Who uses sustainable land management practices and what are the costs and benefits? Insights from Kenya

Suboptimal land management practices are degrading soils and undermining food production. Sustainable land management (SLM) practices can improve soil and enhance yields. This study identifies variations in SLM uptake, characterising farmers most likely to use SLM practices, identifying when it makes economic sense for farmers to implement particular SLM practices and how long it takes before benefits exceed costs. Using questionnaire data from farmers in western Kenya, we undertake a cost–benefit analysis and analyse determinants of SLM practice use. SLM implementation varied between counties and SLM practice(s), with household and farm characteristics, and access to assets and advice, playing a key role. SLM practices with high upfront and maintenance costs (e.g., terraces and agroforestry) offer low benefit‐to‐cost ratios for individual farmers who must also wait many years to break even on their investments. Nevertheless, over the policy‐relevant time horizon considered (to 2030), Net present value can be positive. Simple SLM practices (manuring and intercropping) have low input costs and offer high benefit to cost ratios, providing a positive net present value up to 2030. Findings suggest that simple practices should be prioritised within policy to improve soil and increase yields. These should be supported by subsidies or other economic measures, facilitating uptake of practices such as agroforestry, which can provide wider societal benefits (e.g., improved water retention and carbon sequestration). Economic mechanisms could be augmented with support for agricultural innovation systems, improved monitoring of land management and yield relationships, and investment in climate and soil information services

From climate-smart agriculture to climate-smart landscapes

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>For agricultural systems to achieve climate-smart objectives, including improved food security and rural livelihoods as well as climate change adaptation and mitigation, they often need to be take a landscape approach; they must become ‘climate-smart landscapes’. Climate-smart landscapes operate on the principles of integrated landscape management, while explicitly incorporating adaptation and mitigation into their management objectives.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>An assessment of climate change dynamics related to agriculture suggests that three key features characterize a climate-smart landscape: climate-smart practices at the field and farm scale; diversity of land use across the landscape to provide resilience; and management of land use interactions at landscape scale to achieve social, economic and ecological impacts. To implement climate-smart agricultural landscapes with these features (that is, to successfully promote and sustain them over time, in the context of dynamic economic, social, ecological and climate conditions) requires several institutional mechanisms: multi-stakeholder planning, supportive landscape governance and resource tenure, spatially-targeted investment in the landscape that supports climate-smart objectives, and tracking change to determine if social and climate goals are being met at different scales. Examples of climate-smart landscape initiatives in Madagascar’s Highlands, the African Sahel and Australian Wet Tropics illustrate the application of these elements in contrasting contexts.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>To achieve climate-smart landscape initiatives widely and at scale will require strengthened technical capacities, institutions and political support for multi-stakeholder planning, governance, spatial targeting of investments and multi-objective impact monitoring.</p