Targeting SLM technologies across landscapes: a framework to facilitate matching SLM technologies with landscape conditions and generate evidences

The aim of this report is to develop a detailed framework that can guide the placement of land restoration options where they can be more effective so that the right ‘places’ are targeted and the appropriate technologies are used. The framework will also form the basis towards developing a decision support tool that can be used to accomplish processes and steps of landscape restoration (Fig. 1). The framework details the steps from diagnosis to identify hotspot areas of intervention, characterize those hotspots to assess potentials, constraints and current status. Once the detailed characterization is done, the next level will be to identify suitable SLM options that can be applied to restore the conditions of the hotspots. In order to make sure that the practices/technologies can serve their purpose there will be a need to characterize them in terms of their potential and requirements. Once the above two are assessed, ex-ante and scenario analysis can be undertaken to evaluate the impacts of the interventions across the landscape catena. This is an essential step to gain an idea of what we will get from implementing the technologies targeting the hotspots. Once this preliminary information is available, we can match the options (LSM technologies/practices) to context (diagnosed hotspots). This is the actual development work on the ground and should be led by the results of the scenario analysis – implement linked/complementary technologies following the landscape continuum. The next step will then be to generate evidences of the interventions using before/after and/or with and without approaches. This is equally important because this is the step where we determine whether the interventions are providing the intended services and functions. Based on lessons, adjustments can be made where necessary. This can be done in near real-time so that incentives can be provided or penalties can be enforced. Tradeoff analysis will also be a key component of this step. Finally, it will be necessary to determine the optimum combinations of land uses and management options to gain optimum benefits in terms of ecosystem services

Policy insights on Sustainable Land Management (SLM) efforts in Ethiopia

Policy Implications (Support the proper sectoral integration of SLM efforts by mainstreaming SLM strategies into national and subnational strategies, plans, and programs; Stimulate public/private funding for SLM interventions and their sustainability, generating multiple environmental and development benefits; Encourage the design and implementation of studies to assess SLM interventions’ cost-effectiveness, social benefits, and trade-offs; Encourage the design and implementation of socioeconomic and livelihood impact studies to understand social acceptance and direct/indirect benefits; and Strengthen the development and funding for long-term SLM evidence generation and data collection system)

Effects of land management practices and land cover types on soil loss and crop productivity in Ethiopia: A review

Identifying land management practices (LMPs) that enhance on-site sediment management and crop productivity is crucial for the prevention, reduction, and restoration of land degradation and contributing to achieving land degradation neutrality (LDN). We reviewed studies in Ethiopia to assess the effects of LMPs on soil loss (84 studies) and crop productivity (34 studies) relative to control practice. Yield variability on conserved lands was assessed using 12,796 fixed plot data. Effects of LMP on soil loss were 0.5–55 t ha−1y−1 compared to control practices yielding 50 to 140 t ha−1y−1. More than 55% of soil loss records revealed soil loss less than the tolerable rate (10 t ha−1). Area closure, perennial vegetation cover, agronomic practices, mechanical erosion control practices, annual cropland cover, and drainage groups of practices led to 74.0 ± 18.3%, 69.0 ± 24.6%, 66.2 ± 30.5%, 66.1 ± 18.0%, 63.5 ± 20.0%, and 40 ± 11,1% soil loss reduction, respectively. A yield increase of 25.2 ± 15.0%, 37.5 ± 28.0%, and 75.4 ± 85.0% was found from drainage, agronomy, and mechanical erosion control practices, respectively. The average yield loss by erosion on fields without appropriate land management practice and on conserved fields was 26.5 ± 26.0% and 25 ± 3.7%, respectively. The findings suggest that practices that entail a continuous presence of soil cover during the rainy season, perennial vegetation, retention of moisture, and barriers for sediment transport were most effective at decreasing soil loss and increasing productivity. This review provides evidence to identify the best LMP practices for wider adoption and inform decision-making on LMP investments towards achieving sustainable solutions to reverse land degradation

Effect of combining organic manure and inorganic fertilisers on maize–bush bean intercropping

In sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), farmers intercrop common beans with maize but apply inorganic or organic fertilisers targeting only maize. Effects of this practice on bush bean yield have not been fully evaluated with respect to input use and compatibility when intercropped with maize. An on-farm trial managed by smallholder community members was conducted to assess the influence of various soil fertility management options and cropping systems on the yield of two bush bean genotypes (SER45 and SER83) in two agro-ecological zones of Malawi. The farmer-managed trials were laid out in split-plot design, with the bean genotypes as main plots and a combination of the soil fertility management options (i.e., no input, manure, fertiliser and fertiliser + manure) and cropping systems (i.e., sole crop and intercrop) as subplots. The trials were affected by terminal drought and dry spells, but results show that manure and fertiliser application enhanced the resilience of the drought-tolerant bean genotypes. The genotype SER45 was responsive to manure application in the sole crop, giving a 44.4% yield increase over no-manure application. In sole cropping with fertiliser plus manure, bean yields improved by 40.1% for SER45 and 78.3% for SER83 relative to the no-input control. Although sole cropping had higher bean yields, the treatment with manure and fertiliser had a higher land equivalence ratio for intercrop of 1.54 for SER45 and 1.32 for SER83 over sole cropping. These results show that, under smallholder farmer management, the climate adaptability of bush bean genotypes could be enhanced by the combined application of organic and inorganic fertilisers in maize–bean intercrop. The combined application also enhances whole-farm productivity of the common maize–bean intercrop practice than monocrop, hence is of benefit to most low-input smallholder farmers of SSA

