Leveraging Carbon Markets to Support Smallholder Farmers in Africa: Lessons from Experience

Posted on May 24, 2013 by Blog Editor

By Seth Shames, Senior Project Manager, EcoAgriculture Partners

As the documented and projected impacts of climate change become increasingly alarming, and pressure mounts for dramatic global mitigation efforts, carbon credit markets have developed as a popular policy mechanism.  Though still largely focused on the energy sector, opportunities have emerged for smallholder farming communities to earn carbon credits through the development of land-based carbon monitoring methodologies, particularly for sustainable land management systems. In Africa a handful of projects have now been designed to address the substantial financing gap, leveraging carbon markets to support these systems. In a new policy brief released yesterday, EcoAgriculture Partners and the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), with contributions from project developers in Africa, synthesize lessons from six of these projects. Recommendations for project managers and policy makers interested in exploring the potential of smallholders to benefit from carbon markets are detailed below.

It’s All About Relationships
Many of the lessons from these projects highlighted the importance of the local community structure of participating farmers. Strong relationships between the carbon project managers and community groups are critical. World Vision has worked on livelihood projects in the Humbo area of Ethiopia for nearly three decades, and over that time has built relationships and trust with local communities. Projects also worked very hard to empower local actors to manage projects, developing local capacity and buy-in so that the community and farmers’ groups see themselves as long-term managers. Vi-Agroforestry in Kenya actually set out to develop new partnerships, which would allow local institutions to take on long-term project management roles. Partnerships are also important for scaling up. In the case of the Cocoa Carbon Initiative in Ghana, project developers worked through the well-established national cocoa farmers cooperative.

Benefits Beyond Carbon
Because carbon prices on the international market are highly volatile, and carbon payments themselves are low on a per farmer basis, it’s important to prioritize the non-carbon benefits of these projects. By participating in carbon projects, farmers can access technical information, training, and inputs that allow them to increase yields, diversify their income streams, and potentially adapt to a changing climate. Environmental Conservation Trust (ECOTRUST) of Uganda worked with farmers to open bank accounts, where the project’s carbon contracts were used as collateral for loans. Good carbon project management also addresses gender dynamics, helping to foster more equitable participation and rights. CARE International set about increasing the project’s benefits to women by including trees they preferred which provided firewood, fodder, shade, and fruit into the carbon project. Yet formalizing carbon rights has the potential to create conflict within communities, particularly in places where resource rights regimes are not clear. This can be exacerbated depending on how payments are allocated and distributed. The International Small Group Tree Planting Program (TIST) in Kenya supported conflict resolution mechanisms within farmer groups by establishing clear community decision-making processes in which elected officers served rotating terms.

Making the Money Work
While carbon payments are not the primary benefit for farmers to participate in projects, project managers still need to make the finances work and ensure that farmers aren’t taking on any financial risk themselves. Particularly for these projects, where most costs occur in the early phases and payments don’t take place until later, it is essential to prioritize upfront financing for both projects and farmers. In the past, most of this upfront finance for projects has come from donors, because low carbon returns of agriculture projects haven’t enticed private investors. The benefit for donors in contributing to such a model is that their initial investment has the potential to set up a financing mechanism through carbon credits that provide a long-term flow of funds to project managers and farmers to support sustainable land management practices.

Supportive policy
Based on the experience of these projects, it is clear that models for using carbon markets to support smallholder farmers have not been perfected. In fact, in the long-term the carbon project may not end up being be the most effective model to leverage climate mitigation finance to support sustainable land management. The experiences from these projects could be used to inform a new generation of mechanisms including Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) or eco-certification. Regardless of what the future holds for agricultural mitigation finance, the outcomes will be directed by policy choices. The following recommendations suggest ways that policy-makers could support efforts by smallholders to take advantage of mitigation opportunities:

  1. Strengthen and clarify the international incentives system for agricultural mitigation, including establishing the platforms need to allow land-based carbon credits and the institutions and measure methods to support them.
  2. Link projects to climate adaptation and agricultural development resources, in addition to those more limited opportunities within mitigation finance.
  3. Clarify tenure and carbon rights, so that clear and equitable property rights, laws, and regulations for land and carbon create incentives for farmers to invest in long-term productivity of their land and improve the chances of a successful carbon project.
  4. Support efficient monitoring systems to capture the full range of benefits gained from agricultural carbon projects, putting more effort into establishing adaptation metrics for agriculture and integrated indicators for effectiveness of climate-smart systems.

Read the Policy Brief: Shames, S. 2013. How can small-scale farmers benefit from carbon markets? CCAFS Policy Brief 8. May 2013.

Download the related full report (released July 2012): Shames, S, E Wollenberg, LE Buck, P Kristjanson, M Masiga, and B Biryahwaho. 2012. Institutional innovations in African smallholder carbon projects. CCAFS Report 8.

