Case study. Forest beekeeping – Cameroon

Verina Ingram

doi:10.13140/2.1.5108.8960

Case study. Forest beekeeping – Cameroon

Verina Ingram

https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.5108.8960

visibility

…

description

246 pages

link

1 file

descriptionSee full PDF

Abstract

Land is the true of wealth of Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). The region is characterized by a very rich diversity of natural ecosystem resources, including soils, vegetation, water and genetic diversity. Together, these constitute the region’s main natural capital. It is from these assets that the provision of food, water, wood, fibre and industrial products, and essential ecosystem services and functions are derived. And they must be maintained in order to support African populations into the future. Simultaneously, it is from the land that 60 percent of the people directly derive their livelihoods - from agriculture, freshwater fisheries, forestry and other natural resources (FAO 2004). However, African land and water resources in some areas are seriously threatened through overuse although per capita availability is one of the highest in the world. This is a direct result of the increasing needs of a growing population, combined, often, with inappropriate land management practices. Th...

Figures (402)

Integrated land use system with maize-bean intercropping and grass strips for fodder production in a high potential area (Hanspeter Liniger).

Degradation of vegetation soils and water along river banks (Hanspeter Liniger).

Figure 1: The 3 dimensions of sustainability. (Source: IAASTD, 2009a). local, national and global scales.

Table 1: Land use in SSA (2000) and improved livelinoods and ecosystems.

Expansion to steep slopes, intensification and diversification all combined in the Uluguru Mountains of Tanzania (Hanspeter Liniger).

Figure 3: Productive water (transpiration) and water losses (evaporation and runoff) without water conserving measures in dry lands.

Figure 4: Water productivity and cereal yield under various management and climatic conditions: for cereal yields of less than 1 t/ha four to eight times more water is used per tonne compared to yields above 3 t/ha as the proportion used for grain (cf vegetative production is much less). (Source: Rockstrém et al., 2007)

Figure 5: Water use efficiency in a semi-arid to subhumid environment compar- ing a local practice (deep tillage) with conservation agriculture comprising minimum tillage for weed control, mulching and intercropping of maize and beans. Under the local practice, total water loss was over 70%, with evapora- tion being the main contributor to this. Under mulch, the loss was reduced to 45%.The productive use of the water was doubled, and yields in some seasons even tripled (Gitonga, 2005). Local practice combining deep tillage and ridging stops runoff but increases evaporation from the bare soil surface; under the plants the protected soil remains moist (Hanspeter Liniger).

Figure 6: Water losses in irrigation systems: from source to plant illustrating the small fraction of water used productively for plant growth compared to the total water directed to irrigation systems (based on Studer, 2009). Improving water productivity in rainfed and irrigated agriculture (Principles)

Figure 7: The nutrient and carbon cycle showing the main losses and gains / replenishments of soil organic matter, biomass and nutrients.

Composting, manuring and mulching in a banana plantation, Uganda. (William Critchley)

Screening for drought tolerance of pigeon peas and lablab. (Hanspeter Liniger) There is still huge potential to increase plant productivity

Figure 8: Benefits and costs of SLM over time, short-term establishment phase and long-term maintenance phase. paybacks from SLM interventions:

High labour costs for ridging and low returns (left) compared to less demanding mulching with high benefits (right). (Hanspeter Liniger)

Figure 9: Prevention, mitigation and rehabilitation of land degradation less than half a kilometre apart. (Hanspeter Liniger) Sources: Oldeman 1994 and 1998; Versveld et al, 1998; Reich et al. 2001; FAOSTAT, 2004; FAO, 2007; SARD, 2007; WOCAT, 2008a; WB, 2010)

Any combinations of the above measures are possible, e.g.: Terrace (structural) with grass strips and trees (vegetative) and contour ridges (agronomic). The measures for prevention, mitigation and rehabilitation of land degradation and restoration of ecosystems services can be classi- fied into four categories (WOCAT, 2007):

Giraffes in the Amboseli Nationalpark, Kenya. (Hanspeter Liniger)

Afforestation around Mt. Kenya. (Hanspeter Liniger) adaptations and innovation in SLM technologies and ap-

Figure 10: Key to improved land productivity and food security.

Figure 11: Win-win-win solutions for livelihood, ecosystem and productivity.

Table 3: Strategies and practices to improve land productivity and yields

ADOPTION AND DECISION SUPPORT FOR UPSCALING BEST PRACTICES

Training of farmers in the layout of contour barriers. (Hanspeter Liniger)

Monitoring of river flow: Nanyuki River (Mount Kenya region) during the wet season (above) and during the dry season (below). The river started to dry up only as of the 1980s. (Hanspeter Liniger)

Figure 12: Monitoring of rainfall and river flow in February (dry season) document changes related to climate and impacts of land use. Timau River, Mount Kenya region (Liniger H.P., 2005)

Figure 13: Stage of intervention and related costs. the cost and associated benefits. Inputs and achievements depend very much on the stage of degradation at which SLM interventions are made. The best benefit-cost ratio will normally be achieved through measures for prevention, followed by mitigation, and then rehabilitation. In prevention, the ‘benefit’ of maintaining the high level land productivity and ecosystem services has to be measured compared to the potential loss without any intervention. While the impacts of (and measures involved in) rehabilitation efforts can be highly visible, the related achievements need to be critically considered in terms of the cost and associated benefits.

Where to intervene and where to spread already well proven SLM technologies. (Hanspeter Liniger)

Investment shifts To an incentive-oriented legislation which recognises ecological problems and opportunities, supports effective land and ecosystem management, and establishes socially acceptable mechanisms for their enforcement From inadequate laws, regulations and control mecha- nisms to implement SLM and land degradation control (Source: Elaborated by authors and based on TerrAfrica, 2009)

Knowledge management and capacity building shifts

Top: Compost pits with low containing walls, Ghana. (William Critchley) Middle: Tithonia diversifolia as green manure in a cocoyam field, Cameroon. (Fabienne Thomas) Bottom: One bottle cap of compound fertilizer for micro- dosing, Zimbabwe. (ICRISAT, Bulawayo)

Production benefits ’ application of 0.3 g fertilizer per hole; ? application of 6 g fertilizer per hole (Sources: Aune, et al., 2007; WOCAT, 2009; ICRISAT) )

—— negative; — slightly negative; -/+ neutral; + slightly positive; ++ positive; +++ very positive (Sources: Aune, et al., 2007; WOCAT, 2009 and IFPRI, 2010)

Enabling environment: key factors for adoption

Maintenance inputs and costs per ha per year Remarks: Sowing can alternatively be mecha- nised, which will cause establishment costs (pur- chase of the sowing machine). Weaknesses = and how to overcome Benefit-cost ratio

Remarks: The technology has a benefit-cost ratio of 10 (increased production value is 10 times higher than the costs for additional fertilizer). Compared to the 6 g microfertilization method (using bottle caps) cost-benefit ratio of 0.3 g treat- ment is 8-20 times higher.

All activities carried out manually (using cut- lasses and hoes). Cutting back is done annu- ally, harvesting and spreading 1-2 times a year.

Tithonia can also be applied as mulch 6 to 8 weeks after planting the crop. Covering the mulch with a little soil facilitates nutrient release. Tithonia green manuring - before planting - and mulching can be combined, which is espe- Cially applicable to maize, beans and cabbage cultivation. Tithonia hedgerows have to be cut back regularly; otherwise it can spread fast and become a weed. Interplanting Tithonia in the field is not recommended due to root com- petition with crops. Tithonia biomass enhances soil organic matter and soil fertility, resulting in higher crop yields. The treatment supplies the crop with nutrients at the early stage of the growing process, and thus improves the establishment of the crops through the early development of a good rooting system. The technol- ogy is especially beneficial for maize: yields in the study area increased by over 50%. At an early stage of plant growth, fresh green leaves and stems are cut, chopped and applied on the cropland as green manure after the first pass of ridging. The fresh material is spread over the half-made ridges at a rate of 2 kg per m? and then covered with about 5-10 cm of soil to finish the ridges. Sow- ing of crop seeds is done only after a week or more, because of heat genera- tion during the decomposition process of the leaves (which could damage the seeds). Tithonia diversifolia hedges grow along roadsides or farm boundaries. The green leaf biomass is very suitable as green manure for annual crops, since the plant has a high content of nitrogen and phosphorus, and decomposes quickly after application to the soil: its nutrients are released within one grow- ing season.

Remarks: Costs for planting Tithonia along farm / field boundaries and along roadsides (if not grow- ing naturally) are not known.

