While many SLM practices do indeed provide multiple livelihood and environment synergetic benefits, it is important that such multi-functionality be reflected in the performance indicators chosen and that the issue of trade-offs be clearly defined, discussed and measured. The definition of synergies and trade-offs that are inherent in many SLM practices would not only help to enhance the design, implementation, and scale-up of SLM investments, but would also be key in enhancing sustainability of interventions. While clearly elaborating what is meant by synergies and trade-offs in the context of specific SLM investments, such work should: (a) prepare an empirical assessment of the synergies between SLM, climate change action, etc, and (b) provide location-specific multi-dimensional (e.g., financial, environmental, social, etc.) analysis of the inherent trade-offs between local livelihood-related activities and recommended SLM measures supported by any given investment.
D. Inappropriate Policies
One of the main barriers to scaling-up of SLM in many parts of the world is the existence of national policies that encourage poor stewardship of the land. To promote scaling up of SLM, countries may need to put in place policies that encourage good stewardship of the land while also fostering climate change adaptation and mitigation. Examples include: policies that improve efficiency of irrigation and water use especially in agriculture (e.g., improved pricing schemes for irrigation water), policies to prevent and combat land degradation (e.g., reforms in tenure practices, schemes to promote contour farming and cover cropping), policies for improved livestock management (e.g., schemes to improve pasture quality and prevent degradation of pastures), policies for cropland management (e.g., promoting use of improved crop varieties, agroforestry schemes, perennial cover cropping, rainwater harvesting schemes) (Mani et al., 2008).
E. Elements of a strategy that twins SLM and local climate action
128. General SLM options for adaptation to climate change are outlined in Figure 9. Site specific SLM options must be chosen with regard to soil type, climate, physiography, and social/economic/cultural factors following a well thought out action plan. The specific action plan needed for addressing food security and climate change may involve a series of steps as outlined in Figure 18.
(i) Identify Global Hot Spots: It is appropriate to identify global hot spots where the issues of food insecurity, degradation of soil and natural resources, and vulnerability to CC are serious concerns. These regions include SSA, SA, Central America and the Caribbean, acid soil savannas of South America including Cerrados and Llanos, the Andean regions, the Himalayan-Tibetan ecosystems, and other ecologically sensitive regions.
(ii) Prioritize Specific Issues: For the specific region (see above), it is important to identify important issues of major concern with the current and anticipated CC. These issues may include risks of soil erosion, severity of drought stress, nutrient deficiency, vulnerability to salinization, wild fires etc. Such a prioritization may be done in consultation with the farmers and other stakeholders.
(iii) Identify SLM Options: Site specific SLM options must be identified to address these priority issues. Examples of SLM options may include: conservation agriculture, drought-tolerant crop varieties, efficient irrigation methods, water harvesting and recycling, INM, agroforestry, etc. Similar to prioritization of issues, identification of SLM options must also be done with full participation of the target communities.
(iv) Establish On-Farm Demonstrations/Research: There is evidence from various parts of the world that farmers not only have a very good knowledge of the land degradation/soil dynamics in their localities, but they are in fact taking measures to innovate and conserve their lands (Pagiola and Dixon, 1997; Reij and Waters-Bayer, 2001). Hence validation of SLM vis-à-vis traditional methods of soil and water management must be done under on-farm conditions using a farmer participatory approach. Most farmers in regions of global hot spots (see above) are small land holders (1-2 ha). Thus, on-farm demonstrations may involve 50 to 100 farms. It is important that SLM research questions are formulated to be practically relevant to producers/farmers and policy makers by identifying which problems are important under what conditions and in what locations (e.g., what is needed on a steep slope is not the same as what is needed on a shallower one in the same general location). Hence research should avoid generic questions such as estimating returns to soil conservation in a given area or assessing the cost of land degradation to a country. While such studies may be difficult and interesting, they have limited operational relevance since (a) results tend to be incredibly site-specific meaning wide differences in what farmers can realistically do depending on their access to land, credit, markets, labor and knowledge (Scoones and Toulmin, 1999), (b) farmers/producers in study areas are usually already aware of the key issues, (c) data needs make it is easy to get the concept and assumptions wrong, and (d) apart from showing how big the problem is, such studies tend to have limited value in addressing the problem. Therefore, research questions should attempt to understand how land degradation relates to poverty in any given area, and how SLM can contribute to improving farmers’/producers’ livelihoods while reducing land degrataion and contributing to local climate action.
(v) Baseline: Prior to implementation of recommended SLM technologies, it is necessary to establish baselines with regards to soil quality (SOC pool, aggregation, bulk density, erosion, vulnerability, poverty levels, land tenure, existing land use practices, etc), agronomic yields and profitability. Impact assessment of SLM options cannot be credibly accomplished without the baseline information on critical indicators of sustainability. Indeed, few existing SCS projects have paid careful attention to establishment of such baselines. Thus, the concerns about erroneous data in SCS and other indicators can be addressed if most SLM projects established solid baselines.
(vi) Knowledge exchange, Farmer fied visits, and Evaluation of SLM Options: Farmer evaluation of SLM options is important to assess acceptability of new technology. Appropriate modifications and fine tuning is needed before implementing at scale.
129. Project vs. Programmatic Approaches: Beyond specific individual projects, the best way to scale-up SLM is through existing country development frameworks and strategies (e.g., poverty reduction strategies, country partnership strategies). In addition, such country frameworks and strategies provide an opportunity for the various national government agencies, community organizations and funding agencies to work together. Many countries face the challenge of multiple donors and agencies attempting to implement SLM and reduce land degradation. Coordination of these efforts, agencies and organizations is important for effective and efficient use of limited financial resources, strengthening of institutional capacity and delivering long-term socioeconomic and environmental benefits.
Dostları ilə paylaş: |
