Economic benefits and costs of technologies for sustainable land management (SLM): a preliminary analysis of global WOCAT data

The WOCAT network has collected, documented, and assessed more than 350 case studies on promising and good practices of SLM. Information on on- and off-site benefits of different SLM types, as well as on investment and maintenance costs is available, sometimes in quantitative and often in qualitative form. The objective of the present paper is to analyse what kind of economic benefits accrue to local stakeholders, and to better understand how these benefits compare to investment and maintenance costs. The large majority of the technologies contained in the database are perceived by land users as having positive benefits that outweigh costs in the long term. About three quarters of them also have positive or at least neutral benefits in the short term. The analysis shows that many SLM measures exist which can generate important benefits to land users, but also to other stakeholders. However, methodological issues need to be tackled and further quantitative and qualitative data are needed to better understand and support the adoption of SLM measures. Keywords: Sustainable Land Management, Costs, Benefits, Technologies

Economic benefits and costs of Sustainable Land Management Technologies: An analysis of WOCAT's global data

Perceived profitability is a key factor in explaining farmers' decision to adopt or not adopt sustainable land management (SLM) technologies. Despite this importance, relatively little is known about the economics of SLM. This paper contributes to the literature by analysing data on costs and perceived cost/benefit ratios of SLM technologies. Data are taken from the World Overview of Conservation Approaches and Technologies technology database and cover 363 case studies conducted in a variety of countries between 1990 and 2012. Based on an in-depth descriptive analysis, we determine what costs accrue to local stakeholders and assess perceived short-term and long-term cost/benefit ratios. Our results show that a large majority of the technologies in our sample are perceived as being profitable: 73% were perceived to have a positive or at least neutral cost/benefit ratio in the short term, while 97% were perceived to have a positive or very positive cost/benefit ratio in the long term. An additional empirical analysis confirms that economic factors are key determinants of land users' decisions to adopt or not adopt SLM technologies. We conclude that a wide range of existing SLM practices generate considerable benefits not only for land users, but for other stakeholders as well. High initial investment costs associated with some practices may, however, constitute a barrier to their adoption; short-term support for land users can help to promote these practices where appropriate.

Assessing dynamics of forced livestock movements, livelihoods and future development options for pastoralists/agro-pastoralists in Ruvuma and Lindi Regions, in the Southern Tanzania

The study that aimed at understanding the dynamics of forced livestock movements and pastoral livelihood and development options was conducted in Lindi and Ruvuma regions, using both formal and informal approaches. Data were collected from 60 randomly selected Agro-pastoralists/Pastoralists and native farmers using a structured questionnaire. Four villages were involved; two in Lindi region (Matandu and Mkwajuni) and the other two in Ruvuma region (Gumbiro and Muhuwesi). Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics of SPSS to generate means and frequencies. The results indicate that a large number of animals moved into the study area following the eviction order of the government in Ihefu wetlands in 2006/2007. Lindi region was earmarked by the government to receive all the evicted pastoralists. However, by 2008 only 30% of the total cattle that were expected to move into the region had been received. Deaths of many animals on transit, selling of the animals to pay for transportation and other costs while on transit and many pastoralists settling in Coastal and Ruvuma regions before reaching their destinations were reported to be the reasons for the discrepancy observed. To mitigate anticipated conflicts between farmers and pastoralists, Participatory Land Use Management (PLUM) plans were developed in all the study villages in order to demarcate village land area into different uses, including grazing, cropping, settlement and forests. Land units for grazing were supposed to be provided with all necessary livestock infrastructures (dips, charcoal dams, livestock markets and stock routes). However, the land use plans were not able to prevent the anticipated conflicts because most of the livestock infrastructures were lacking, the land use boundaries were not clearly demarcated and there was limited enforcement of village by-laws, since most had not been enacted by the respective district councils. Similarly, the areas allocated for grazing were inadequate for the number of livestock available and thus the carrying capacity exceeded. Thus, land resource-based conflicts between farmers and pastoralists were emerging in the study areas for the reason that most of the important components in the PLUM plans were not in place. Nevertheless, the arrival of pastoralists in the study areas had positive effects on food security and growth of social interactions between pastoralists and farmers including marriages between them. Environmental degradations due to the arrival of livestock were also not evident. Thus, there is a need for the government to purposely set aside enough grazing land with all necessary infrastructures in place for the agro-pastoral/pastoral communities in the country.

