| Teaching smallholders to combat soil erosion |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Field methods to assess the extent and impact of land degradation in the context of local livelihoods | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
A systems framework forms the basis of a training tool for field professionals working with smallholder households on the impact of farming activities on soil erosion and conservation. Methods for the field assessment of both biophysical and economic aspects of erosion and conservation by developing country professionals and field staff are included. The methodology has been published and presented at meetings and training workshops. The publication was originally put on the Internet and is now available in print in English and Spanish, with an Arabic version in preparation. The technique has been widely adopted around the world. It is used in 26 countries with eight more about to take it up. This includes 12 countries of sub-Saharan Africa. Project Ref: NRSP06 :
Research Programmes: Natural Resources Systems Programme (Hillsides Production Systems) & Socio-Economic Methodologies (jointly funded when both NRSP and SEM were managed within DFID). Additional funding:
Relevant Research Projects:. R6525: Methods of economic and environmental assessment of the on-site impacts of soil erosion and conservation - a case study of smallholder agriculture in Sri Lanka (1996-1999) PD097: Field assessment of land degradation from the perspective of the land user: validation and production of guidelines (2001) PD118: Manual para la Evaluación de Campo de la Degradación de la Tierra - Spanish translation of PD097 output (2003)
The above diagram shows the sequence and timing of project activities, indicating that outputs have already been widely used - see "Potential for Added Value" below. This diagram was prepared as part of the Node:Suite analysis of NRSP, by Michael Stocking. Partners:
Output (1): A systems analysis framework for examining soil erosion and conservation in the context of the household used for training of field professionals. A preliminary systems analysis framework was developed in 1996 that examined interactions of soil erosion and conservation with smallholder farming households. In the form of cobweb diagrams, this provided visualisations of inter-linkages between different aspects of smallholder households. The preliminary framework was employed to investigate the possible impacts of erosion and conservation for smallholder households in the project's study area. The published framework (1998) was the first time that a clear distinction has been drawn between "resource-value" approaches (i.e. valuation of the depletion of nutrients and/or other measures of soil quality by erosion), "production-value" approaches (i.e. loss in yield with erosion, or gain through conservation), or "livelihoods-value" (i.e. contribution to household livelihoods). The Sustainable Rural Livelihoods framework was subsequently modified (2000) to accommodate these issues and remains as a key means of analysing the trade-offs of small farmers as they decide how to use their land in constructing livelihoods. Output (2) Guide to data sources and practical field handbook for land degradation assessment from which information can be obtained rapidly on extent of degradation and impacts on livelihoods. An emphasis was taken throughout the project to develop variables and indicators for both biophysical and economic assessments direct from the field and farmer. Biophysical techniques of erosion and conservation assessment for in-field use by developing country professionals and field staff were published (1996) and were presented at various meetings and at two residential training workshops (Sri Lanka, November 1997; Bolivia, November 1998). Output 2 was realised first when the 120 page draft Guidelines on Field Assessment of Land Degradation was posted on a web-site (www.unu.edu/env/plec) in its revised version in late October 2000. It is now available as a book, in English and Spanish, with an Arabic version in translation:
Training materials are now (2006) incorporated into documents of FAO and UNU for use in two major environment projects funded by the Global Environment facility - see below.
The project was not commodity-specific and could be applied to any hillside farming situation where soil erosion and other land degradation processes are common. However, the techniques and tools of analysis probably work best for upland, steep slope, arable cropping on drylands (i.e. without irrigation). They are also possible on rangeland, especially if rates of degradation are high.
Considerable value has already been added to the original R6525. However, two suggestions are given here for the Outputs: (1) Systems framework. The missing element is a validated approach to valuation - financially, culturally and socially - of the trade-offs made by local people in deciding how to use their soils and how far depletion of the natural capital is essential for survival. Social networks have been shown especially to be important - the 'safety net' for poor people in marginal areas - but we do not have a way of establishing their value. This is important in policy terms so that appropriate resources can be channelled to such aspects as protecting local knowledge, assistance with self-help groups and NGOs. In one of the Bolivian extensions to R6525, funded by NRSP as R7856, it was conclusively shown that social networks are fundamental to the survival of the very poor. (2) Practical field handbook. The two versions (Spanish and English) are now very widely used. However, the techniques now need to be developed further to engage at different scales of analysis. A start has been made in this with the GEF-LADA (Land Degradation Assessment in Drylands) project, but the methodology has further to go. The following conceptual diagram has been developed for LADA to illustrate how the process may occur (Source: LADA Virtual Centre).