Maintenance inputs and costs per ha per year Remarks: Labour costs are the main factor affecting the costs. Labour inputs depend a lot on transport distance between Tithonia hedge and cropland.

Adoption Remarks: The closer to the field Tithonia is planted, the better is the benefit-cost ratio.

Maintenance inputs and costs per ha per year Remarks: Costs relate to production and appli- cation of 1 tonne of compost per ha (the product of one full compost pit). The compost is directly applied to planting pits at a rate of 7-10 t/ha (equal to actual rates applied in small irrigated gardens). If compost is produced in deep pits, production is cheaper because there is less work involved.

Remarks: Establishment costs are for two pits which are needed to manure one hectare.

Adoption Wain Contributors: vean rascal culenne Qe Fury, UCAS INEUCNalel, owllzerlana, WWW.Ceas.Ccn Key references: WOCAT. 2004. WOCAT database on SLM Technologies, www.wocat.net ™ Ouedraogo E. 1992. Influence d’un amendement de compost sur sol ferrugineux tropicat en milieu paysan. Impact sur la production de sorgho a Zabré en 1992. Mémoire de dipl6me. CEAS Neuchatel, Switzerland m Zougmore R., Bonzi M., et Zida Z. 2000. Etalonnage di unités locales de mesures pour le compostage en fosse de type unique étanche durable. Fiche technique de quantification des matériaux de compostage, 4pp

Maintenance inputs and costs per ha per year Remarks: Labour costs do not include harvest- ing (8 person-days/ha). Initially, fertilizers were partly subsidised by project, at a later stage farmers purchased more as they increased the area and became more self-reliant. Most house- holds start applying chemical fertilizer from the 2 year on (at least 1 bag). Ecological benefits

Benefit-cost ratio Remarks: Initial results suggest a cost-benefit ratio of US$ 3.5 per US$ invested. Returns to labor have been about two times higher than conventional practices. Adoption

Spread of conservation agriculture in SSA. Also applied in: Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, lvory Coast, Ethio- pia, Eritrea, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, Mali, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Sudan, Swa- Ziland, Tanzania, Uganda and Zimbabwe Top: Training on the use of a jab planter for direct seeding, Burkina Faso. (John Ashburner) Middle: Direct seeding with special animal traction equip- ment, Zambia. (Josef Kienzle) Bottom: A no-till seeder at work on a large-scale farm in Cameroon. (Josef Kienzle)

Production benefits (Source: Kaumbutho and Kienzle, 2007; Boahen et al., 2007; Shetto and Owenya, 2007)

Benefit-Cost ratio —— negative; — slightly negative; -/+ neutral; + slightly positive; ++ positive; +++ very positive (Source: WOCAT, 2009; Kaumbutho and Kienzle, 2007; Boahen et al., 2007).

Maintenance costs: On small-scale farms the labour requirements for mainte- nance are usually higher at the beginning due to the burden of weeding. Com- pared to conventional practices, the overall workload significantly decreases - by up to 50%. Agricultural input requirements are mainly cover crop seeds and (where appropriate) herbicides for controlling weeds. On large-scale farms the maintenance costs of the machines and tractor(s) significantly decrease by elimi- nating farming operations like ploughing, harrowing and by reducing weeding.

Enabling environment: key factors for adoption Example: FAO’s Emergency Programmes, Swaziland

Note: Conservation tillage is based on agro- nomic measures which are carried out repeat- edly each cropping season. All activities are listed under maintenance / recurrent activities (below). There is no establishment phase (as defined by WOCAT). Maintenance activities

bite teal Na Rane tanh) ieee aca wav Feckriccraiessa oN Re Ihr Ri carate aeons Boater Earlier crop maturity 1 means access to markets when prices are still high. There are various supportive technologies in use which can improve the effective- ness of the ripping, including (1) application of compost / manure to improve soil structure for better water storage; (2) cover crops (e.g. Mucuna pru- riens) planted at the end of the season to prevent erosion, control weeds and improve soil quality; and (3) Agroforestry (mainly Grevillea robusta planted on the field or along field boundaries). Yields from small-scale conservation tillage can be more than 60% higher than under conventional ploughing. In addition, there are savings in terms of energy used for cultivation. Crops mature sooner under conservation tillage, because they can be planted earlier (under inversion tillage the soil first has to become moist before ploughing is done). same implement is done, when necessary, to break a plough pan and reaches depths of up to 30 cm. Ripping increases water infiltration and reduces runoff. In contrast to conven- tional tillage, the soil is not inverted, thus leaving crop residues on the sur- ace. As a result, the soil is less exposed and not so vulnerable to the impact of splash and sheet erosion, and water loss through evaporation and runoff. n well-ripped fields, rainfall from storms at the onset of the growing season is stored within the rooting zone, and is therefore available to the crop dur- ing subsequent drought spells. Ripping the soil during the dry season com- bined with a mulch cover reduces germination of weeds, leaving fields ready or planting. In case of stubborn weeds, pre-emergence herbicides are used or control. Yields from small-scale conservation tillage can be more than 60% higher than

Maintenance inputs and costs per ha per year Ecological benefits Remarks: Cost calculated charges for hiring equipment, draught animals and operator: these are all rolled up into the ‘cost of labour’ at US$ 25/ha. Conventional tillage costs US$ 37.5/ha compared with US$ 25/ha for conservation till- age operations: other costs remain more or less the same.

Benefit-cost ratio Remarks: Initial investments can be high (pur- chasing of new equipment). Costs decrease in the long term and benefits increase.

Establishment activities Note: Minimum tillage and direct planting are agronomic measures which are carried out repeatedly each cropping season. All activities are listed under maintenance / recurrent activi- ties (below). There is no establishment phase (as defined by WOCAT). All activities are carried out manually (each cropping season) using jab planter (or a plant- ing stick) and knapsack sprayers.

Labour inputs for land preparation and weeding is considerably decreased under conservation agriculture. Women benefit most from the workload reduc- tion since these time-consuming activities are their task. For men, the new technology usually means heavier work, especially during the 1% year, since they have to plant through the mulch. Using a jab planter makes the work easier. The use of herbicides requires adequate knowledge. An even better option is to introduce multipurpose cover crops to control weed populations, improve soil fertility, and enhance yields while diversifying crop production and thus reducing dependence on the use of herbicides. The mulch layer has several important functions: it helps to increase and main- tain water stored in the soil, reduces soil erosion, contributes to improve soil fertility (after crop residues have decomposed in subsequent seasons) and it efficiently controls weeds by hindering their growth and preventing weeds from producing seeds. The traditional slash-and-burn land use system in the case study area — involv- ing clearing natural vegetation followed by 2-5 years of cropping — has become unsustainable as land pressure has greatly increased, shortening fallow peri- ods. Under the SLM practice of ‘minimum tillage and direct planting’, land is prepared by slashing the existing vegetation and allowing regrowth up to 30 cm height. A glyphosate-based herbicide is sprayed with a knapsack fitted with a low-volume nozzle. The residue is left on the soil surface without burn- ing. After 7-10 days, direct planting is carried out in rows through the mulch. Maize is the main crop planted under this system. Planting is practiced manu- ally using a planting stick.

Slash and burn (traditional): Maintenance inputs and costs per ha Minimum tillage and direct planting: Maintenance inputs and costs per ha per yea

Remarks: Input costs include Jab planter US$ 20; herbicides US$ 5-G/liter. A knapsack costs US$ 50, which is not affordable for small-scale farmers (they have to get organised in groups, or hire spraying gangs). Comparing to the traditional slash-and- burn system, ‘minimum tillage and direct planting’ has increased input costs but reduced labour costs, and results in higher yields, which makes the conversion profitable!

Remarks: Initial investments can be high (pur- chasing of new equipment). Costs decrease in the long term and benefits increase.

Note: The technology ‘minimum tillage and direct planting’ is compared with the traditional slash- and-burn land use system.

As a supplementary technology tree rows (e.g. pines, cypress, or eucalyptus are planted as shelterbelts and for wood production along boundaries, in val- leys or on steep slopes.

