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