Photo credit: K. Traumann (CCAFS)
Posted in Exploring the Evidence | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Preventing Cardiac Arrest for Cambodia’s Heart

Posted on May 22, 2013 by Rachel Friedman

by Fabrice DeClerck (Bioversity International), Mam Kosal, and Gareth Johnstone (World Fish Centre), with contributions from Andrew Noble, Debbie Bossio, Michael Victor, and Camilla Zanzanaini

Water is essential to life on this planet, and more specifically to agriculture and healthy ecosystems. This year has been designated as the UN International Year of Water Cooperation, which served as the theme for World Water Day back in March. But today also marks the International Day of Biodiversity, with this year focused specifically on water. To mark the day, the Landscapes Blog and Agriculture and Ecosystems Blog are sharing the work of some CGIAR scientists in the Tonle Sap Basin of Cambodia, where issues of agriculture, livelihoods, and ecosystem health collide.
—
It’s the ideal day to spend the coffee break mulling over the relationship between water, biodiversity, and agriculture in some of the world’s most critical life raft ecosystems – regions where poverty is high, populations are dense and highly dependent upon nature (agriculture, fisheries, logging) for livelihoods, and where ecosystem services are severely degraded.

The notion of Life Raft Ecosystems was put forth by The Nature Conservancy’s controversial Chief Scientist, Peter Kareiva, as a call to ecologists and conservation biologists to shift their focus from conserving pristine wilderness areas to critical regions where both nature and human populations are threatened. The CGIAR research programs on Aquatic Agricultural System (AAS), and Water Land and Ecosystems (WLE) are taking up this call by redefining agricultural research with a greater focus on the contribution of ecosystem service based approaches that integrate aquatic systems, irrigated production systems, and interactions from field to basin scales. Cambodia’s Tonlé Sap provides a critical example of one of the major challenges inherent in this work.

The lake’s unique ecosystem has been likened to the heart of the Mekong due to its annual flood pulses. During half the year (November to May) the lake drains into the Mekong, shrinking to 2,500 km2. Whereas during the monsoon, the flood waters from the Mekong backup in the river’s delta, reversing the flow of the Tonlé Sap River into the lake. This expands the lake up to 15,800 km2 in size, absorbing the excess water from the monsoon and slowly releasing it as flood waters recede. Some would equate this ecosystem function to the role of a bladder rather than a heart – a more functional definition, but granted less romantic.

Livelihood Strategies on the Tonle Sap
The nearly 1.7 million inhabitants of the region, amongst the poorest in Cambodia, have adopted unique livelihood strategies to make the most of this annual pulse. Whereas the majority of the inhabitants live on the edges of the high water line (including the famed Angkor Wat), others live in stilted houses located at water level half the year, or invariably at 2-10m above ground during the other half. Others still have adopted a more mobile strategy, building entire villages of floating houses that follow the lake’s edge.

A natural livelihood gradient occurs between these three community types, with the edge dwellers primarily depending on up to three rice harvests a year by following the receding floodwaters. The flood plain dwellers divide their time between fishing the lakes waters and rice cultivation. Finally, the mobile floating villages, composed of dedicated fishermen, fish mongers and associated small-scale merchants follow the lake’s shoreline during its annual pulses to ensure easy access to the road where fish can be transported to markets in Phnom Penh, Thailand and Vietnam.

Water in the “Hands of the Sky”
In a recent AAS scoping study of the lake, meeting with farming families and communities groups quickly made it clear how central water and biodiversity are to these farming families. Village after village, the chorus from most groups we spoke with was “water”, either too much or too little being the primary concern of the rice farmers. Better irrigation systems, deeper ponds or canals to store water in the dry season, and better information systems to provide advance warning of flood timing and heights, were among the list of things that farmers felt were needed. While the flood pulse provides a natural “pump” for irrigating rice fields, the pump remains in the “hands of the sky,” in the words of one farmer.

The fishermen also recognize the impact of the floods on their livelihoods. High flood years are correlated with high fish years – the more surface area covered in water, the greater the resource available to 296 species of fish that inhabit the lake, and the greater the harvestable fish population. The lake’s fisheries is one of the most productive in the world accounting for 60% of the national fish catch serving the livelihoods and food security of the people of Cambodia and neighboring countries.

In addition to providing key livelihood resources to the communities in and around the lake, the Tonle Sap is an internationally recognized biosphere reserve composed of critical wetland habitat, with rather unique though highly threatened “flooded forests” that provide critical habitat to both avian and aquatic biodiversity. These include six IUCN Red Listed mammals species including the Long-tailed Macaque, Germain’s Silver Leaf Monkey, Smooth and Hairy-nosed Otters; 210 bird species, 17 of which are IUCN Red listed; and at least five globally threatened fish species including the Mekong Giant Catfish.

The Future of the Pulse
What does the future of the lake hold? Conversations with stakeholders around the lake highlight both the contributions that Tonle Sap’s annual pulse makes to providing for human livelihoods – water for agriculture, water for fish, and water for a unique biodiversity. More than the lake ecosystem itself, however, is the ecosystem process, the annual rise and fall of the waters, the annual pulse of nutrients, and the shifting of habitat types that is the really unique feature of this landscape – and also its most threatened feature.