Characterizing and evaluating the impacts of national land restoration initiatives on ecosystem services in Ethiopia

Land restoration is considered to be the remedy for 21st century global challenges of land degradation. As a result, various land restoration and conservation efforts are underway at different scales. Ethiopia is one of the countries with huge investments in land restoration. Tremendous land management practices have been implemented across the country since the 1970s. However, the spatial distribution of the interventions has not been documented, and there is no systematic, quantitative evidence on whether land restoration efforts have achieved the restoration of desired ecosystem services. Therefore, we carried out a meta‐analysis of peer‐reviewed scientific literature related to land restoration efforts and their impacts in Ethiopia. Results show that most of the large‐scale projects have been implemented in the highlands, specifically in Tigray and Amhara regions covering about 24 agro‐ecological zones, and land restoration impact studies are mostly focused in the highlands but restricted in about 11 agro‐ecological zones. The highest mean effect on agricultural productivity is obtained from the combination of bunds and biological interventions followed by conservation agriculture practices with 170 % and 18% increases, respectively. However, bunds alone, biological intervention alone, and terracing (Fanya Juu) reveal negative effects on productivity. The mean effect of all land restoration interventions on soil organic carbon is positive, the highest effect being from “bunds + biological” (139%) followed by exclosure (90%). Reduced soil erosion and runoff are the dominant impacts of all interventions. The results can be used to improve existing guidelines to better match land restoration options with specific desired ecosystem functions and services. While the focus of this study was on the evaluation of the impacts of land restoration efforts on selected ecosystem services, impacts on livelihood and national socio‐economy have not been examined. Thus, strengthening socio‐economic studies at national scale to assess the sustainability of land restoration initiatives are an essential next step

The role of trees in regulating soil erosion

In de Leeuw, J.; Njenga, M.; Wagner, B.; Iiyama, M. (Eds.) Treesilience: an assessment of the resilience provided by trees in the drylands of Eastern Africa. Nairobi, Kenya: World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF

A meta-analysis of the effects of land management practices and land uses on soil loss in Ethiopia

Over the last three decades, land management practices have been extensively implemented in Ethiopia. Different attempts have been made to assess the effects of land management practices on soil loss at plot scales under a range of climatic and land use conditions. However, the plot-level studies were mostly focused on limited sites and were inadequate to show the effects of land management and land cover practices across a range of practices and under various environmental contexts. A meta-analysis of 82 plot-level experiments in 59 sites was conducted to assessing the effects of land management practices and land use/cover types on soil loss relative to control practice. Random effects were accounted for the association of soil loss and environmental factors including mean annual rainfall, soil texture, and slope length. The results showed that there were significant mean soil loss differences among the categories of land management and land cover practices (p < 0.049). A large amount of residual heterogeneity (I2 = 92%) suggests that the groups of practices are heterogeneous. Mechanical erosion control and agronomic practices with the largest number of studies and somewhat area closure showed large heterogeneity across experiments.The overall mean soil loss ratio of mechanical (0.086, R2 = 81%), agronomic (0.21, R2 = 85%), and area closure (0.09, R2 = 52%) practices were significant to reduce soil loss. There was no residual heterogeneity exhibited across studies for the rest of four groups of practices. The mean soil loss ratio of mechanical practices under non-cropland, annual cropland cover, drainage, and non-cropland cover types were 0.12, 0.14, 0.27, and 0.29, respectively. Yet, with a certain level of inconsistency, the overall effects of all groups of land management and land cover practices were positive. In general, the sensitivity of environmental factors and their magnitude of association with soil loss ratio could imply that the effects of the range of land management practices and land cover types on soil loss are very contextual

Transforming livelihoods and building resilience through multifunctional landscapes: Main findings and impacts

Poster prepared for a share fair, Addis Ababa, May 201

Let's conserve the environment by finding solutions to end poverty

This participatory video was filmed, produced, and directed by a group of 12 farmers and community members from the villages of Mpulula, Malaswa, Kapalula, and Gwauya, Malawi. With this video they want to communicate the message that “we can conserve the environment by finding solutions to end poverty.” The film features farmers describing the value of trees, vetiver grass strips, collective action and the importance of alternative livelihoods to the destructive practice of charcoal making. In English and Chichewa