Maintenance inputs and costs per ha per year Remarks: Main factors affecting the costs are machinery, spraying and labour. It takes more than 3 years to fully establish the conservation tillage system. During the conversion phase yields might be lower, and costs are approx. 25% less. Weaknesses => and how to overcome

Benefit-cost ratio Remarks: Positive pay-backs against establish- ment costs depend on the point in time of the conversion. If replacement of equipment is required anyway, conversion to conservation tillage is a profitable option, since total equip- ment costs are lower than those for conven- tional agriculture. Adoption

cstablisnment inputs and costs per farm Machinery for no-till includes: Tractor (110,000 US$), combined harvester (160,000 USS), sprayer (160,000 US$), direct seeder (110,000 US$). Life span is 10-15 years. For conversion from conventional to conservation agriculture usually only a direct seeder is needed as new equipment. Total equipment costs are less than half of the conventional tillage.

—— negative; — slightly negative; -/+ neutral; + slightly positive; ++ positive; +++ very positive “PD: person days. (Sources: WOCAT, 2009 and Hatibu, et al., 2004) Comment: For roof catchments and for small dams, ponds, etc. no directly related production benefits can be shown. The main benefits are related to the availability of clean and free household, as well as irrigation water.

(Sources: Projet d'‘Aménagement Agro-Sylvo-Pastoral Nord Tilla béry (PASP); Projet Développement Rural Tahoua (PDRT)) ee pens ~ ie Cost of selected RWH techniques

*for RWH techniques using external runoff and storage ponds (mean return from 1998 to 2002) In Tanzania a study was conducted on the productivity of RWH techniques. The results showed that farmers using RWH for maize and paddy could increase crop yields. How- ever the yield achieved can be depressed through higher labour requirements as well as low market prices. Other factors in pro- duction, such as fertility management, are essential for higher crop yields. Micro-catch- ments led to higher benefits than the use of storage ponds and macro-catchments, even though the increase in crop yield was higher with the latter, but the return to labour for storage ponds and macro-catch- ments is lower than for micro-catchments. The study also showed that using RWH techniques like storage ponds and macro- catchments is very beneficial for the produc- tion of vegetables with returns to labour of between 10 US$ and 200 US$ per person day, whereas for maize and paddies it rarely exceeds 10 US$ per person day. One rea- son for the better return under vegetables is the higher market price (Hatibu, et al.. 2004).

Labour is valued as 1-2 US$ per person day (Source: WOCAT, 2009)

*a) Micro-catchments, b) Macro-catchments, c) Small dams / ponds, d) Roof catchments

Tassa are often combined with stone lines along the contour to enhance water infiltration, reduce soil erosion and siltation of the pits. Grass growing between the stones helps increase infiltration further and accelerates the accumulation of fertile sediment.

Remarks: Establishment costs are for 2 pits.

Maintenance inputs and costs per ha per year Remarks: Labour costs are indicated for estab- lishment of tassa only (without application of stone lines). Maintenance costs refer to remov- ing sand from the pits from the second year onwards, and to manuring every second year (costs are spread on an annual basis). If applica- ble, costs for transporting the manure need to be added. The general assumption in these calcula- tions is that adequate manure is readily available close by. Land users bear 100% of all costs.

Benefit-cost ratio Remarks: Initial labour inputs pay out on the medium to long term.

If the dams are located on communal lands, their establishment requires full consultation and involvement of the local community. The government provides technical and financial assistance for design, construction and management of these infrastructures. Community contribution includes land, labour and local resources. The communhity carries out periodic maintenance of the infrastructure — including vegetation management on embankment, desilting etc. — and of the catchment areas (through soil and water conservation practices). VITA GALUT UAITIO AIG WALGT HAVOOULIY OLULAYS OLIUULUIGS, LVUITIOLIUULOU AUTUS: narrow sections of valleys, to impound runoff generated from upstream catch ment areas. Construction of the dam wall begins with excavation of a cor trench along the length of the dam wall which is filled with clay and compactec to form a central core (‘key’) that anchors the wall and prevents or minimise: seepage. The upstream and downstream embankments are built using so with a 20-30% clay content. During construction — either by human laboul animal draught or machine (bulldozer, compacter, grader etc.) — it is critical t ensure good compaction for stability of the wall. It is common to plant Kikuyt grass (Pennesetum clandestinum) to prevent erosion of the embankment. Thi dam is fenced with barbed wire to prevent livestock from eroding the wall. Typical length of the embankment is 50-100 m with water depth ranging 4-8 m An emergency spillway (vegetated or a concrete shute) is provided on either or both sides, of the wall for safe disposal of excess water above the full sup ply level. The dam water has a maximum throwback of 500 m, with a capacit ranging from 50,000 — 100,000 m°. The dams are mainly used for domesti consumption, irrigation or for watering livestock. If the dams are located on communal lands, their establishment requires fu consultation and involvement of the local community. The government provide: technical and financial assistance for design, construction and management c these infrastructures. Community contribution includes land, labour and loce resources. The community carries out periodic maintenance of the infrastructure — including vegetation management on embankment, desilting etc. — and of the

Maintenance inputs and costs per ha per year Off-site benefits

Remarks: Establishment costs are calculated for a dam with an earthwork volume of 10’000 m® (44 m long; 8 m deep; side slopes 3:1). 20% of costs are borne by the community (in-kind con- tribution: labour and local materials such as sand, stones). Construction machinery can include: tip- per truck, bulldozer, motor scraper, compactor, tractor, grader.

Main contributors: Maimbo Malesu, ICRAF-CGIAR; Nairobi, Kenya; m.malesu@cgiar.org Key references: The Jesuit Centre for Theological Reflection. 2010. Social Conditions Programme. http://www.mywage.org/zambia/main/minimum-wage/comparitive-minimum- wage. = Nissen-Petersen E. 2006. Water from small dams. A handbook for technicians, farmers and others on site investigations, designs, cost estimations, construction and main- tenance of small earth dams m Morris P. H. 1991. Statement of Policy: Progress Review of the Drought Relief Darn Cons/ruction Project, Southern Province. Part 1 — Main Report. Irrigation and Land Husbandry Branch, Department of Agriculture, Chéma. m Sichingabula H.M. 1997. Problems of sedimentation in small dams in Zambia. Human Impact on Erosion and Sedimentation (Proceedings of the Rabat Symposium, April 1997. IAHS Publ. no. 245, 1997

Maintenance inputs and costs per ha per year

Remarks: Establishment costs include the con- struction of diversion ditch, construction of blocks (irrigation basins); seeds and seedlings. Mainte- nance costs include the reconstruction of blocks / seedbed preparation; seeds and_ seedlings; weeding and cultivation; irrigation; harvest. Costs have been calculated assuming that 0.5 ha of the land is planted by fruit trees and 0.5 ha planted with vegetables. Daily wage cost of hired labor to implement SLM is 0.85 US$. All costs are met by the land users themselves.

Spread of Smallholder Irrigation Management in SSA.

Mainly applied in: Burundi, Burkina Faso, Chad, Gambia, Guinea, Kenya, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Tanzania, Zimbabwe

Establishment costs for SIM-systems vary considerably. Drip irrigation systems carry relatively high investment costs. Some traditional systems are (or were) high in initial labour — where for example intricate networks of channels brought water down from highland streams. Maintenance of the latter has almost always been carried out with no external support. If the costs for a drip irrigation system are worked out per hectare then the prices appear high. Yet it is the low incremen- tal cost that allows land users to start on a small area (e.g. for horticultural pro- duction). The costs for small-scale drip kits have decreased dramatically which makes them now affordable for small-scale users. Even so it still requires initial investment and hence access to micro-credit: this means it is not a possibility for the poorest of land users. Land user groups provide an opportunity for joint investment in the equipment. Maintenance costs for SIM cannot be neglected: drip irrigation systems, espe- cially, need careful maintenance. However, the implementation of a drip irrigation system in place of watering with cans lessens the labour input, reduces the water used and therefore the fuel costs. An example based on drip irrigation introduced in an African Market Garden system (AMG: see case study) has shown a reduc- tion in workload from 240 man hours when irrigating with watering cans com- pared to 90 man hours with drip irrigation in the AMG system.

—— negative; — slightly negative; -/+ neutral; + slightly positive; ++ positive; +++ very positive; “AMG: African Market Garden system based on drip irrigation and crop species selection (Source: Mati, 20085; Woltering, et al., 2009) Comment: The figures presented above show the higher crop yield for the AMG system compared to the traditional system with watering cans. Beside the improved irrigation system the crop varieties selected also influence the yield.

AMG is promoted as a holistic management package, integrating all aspects of production, post-harvest and marketing in one system. This includes the use of improved vegetable varieties, improved crop husbandry, integrated pest management, as well as improved storage, processing and marketing of prod- ucts, and improved access to inputs.