It is tempting to think that development solutions in this basin would involve increasing irrigation infrastructure, giving farmers more control over when and how much water is available. Intensifying agricultural development by increasing farm size, and diversifying income strategies presents an important solution for many families, particularly with the growth of the garment industry in Phnom Penh and neighboring countries. The rapid development of hydroelectric projects on the Mekong River promises to provide for the growing electricity demand of the region. Elements of these approaches, while offering important opportunities, may have hidden consequences. Unsustainable agricultural development within the larger basin threatens to increase sedimentation and siltation within the shallow lake, reducing its capacity to store monsoon waters and threatening the lake’s fisheries.

Arias and colleagues argue that water infrastructure development could increase the area of open water (+18 to +21%) and the area of rainfed habitats (+10 to +14%), while reducing the area covered with seasonally flooded habitats (-13 to -22%) and flooded forest (-75 to -83%). Each habitat type effectively becomes more stable and thus increasing the predictability of flow. Some research suggests that the combined impact of these schemes would effectively put the Tonle Sap into cardiac arrest.

The question we should be asking ourselves however is, what is the cost of putting the Tonle Sap into cardiac arrest for agricultural and energy production? This situation is likely to pit fishers against farmers; and conservationists against hydropower. Do alternative options exist that would allow us to maintain the flood pulses of the Tonle Sap? What kinds of structures, both physical and institutional would be needed to ensure equal access to water and fisheries by these groups?

Can we envision a space that keeps multiple interests at heart? Where development is managed within ecosystem boundaries by harnessing and shoring up ecosystem processes while providing farming families with opportunities for growth, and preserving a safe space for wild biodiversity? Promoting cooperation between the different people of the Tonle Sap is critical in finding locally driven solutions for livelihoods though the protection and management of agricultural and ecological systems. No more so than this year, where cooperation around water resources and biodiversity is highlighted as a global priority concern.

Posted in Voices from the Field | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Learning from Conflict

Posted on May 20, 2013 by Blog Editor

Thanks to our first Landscape Roundtable contributors, Saswati Bora, Elisabeth Kvitashvili, and Delia Catacutan, for sharing their perspectives on the topic of conflict, resource management and related impacts on food security. Each of the authors pointed out that the connections between resource management and conflict are complex and can take place at multiple scales. Although we need to be realistic about the ways that conflict limits options and opportunities for collaborative resource management, integrated landscape management approaches, done sensitively and well, have the potential to mitigate or prevent conflicts related to resource use and access.

A host of stresses on natural resources can contribute to conflict. All of the authors agreed that increasing scarcity and limited access to land, water and other resources exacerbate existing conflicts and can even provoke new ones. Integrated landscape management can, at times, according to Saswati Bora, “promote sustainable use and conservation in an equitable manner.” However, landscape approaches are not a silver bullet. Elisabeth Kvitashvili’s post highlighted the need for integrated approaches to be “conflict sensitive.” Effective and equitable integrated landscape approaches will need to consider the economic, political and social relationships in the landscape, alongside ecological and spatial relationship. If not, these approaches are as likely to generate conflict as they are to mitigate it.

In central Niger, a landscape approach has already reduced conflict over resources, not only by direct changes to land management practices, but also by changing who has the right to use and manage forest resources. In other cases, like the Manupali River watershed case presented by Delia Catacutan, taking a landscape approach could help resource users to address the underlying causes of scarcity rather than adopting solutions that prevent conflict in the short-term, but may lead to more prolonged conflict in the future. Landscape approaches can reduce competition by improving production and delivery of resources, as well as address some of the structural issues that make systems vulnerable to conflict.

These thought-provoking posts raise a number of important questions for us to consider beyond this Landscape Roundtable: 1) How do we analyze the potential for conflict in landscapes to be aware of any pitfalls in using a landscape approach? 2) Are conflict sensitive landscape approaches realistic and cost-effective? 3) Are there practical examples of how landscape approaches have improved equitable resource management by bringing various actors together?

We hope you enjoyed the first Landscape Roundtable. The next, taking place in July, will focus on urban food systems. Please contact us if you have questions/comments or are interested in contributing.

Photo credit: FAO
Posted in Landscapes Roundtable, Staying Current | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Watershed Wars: Avoiding Water Rights Conflict between Smallholders and Agri-Industries

Posted on May 17, 2013 by Blog Editor

By Delia C. Catacutan, Senior Social Scientist, World Agroforestry Centre, Hanoi, Vietnam

Dr. Catacutan currently leads research related to governance and natural resources management processes, including policy and institutional analyses in relation to payments for ecosystem services, in the Southeast Asia office of the World Agroforestry Centre. Her insights on avoiding conflict where water resources are scarce bring to a close the Roundtable on the topic of conflict. While she notes how water resource use can be a factor contributing to conflict, it is evident that addressing water rights alone will not necessarily yield the most equitable or long-term sustainable solution.
—
Global experience has shown that as demand for water outstrips supply, competition and conflict arise between different users over who can use water and how much each one can use. Several examples illustrate this— in Indonesia, the degradation of Sumberjaya watershed triggered conflict when the local forest department blamed upland coffee farmers for the decreased productivity of the hydropower plant located downstream in the watershed. On a larger scale, when Ethiopia was planning to build a dam in the Nile River Watershed to increase food production, Egypt responded with political and military threats. In Manupali watershed, conflict emerged when water availability downstream decreased, and irrigators discovered that the rights previously granted to them by water authorities over the tributaries of Manupali River had been recently ceded to private companies and elite individuals.

