120
I N V E S T M E N T N O T E 5 . 5
This note was prepared by R. Thomas, F. Turkelboom, R. La Rovere, A. Aw-Hassan, and A. Bruggeman, International Cen- ter for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas, Aleppo, Syrian Arab Republic.
The main coping strategies of households living in these marginal areas, therefore, include diversifying livelihood strategies, intensifying agriculture, finding off-farm employment, and exiting agriculture. This grouping imme- diately raises questions on who to target and with what. If the goal is primarily poverty alleviation, then interventions should focus on the poorest (laborers and pastoralists). If the goal is to expand food production, then the focus should be on agriculturalists. If the goal is to protect the land, the emphasis should be on the mainly government- controlled communal rangelands and the privately owned cultivated land (land used mainly by pastoralists and agri- culturalists).
The tool used to help orient the project team was a sim- ple analysis of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of the marginal dry areas. The input to the analysis came from contributions from land users, researchers,
extension agents, and decision makers. Table 5.5 summa- rizes the results of this exercise.
The study attempted comprehensively to address the complexity of this marginal dryland by identifying environ- mentally benign options that improve livelihoods, reduce poverty, and sustain the natural resource base. An interdis- ciplinary approach was taken to introduce new land-use options and to broaden interactions among local communi- ties, researchers, and local and national governments by cre- ating multistakeholder platforms (Campbell and others 2006).
LESSONS LEARNED
First, the study team analyzed previous experiences. In the past, promising technologies were not adopted because they were developed in isolation from the requirements of the
INVESTMENT NOTE 5.5: SUSTAINABLE LAND MANAGEMENT IN MARGINAL DRY AREAS OF THE MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA 121
Table 5.5 Major Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats for the Khanasser Valley as an Example of Marginal Drylands
Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats
• Indigenous knowledge and • Cash-flow problems • Investments of off-farm • Aging and feminization of local innovations (resulting in lack of income into productive active Khanasser population
• Strong social networks and long-term investments) resources • Declining social networks rich local culture • Poor nutritional • Better education levels • Destruction of traditional
• Comparative advantage for status of children and expertise “beehive houses”
small ruminant production • Limited experience with • Increased awareness of • Increased population pressure
• Salt lake with rich bird nontraditional farming the risks of resource and too small landholdings
biodiversity enterprises degradation • Depletion of groundwater
• Relatively unpolluted • Lack of adapted crop • Cooperatives resources environment germplasm • Improved market knowledge • Recurrent droughts
• Reasonable mobility and • Decreasing productivity through mobile phones • Further decline of soil fertility accessible markets • Degraded natural resource and other media and groundwater levels
• Improved basic services base (soil, groundwater, • Out-migration and • Declining groundwater quality (electricity, roads, vegetation) and degrading off-farm opportunities and salinization of irrigated mobile-phone network) management practices • Sheep fattening fields
• Land degradation masked • Potential to improve the • Population by intensive sheep by variations in rainfall traditional barley system fattening and untreated village
• Poor extension services • Improved germplasm sewage
• Diversification for cash and • Degradation of the fragile subsistence purposes Jabul salt lake ecosystem
• Agrotourism, ecotourism, • Unreliable export markets for and cultural tourism sheep
• Runoff water harvesting and efficient small-scale irrigation systems
• Soil fertility improvement
• Rangeland rehabilitation and medicinal plants collection
• Better government services and increased attention to poverty alleviation and environmental services in marginal areas
Source:Authors’ elaboration.
local communities and were based on an inadequate under- standing of the asset base and flows and of local informal institutions. Clearly, a need existed to study livelihood strategies in greater detail for better targeting of agricultural and nonagricultural interventions. Multistakeholder processes are required that bring together local populations and decision makers to develop common understandings of the different perceptions of these marginal zones and to facilitate better organizational ability of community-based groups. In addition, the time lag between the announce- ment of a change in restrictions to cropping on marginal lands and the implementation of the new regulations pointed to the need to improve communication between policy makers and land users.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SUSTAINABLE LAND MANAGEMENT: PRODUCTS AND SERVICES Following this analysis, the team then developed and refined a set of options that had been researched previously in the area. After on-farm trials, the options were tried and tested jointly by researchers and interested land users who were organized into farmer interest groups on a voluntary basis.