Benefit-cost ratio Remarks: Payback period is only 6 months. Net income per farmer after all deduction is about US$ 1,000 per year. The profitability of the AMG is around double that of vegetable gardens irri- gated with traditional methods. Adoption Remarks: A unit corresponds to the area irri- gated by one producer (= 500 m*). Establish- ment costs include labour inputs (2 US$ per person-day). Annual maintenance costs include labour, fuel and agricultural inputs (e.g. fertilizer, seeds; based on ICRISAT recommended rates). For a 1,000 m?-unit prices are doubled (except for tools and fence).

Maintenance inputs and costs per unit and year

QItlons - Upsiope OF GOWNSIOPe). The system is remarkably efficient in sandy or salty soils. It is adapted to small— scale farming especially for vegetable crops, rice and tree crops and is suitable for areas ranging between 0.25 - 1 ha; one riser irrigates an area of 500-1000 m?. The system as such does not require maintenance. In case of deterioration of pipes or fittings, the farmer can easily fix the problem himself or with the assistance of a local plumber. The estimated life expectancy for the Californian system is 6-10 years in West African conditions. Ideal conditions for transfer / adoption of the technology include: (1) availability of shallow aquifers, and other water sources; (2) occurrence of sandy soils and sandy clay soils; (3) clearly defined land legislation and tenure; (4) access to markets and to microfinance institutions.

Benefit-cost ratio Remarks: The estimated life expectancy for the Californian system is 6-10 years in the West Afri- can conditions. Remarks: If soil is not sandy labour input for establishment increases. Hand or treadle pumps are provided by the project. Motor pumps (with pump capacity 2 HP) increase costs for estab- lishment and maintenance (fuel) but reduce labour inputs for operation.

There are two cropping seasons per year: the rainy season (June-September) with staple crops such as maize and millet; and the dry / cold season (October- February) with wheat-barley associations and cash crops such as onions, gar- lic, tomatoes and vegetables. Fruit trees covering up to a fifth of the gardens; one section of the garden is reserved for keeping small ruminants. Agricultural residues are used as fodder and manure produced by livestock ensures fertil- ity of gardens in combination with inorganic fertilizers. Traditional techniques (local plants, ash, etc.) are used for pest management. Seed production and salaction is done strictly locally.

Maintenance inputs and costs per 0.5 ha per year

Remarks: The technology serves a double pur- pose: food security and income generation.

Establishment inputs and costs per 0.5 ha

Spate irrigation has a long history in Eritrea and still forms the livelinood base for rural communities in arid lowlands of the country. It is a traditional water diversion and spreading technique under which seasonal floods of short dura- tion — springing from the rainfall-rich highlands — are diverted from ephemeral rivers (wadis) to irrigate cascades of leveled and bunded fields in the coastal plains. The diversion structures include the following elements: (1) the ‘agim’, a temporary 3-4 m high river diversion structure on the low-flow side of the wadi, made from brushwood, tree trunks, earth, stones and / or boulders, erected to divert a large part of the flow during a spate flow to adjacent agricultural fields; (2) a primary, and several secondary distribution canals; unlined, bor- dered by earthen embankments; convey and spread the floodwater to the irri- gable fields; (3) the fields, rectangular shaped, of about 1-2 ha, separated by earthen bunds. Floodwater is distributed from field to field: when a field is com- pletely flooded (to a depth of about 0.5 m), water is conveyed to the immediate downstream field by breaching one of the bunds. This process continues until all the water is used up. Arable fields need to be flooded several times. The water soaks deep into the soil profile (up to 2.4 m) and provides moisture sufficient for two or even three harvests: crop growth is entirely dependent on the residual soil moisture. The main crop grown is sorghum; maize is the next most important. Sedimentation is as important as water management: With each flood, soil is built up by depositing rich sediment on the fields. Due to the force of the floods, the diversion structures are frequently damaged and / or washed away. Reconstruction and maintenance are labour-intensive and require collective community action. Elaborate local regulations, organisation Pp ge | ae ay a eens Se ee eta peenndion encdenas ch a ame) ian

Adoption Main contributors: Abraham Mehari Haile, UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education, Delft, The Netherlands; A.MehariHaile@unesco-ihe.org Key references: Abraham Mehari H, Van Steenbergen F, Verheijen O, Van Aarst S:Spate Irrigation, Livelihood Improvement and Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change; = Mehretak Tesfai Stroosnijder L:The Eritrean spate irrigation system m= Abraham Mehari, Depeweg, H, Schultz B (2005): Hydraulic Performance Evaluation of The Wadi Laba Spate Irrigation System in Eritrea, in Irrigation and Drainage. 54: 389-406; online: Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). = Berhane Haile G, Van Steenbergen F: Agricultural Water Management in Ephemeral Rivers: Community Management in Spate Irrigation in Eritrea; in African Water Journal m Berhane Haile G: Community Spate Irrigation in Bada, Eritrea m Mehretab Tesfai, Stroosnijder L (2000): The Eritrean spate irrigation system; on-line: linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/SO3878377400001 153

Ecological conditions Establishment inputs and costs per unit

* based on expert estimation for a duration of the first 10-20 years of changed land use management

——negative,— slightly negative; -/+ neutral; + slightly positive; ++ positive; +++ very positive (Sources: Tenge et al., 2005 and WOCAT, 2009)

(Sources: Mwangi et al., 2001; Tenge et al., 2005; Alemayehu et al., 2006) Production benefits

*PD: Person days (labour is valued as 1-2 US$ per day), (Source: WOCAT, 2009) Establishment and Maintenance costs

Enabling environment: key factors for adoption During the colonial period in Kenya, in the 1950s, bench terracing used to be forced on local people, and after independence in 1963, many terraces were destroyed or neglected. After the soil conservation extension cam- paigns of the 1970s-1980s, bench terraces were adopted by farmers living on steep mountain slopes of Central and Eastern Provinces, especially on farms where coffee was grown (Mburat, 2006).

Aloe vera is well adapted to the local biophysical conditions and to the pre- vailing land use system: it can be used with any crop and is available to all farmers; establishment and transport is simple, its leaves are not palatable to livestock, the plant is extremely resistant to water stress and grows in any bioclimatic zone on the island. Furthermore, Aloe vera is known for its multiple uses in traditional medicine.

Remarks: Labour inputs for implementation are rewarded by project: Individuals of poor com- munities receive a salary of 3 US$ per day. Plants are collected locally. Establishment costs do not include labour-intensive construction of stone risers (Supportive measure). Maintenance costs are borne by land users. Off-site benefits +++ Recharge groundwater table / aquifer

Benefit-cost ratio Remarks: Maintenance is not costly, it’s simply vegetative control and punctual replanting.

Fanya juu terraces are associated with hand construction, and are well suited to small-scale farms. Fanya juu is applicable where soils are too shallow for level bench terracing and on moderately steep slopes (e.g. < 20%), they are not suitable for stony soils. The purpose of the fanya juu is to reduce loss of soil and water, and thereby to improve conditions for plant growth. The embankment impounds runoff water, eroded soil and nutrients. As a consequence of water and tillage erosion, sedi- ment accumulates behind the bund, making it necessary to periodically build up the embankment (by throwing silted material from the trench upslope). In this way fanya juu terraces gradually develop into forward sloping terraces. Grass strips require trimming to keep them dense.

Socio-cultural benefits Maintenance inputs and costs per ha per year

Remarks: These calculations are based on a 15% slope with 830 running metres of terraces per hectare with typical dimensions and spac- ing (See technical drawing).

Benefit-cost ratio Remarks: As the terrace is built up gradually over the years, establishment costs can be limited. Adoption

Benefit-cost ratio Remarks: The profit is very marginal but without the terraces no harvest is expected. The land users continue to invest on the terraces as long as they can make a living from the land this way.

Remarks: Duration of establishment phase is 5 years. Land users maintain the terrace at least twice a year, mainly while preparing the land for crops. Labour inputs for maintenance are usu- ally 25-30% of construction. Daily wage of hired labour is about US$ 1; material costs include collection and sizing of stones.