Water rights are central to natural resources management. For one, conflict or absence of clearly defined rights has been identified as major factor in the failure of many sustainable watershed management projects. State and customary laws are used to resolve conflict over water rights; however, both are problematic, as even legal means can be protracted by power imbalances between elite and poor actors. A third approach is ‘amicable settlement’ with provisional solutions unilaterally agreed by contesting parties.

In an article published by Collective Action and Property Rights (CAPRi), we argue that while conflict over water as a scarce resource can be mediated by sharing water rights, but a shared understanding of watershed functions and land use patterns and reconciling the diverse interests and expectations of multiple stakeholders at the landscape level, is key to resolving conflict and promoting sustainable watershed management. The article was based on our assessment of the impacts of land use conversion – from smallholder mixed agriculture production to corporate banana farming – on the water balance of the Manupali watershed, in southern Philippines.

In Manupali, water rights holders (e.g., farmers, irrigators and plantation companies) entered into an amicable settlement by conceding their individual rights in exchange of cash and/or in-kind payments. Indeed, such amicable settlement forestalled conflict, but it neither addressed the issues underlying water scarcity nor resolved the issue of overlapping water rights. Our analyses of land use and hydrology in Manupali suggest that rather than overlapping water rights, changing land use patterns characterized by rapid expansion of plantation crops, was key to seasonal water availability, low buffering capacity, and poor water balance of the watershed. The water rights sharing schemes employed by water rights holders also have had the unintended consequence of promoting inequity. Upstream farmers, who incurred private costs to protect water sources by accepting use restrictions of their land, bear most if not all of the burden for protecting water quality and quantity.

This experience clearly points to the need for addressing resource use conflict at the landscape level. It is particularly important where multiple resource users have divergent interests that they use to justify their actions regardless of the impacts they may have on the landscape. A shared understanding of landscape functions and their links to land use decisions may induce social norms of conservation, leading to reduced conflict between smallholder production and large scale agribusiness. However, it should be noted that landscape approaches are knowledge intensive and time-demanding, often lack landscape-level information to assess the connectivity of socio-ecological features in the landscape, and also require significant support to mobilize collective action at the appropriate level. And so ultimately, without significant resources, resolving resource conflict through landscape approaches may be unrewarding.

Based on: Piñon, C., D. Catacutan, B. Leimona, E. Abasolo, M. van-Noordwijk, and L. Tiongco. 2012. Conflict, Cooperation, and Collective Action: Land Use, Water Rights and Water Scarcity in Manupali Watershed, Southern Philippines. CAPRi Working Paper No. 104. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.

Photo credit: IFAD Asia
Posted in Exploring the Evidence, Landscapes Roundtable, Voices from the Field | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Becoming Conflict-Smart

Posted on May 15, 2013 by Blog Editor

By Elisabeth Kvitashvili, Deputy Assistant Administrator-designate for Middle East Bureau and former Director of the Office of Conflict Management and Mitigation, US Agency for International Development (USAID).

Ms. Kvitashvili has led USAID’s work to analyze and respond to instability, extremism, and insurgency, and has worked on humanitarian and conflict-related programs in parts of the Middle East, Asia, and sub-Saharan Africa. She brings her experience with the process of dealing with conflict in the vulnerable central Africa region to this weeks’ ‘Landscape Roundtable’ on  landscape approaches and conflict.
—
In the vast landscape that is central Africa, more than 80 million people depend on the rich forests and associated natural resources, including land, for their livelihoods and food security. The small-scale farmers of Rwanda, southwestern Uganda, and Eastern Congo, many of them women, all cultivate rich volcanic soil that produces an abundance of micro-nutrient rich crops. Unfortunately, conflict (both local and national) is endemic to this part of central Africa. The conflict context is complex and problems emerge at multiple levels, requiring solutions also be developed and implemented at multiple levels. In other words, addressing conflict requires a holistic approach that identifies underlying causes and resulting vulnerabilities, and then addresses them at appropriate scales.

Conflict sensitive ecosystem or landscape management, which considers the range of natural resources and human uses in the area, has been successfully used in various places as a tool to help mitigate conflict. Applied well, effective resource management can not only address sources of grievance and reduce the propensity for conflict, it can also present an opportunity for environmental peace building. This is true in the case of central Africa where the fight for control of natural resources (including land) is at the heart of some of the conflicts; local, national and international. Using an integrated landscape approach to mitigate conflict might entail, for example, bringing governments and local communities together to determine how to ensure the equitable use of forest resources.

The first step would entail a careful resource mapping and conflict analysis to ensure that the dimensions of contestation and the potential for a program to exacerbate or mitigate those dynamics were understood. Program designers would have to understand how the land in dispute is used, including consideration of resources on and under the land (from trees to fruit to wildlife to sub-surface minerals), then identify the people/institutions (both formal and informal) charged with the use and management of forest resources (including the perceived effectiveness and legitimacy of those institutions). From there it is a matter of working to support clarification and enforcement of local communities’ ownership, access, and rights to the resources in ways that protect subsistence needs and allow them their livelihood. All this while giving the government the space it needs to provide concessions to logging companies to generate national income and, ideally, still ensuring sustainable conservation of the overall resource.

