125. Identification of site-specific SLM options must be based on the following considerations:
The extent and severity of land degradation and climate change differ among ecoregions, and their effects vary among soil types, terrains, physiographies, land use, farming systems and the economic status of the farming communities.
Climate change may also create some opportunities for land users such as new crops that may now be grown where previously impossible (e.g., long duration or warm season crops).
The effectiveness of SLM technologies also differs among ecoregions, and there is no one size that fits all. Identification of site-specific technologies through validation and appropriate adjustment is essential.There are trade offs among SLM options, and relative cost effectiveness may also vary among ecoregions. None of the SLM options are cost free, and most may have hidden economic and environmental costs. What is important is to reduce the negative trade-offs by addressing loss of land productivity via SLM practices that enhance ecosystem integrity by restoring watershed functions (e.g., reduced siltation of waterways), stabilizing soil loss (upland/lowland sediment storage and release), protecting transboundary rivers, enhancing riverbank protection, sequestration of C, etc. In other words, choosing SLM practices that have multiple co-benefits will tend to reduce certain key trade-offs.
The choice of SLM options without consideration of certain key factors may also result in some negative effects. For example, NT may not work if crop residues are removed, herbicides are not effective in controlling weeds, and a seed drill is not available. Excessive, flood-based, and improper irrigation (without drainage) may cause secondary salinization and imbalance of the ground water. Thus, the use of “technology without wisdom” can create serious collateral problems.
It is vital to provide some economic rationale for the SLM approaches that are to be introduced. The sustainability of any SLM practices at local level depends on opportunities to increase the income of the local community. Therefore, it is crucial to consider and estimate the market potential of the selected SLM practices (e.g., hillside rehabilitation with perennial fruit trees and horticultural crops) at local, regional and even international levels. If SLM practices are to be scaled-up, then their economic and financial benefits and impacts on communities’ livelihoods will need to be assessed and demonstrated. In this regard, SLM interventions should explicitly build-in economic and financial indicators for monitoring the performance of interventions, and relate these to an overall livelihoods impact analysis in the targeted communities.