How the outputs were validated: The Outputs have been validated through a series of training courses (six in total: Sri Lanka, Bolivia, Uganda and three in UK/Spain) involving 82 participants with independent evaluators and an evaluation questionnaire. Full reports in PDF are available from Michael Stocking (m.stocking@uea.ac.uk) for training courses in 2003, 2004 and 2005, organised by the ODG in the UK and Spain. There are also independent evaluation reports for Bolivia and Uganda. The trainees were professionals from research institutes, NGOs, universities, government departments and multilaterals. Most of them undertook the training because of their work programmes involving interaction with local people. Across the six training courses, the gender balance was: 68% male; 32% female. A follow-up survey has been undertaken in response to the RIU programme in September-October 2006. An email was sent to the last known addresses of all persons that undertook the training exercises in 2003-2005. Response was patchy, but where significant uptake of outputs was claimed a follow-up telephone interview was undertaken. Responses are included below. Where the Outputs were Validated:
Who are the Users? The approach has been used in other natural resources and conservation areas, including in biodiversity conservation on-farm (see Brookfield, H., Stocking, M. & Brookfield, M. 2002. Guidelines on agrodiversity assessment. In: Brookfield et al (eds.) Cultivating Biodiversity: Understanding, Analysing and Using Agricultural Diversity. ITDG, London. Pp.41-56). As at 13 October 2006, Google Scholar lists 33 citations for the main printed handbook by Stocking and Murnaghan, and a further 8 citations for the preliminary on-line web version. A selection of the topics for which the outputs were relevant and cited as guidance are:
The following are a selection of the anecdotal responses to the most recent survey of users. Country and profession of respondent are indicated in square brackets:
Where the outputs have been used:. Uptake of the tools has been achieved in other projects. Two examples known to Michael Stocking and for which details have been provided are:
Scale of Current Use:. It is difficult to assess the scale of current use. An assessment from survey responses and the course evaluations from 2003-2005 suggest that:
Uptake to current use has been slow but progressive over the 7 years since the completion of R6525. However, R6525's output was not yet in finished usable form and so development has also been progressive. An estimate of take-up time after completion of outputs is a minimum of three years for the techniques to become mainstreamed and put into practical operation. Policy and Institutional Structures, and Key Components for Success: A very wide range. The following are the institutions that have reported direct use: Multilateral:
National
The programmes and platforms that have been most influential have been in higher education at national level and in targeted research in multilateral institutions. The key facts of success are:
Lessons Learned and Uptake Pathways Promotion of Outputs: See below as to where promotion is currently taking place. Specified detail is not available without further research outside this scoping study. However, more information has been gathered on the two multilateral projects that have taken up the techniques, as follows:
Potential Barriers Preventing Adoption of Outputs: The following have been reported during telephone interviews:
How to Overcome Barriers to Adoption of Outputs: More translations of the materials into national languages. An Arabic version is nearly complete, undertaken by staff at ICARDA, Syria. Policy, institutional and educational barriers all take time to be surmounted. It needs national champions, a suitable springboard institution and clear external policy support. A respondent from Barbados typifies the needs felt by many professionals when faced with interdisciplinary tools of analysis: "Unfortunately the agency with greatest responsibility for the monitoring of land degradation is the Ministry of Agriculture, which is a separate entity from the ministry where I work, so any advances made in utilizing the information I learned will have to be done through a collaborative project. Such projects are almost impossible to get accepted with the present institutional structures and barriers between ministries and departments." Lessons Learned: Show the utility and demonstrate the application in practice. If local professionals are enthused, then local people including the poor join in and contribute. Then, thinking specifically of the institutions involved (these comments adapted from the Node:Suite analysis):
Poverty Impact Studies: No specific, formal and detailed studies of impact on poverty have been undertaken. The key challenge is how the potential of the production systems upon which the poor rely can be realised in order to support these marginalised sections of society in often remote areas of mountains and steep slopes. An initial step for the original research was to develop and test tools for the assessment of environmental processes, such as soil erosion, that directly impact hillside farmers. These tools had to be able to provide assessment outputs that are relevant to and understandable by farmers. The tools needed to be able to integrate economic and financial issues with environmental and biophysical processes. They also needed to be low-cost, participatory and accessible to local professionals working with farmers. The survey undertaken for this RIU contribution included questions on poverty impact, as reported below. How the Poor have Benefited (including gender and other poverty groups): It must be appreciated that the benefit to poor people comes primarily from better trained and more useful local professionals. Some of this is dealt with below. It is currently not possible to give the sort of statistical evidence required - a substantial follow-up study would be needed. Here, we report responses to the RIU survey, but it should be noted that very few evidences of direct benefit for the poor have been reported to date: From Nepal: "There has been no direct validation of impact on poverty. However, there are evidences [of] increased income through integration of economic activities into