If landscape management is done with conflict in mind, it can bring the right people to the table in the right sequence and at the right time to find common solutions to problems of environmental management that, if not dealt with in a conflict-sensitive manner, will otherwise often exacerbate or even generate conflict. A landscape approach considers the “system”, widening the perspective on trade-offs and cost/benefit calculations as well as ensuring that stovepiped sectoral interventions are minimized. The result is often improved management of resources, thus reducing pressure on limited and valuable resources and minimizing competition.

In central Niger for example, where the rural population has faced increasing conflict, land degradation, and food insecurity, a well-managed, productive agroforestry system has reduced local conflict, including a reduction in resort to violence. Conflicts in that area are primarily driven by too many people with inadequate amounts of (1) animal browse and pasture, (2) wood for fuel and construction, (3) space for food crops and animal passages and (4) scarce water. Violent conflict has been mitigated by negotiating rules on how the available resources would be used and managed and how the rules would be enforced. The conveyance of authority and responsibility from the State to local populations over the management of natural resources represented a sea change away from the top-down, State-led approach that remained from colonial times and was ineffective at managing local competition.

To be conflict-smart, users of landscape management approaches must be aware not only of the physical aspects of the ecosystem and the technical challenges/opportunities of resource management, but also of the economic, political, and social dimensions of the area – specifically including an understanding of how the landscape is connected to and/or influenced by conflict.  Program designers must consider how the program itself is affected by a local conflict context (e.g. can you do the activities given security constraints? Can you achieve your objectives while doing no harm?). Ideally, the approach will go one step further, seeking opportunities to use improved resource management as an entry point to peace building, including addressing underlying sources of grievance and fostering social cohesion to reduce conflict.

Photo credit: Kaarli Sundsmo (USAID)
Posted in Landscapes Roundtable, Voices from the Field | Tagged , , , | Comments Off

Landscape Approaches in Managing Conflict

Posted on May 13, 2013 by Blog Editor

By Saswati Bora, Operations Officer, Agriculture & Environmental Services, the World Bank

Ms. Bora, the lead author of the background paper “Food Security and Conflict” to the 2011 World Development Report: Conflict, Security and Development, kicks off our first Landscapes Roundtable on the role of integrated landscape management in mitigating or avoiding conflict. With an eye to the challenges facing a growing global population she provides some foundation on a landscape approach and the links between strained natural resources and conflict.  
—
Conflict often arises in the competition over factors of production, primarily unequal access to land and water resources. Agricultural land productivity is already declining due to desertification, salinization, soil erosion, and deforestation, and the growing world population is only adding to the demand on land resources. Water scarcity in many countries is also leading to conflict among countries and regions that share resources and reserves across national boundaries. Climate change adds further stress and volatility to the agricultural system. By 2050, climate change could reduce yields by 30 percent (without effective adaptation); this takes place over a period when the world needs to produce at least 50 percent more food to feed the world’s growing population, set to reach 9 billion people by 2050. Climate change can also lead to migration from increasingly uninhabitable areas that may place additional burdens and resource conflicts in areas receiving migrants.

Having more people to feed, with more competition for land and water, more variable climate, and greater food price volatility increases the stresses on livelihoods and food systems. Countries under the greatest pressure are often the least able to respond, especially when inequalities or environmental degradation coupled with weak institutions lead to marginalization of large segments of the population. When countries are under stress, conflict can be triggered by natural (such as a prolonged drought in Ethiopia in 1973-74), economic (such as the large and rapid increase in food prices in Haiti in 2008), or political events (such as denied access to land in Madagascar in 2008-2009). Better managing the competing demands for land, water, and forest resources through a landscape approach can play a significant role in reducing these stresses and limiting conflict.

A “landscape approach” takes both a spatial and socio-economic approach to managing land, water, and forest resources and the ecosystem services they provide. Increasingly landscape approaches are being employed to implement strategies that integrate management of these resources, and that promote sustainable use and conservation in an equitable manner. For example, in Rwanda, agriculture is challenged by uneven rainfall, production variability, small land holdings, limited commercialization, and especially land constraints due to population growth. The World Bank and other donors are supporting the Government’s Land Husbandry, Water Harvesting and Hillside Irrigation Project that addresses these challenges through a landscape approach by providing infrastructure and assistance for land husbandry (terracing and downstream reservoir protection), water harvesting (valley dams and reservoirs), and hillside irrigation (water distribution piping, fittings and field application for basin and furrow irrigation). In addition, the project provides training for farmers, supports farmer organizations, and enhances marketing and financing activities. As a result, the productivity in rain-fed areas has tripled, small farmers now have access to improved farming methods, more land is protected against soil erosion and the share of commercialized agricultural products has increased. At the national level, government has adopted a program for ‘border-to-border’ landscape restoration, and intends to adopt an ecosystems approach to implement this.