* for a duration of the first 20-30 years of changed land use management, depending on the selected tree species (Source: Nair et al., 2009)

Based on case studies from Ethiopia, Kenya and Togo (Source: WOCAT, 2009)

Re ACGEEIPIIG: ENICUE UOC E, INGIIY SE Within a study conducted in Kitui district, Kenya it was determined whether growing Melia volkensii trees in croplands was cost effective or not. The value of timber proad- ucts gained with that of the crop value lost due to competition over an 11-year rota- tion were compared. Costs for seed, cultiva- tion, tree planting stock or labour were not taken into account, which would increase the surplus of cash from the tree products because in recent years, crop failure has occured 50% of the time. It was shown that at the end of the rotation, the accumu- lated income from tree products exceeded the accumulated value of crop yield lost through competition by US$ 10 or 42% dur- ing average years and US$ 22 or 180% with the assumption of 50% crop failure due to drought. (In this district of Kenya, on average six of the 16 cropping seasons have failed) l\nn at al 4QQQ In \Aarnhnt at ol ONN7)

—— negative; — slightly negative; -/+ neutral; + slightly positive; ++ positive; +++ very positive (Source: WOCAT, 2009)

Production benefits (Source: Malawi Agroforestry Extension Project; in Woodfine, 2009)

Parts of the homegarden area are irrigated and drained by a network of over 1,000 canals and furrows tapping runoff from the montane forest. However, many systems are now in disrepair. Starting in the 1930s when coffee took more space from the food production, it became necessary to expand food production to the lowlands. Today, the Chagga highland homegarden works only in combination with a lowland field where maize, millet, beans, sunflower and groundnuts are grown to ensure food security.

Case study area: Mt. Kilimanjaro Region, Tanzania Establishment inputs and costs per ha

Benefit-cost ratio Weaknesses => and how to overcome Adoption Remarks: Chagga homegardens are traditional systems which evolved over centuries through a gradual transformation of the natural forest into agroforestry gardens. Establishment of new gar- dens is not possible due to land shortage. Locally well adopted traditional land use system, covering an area of approximately 1,200 km?; further spread at local level is not possible due to land shortage. Migration of young people to urban areas leads to labour shortages and dis- rupts intergenerational knowledge transmission, required for the successful management and perpetuation of the homegardens.

Maintenance inputs and costs per ha per year Ecological benefits

The denser the shelterbelts are, the better the windbreaking effect, but the higher the competition with crops for nutrients, light and water. Frequent pruning helps to avoid too much competition and provides fuelwood. In case leguminous tree species are used, soil properties can be improved through nitrogen fixation and the provision of organic matter (leaves).

Remarks: The monetary costs include the pur- chase of seeds, cuttings or nursery plants and labour for the preparation and planting. In certain circumstances, it is necessary to protect young trees against browsing and other damage.

Adoption Main contributors: Mawuss! Gbenoncni, Ecole superieure d Agronomie, Universite ae Lome (ESA UL), Lome, logo; gmawussi@gmall.com Key references: Care International Togo. 1997. Agroforestry training and demonstrations in northern Togo. Final report to European Union B7-5040/93/21 = Louppe, D., H. Yossi 1999. Les haies vives défensives en zones séches et subhumides d'Afrique de l’Ouest. Atelier Jachéres, Dakar. m Ariga, E. S., 1997. Availability and Role of Multipurpose Trees anc Shrubs in Sustainable Agriculture in Kenya. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 10:2/3, 25-35. m WOCAT. 2007. WOCAT database on SLM technologies. www.wocat.net

“ area the three most valuable species — as perceived by land users — are Faid- herbia albida; Piliostigma reticulatum and Guiera senegalensis. The ideal density, when grown with cereal crops, is between 50 and 100 trees per hectare. For each stump, the tallest and straightest stems are selected and side branches removed to roughly half of the stem height. Excess shoots are then removed. Regular pruning of any unwanted new stems and side branches stimulates growth rates. Farmers are encouraged to leave 5 stems / shoots per tree, cutting one stem each year and letting another grow in its place. On remov- ing a shoot, the cut leaves are left on the surface where they reduce erosion and are then eaten by termites, returning the nutrients to the soil. The remain- ing shoots continue to grow, providing a continuous supply of wood. From the first year, firewood is collected from trimmings. From the second year on, cut branches are thick enough to sell. A more intensive form of FMNR is to profit from every stump sprouting on the land. This option allows idle land to become a productive resource during an otherwise unproductive eight-month dry season. FMNR is a simple, low-cost and multi-benefit method of re-vegetation, acces- sible to all farmers, and adapted to the needs of smallholders. It reduces dependency on external inputs, is easy to practice and provides multiple ben- efits to people, livestock, crops and the environment. Tree layout will need to be carefully considered if ploughs are used for cultivation.

Remarks: Main costs are in the form of labour. One man could prepare one hectare in 1-3 days, depending on tree density (labour is undertaken by the farm owner and rarely through paid labour). No inputs used; no extra tools needed, tools are available on-farm (hoe, axe, machete etc). Maintenance costs depend on tree density also and could require 1-2 days/year/ha.

Remarks: Annual income from selling wood: US$ 140 (from the 6th year after implementa- tion). By some estimates, total benefit per hec- tare (incl. wood sales, increased crop yield, increased livestock productivity, wild foods and medicines etc.) are in the order of US$ 200/ha, compared to an investment in labour US$ 10-15.

Remarks: Data on costs is not available. How- ever, costs for management of the land use sys- tem are low; only some pruning and trimming of trees is needed which is effectively ‘harvesting’ of fodder and wood.

Remarks: Costs of establishment and mainte- nance in traditional parklands are difficult to quantify because trees usually arise through nat- ural regeneration and then are ‘nurtured’. Annual returns from the sale of neré products were esti- mated at 50-60 US$ (26% of farmers’ income) and karité / shea nut activities can represent 20-60% of women’s income in rural areas.

* for a duration of the first 10-20 years of changed land use management (Source: Woodfine, 2009)

Integrated Crop-Livestock Management in SSA.

While a 250 kg cow deposits about 1 kg of manure dry matter per night, 7 sheep or 7 goats are needed to produce this same amount. Thus, to cover 1 hectare of land with 2.5 tonnes of manure, a herd of 15 cattle would need to be corralled during 167 nights; alternatively 178 nights would be needed if 70 small ruminants were corralled. Since individual herds are often smaller than 15 cattle (or 70 small ruminants) and fields are larger than 1 hectare, it is recom- mended to organise corralling of fields within a community (village) of farmers and especially to revitalise the traditional corralling contracts (‘contrats de par- ca|aqe’) with transhtymant herders.

Establishment inputs and costs per ha Production / economic benefits

Maintenance inputs and costs per ha per year Socio-cultural benefits * 14 minutes on 178 days in year 1; 0 days in years 2-3 Remarks: Labour costs incur in a 3-years cycle: putting and changing the poles on a specific field is done in year 1, while in years 2 and 3 the respective field is cultivated, and no corralling takes place. Actual labour input for corralling in year 1 is 4-5 days (= 10-15 minutes during approx. 170 days), equivalent to US$ 10-13; maintenance costs given in the tables above refer to the average expenses of the whole 3-years cycle.

*11 minutes on 167 days in year 1; 0 days in years 2-3 Weaknesses Adoption

Maintenance inputs and costs per ha per year Remarks: Establishment of housing infrastruc- ture is done collectively, involving dozens of community members within less than a week. Construction material is taken from the wood- lands; many parts are re-used after moving. While expenses are expressed in US$, in reality costs are in kind (mutual help) or not paid for (free lumber). Maintenance activities include: maintenance and re-building of dwellings. Costs for crop cultivation (US$ 335-535 annu- ally) are not included.

Remarks: The impact of the measure on soil productivity is increasing in the mid and long term.

In the study area, the fenced and protected communal grazing land has been divided into small plots (<0.5 ha) and distributed to individual users for cutting hay, as an incentive to stimulate proper management. The government pro- vides training, technical assistance, close follow-up, and some inputs for initial establishment. gd sree a ean Lc a a ar et ll alle th The technology involves a combination of management, agronomic and veg- etative measures: fencing to exclude open access, application of compost to improve soil fertility, planting of improved local and exotic fodder species, including multipurpose shrubs / trees (including nitrogen fixing species) leg- umes, and the local desho grass (Pennisetum pedicellatum). Desho has a high nutritive value and ensures regular cuts. It is planted by splits, which have high survival rates and establish better than grasses which are seeded. Other grass seeds and legumes are mixed with fodder tree seeds and then broadcast. Legumes include alfalfa (Medicago sativa) and clovers in some cases. The area is permanently closed for livestock. Fodder is cut and carried for stall-feeding and once a year, grass is cut for hay, which is stored to feed animals during the dry season. In the study area, the fenced and protected communal grazing land has been

Benefit-cost ratio Remarks: Milk production compensates for some of the high investment costs (previously, production was low).

