Transcript Slide 1

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
•433 smallholders interviewed
Tea-Dairy Zone (LH1)
Tea-Coffee (UM1)
Main Coffee (UM2)
Marginal Coffee (UM3)
Cotton-tobacco (LM3/LM4-cotton)
Total
Lower Chania
30
41
66
11
0
148
Sub-catchment
Tungu
Kayahwe
10
32
27
55
29
37
30
28
37
133
Range lands:
•
Two Focus group discussions-Lower reaches of Mutonga catchment
0
152
Total
72
123
132
69
37
433
•
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
Type of investment and maintenance
collected
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 Benefit/cost ratio
(Ksh/ha)
“With” perennial crops
Banana micro-catchment
Mulching in tea
Zero tillage in coffee
Riverine protection (Grasses + trees)
Structural measures
Bench terraces + Maize + beans
Fanya juu + Maize + beans
Cut off drains + Maize + beans
Infiltration ditch + Maize + beans
Stone lines + Maize + beans
Non Structural measures
Trash-lines + maize + beans
Grass strips + maize + beans
Contour planting + tillage + maize +
beans
Contour ridging + maize + beans
GM/Labour day
(Ksh/day)
124,932
293 100
110,208
318,548
2.8
5.3
2.1
22.2
331
423
312
1379
196, 412
174,890
175,350
172,244
126,525
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.7
2.4
261
322
335
225
502
62,950
439,285
28,517
1.8
4.0
1.5
241
1743
131
33,158
2.2
288
BCR: Benefit Cost ration; GM = Gross margins
Results
2. Financial efficiency of conservation measures with perennial crops
MicroDiscount catchment Mulching + Zero tillage +
rate
+ Bananas tea
coffee
Time after base year
2
Internal Rate of Return
Incremental Net
Benefits
>
> Current Current
interest
interest
Rate
Rate
10%
429.8
12%
369.8
14%
319.6
INB: Incremental Net Benefits
 Benefit of SWC practices
calculated as the difference between
plots with SWC practice and those
without (the difference in benefits)
5
3-6
>
Current
>
interest
Current interest
Rate
Rate
316.5
574.2
263.2
500.3
220.1
438.9
Results
3. Financial efficiency of structural measures (15 year time horizon)
Structures + Maize + Beans; Values for INB x 1000
Discou Bench
nt rate terrace
Time elapse
after base
year
Cut-off
drain
Infiltration
ditch
Stone
lines
1
1
1
1
<1
>
Current > Current > Current >
Current > Current
interest Rate interest
interest Rate interest
interest
Rate
Rate
Rate
Internal rate
of Return (%)
Incremental
Net Benefit
Fanya
juu
10%
3556.9
2802.3
2521.3
2624.8
643.5
12%
3168.0
2494.3
2242.1
2335.2
566.2
14%
2841.0
2235.5
2007.5
2091.7
501.5
Results
4. Financial efficiency of non-structural measures (15 year time horizon)
Structures + Maize + Beans; Values for INB x 1000
Discount
rate
Time elapse after
base year
Internal Rate of
Return (%)
Incremental Net
Benefits
Trashlines
Contour
tillage +
Grass strips Planting
Contour
ridging
<1
<1
<1
<1
> Current
> Current > Current
> Current
interest
interest Rate interest Rate interest
Rate
Rate
10%
589.5
3980.8
356.1
252.1
12%
523.5
3553.7
317.3
224.7
14%
468.2
3194.7
284.9
201.7
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 3000-5000 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.
Thank you for your
attention