Although landscape approaches can reduce resource stress and conflict, it is only part of the solution and needs to be implemented in the “right” way. While feasible, it can be difficult to target both improved livelihoods and conservation objectives, since conservation will not always be in the interest of some or all stakeholders.

A landscape approach works better when land tenure rights are secure and complemented by improved governance over land resources. This provides incentives for individual farmers, households, and communities to invest in land and water management, and to protect trees and forests. Appropriate pricing regimes encourage rational use of scarce resources. Regulations are also needed (e.g. to control pollution run-off or avoid free grazing of animals), but must be backed up by appropriate incentives for private farmers to invest in “public good” activities that may benefit others in the landscape.

The public good nature of many of these investments, including positive environmental impacts outside the project area, requires the right incentives and justifies complementary financing from local and central governments. It is important to have information and communications infrastructure and strategy in place. If people don’t have access to information they can understand, they have less of an incentive to change their behavior. Open communication also enables innovation. Decentralized decision-making can help facilitate locally adapted solutions and encourages local communities to participate. Transparent and accountable institutions are essential.

Addressing these features can tackle some of the structural issues — related to failed institutions and competition over natural resources — that often lead to conflict. A landscape approach has the potential to reduce the stresses that lead to conflict and ultimately restore a balance of environmental, social, and economic benefits.

Related reading:
Food Security and Conflict

Land and Food Security

(The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this post are entirely those of the author. They do not necessarily represent the views of the World Bank Group)

Photo credit: Mary Rose Madden (WYPR)
Posted in Exploring the Evidence, Landscapes Roundtable, Voices from the Field | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

On the Topic of Conflict

Posted on May 10, 2013 by Blog Editor

Sometimes the most viable solutions to land management challenges require multiple perspectives, as seen on Wednesday in the case of the System of Rice Intensification in Nepal. Within an agricultural landscape, where there are multiple stakeholder groups and interests, it is of particular importance to have the farmers, private businesses, government institutions, and others bring their own expertise and experience to the table. Too often, differences in approaches and priorities are viewed as obstacles, where something in-between could actually produce the maximum ecological, social, and economical benefit. In an effort to embrace this element of dialogue that is at the heart of integrated landscape management, we are trying out a new ‘Landscape Roundtable’.

How does it work? Drawing from the wealth of expertise on different aspects of land management, the Landscapes Blog will feature a series of guest authors addressing one over-arching question during the course of a week. And though everyone will tackle the same topic for any one Roundtable, contributors will lend their own perspective, background, and institutional knowledge to the topic. We encourage readers to comment and discuss the issues alongside authors, who will have the opportunity to comment on each other’s work, and draw out the commonalities or divergences between individual blog entries.

This allows us to ask some hard questions; for May we are curious about the role of integrated landscapes management in dealing with conflict (and associated food insecurity). Already, agricultural production landscapes have been affected by climate change, economic pressures, and land tenure issues that have contributed to bouts of food insecurity around the world. Recent history has shown links between rising food prices, food insecurity, and conflicts, as evidenced by the 2008 food riots in Egypt, Haiti, and Indonesia. Natural resources demand has also been implicated in the rise of conflict. Of course, there are many possible underlying reasons for unrest, and subsequent options for how to reduce conflict. Integrated agricultural landscape management relates not only to food production and provision, but also to sustainable use of ecosystems, making it a particularly intriguing topic to discuss in the context of conflict.

For the next week, experts will offer their insights on the topic, helping to bring more clarity to the question of what role integrated landscape management can play in mitigating or even avoiding conflict. Let’s start some discussion!

Posted in Landscapes Roundtable, Staying Current | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Hybridizing Technology: The Case of Rice Farming in Nepal

Posted on May 8, 2013 by Rachel Friedman

By Rajendra Uprety, Irrigation Specialist, Asia Youth Exchange Programme

One of the important, underlying principles of an integrated landscape approach is using participatory processes. Through his experience working with the Nepalese District Agriculture Development Office (DADO), today’s guest author Rajendra Uprety discovered the value of local input and joint learning to reach more sustainable and productive solutions. This was the case with the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) in Nepal, but these lessons are applicable to the introduction of new methods or technology into other contexts and communities.
—
Ramji Karki, a farmer of Indrapur village in the Morang district of Nepal, had purchased land for rice cultivation in 2005. However, the land was not fertile and the level of organic matter was very low. A change in farm management practices, after he and his daughter Mina participated in training on System of Rice Intensification (SRI), turned things around. They started to manure that land by use more farm yard manure (FYM) and organic manures rather than relying solely on chemical fertilizers, and started incorporating SRI principles into their rice farming. Within the three years of changed management practices they converted his barren land to very fertile, and started to harvest three crops per year. In 2009 spring season his rice yield was more than 8 tons/ha. But instead of following the SRI method in totality, after some years of experiences Ramji adjusted these practices to fit his personal farming situation. This is not uncommon; most farmers who have changed their rice farming system are following neither SRI nor traditional but rather a hybrid of methods.