Maintenance inputs and costs per ha per year Remarks: Seedlings are given by the govern- ment for initial establishment. For further exten- sion of area and replanting, the land users set up their own nurseries. After 2-3 years mainte- nance costs decrease substantially as the grass cover closes up and maintenance activities such as replanting and compost application are reduced or cease. The local daily wage is about US$ 0.70 a day.

After decomposition the manure is removed from the pit and distributed on the fields beginning of each cropping season (March). Then straw bedding is renewed and the process starts from scratch. During the dry season from December to March smallstock is left to graze freely on the fields and pastures. The fosse is partly roofed to provide optimal micro-climatic conditions: partial shading, partial exposure to sunlight and appropriate moistening through rain- fall. Inside the pit, one or more circular terraces (0.5 m high, 0.5 m wide) serve as resting area for the animals. The terrace riser need to be plastered or rein- forced with stones, particularly in case of loose soil, to avoid damage caused by animal trampling.

Maintenance inputs and costs per ha per year Adoption

Remarks: Main cost-relevant factor is labour. Material such as stones and straw are available on the farm (no monetary costs).

Definition: Pastoralism and rangeland management refer to extensive production of livestock using pastures and browse, and is mainly found in arid and semi-arid areas. In SSA the term ‘pastoralism‘ is usually associated with the use of common property resources subject to some group agreements rather than ‘open access’. ‘Ranching’ on the other hand implies individual, privatised land ownership. Pasto- ralism is based on open grazing lands, e.g. savannas, grasslands, prairies, steppes, and shrublands, managed through herding. Pastoralists adopt opportunistic land use strategies, that is they follow resources of grazing / browsing and water, destock in times of drought (often de facto through livestock mortality rather than stock sales) but have rapid response post-drought restocking strategies (commonly based first on the high reproduction rates amongst indigenous sheep and goats). There are many types and degrees of pastoral mobility, which vary according to environmental conditions or the given household situation. Mobility can be sea- sonal, regular between two well-defined pasture areas, or following erratic rain. It is rarely the same from one year to another. Movement is not necessarily under- taken only for resource-based reasons; it can be for trade or because of conflict. Pastoral activities have conventionally been considered uneconomic and eco- logically destructive. Current thinking increasingly recognises these strategies as economically viable, environmentally sustainable, and compatible with devel- opment. The challenge is to adapt traditional pastoralism to today’s changing environmental conditions. Establishment of feed banks, improvement of herd composition and health, a more dense distribution of wells, collection and stor- age of surface water by, for example, ‘charco dams’, adaptive grazing, land use plans, access to markets, and empowerment are such opportunities.

Main benefits: Mobile herding systems combine economic production in mar- ginalised land and environmental protection (biodiversity) of vulnerable ecosys- tems, which have been modified over time by pastoralism itself; improved food security and livelihood of marginalised and disadvantaged people. The vast areas of degraded rangeland play a vital role in sequestering carbon. Dry soils are bet- ter longer term sinks for C than soils in more humid environments. “for proper rangeland management in US$ and for a duration of the first 10-20 years of changed land use management (Schumann et al., 2002 in FAO, 2004).

Modelled distribution of livestock production systems in Eastern Africa (Source: Cecchi et al, 2010).

Top: Cattle and camels in a pastoral system, Kenya. (Wiliam Critchley) Middle: Livestock in a pastoral system, Mali. (William Critchley) Bottom: Livestock ranching close to a water point on a private estate, South Africa. (William Critchley)

* Tropical Livestock Unit, 4 hectares of rangeland per TLU (Source: Hatfield and Davies, 2006) Pastoral production provides multiple products. It tends to focus on animal prod- ucts (especially milk), rather than animals for slaughter.

Maintenance inputs and costs per ha per year Adoption Weaknesses => and how to overcome 800,000-500,000 ha of woodland restored 1986-2001 (most of Nogjitilis are individual, but area-wise half-half), over 800 villages; 60-70% of all households have Nogitilis.

ree Once an agreement on the course of the couloir is achieved, demarcation with stones and / or boundary planting with selected tree species is carried out by the local land users - with financial and technical assistance of the govern- ment or NGOs. Common species involve: Euphorbia balsamifera, Acacia spp. (A. nilotica; A. senegal); and Faidherbia albida. Management committees at the community level draw up regulations for the management of the couloirs (maintenance and protection of vegetation). Protection of plants is achieved through dead branches (at the initial stage), daily control by forest guards, and information campaigns. The technology is a sustainable solution to the described conflicts. As a valuable by-product the trees along the demarcation lines provide wood and non-woody by-products. the use of limited lana and water resources. | nese conilicts are Oollen provoked by cattle entering cropping areas. The establishment of demarcated passageways allows the livestock to access water points and pastures without causing damage to cropland. The corri- dors are regulated through the ‘code rural’ — a national law defining the land use rights of the pastoralists. Demarcation of couloirs is based on a consen- sual decision of all concerned interest groups. Internal couloirs are negotiated in a general on-site assembly involving all stakeholders (farmers, breeders, women’s groups, local authorities). For the demarcation of external couloirs the involvement of transhumance herders and neighboring villages is indis- pensable. The ‘couloirs de passage’ are formally defined passageways which channel the movements of livestock herds in the agropastoral zones of Niger, by link- ing pastures, water points and coralling areas, be it within village areas (inter- nal couloirs) or on open land (external couloirs). The main goal of the couloirs is the prevention of conflict between agriculturalists and pastoralists regarding the use of limited land and water resources. These conflicts are often provoked by cattle entering cropping areas. ee ee Se | ees ee

Establishment activities Photo 1: Demarcation of a couloir de passage with two line of Euphorbia seedlings. (LUCOP / Abdoulaye Soumaila) Photo 2: A herd of small ruminants passing a well estab- lished couloir. (Fodé Boubacar Camara, PAFN)

Maintenance inputs and costs per km per year Remarks: The costs of the planning meeting (general assembly) and the stones for delimitation were not taken into account. Daily salary for field work is US$ 1.5. Costs for seedlings were calcu- lated for a couloir length of 1 km and a spacing of 3 m between plants (one tree line on each side). Seedling production is financed by projects, only transport costs are met by land users.

Remarks: Peace between communities is the key result in the short and long term. Ecological and economic benefits are linked to the planta- tion of trees and the improved management of natural resources.

Within this area ‘Pastoral Modernisation Zones’ have been implemented, based on a new concept of semi-pastoralism to assure the sustainability of the pastoral land use system. Several practices are promoted at field level: improved distribution of water points, establishment of water harvesting struc- tures. improved passageways for herds, imoroved fodder production, etc. Pastoralism, as practised in the case study area, is the traditional mode ot extensive livestock husbandry, based on the movement of herds between the rich pastures in the northern pastoral zones (rainy season) and the southern areas (dry season) according to seasonal availability of water and grazing land / fodder (including residual vegetation of cropland). Both forms of pastoralism —nomadism and transhumance — are facing increasing water and fodder avail- ability problems, due to a variety of reasons: change of climatic conditions, expansion of cropland, overstocking and overgrazing, amongst others. In view of these problems, the government of Niger has defined by law a pastoral zone, where crop production is limited to subsistence. DAE Re eS eS LOE eB erg eee seyienn gree YS [ey Rene Me’, fg UAE Rees emereennnel oncee kh. 2 eemerenty | tsar erent e ng 2s a eaRC Ey |) PR ACeR penny NAST) L-CACRPNZEEN [ue SCOp ODOR IOI SUCH f

Maintenance inputs and costs per well per year Remarks: A management fund is established and managed by each well committee. Well users contribute annually, or each time mainte- nance work is needed. Amounts of contribution are not fixed but up to the individual, and gener- ally proportionate to herd size. Committee can fine land users who damage the wells.

Production / economic benefits Off-site benefits

Ideal resting periods vary with growth rate, and with the rate at which the veld loses its quality with maturity. Depending on the season, the climate and the use of irrigation, resting periods vary between 14 and 70 days, and even longer in the semi-arid grasslands (90-150 days). Appropriate stocking rates are assessed through 4 rating factors (defining the veld condition): species composition, basal cover, topography and soil erodibility.

Establishment inputs and costs per 500 ha Production / economic benefits Ecological conditions

Maintenance inputs and costs per 500 ha per year

Remarks: Estimated establishment time for a 500 ha farm with 8 paddocks more or less 6 months. The establishment and maintenance costs depend on farm size and the details of the farm plan / design of the paddock system including variables such as number of pad- docks, number of stock watering points, number of boreholes, etc. Above mentioned costs are merely an indication for a typical livestock farm of 500 ha.