the land management practices (e.g. compost making and selling to market)". In a recent review mission to Nepal, uptake of techniques to reduce land degradation rates (mainly soil erosion) on hillside terraces suggests that there has been a preferential take-up by poor people rather than the more locally wealthy. The reasons advanced were mainly centred around the reliance that poor people place directly on the integrity of their natural resource base. This is an untested argument, but would be worthwhile following up as part of an integrated poverty strategy in the NR and agricultural sectors. From Central Asia: "The implementation of the above-mentioned project has not started yet but they are expected to have tangible positive impacts on both the local livelihoods and environment." From India: "From my experience in my research work, I have made observations (both quantitative and qualitative) that there is a very strong correlation between land degradation (in our case it was through analysis of land use analysis in marginal lands) and poverty. Some of these observations have been published. However, more substantial questions such as why marginal lands are cultivated and why in some cases (in our study area) suboptimal land use occurs. The balance between land degradation and livelihoods of subsistence farmers has to be found through alternative activities, off farm income sources mainly aided by a supportive and enabling policy instruments." Indirectly reported by one of the LADA local professionals in Senegal from the minutes of an FAO meeting: "Land degradation assessment is essential in the drylands of West Africa in order to meet the aspirations of local people to have technologies designed for their particularly harsh conditions." Finally, it is worth noting statements made about the veracity of assessments of the status of the environment and the linkage to poor people.. Bjorn Lomborg as reported in New Agriculturist: "..environmental organisations deliberately misrepresent statistical evidence in order to give an exaggerated picture of environmental dangers. Whether the subject is food production, forest depletion, or water scarcity, [Lomborg, himself a statistician, argues that] the world is in a far better state than is generally admitted, and that on the whole, prospects for the future are of continuing improvement. Those areas where trends are least encouraging are the poorest areas. Countries burdened by huge debts cannot afford to think long term; nor can farmers living below the poverty line. Uncontrolled and damaging exploitation of natural resources may be their only option for survival and, since only rich people can afford the luxury of environmental conservation, if the world wishes to prevent further destruction, it must support the long term economic growth of the poor. Direct and Indirect Environmental Benefits: The tools and techniques are intrinsically 'environmental' and are about the promotion of sustainable use. It is useful to note that the widest take-up has been through projects funded by the Global Environment Facility. This implies that the analytical techniques are accepted as useful for environmental goals. Adverse Environmental Impacts: None. Coping with the Effects of Climate Change, or Risk from Natural Disasters: NRSP ran a final project on adaptation to climate change (R8494) with the view to enhancing adaptive capacity. The following is an edited version of the Key Messages statement by Michael Mortimore and Adam Manvell, made relevant for land degradation assessment: Helping poor people to strengthen their livelihoods improves their capacity to adapt to variability (the most urgent symptom of climate change). Land degradation discriminates between different areas. It is greatest on steep lands and difficult climates, where most poor people also live. The capabilities of poor people, rather than their vulnerability per se, provide a starting point for demand-led research for development that can moderate the negative effects of climate change, and empower them to take hold of opportunities. A new research strategy is needed to provide focused scientific and external support. This strategy should evolve beyond 'more of the same' to respond flexibly to new challenges. An example of this would be the new concepts of integrated soil fertility management Significant knowledge gaps should be addressed, in: measuring the uptake of innovations more effectively; understanding the political-economic context of development in specific times and places; understanding how poor people can optimise new knowledge in a context of competing demands; incorporating economic drivers in models and in advice; taking forward the growing understanding of institutional issues; linking livelihood diversification strategies with natural resource management; and fulfilling the need for a strategy addressing longer term ecosystem change. A systems approach to climate change adaptation research is advocated for: combining action with research; building partnerships between research, development and policy; linking democratic accountability, governance, planning and natural resource management; identifying creative entry points in multi-sectoral livelihood systems; and combining risk reduction with productivity objectives. Linking land degradation and production (or yield) decline is an urgent priority. It is important to optimise the management of a diminishing natural resources sector. Robust, diversified livelihoods have good adaptive capacity (there are trade-offs with risky specialisation). Success in building livelihoods often correlates with access to non-farm options, and income may be transferred between the two sectors. Poor people therefore need to increase the income share derived off-farm and research should reflect a multi-sectoral standpoint. Links with regional partners (to ensure effective uptake) need to be defined and formed between climate change adaptation research and related activities, and between scales ranging from the local (where much of the research has been conducted) to the global (where policy debates are active and instruments such as conventions are formed). (Source: Mortimore and Manvell, 2006, p.1) Relevant Research Projects,
with links to the
|
For relevant research projects, with links to further information
|