From this collaboration, the following feasible options were identified:
■ Options that strengthen the traditional farming system:
– New barley varieties selected by using a participatory breeding approach
– Barley production with application of phosphogyp- sum to improve soil fertility and to increase and sta- bilize production in dry years
– Dairy products from sheep for consumption or sale – Seed priming of barley seeds with nutrient solutions
to improve crop establishment
■ Diversification options:
– Barley intercropped with Atriplexshrubs to stabilize forage production, increase biomass during dry years, and enhance protein content in sheep diets
– Improved vetch production by selection of drought- tolerant varieties to reduce production risks
– Improved management of rainfed cumin (a new cash crop) to stabilize and increase production and improve its marketing value
– Olive orchards, using water harvesting and cultivating on foothill slopes, to increase production and reduce summer irrigation by groundwater
■ Intensification options:
– Improved lamb fattening by using lower-cost feeds
■ Institutional options:
– Traditional dairy institutions (Jabban) for sharing knowledge and providing informal credit
– Village saving and credit associations (Sanadiq, estab- lished and operated by a parallel development project led by the United Nations Development Programme).
RATIONALE FOR INVESTMENT
The marginal zone of Syria represented by this case study covers about 11 percent of the country’s land area and 14 percent of the population (about 2 million people).
Poverty is greatest in areas located within this zone. The fact that many men migrate to urban areas results in labor short- ages and in sociocultural decline from the loss of social struc- ture and cultural heritage. Investments are needed both to restore the social and physical infrastructures and to reverse land degradation. The latter is a slowly changing variable not perceived as urgent by local populations but is a process that threatens long-term sustainability of the region. Importantly, this approach can be applied (with local adaptations) across large areas of North Africa, Iraq, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Jordan, and Central Asia that are characterized by similar agro-ecological and socioeconomic factors.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRACTITIONERS The study showed that knowledge sharing and increased public awareness of land degradation are required to facili- tate closer cooperation among the stakeholders involved in SLM. As a result of closer integration among all stakehold- ers, the study team developed a set of options. The options are targeted at the various sectors of the population—each with different access to natural, physical, human, and finan- cial capital. Although the team recognizes that income gen- eration is the first priority of the land users, most of the technological options also contribute to more sustainable management of the land. The study demonstrated to gov- ernment researchers, extension agents, and land users the value of collaboration. Consequently, plans are under way to replicate the Khanasser valley example in similar areas of Syria.
For each crop enterprise, specific technological objec- tives have been identified along with a corresponding agro- nomic approach. A summary of the objectives and the approaches taken to introduce technological interventions is shown in table 5.6.
For all these technologies and options, the study team prepared feasibility reports, including ex ante economic
122 CHAPTER 5: RAINFED DRY AND COLD FARMING SYSTEMS
analyses (La Rovere and Aw-Hassan 2005; La Rovere and others 2007). The study team took this effort further, how- ever, with analysis based on the characteristics of the differ- ent livelihood categories and assets of the defined popula- tion groups. Thus, the options were categorized as follows:
■ Profitable in the short term and requiring more aware- ness and information
■ Profitable but requiring investment and are prone to cli- matic risks
■ Highly profitable but needing high investments
■ Profitable only in the long run and needing initial invest- ment.
MULTILEVEL ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK To help determine the main driving variables, the study used a toolbox approach that comprises diagnostic, problem-solving, and process tools (Turkelboom and others 2004). An example of a multilevel analytical framework used to identify the main constraints on the hill slopes of the valley is presented in figure 5.2. Biophysical and socio - economic factors are examined in a framework consisting of a “spatial pillar” and a “stakeholder pillar” that are linked both vertically and horizontally. The tool lists the main pri-
oritized issues that constrain the adoption of technologies and resources and identifies potential solutions. This simple framework requires a multidisciplinary approach and helps foster greater understanding and communication among all parties.
REFERENCES
Campbell, B., J. Hagmann, A. Stroud, R. Thomas, and E.
Wollenberg. 2006. Navigating amidst Complexity: Guide to Implementing Effective Research and Development to Improve Livelihoods and the Environment.Bogor, Indone- sia: Center for International Forestry Research.
http://www.icarda.cg iar.org/publications/nav i- gatingamidstcomplexity.pdf.
Dixon, J., and A. Gulliver, with D. Gibbon. 2001. Farming Systems and Poverty: Improving Farmers’ Livelihoods in a Changing World. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organiza- tion and World Bank. http://www.fao.org/farmingsys tems/.
La Rovere, R., and A. Aw-Hassan. 2005. Ex ante Assessment of Agricultural Technologies for Use in Dry Marginal Areas:
The Case of the Khanasser Valley, Syria. Integrated Natu- ral Resource Management Technical Report 6. Aleppo, Syrian Arab Republic: International Center for Agricul- tural Research in the Dry Areas.