“for the first 20-30 years of afforestation in drylands, depending on the selected tree species (FAO, 2004 and GTZ, 2009)

Origin: Large-scale plantation of exotic tree species in Africa originated dur- ing the colonial period with foreign investments and regulated by governments. Nowadays, there is a shift from previously government controlled management towards increased involvement of the private sector and small-scale producers. Since the 1960s, the emphasis has been maintained on fast-growing species pri- marily grown for supplying industrial wood (pulp and paper industry, fuelwood). In 2000, the total plantation area in Africa was 8,036,000 ha of which 42% are com- mercial-industrial plantations. Planted forests represent, only a very small fraction of the total forest cover in SSA (between 0.3% - 2.3% of the total). Top: Watering nursery seedlings for desertification control, Senegal. (Lyes Ferouki) Middle: Eucalyptus plantation for timber and fuelwood production, Ethiopia. (Hanspeter Liniger) Bottom: Environmental protective plantations on steep slopes, Eritrea. (Mats Gurtner)

—-— negative; — slightly negative; -/+ neutral; + slightly positive; ++ positive; +++ very positive (Source: FAO, 2002) Comment: The figures above show the rotation length and the productivity of different commonly used tree species in planted forests.

Example: South Africa Small-scale out-grower schemes in South Africa represent an investment of more than R 50 million (US$ 7 million), which should gen- erate revenues of about R 175 million (US$ 24 million) for growers when the plantations are harvested. The small timber growers sup- plement their livelihoods with growing of food crops on the periphery of their woodlots. They make good profits and many have extended their operations from a single woodlot to three or four. Furthermore, the local community benefits from increased participation in the monetary market and from job opportunities created by the contracting by the companies of support services for planting, maintenance, harvesting and transportation. Small growers and rural communities also benefit from train- ing programmes offered by the forest com- panies (Chamshama and Nwonwu, 2004). Comment: It is very difficult to provide figures to the costs of planted forests. There are large differences by the type of planted forests, by initial conditions and by country.

The big challenge is to gradually replace the stands of Casuarina trees that have reached senescence (after approx. 30 years). A management plan has been developed to assure the continuity of this important protective system. UT re til | ee yve'! CAADIA UTC MO VITAYGeo Cb PivVYyYyvll! 1Tabnoado. The establishment of the tree belt started in the 1970s and continued until the late 1990s. The exotic nitrogen-fixing Casuarina equisetifolia was found to per fectly fit into the harsh ecological environment with its poor sandy soils, stron, winds, shifting sand and proximity to the sea. Seedlings were raised in nurser ies, then planted on a 2.5 x 2.5 m grid — protected by palisades and irrigatec at the initial stage. The filao belt covers an area of about 9,700 ha and effec tively halts wind erosion and movement of sand dunes, resulting in multiple positive impacts on the environment and the 120,000 people living in the area it provides protection of villages, allowing vegetable production in inter-dune depressions, and last but not least - builds up resources of wood. Without the tree belt, life in the Niayes would not be possible. Furthermore, wind speec was reduced also on the sea side, making inshore fishery possible during the whole year (before it was limited to 3 months).

Production / economic benefits Establishment inputs and costs per ha

Remarks: Land users emphasise that without the technology they would not be able to live in this area.

Remarks: Costs for establishment are high. All inputs were fully subsidised. Implementing agency was governmental ‘Service des Eaux et Foréts’ with funding from ACDI and USAID. Reestablishment starts after 25-30 years when trees reach senescence. Off-site benefits

Remarks: Labour costs include construction of hillside terrace, pitting, planting and spot weed- ing and cultivation. According to the work and payment norms of the Ministry of Agriculture the cost of 1 person-day is US$ 2.66. Produc- tion cost of one seedling is US$ 0.2. Mainte- nance costs include terrace maintenance, re-pitting and replanting of seedlings. Costs are calculated for gentle slopes with terraces spaced al 225 i

Remarks: Initial labour inputs payout on the long term.

The increasing speed at which desertification is progressing in Sahelian coun- tries makes this technology one of the main instruments for combating the impacts of climate change. Land that has been sown with grass needs to be enclosed in the early years to avoid interference by animals. AVVISY VIIA VOLy laAbyorovaiG II UNG INIYOr TIVE! Udolll. Palisades are made either of millet stalks, or doum or date palm fronds, according to availability in the region. They are established in a perpendicular direction to the wind, at a spacing of 10 —- 20 meters depending on severity of sand encroachment and level of land degradation. The closer the spacing, the more effective is the protection. Tree seedlings or cuttings are planted on a 5m x 5m grid, with a density of 400 trees per hectare. Species include Euphorbia balsamifera, Prosopis chilensis, Ziziphus mauritiana, Acacia sen- egal and Bauhina rufescens. Grass seeds are broadcasted. The increasing speed at which desertification is progressing in Sahelian coun- Doma women bbctem dea baeclimemes Skee ck hin: care ptmdbise caw ew ce orca bec ee oe

Maintenance inputs and costs per ha per year Remarks: Figures are based on estimates. Costs for seedlings / cuttings are indicated for Euphorbia balsamifera. For other tree species costs need to be doubled or tripled (higher pro- duction costs at the nursery).

Remarks: The technology is efficient in the mid to long term when it supports natural regenera- tion of ecosystems. In the Niger River basin, however, the benefits are lower.

Spread of dry forests in SSA. (Source: CIFOR, 2006)

References and | supporting information:

Property rights for the protected area are clearly established through a con- tractual agreement that includes / respects traditional and government land rights. The local land users select the area, provide all labour inputs and ensure the long term management of the sites according to mutually agreed goals. Training is provided to enhance income generating activities — ranging from beekeeping and the production of high-value vegetable crops to the process- ing of non-timber forestry products — and to promote the use of fuel-efficient cooking stoves. Management activities in the protected area includes (1) seeding / planting of improved fodder species; and (2) establishing stone lines and half-moons (demi-lunes) for soil erosion control and water harvesting, (8) installing bee- hives for honey production; and (4) fodder production: the grass is cut, tied and carried to feed livestock outside the regeneration area.

Maintenance inputs and costs for 3 ha per year Remarks: A unit relates to a protected area of 3 hectares (average size; feasible and beneficial for participating land users, namely farm fami- lies / womens’ groups). Labour for establish- ment includes: digging of planting pits / ditches, post installation, fabrication of chain-link fence materials, all plantations, stone lines, half- moons, etc. Components for fence construc- tion are locally available. Weaknesses => and how to overcome

Benefit-cost ratio Adoption Main contributors: Franziska Kaguembéga-Miuller, Coordinatrice ONG newTree, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso; kaguembega@newtree.org; www.newtree.org Key references: Diatta, M; Albergel, J.; Perez, P.; Faye, E.; Séne, M. et Grouzis, M. 2000. Efficacité de la mise en défens testée dans |’'aménagement d’un petit bassin versant de Thysse Kaymor (Sénégal). 15 p. = Guinko S., 1984. Végétation de Haute Volta, Volume |. Thése de Doctorat : Université de Bordeaux Ill (France). Tome, 394p.

Establishment activities The management of the tapia woodlands has evolved over centuries and in recent times has been supported by state imposed regulations. Thus no establishment activities can be listed here.

Maintenance inputs and costs per ha per year Remarks: The estimation of costs is difficult - fruit are gathered over a two month period by school children going out for an hour in the early morning each day; the silkworms are collected by individuals (usually experienced collectors) on free days. In some areas, projects exist that run silkworm nurseries, establish firebreaks in the woodlands, grow and plant tapia seedlings, and finance the purchase of silk looms. These projects obviously require much larger budgets.

Benefit-cost ratio Remarks: The larger rainy season silk harvest provides crucial cash income during the meagre months before the rice harvest. In 1998, the price of 200 cocoons was between US$ 0.10- 0.15. For a basket of tapia fruits villagers earned between 0.02-0.06 US$/kg. During the harvest the tapia woodlands produce about 4 kg of fruits per ha (= US$ 0.1-0.25/ha). Dependence upon woodlands for cash income varies from 0-40%.

Area of rainforests in Sub-Saharan Africa. Sustainable rainforest management mainly in: Forest management plans are in effect in Cameroon, Congo, Gabon and CAR. Cameroon and CAR have more than 75% of the concession with agreed management plans, whereas the larger DRC has none. In Central Africa, the forest area certified by the Forest Stew- ardship Council (FSC) was about 4.7 million ha in 2009: Cameroon (0.9 million ha), Congo (1.9 million ha) and Gabon (1.9 million ha). Cameroon, CAR and EG have more than 20% of their land under protection, whereas in Congo, DRC and Gabon the protected area ranges between 9-11% of the total land area.

