costs and benefits of soil and water conservation in farmland

Costs and Benefits of Soil and Water

Conservationin farmland

Davies OnduruFredrick 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 MethodologyApproach and Methodology

•Three sub-catchments covered Map of the three sub-catchments.docx

•433 smallholders interviewed

 Sub-catchment

Lower Chania Tungu Kayahwe TotalTea-Dairy Zone (LH1) 30 10 32 72Tea-Coffee (UM1) 41 27 55 123Main Coffee (UM2) 66 29 37 132Marginal Coffee (UM3) 11 30 28 69

Cotton-tobacco (LM3/LM4-cotton) 0 37 0 37Total 148 133 152 433

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 Type of investment and maintenance

costs:costs:

•Lay-out •Tools and equipment•Labour•Seeds/planting materials for stabilisers•Fertilisers/manures•Pesticides•Other input costs (mulches, stones etc.) etc.

Investments Costs: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-2Maintenance/annual costs:Maintenance/annual costs:

Repairs/cleaning trenches (where relevant)

Gapping,

Fertilization, weeding;

Pruning (where relevant)

Application of trash and mulch.

Data on benefits: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.

Results1. Profitability in the year of study

  Gross Margins(Ksh/ha)

Benefit/cost ratio GM/Labour day(Ksh/day)

“With” perennial crops      Banana micro-catchment 124,932 2.8 331Mulching in tea 293 100 5.3 423Zero tillage in coffee 110,208 2.1 312Riverine protection (Grasses + trees) 318,548 22.2 1379Structural measures      Bench terraces + Maize + beans 196, 412 1.5 261Fanya juu + Maize + beans 174,890 1.6 322Cut off drains + Maize + beans 175,350 1.7 335Infiltration ditch + Maize + beans 172,244 1.7 225Stone lines + Maize + beans 126,525 2.4 502Non Structural measures      Trash-lines + maize + beans 62,950 1.8 241Grass strips + maize + beans 439,285 4.0 1743Contour planting + tillage + maize + beans

28,517 1.5 131

Contour ridging + maize + beans 33,158 2.2 288

BCR: Benefit Cost ration; GM = Gross margins

Results2. Financial efficiency of conservation measures with perennial crops

 Discount rate

Micro-catchment + Bananas

Mulching + tea

Zero tillage + coffee

Time after base year  2 5 3-6

Internal Rate of Return

> Current interest Rate

> Current interest Rate

> Current interest Rate

> Current interest Rate

Incremental Net Benefits 

10% 429.8 316.5 574.212% 369.8 263.2 500.314% 319.6 220.1 438.9

INB: Incremental Net Benefits Benefit of SWC practices calculated as the difference between plots with SWC practice and those without (the difference in benefits)

Results3. Financial efficiency of structural measures (15 year time horizon)

Structures + Maize + Beans; Values for INB x 1000

 Discount rate

Bench terrace

Fanya juu

Cut-off drain

Infiltration ditch

Stone lines

Time elapse after base year   1 1 1 1 <1

Internal rate of Return (%)  

> Current interest Rate

> Current interest Rate

> Current interest Rate

> Current interest Rate

> Current interest Rate

IncrementalNet Benefit  

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

Results4. Financial efficiency of non-structural measures (15 year time horizon)

Structures + Maize + Beans; Values for INB x 1000

 Discount rate

Trash-lines Grass strips

Contour tillage + Planting

Contour ridging

Time elapse after base year   <1 <1 <1 <1

Internal Rate of Return (%)  

> Current interest Rate

> Currentinterest Rate

> Currentinterest Rate

> Current interest Rate

Incremental Net Benefits 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

Results6. 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.

ConclusionsMain 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