INVESTMENT NOTE 5.5: SUSTAINABLE LAND MANAGEMENT IN MARGINAL DRY AREAS OF THE MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA 123
Table 5.6 Technological Interventions Introduced in the Khanasser Valley
Enterprise Objective of technology Approach
Barley (rainfed) Stabilize and enhance barley productivity. Selection and improvement of barley varieties using a farmer-breeding participatory approach
Barley (rainfed) Stabilize feed production, increase dry-year biomass, Intercrop with the Atriplex (saltbush) shrub for sheep and enhance protein content. grazing.
Barley (rainfed) Improve soil fertility, and increase and stabilize Apply a phosphogypsum amendment residue of the fertilizer
production in dry years. industry.
Wheat (irrigated) Improve rainfall water productivity and yields. Implement supplemental irrigation using sprinkler and surface methods.
Vetch Reduce production risks, and increase feed availability. Include improved drought-tolerant vetch varieties in traditional rotations.
Cumin (rainfed) Stabilize and increase production, and improve its Improve management.
marketing outcome.
Olive orchards Increase olive production, and reduce groundwater Cultivate olive trees on foothills by using water-harvesting
use for irrigation. practices
Sheep (lambs) Intensify production. Fatten lambs by using lower-cost feeds.
Sheep (extensive) Enhance home consumption and sale of dairy surplus. Improve small-scale dairy sheep institutions and strategies (for example, for marketing).
Sheep (dairy) Improve sheep productivity. Apply various small-ruminant technologies (for example, health, productivity)
Water harvesting Improve water-use efficiency, and protect Combine with olive orchard management.
natural resources.
Phosphogypsum Restore soil fertility. Combine with barley crop improvements.
applications
Source:Adapted from La Rovere and others 2007.
La Rovere, R., A. Aw-Hassan, F. Turkelboom, and R.
Thomas. 2006. “Targeting Research for Poverty Reduc- tion in Marginal Areas of Rural Syria.” Development and Change 37 (3): 627–48.
La Rovere, R., F. Turkelboom, A. Aw-Hassan, A. Bruggeman, and R. Thomas (Forthcoming). “A Comprehensive Assessment of Technological Options for Improving Rural Livelihoods in the Dry Marginal Areas of Syria.”
International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability.
Turkelboom, F., R. Thomas, R. La Rovere, and A. Aw-Has- san. 2004. “An Integrated Natural Resources Manage- ment (INRM) Framework for Coping with Land Degra- dation in Dry Areas.” In Ecosystem-Based Assessment of Soil Degradation to Facilitate Land Users’ and Land Own- ers’ Prompt Actions,ed. P. Zdruli, P. Steduto, S. Kapur, and E. Akca, 91–109. Bari, Italy: Istituto Agronomico Mediterraneo.
SELECTED READING
Gonsalves, J., T. Becker, A. Braun, D. Campilan, H. de Chavez, E. Fajber, M. Kapiriri, J. Rivaca-Caminade, and R. Vernooy, eds. 2005. Participatory Research and Devel- opment for Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resource
Management: A Sourcebook. Ottawa: International Devel- opment Research Centre. http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev- 84706-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html.
Pound, B., S. Snapp, C. McDougall, and A. Braun, eds. 2003.
Managing Natural Resources for Sustainable Livelihoods:
Uniting Science and Participation. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre. http://www.idrc.ca/
en/ev-34000-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html.
Thomas, R., F. Turkelboom, R. La Rovere, T. Oweis, A.
Bruggeman, and A. Aw-Hassan. 2004. “Towards Inte- grated Natural Resources Management (INRM) in Dry Areas Subject to Land Degradation: The Example of the Khanasser Valley in Syria.” In Combating Desertification:
Sustainable Management of Marginal Drylands (SUMA- MAD), 85–93. UNESCO-MAB Dryland Series 3. Paris:
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. http://www.icarda.cgiar.org/INRMsite/
Towards_INRM.pdf.
Tyler, S. R. 2006a. Comanagement of Natural Resources: Local Learning for Poverty Reduction. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre. http://www.idrc.ca/en/
ev-103297-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html#begining.
———. 2006b. Communities, Livelihoods, and Natural Resources: Action Research and Policy Change in Asia.
124 CHAPTER 5: RAINFED DRY AND COLD FARMING SYSTEMS
Figure 5.2 Application of the Multilevel Analytical Framework to the Management of Olive Orchards on Hill Slopes at Khanasser Valley
Spatial levels Stakeholder levels
Marginal drylands Policy and institutions
• Climate suitability: • Policy regarding state land?