Foreign Direct Investment in Agriculture: Land Grab or Food Security Improvement?

“Large-scale acquisition of land by foreign investors” is the correct term for a process where the verdict of guilt is often quicker than the examination. But is there something really new about land grab except in its extent? In comparison with colonial and post-colonial plantation operations, should foreign investors today behave differently? We generally accept coffee and banana exports as pro-growth and pro-development, just as for cars, beef and insurance. What then is wrong with an investment contract allowing the holder to buy a farm and to export wheat to Saudi Arabia, or soybeans and maize as cattle feed to Korea, or to plant and process sugar cane and palm oil into ethanol for Europe and China? Assuming their land acquisition was legal, should foreigners respect more than investment contracts and national legislation? And why would they not take advantage of the legal protection offered by international investment law and treaties, not to speak of concessional finance, infrastructure and technical cooperation by a development bank, or the tax holidays offered by the host state? Remember Milton Friedman’s often-quoted quip: “The business of business is business!” And why would the governments signing those contracts not know whether and which foreign investment projects are best for their country, and how to attract them? This chapter tries to show that land grab, where it occurs, is not only yet another symptom of regulatory failures at the national level and a lack of corporate social responsibility by certain private actors. National governance is clearly the most important factor. Nonetheless, I submit that there is an international dimension involving investor home states in various capacities. The implication is that land grab is not solely a question whether a particular investment contract is legal or not. This chapter deals with legal issues which seem to have largely escaped the attention of both human rights lawyers and, especially, of investment lawyers. I address this fragmentation between different legal disciplines, rules, and policies, by asking two basic questions: (i) Do governments and parliaments in investor home countries have any responsibility in respect of the behaviour of their investors abroad? (ii) What should they and international regulators do, if anything?

Sharing evidence of sustainable land management impacts

Ensuring sustainable use of natural resources is crucial for maintaining the basis for our livelihoods. With threats from climate change, disputes over water, biodiversity loss, competing claims on land, and migration increasing worldwide, the demands for sustainable land management (SLM) practices will only increase in the future. For years already, various national and international organizations (GOs, NGOs, donors, research institutes, etc.) have been working on alternative forms of land management. And numerous land users worldwide – especially small farmers – have been testing, adapting, and refining new and better ways of managing land. All too often, however, the resulting SLM knowledge has not been sufficiently evaluated, documented and shared. Among other things, this has often prevented valuable SLM knowledge from being channelled into evidence-based decision-making processes. Indeed, proper knowledge management is crucial for SLM to reach its full potential. Since more than 20 years, the international WOCAT network documents and promotes SLM through its global platform. As a whole, the WOCAT methodology comprises tools for documenting, evaluating, and assessing the impact of SLM practices, as well as for knowledge sharing, analysis and use for decision support in the field, at the planning level, and in scaling up identified good practices. In early 2014, WOCAT’s growth and ongoing improvement culminated in its being officially recognized by the UNCCD as the primary recommended database for SLM best practices. Over the years, the WOCAT network confirmed that SLM helps to prevent desertification, to increase biodiversity, enhance food security and to make people less vulnerable to the effects of climate variability and change. In addi- tion, it plays an important role in mitigating climate change through improving soil organic matter and increasing vegetation cover. In-depth assessments of SLM practices from desertification sites enabled an evaluation of how SLM addresses prevalent dryland threats. The impacts mentioned most were diversified and enhanced production and better management of water and soil degradation, whether through water harvesting, improving soil moisture, or reducing runoff. Among others, favourable local-scale cost-benefit relationships of SLM practices play a crucial role in their adoption. An economic analysis from the WOCAT database showed that land users perceive a large majority of the technologies as having benefits that outweigh costs in the long term. The high investment costs associated with some practices may constitute a barrier to adoption, however, where appropriate, short-term support for land users can help to promote these practices. The increased global concerns on climate change, disaster risks and food security redirect attention to, and trigger more funds for SLM. To provide the necessary evidence-based rationale for investing in SLM and to reinforce expert and land users assessments of SLM impacts, more field research using inter- and transdisciplinary approaches is needed. This includes developing methods to quantify and value ecosystem services, both on-site and off-site, and assess the resilience of SLM practices, as currently aimed at within the EU FP7 projects CASCADE and RECARE.