Hybridization of technology
Rice farmers use diversified field management strategies to incorporate SRI into their farming systems. Some farmers used all six of the SRI practices introduced during the training: young seedlings, single seedlings, wider spacing, alternate wetting and drying irrigation, mechanical weeding and use of compost. But the majority of them modified their methods to be appropriate for their farming situation. Land type and water availability greatly influenced farmers’ management decisions. For example, farmers used younger seedlings in areas where irrigation and drainage facility was better. Transplanting young seedlings in water-scarce areas is more risky, because water availability determines the timing of land preparation and transplanting.

Use of mechanical weeding was very effective for higher yield, but it appeared challenging to adopt. Most of the farmers complained about the inefficiency of locally-made weeders. It was heavy and not suitable for the predominantly female workers in the area. Similarly many farmers did not follow the advice to use compost (alone or with fertilizer), mainly because of its use as fuel in some communities who live far from the forest. Further transportation of compost to distant fields, uncertain land ownership, and the concern about crop yields also negatively impacted the use of compost on rice fields. Another notable observation was that the poorly producing farmers in the study area used more fertilizers than required. By contrast, the farmers who had attended the SRI training had reduced their fertilizer use. Average yield of those farmers who used modified SRI method is 5.7 tons/hectare, whereas the country’s average hovers at 3 tons/hectare. In short, introduction of SRI method influenced traditional rice farming system and develops a hybridizing system more feasible and productive in Nepal.

Integration of farmers’ experiences and joint learning
As a curious learner of SRI method, I started its trails and dissemination in Morang district of Nepal in 2003. After observing its highly encouraging results, I worked for several years as a SRI activist. At that time, I thought that any good technology would be beneficial or attractive for every farmer. But as a researcher, when I studied the effect of SRI interventions in Morang, I learned many things regarding technology, its dissemination process and adoption, encouraging me to rethink the effectiveness of our existing technology dissemination system.

The introduction of SRI method in Morang district of Nepal by the District Agriculture Development Office (DADO) helped both farmers and extension workers to learn from the rice fields and from each other. During SRI promotion when extension workers saw that their own recommendations were not followed by the farmers, they then started reviewing the recommended practices with the farmers. This process broke the traditional one-way deliverer-recipient system and made it participatory. These interactions helped re-shape the general recommendations on SRI method. When DADO started to adjust recommendations based on farmers’ suggestions, most of the farmers became more active in testing and disseminating the new approaches. Farmers tried to adapt SRI to their agro-ecological and socio-economic system, choosing some of the practices best suited to them and their particular fields. This taught us, as an extension agency, to rethink our technology dissemination process for different type farmers, and to begin providing them with a set of options that are flexible enough to allow farmers to choose appropriate for their particular situation.

If the government and other organizations want to increase the benefits from SRI techniques to the farmers, they need to address the issues that influence farmers’ decisions. Improving water distribution systems and their reliability can benefit farmers who have suitable lands for SRI and its modification. Improvement of mechanical weeder efficiency and accessibility will be also support SRI promotion. Better nutrient management strategy, improving availability and knowledge around compost and efficient fertilizer application, is very important for most of the farmers. We should constantly try to keep in mind that some training package will not be useful to all and it should be designed according to local needs.

Read More:
Learning from Farmers – Agri Cultures Network

Posted in Voices from the Field | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

It’s Complicated: Landscape Diversity for Pest Control

Posted on May 6, 2013 by Rachel Friedman

By Wei Zhang, Research Fellow, and Mark Rosegrant, Director, Environment and Production Technology Division, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington DC

On the Landscapes Blog we’ve seen how diversity on the farm level to diversity at the scale of a whole landscape can provide the natural benefits from healthy ecosystems. Two researchers from the International Food Policy Research Institute explain how a recent study, conducted in collaboration with the Chinese Academy of Sciences and Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, shows the importance of different habitat functions within a landscape for supporting natural enemies to crop pests. But they also share how complex these ecological interactions are, and how one size does not fit all.
—-
Land use diversity can support ecosystem services such as biological pest control and reduced need for insecticides. Empirical evidence in support of this principle has been collected in North America, Europe and Australia. But very limited information is available from developing countries, where smallholder farming is predominant and local people likely need safe food and environmentally benign pest control by natural enemies more than in the developed countries.

As the world’s largest pesticide producer and consumer, China uses 1.3 million tons of pesticides annually – 2.5 times the global average usage per unit area. Chinese farmers have relied on chemical insecticides as their primary pest control method, with insecticides often applied in an indiscriminant fashion. China is the world’s largest cotton producer, a crop that accounts for a large share of insecticides used, both in aggregate and per hectare use, even after the extensive adoption of insect-resistant Bt cotton.

Chinese agriculture is characterized by highly disturbed agro-ecosystems, but also very diverse land use at the small plot level. At the same time, globalization and rural-to-urban migration is shifting land use toward monoculture systems. A pervasive concern is that such landscape simplification may result in an increase in insect pest pressure, and thus an increased need for insecticides.

A study funded by the Ecosystem Services for Poverty Alleviation (ESPA) programme is providing the first empirical evidence on effects of land use diversity on the abundance of natural enemies for pests in smallholder field crops in a developing country context, measured with remote sensing and ground-truthing. Results indicate that high land use diversity itself, as measured by Shannon or Simpson index, is not associated with high density of natural enemies in cotton. Rather, the effects of land use on natural enemies are explained by the functions provided by a diversity of crop and non-crop habitats that may support the insect species that provide biological control services in these landscapes.

