of farmers in Tigray (Kruseman et al 2006) and Deininger et al (2003) estimated that 47% of all Ethiopian farmers had built or maintained terraces between 1999 and 2001. Rainwater harvesting methods is another that has been found to be widely used, e.g. in semi-arid Tanzania (Hatibu et al 2001). 4 Various other conservation !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ' !It should be noted that adoption rates of relatively recently developed technologies are often bolstered by significant investment in dissemination.!!! ! $(!
! techniques, like bunding (e.g. Kenya), minimal tillage (e.g. Zambia), agroforestry (e.g. Tanzania), or terracing (e.g. Madagascar), are often practiced by at least 20% of farmers across a range of African sites, putting total adoption in the millions. Despite these bright spots, what is considered to be a good adoption rate for recently introduced technologies is tens of thousands of farmers and for mature technologies, upwards of 50% of plots/farmers. Hence, there remains quite a large amount of land without significant improvement. Based on a review of these and other studies, Pender (2008) estimated that at least 6 million smallholder farmers in SSA are using low-cost, productivity-enhancing land management practices on at least 5 million ha of land. Although this appears to be a large number, it still represents less than 3% of total cropland in SSA (191 million ha in 2005 [FAOSTAT 2008]). The reasons for low adoption are many. There are certainly cases where technologies are not attractive to farmers, for example, those which require significant labor, land, or cash and those which may seem to pay off only well into the future. But a large number of technologies are found to be ‘technically’ effective and used in certain communities, by certain farmers, or on certain crops. That suggests that it may not be the technology per se, but the conditions that shape costs, benefits and risks from the technology. For example, investments in land have been found many times to be related to improved market access or production of higher value crops (Place et al 2003). Certainly, the lack of strong profit potential of many traditional crops coupled with high risks (e.g. from variable rainfall and markets) reduces incentives for investments of any kind in agriculture. Kassie, et al. (2008) and Kato et al. (2009) both find for the Nile basin in Ethiopia that soil and water conservation investments perform differently in different rainfall areas and regions, which underscores the importance of careful geographical targeting when promoting and scaling up soil and water conservation technologies. Lastly, even where technologies and incentives are sufficient, there may still be missed opportunities for adoption due to poor information flows to farmers. This is especially a consideration for SLM practices that are knowledge intensive. ! $)!
Page 1 and 2: Land&Climate The Role of Sustainabl
Page 3 and 4: PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Climate
Page 5 and 6: Table of Contents Executive Summary
Page 7 and 8: List of Figures Figure 2-1. Number
Page 9 and 10: ICRISAT IGAD IPCC ISDR JI lCER LDCF
Page 11 and 12: ! EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Coping with cli
Page 13 and 14: ! organic carbon. SLM represents a
Page 15 and 16: ! tenure insecurity in many African
Page 17 and 18: ! To achieve success in the first t
Page 19 and 20: ! degradation, soil and biomass car
Page 21 and 22: ! 2. The Challenge of Climate Varia
Page 23 and 24: ! production and food security for
Page 25 and 26: ! production in Africa and other re
Page 27 and 28: ! Ethiopia consider soil and water
Page 29 and 30: ! the region is degraded to such an
Page 31: ! In terms of affected area, UNEP (
Page 35 and 36: ! flooding in sloping lands and pro
Page 37 and 38: ! Reducing Emissions from Deforesta
Page 39 and 40: ! organic carbon. Principles of div
Page 41 and 42: ! A first major impact in Africa wo
Page 43 and 44: ! the practices and qualitatively a
Page 45 and 46: ! o Several adaptation funds have b
Page 47 and 48: ! feeding practices), improved fert
Page 49 and 50: ! billion for the CTF and $2.0 bill
Page 51 and 52: ! require social and environment be
Page 53 and 54: ! focus on financing CDM and/or JI
Page 55 and 56: ! nations have ratified (or adopted
Page 57 and 58: ! vulnerability assessment, develop
Page 59 and 60: ! The TerrAfrica partnership is pla
Page 61 and 62: ! o increased use of voluntary carb
Page 63 and 64: ! • increased integration of clim
Page 65 and 66: ! allowances and offsets are within
Page 67 and 68: ! greater financial resources than
Page 69 and 70: ! activities (these challenges are
Page 71 and 72: ! CER can be carried over to subseq
Page 73 and 74: ! However, the limited extent of su
Page 75 and 76: ! doubts about the verifiability an
Page 77 and 78: ! REDD payments also could have neg
Page 79 and 80: ! VCS, rather than trying to measur
Page 81 and 82: ! Applied research and knowledge ma
Page 83 and 84:
! important to address, so that the
Page 85 and 86:
! As shown earlier in this report,
Page 87 and 88:
! non-A/R projects (a lower thresho
Page 89 and 90:
! countries, including national pov
Page 91 and 92:
! and developing programs and proje
Page 93 and 94:
! • Land degradation increases th
Page 95 and 96:
! • Constraints to increased use
Page 97 and 98:
! and TerrAfrica process to develop
Page 99 and 100:
! Table 2-2. Projected mean tempera
Page 101 and 102:
! Table 2-5. Severe environmental c
Page 103 and 104:
! Table 3-2. Importance of Causes o
Page 105 and 106:
! Practice Adaptation aspects Mitig
Page 107 and 108:
! Table 4-1. Carbon markets, volume
Page 109 and 110:
! Table 4-3. Summary of Progress du
Page 111 and 112:
! Figure 2-3. Projected increases i
Page 113 and 114:
! Figure 3-1. NDVI based estimates
Page 115 and 116:
! Figure 3-3. Greenhouse gas emissi
Page 117 and 118:
! Figure 4-2. Potential savings by
Page 119 and 120:
! References ! Ambrosi, P. 2009. No
Page 121 and 122:
! Dregne, H. and M. Kassas. 1991. A
Page 123 and 124:
! Kruseman, G., Ruben, R. and G. Te
Page 125 and 126:
! Sustainable Land Management in th
Page 127:
! United States Government Accounta
show all

The Role of Sustainable Land Management for Climate ... - CAADP

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?