– Can olives grow properly in this type of climate? • Olive policy in Syria?
– Selection of adapted varieties. • Credit availability?
• Institutional analysis plus services.
Khanasser valley: Trading links:
• Land suitability: Can olives grow on stony hillsides? • Do marketing channels exist for olives?
(Sub)catchments: Communities:
• Runoff water use: Is there competition between upslope • Expansion of olive orchards?
and downslope? • Will olives affect equity?
• Competition between grazing and olive orchards and potential for communal agreed arrangements.
Field: Household livelihood strategies:
• What are the local management practices, technical • Who is interested in growing olives and what are their knowledge, and knowledge gaps? Awareness, participatory motives?
research, and training about improved husbandry. • Are there gender divisions related to olive orchards?
• Soil and water management: Soil and water harvesting, • What are the technical knowledge sources?
irrigation, tillage, soil erosion, and use of ancient terraces. • For subsistence or cash? Enterprise budgets for olives.
• Tree husbandry: Pruning, diseases, soil fertility management, • Alternative tree crops: Are there adapted and viable and diagnosis of unproductive trees. alternatives?
Source:ICARDA.
Ottawa: International Development Research Centre.
http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-97782-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html.
WEB RESOURCES
Integrated Natural Resource Management Web site. Inte- grated Natural Resource Management (INRM) is a
research approach that aims at improving livelihoods, agroecosystem resilience, agricultural productivity, and environmental services. The Web site facilitates the shar- ing of experiences, approaches, and results among scien- tists working on INRM issues in the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research and partner insti- tutions. http://www.icarda.cgiar.org/INRMsite/.
INVESTMENT NOTE 5.5: SUSTAINABLE LAND MANAGEMENT IN MARGINAL DRY AREAS OF THE MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA 125
Climate change has the potential to undermine sig- nificantly efforts in the sustainable management of agricultural land, particularly in subtropical and tropical regions. The impacts of climate change of concern to agricultural land management include amplification of drought-flood cycles, increase in wind and rain intensity, shift in the spatial and temporal distribution of rainfall, and range expansion of agricultural pests and diseases. The degree of this maladaptation to climate variability could increase over the next several decades, with climate change potentially derailing future development efforts in climate- vulnerable regions such as Africa.
Developing more coherent links between land manage- ment and institutional change could create a more con- ducive environment for land improvement. For example, the recent revegetation phenomenon in the Sahel is rooted both in technical support for land improvement and in legal code reforms that provided local communities with control over resource management decisions.
In Africa, with its dependence on rainfed agriculture, the combined factors of variable rainfall, high temperatures, and poor soil fertility heighten the sensitivity of smallholder producers to shocks from extreme climate events. In the near to medium term, there is reasonably good potential to enhance rainfed production sustainability through improvements in water capture and storage, combined with better soil and fertility management. Fairly modest changes have the potential to triple cereal yields in high-risk farming environments.
There are also opportunities to link greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation simultaneously with sustainable land use and adaptation to climate change. Other options include advances in probabilistic forecasting, embedding of crop models within climate models, enhanced use of remote
sensing, and research into “weather within climate.” These advances, however, will need to be matched with better means for disseminating forecasts to farming communities through multiple forums, such as those where information on water, health, housing, and disaster management is shared.
INTRODUCTION
Climate change has the potential to significantly undermine efforts to sustain and manage agricultural land, particularly in subtropical and tropical regions. The impacts of climate change—including (a) amplification of drought-flood cycles, (b) increase in wind and rain intensity, (c) shift in the spatial and temporal distribution of rainfall, and (d) range expansion of agricultural pests and diseases (IPCC 2007)—
are of concern to agricultural land management. The dis- ruptive impacts of climate change on agriculture are more likely to be experienced in terms of increased seasonal and interannual climate variability and higher frequency of extreme events than as mean changes in the climate.
These effects will not be uniformly distributed, nor will they be exclusively negative. High-latitude zones that do not limit moisture are expected to experience increased produc- tivity from warmer temperatures and longer growing sea- sons, assuming relatively modest temperature increases (less than 3°C). In contrast, low-latitude zones that will undergo the smallest increase in warming will likely be sub- jected to the greatest negative influence from climate change and variability because of the multiple pressures of land degradation, poverty, and weak institutional capacity.
This combination of stress factors increases the vulnerabil- ity of smallholder producers to shocks from extreme cli- matic events, such as El Niủo episodes, thus leading to
Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies in Sustainable