In this study, a high land use proportion under maize was associated with greater densities of ladybeetles in cotton. This result is explained by the low use of pesticides in maize on the one hand, and the previous crop of maize (within the same season) and wheat, which supports high densities of natural enemies that may spill over to other crops, both in space and time. However, these landscape effects contrast with those reported previously in the USA, where maize area is negatively associated with the density and diversity of natural enemies in soybean fields, and with soybean aphid biological control. Thus, we show that landscape effects exhibit a degree of idiosyncrasy that cannot be captured by simple indices like Shannon and Simpson index.

Furthermore, we documented the intensive use of insecticides by farmers in China and its detrimental consequences for natural enemies in cotton. When farmers decide to use high levels of insecticides, they do not account for the biological control services provided by the natural enemies harmed by these chemicals. A lack of farmer awareness of the value of natural enemies for crop health indicates that better transfer of information to farmers could support the health of crops, the environment, and the farmers.

While results on the economic value of ecosystem services to smallholders are still being finalized, the findings so far demonstrate that promoting land use diversity has the potential to become an effective means to support biological control services in agricultural landscapes. However, at present, enhancing biological control services by promoting land use diversity is unlikely to be cost-effective for smallholder producers given the high return rate for insecticide use. On the other hand, coordinated habitat management at the landscape scale can potentially be economically viable. Policies that encourage farmers to account for the human health and environmental costs of insecticides would help incentivize the adoption of better habitat management.

This work ‘Landscape Diversity and Ecosystem Services in Agricultural Ecosystems: Implications for Sustainable Growth and Rural Poverty in China (NE/I004335/1)’, was partly funded with support from the Ecosystem Services for Poverty Alleviation (ESPA) programme. The ESPA programme is funded by the Department for International Development (DFID), the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) of the UK.

Photo credit: Wopke van der Werf
Posted in Exploring the Evidence | Tagged , , | 5 Comments

When New Age Technology Meets Old World Farming: ICT in Action

Posted on May 3, 2013 by Matt Zonis

The 21st century has brought countless examples of technological innovations that have changed the way we interact with the world. Great strides over the past decade in both the access to and development of information and communication technology (ICT) – including mobile phones, GPS Systems, barcode scanners,  Radio Frequency Identification (RFID), and smartcard readers – have allowed even the most remote villages around the world to connect to resources and information unattainable just a generation ago. In 2003, only 61% of the world’s population was covered by a mobile cellular signal. By 2009 that number had risen to 90%, or approximately 6 billion people. As agriculture in the developing world still relies on a variety of natural and anthropogenic variables for optimal production, it is imperative that farmers work with all those involved in the supply chain to ensure a successful product from the time seeds are sown to when they are sold in the market. Around the world, ICT has proven to be a viable answer in integrating traditional farming practices with 21st century analysis.

In India, the agro-advisory system E-Sagu (sagu meaning cultivation in the native Telugu) has utilized ICT to quickly dispense advice and recommendations to farmers to ensure the long term viability of their crops. A joint venture of Media Labs Asia and the International Institute of Information Technology (IIIT) in Hyderabad, E-Sagu charges farmers 300-500 rupees per season to access expert advice on any problem that may occur with their crops. Field coordinators from E-Sagu visit farms approximately every 15 days to take pictures of each crop variety and write reports about field conditions, which are sent to experts at IIIT. Experts then provide individual recommendations to farmers based on coordinator reports and send their advice and assessment to regional centers. Local coordinators deliver these assessments to farmers within 24-36 hours while urgent information is sent by SMS directly to the farmer. Since 2004, the program has encouraged great adoption by over 5,000 farms in 35 villages across Southern India.

ICT has also been effective at providing a wide range of supplemental uses that enhances the ability of farmers to grow sustainable agriculture while sustaining rural livelihoods. In Ghana, the private business Esoko has used ICT to create the Esoko Ghana Community Index (EGCI), which aids farmers by acting as both a SMS alert system for crop and commodity prices and as a mobile marketplace allowing farmers to submit offers via text message. EGCI is beneficial to both farmers and wholesale suppliers; farmers are able to improve revenues by negotiating better prices or selecting more favorable markets for their produce, while traders can procure products more quickly and at mutually beneficial prices.

In Bhutan, the government’s investment in community centers equipped with broadband internet has allowed villages separated by the country’s remote mountainous, forested terrain to connect and share information. With regards to agriculture, the centers allow individuals to collaborate with others across the country on effective techniques to bolster crop yields in the harsh landscape, an imperative if the government intends to meet its goal of becoming 100% organic in food production.

Though the majority of best practices for ICT currently encompass only information transmission, possible future iterations of ICT could see farmers running simulations to determine the best outcome of any individual action on their crops. Scaled, this type of ICT innovation could be invaluable tool to effectively manage farmland at the landscape level.

What do you see as possible applications for ICT in integrated landscape management?

Photo credit: F. Fiondella (IRI/CCAFS)
Posted in Staying Current | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off