Presentation on theme: "Costs and Benefits of Soil and Water Conservation in farmland Davies Onduru Fredrick Muchena Esther Njuguna."— Presentation transcript:
Costs and Benefits of Soil and Water Conservation in farmland Davies Onduru Fredrick Muchena Esther Njuguna
Content Introduction and objectives Methodology Results Conclusions
Introduction and objectives What are the costs and the benefits of Soil and Water Conservation practices of smallholders in the Upper Tana Catchment?
Approach and Methodology Three sub-catchments covered Map of the three sub-catchments.docx Map of the three sub-catchments.docx 433 smallholders interviewed Sub-catchment Lower ChaniaTunguKayahweTotal Tea-Dairy Zone (LH1) Tea-Coffee (UM1) Main Coffee (UM2) Marginal Coffee (UM3) Cotton-tobacco (LM3/LM4-cotton)0370 Total Range lands: Two Focus group discussions-Lower reaches of Mutonga catchment
13 Soil and Water Conservation Practices Bench terrace Contour tillage+ planting Cut off drain Fanya juu Grass strips Micro catchment for fruit trees (bananas) Mulching Retention/Infiltration ditch Ridging Riverine protection Stone lines Trash lines Zero tillage
Quantifying Costs of SWC Practices-1 collected Type of investment and maintenance costs: Lay-out Tools and equipment Labour Seeds/planting materials for stabilisers Fertilisers/manures Pesticides Other input costs (mulches, stones etc.) etc. Investments Costs: Costs of laying out the SWC practices along the contours Costs of construction and or establishment of the practices and Costs of establishing stabilizer materials (e.g. grasses).
Quantifying Costs of SWC Practices-2 Maintenance/annual costs: Repairs/cleaning trenches (where relevant) Gapping, Fertilization, weeding; Pruning (where relevant) Application of trash and mulch. Data on benefits: Fodder and trees on SWC structure embankments/risers Grasses/fuel wood/poles etc. from Riverine areas Yields of crops grown on terraces/in conserved land (grains + stovers) etc.
Results 1. Profitability in the year of study Gross Margins (Ksh/ha) Benefit/cost ratio GM/Labour day (Ksh/day) “With” perennial crops Banana micro-catchment124, Mulching in tea Zero tillage in coffee110, Riverine protection (Grasses + trees)318, Structural measures Bench terraces + Maize + beans196, Fanya juu + Maize + beans174, Cut off drains + Maize + beans175, Infiltration ditch + Maize + beans172, Stone lines + Maize + beans126, Non Structural measures Trash-lines + maize + beans62, Grass strips + maize + beans439, Contour planting + tillage + maize + beans 28, Contour ridging + maize + beans33, BCR: Benefit Cost ration; GM = Gross margins
Results 2. Financial efficiency of conservation measures with perennial crops Discount rate Micro- catchment + Bananas Mulching + tea Zero tillage + coffee Time after base year Internal Rate of Return > Current interest Rate > Current interest Rate > Current interest Rate > Current interest Rate Incremental Net Benefits 10% % % INB: Incremental Net Benefits Benefit of SWC practices calculated as the difference between plots with SWC practice and those without (the difference in benefits)
Results 3. Financial efficiency of structural measures (15 year time horizon) Structures + Maize + Beans; Values for INB x 1000 Discou nt rate Bench terrace Fanya juu Cut-off drain Infiltration ditch Stone lines Time elapse after base year 1111<1 Internal rate of Return (%) > Current interest Rate Incremental Net Benefit 10% % %
Results 4. Financial efficiency of non-structural measures (15 year time horizon) Structures + Maize + Beans; Values for INB x 1000 Discount rate Trash- linesGrass strips Contour tillage + Planting Contour ridging Time elapse after base year <1 Internal Rate of Return (%) > Current interest Rate > Current interest Rate > Current interest Rate > Current interest Rate Incremental Net Benefits10% % %
Results 6. Focus Group Discussions in the rangelands Rangelands: Land predominantly used for livestock and covers parts of semi-arid and arid areas Farmers perceptions on causes of deterioration Overgrazing; no mechanism for enforcing herd sizes Cutting down of trees Charcoal burning Uncontrolled burning of vegetation prior to cultivation Suggested measures of control Soil and water conservation practices; tree planting Fenced grazing; about 3 acres of enclosed grazing area is charged Ksh during dry period. Controlled grazing in hilly areas Community action and sensitization (building structures for enforcement)
Conclusions The 13 practices were profitable in the agro-ecological zones covered The initial high cost of conservation is mainly in the form of labour and materials. This study has shown that when high value fodder crops (Napier grass) are used in stabilising SWC structures and when high value crops are planted in the conserved land, then the structures pay-off within a short period of time (one-two years). Combine structural measures whose benefits are realised in the long-term with measures that are profitable in the short term to address farmers needs in a holistic way Despite the positive indicators of Costs and Benefits, the implementation of SWC practices is not automatically done by farmers: This is caused by the time lag between investments/costs and the returns/benefits.
Conclusions Main observations for the Commercial Sustainable Investment Package (CSIP) are: Because of the time lag between investments and returns, soft loans or grants are needed to make farmers interested to invest inSoil and Water Conservation works; Farmers need support to develop an ‘entrepreneurial’ farm plan, e.g. introduce high value crops or livestock in the farm plan, in order to make the SWC practices attractive for the farmer; >this means a high Cost Benefit Ratio and net returns. Farmers need technical advice and support tailored to their farm and natural resources conditions; and To make the investments operational and effective, the farmers will require adequate institutional support, e.g. on how to apply for loans, technical assistance, cooperation between the several institutions etc.