Origin: Prior to the colonial era, the sacred character of forests helped to conserve them as part of traditional community resource management systems. After the 1992 Earth Summit, Central African countries adopted laws and regulations includ- ing sustainable management plans, community involvement and conservation objectives. However, the execution of these regulations is not sufficiently successful. Spread of rainforests: 180 million ha are covered by rainforests (out of 582 million ha of forests). They are mainly found within the Central African Republic (CAR), the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Equatorial Guinea (EG), Gabon and the Republic of Congo. Rainforests are also found in Cameroon, the high mountain areas of Ethiopia, Kenya, West Africa (e.g. Benin, Ghana, Guinea Bis- sau, Guinea, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Togo) and in costal zones in South Africa, Madagascar, etc. wm... gt Lk. 8 eg me at a te

(Source: Ingram Verina, see case study on Community Forestry) Since Sustainable Rainforest Management (SRFM) is mainly a political and man- agement issue, the assessment of costs is limited and depends closely on the specific technical and political aspects implemented. Community forestry in Cameroon includes very high establishment costs includ- ing marking the boundaries and agreeing on forest use zones, inventory of forest resources, management plans, etc. However, once established the operation of the system is at a low price. Establishment and maintenance costs Economics

Case study area: Mount Oku region, North- west Cameroon Establishment inputs and costs per beehive

Maintenance inputs and costs per beehive per year Remarks: Labour costs depend on number of hives and distance from household. Costs vary with pro- duction level and availability of equipment (knife, mesh filter, buckets). Harvest equipment can be basic and includes smokers (bunch of grass / metal smoker) and bee suits (also made locally).

Remarks: For a start up, 5 beehives are needed. Labour includes collection / purchase of materi- als. Hives can be made from local materials (e.g. raffia palm, mud, rattan, lianas, grasses, wood, or sawn planks for top bar hives) and by using availa- ble tools (machete, axe, knife; lifespan 2-5 years).

Remarks: Initial investment in hives often recouped in 2-5 years, depending on level of production.

Budget: Large. set- up costs: average 2,600- 32,000 US$/ha (max. 59’000 US$) over 2-4 years; operating costs: average 2,000 US$/ha/ year over the 25 year period of a CF.

Approach costs were met by the following contributors / donors: Benefits of SLM Approach

Subsidies financed under the approach: Access to credits

cxample: Green Water Credits Green Water Credits (GWC) attempts to bridge the incentive yap between upstream and downstream water users. The project implements a regular compensation system by water users to water providers for specified water management services (e.g. for hydropower and irrigation) (Source: ISRIC, 2010).

Elephants crossing the Samburu river in Kenya. (Hanspeter Liniger)

Gas collection tank resting on the concrete-built digester. Pipes / tubes at the top of the gas tank supply the house with methane gas, Botswana. (Reuben Sebego)

Top: Rooibos tea bushes in Western Cape, South Africa — anc the product marketed in Europe. (William Critchley) Bottom: Development agencies are promoting export of organic products from Africa. By now more than 50,000 certified organic growers in Uganda. (William Critchley)

Diverse herbaceonsplants, bushes and trees turing the gullies into productive land. (Hanspeter Liniger) Ziziphus fruit in Africa wild (top) grafted (bottom); the grafted ‘Pomme du Sahel’ (Ziziphus sp.) is proving very popular and commands a good market both for fruit and graftlings. (William Critchley)

By relying on inputs available / produced on the farm and by getting a better price for certified organic products, profitability of the farm is improved in the long run despite of lower productivity compared to conventional or genetically modified (GM) cotton. Farms need to complete a 3-year conversion period to change their production system from conventional to organic. Farmers have to maintain records and documents for periodic inspection and certification (lnter- nal control system).

Push-pull simultaneously improves cereal productivity; enables production of year-round quality fodder - thereby allowing for integration with livestock hus- bandry; diversifies income streams and enables smallholders to enter into the cash economy. It also improves soil fertility; protects fragile soils from ero- sion and enables a minimum tillage system. The technology is appropriate to resource-poor smallholder farmers as it is based on locally available plants, affordable external inputs, and fits well with traditional mixed cropping systems nracticand in CCA The stemborer moths are attracted to volatile compounds emitted by the napier grass which at the same time serves as a haven for the borers’ natural enemies. When moths lay eggs on napier grass a sticky substance secreted by the grass physically traps the moths’ larvae. Napier is also an important car- bohydrate-rich fodder grass. Desmodium, a perennial cover crop, produces repellent volatile chemicals that push away the moths, and the plant effectively suppresses striga weeds through its root exudates. Furthermore, desmodium ixes nitrogen, conserves soil moisture, enhances arthropod abundance and diversity and improves soil organic matter, thereby making cereal cropping systems more resilient and adaptable to climate change. Being a low-growing plant it does not interfere with the crops’ growth.

Maintenance inputs and costs per plot per year SE ena tractus era SAN MSS Soa oat | een rc aermarnee Sram ina renct Sth vere PT reese PSS st een culations above = 0.25 ha. Input prices (in US$): 1 person-day = 1.2 US$; 1 napier root split / cane = 0.14 US$.; 1 kg desmodium seeds = 18.9 US$.; 1 kg super- phosphate fertilizer = 0.68US$.

Adoption The technology is based on low external inputs and is adapted to the traditional mixed cropping systems in Africa. To date it has been adopted by over 29,000 smallholder farmers in East Africa, mostly without incentives. Where the technology is being introduced for the first time, farmers only need demonstration and technology information.

Remarks: The PES system pays for delivering of watershed services which is freshwater (quan- tity and quality). Payments are made first as compensation to establish land use changes, later for service delivery. EPWS Tanzania is cur- rently facilitating payments for establishment and maintenance of the land use change.

Approach costs were met by the following con- tributors / donors: “buyers’ are downstream beneficiaries who pay or provide rewards for managers of the watershed upstream (=‘sellers’)

Photo 1: Giraffes around the village of Kouré. (Ahmed Oumarou and ECOPAS*) * ECOsystémes Pro: tégés en Afrique Sahélienne

An Intermediate Technology Development Group project is located in southern Zim- babwe, where drought occurs in three out of every five years. The approach combines low-cost technologies (water harvesting and subsurface irrigation) with building farmers’ capacities to participate in research, exten- sion and within group structures. The ben- efits of the project, beside doubling the yield, include farmers having acquired new skills for food production; local institutions having been strengthened in tackling their own problems; training has increased confidence among local people, particularly poorest groups; there is increased involvement of women in com- munity decision-making; there is also greater capacity amongst farmers to articulate their needs to service providers, and research and extension systems have become more responsive to farmers’ needs (Pretty, 2007).

Savings and loans: micro-finance in Burkina Faso. (Willian Critchley) The Agroforestry Extension project (WAFE) works with some 20,000 farmers on 4,200 hectares to encourage the adoption of vari- ous agroforestry practices within farms (e.g. undersowing of pigeon pea and ses- bania in maize for soil fertility improvement). The project uses participatory approaches. Farmers are formed into farmer associations, trained as trainers and can ask for specific services from government and non-govern- mental organisations. As a result, maize yields have improved from 700 kg/ha to 1,500-2000 kg/ha, farmers have become less depend- ent on fertilizers and more households have become both food and woodfuel secure. Some 6.98 million trees were planted in 1999 by 1,155,900 households, and the project expects to see reduced pressure on natu- ral forests as these mature (Pretty, 2007).

ee a Top: Participants of a training workshop in Mali playing the LforS simulation game ‘Sustainable household strategies and community development’. (Ernst Gabathuler) Middle 1: Learning for Sustainability workshop in a shifting cultivation, Madagascar. (Andreas Klay) Middle 2: Farmer Field School on fertilizer micro-dosing in upper east Ghana. (William Critchley) Bottom: A Farmer Field School group in Bassodawish, Tanza- nia reflecting on Conservation Agriculture. (Photo CPAR)

Participatory rural appraisal: sharing experiences between Ethiopia, Ghana and Uganda. (William Critchley)

the communities. The main operational unit of the approach is the so-called SLG (structures locales de gestion), a committee at community level, which is responsible for resource management, execution of development activities, monitoring and evaluation and sustainability of investments. Setting-up these organisational structures, as well as training and capacity building of its members is carried out by the project. Once the SLGs are established, planning of development activities and elaboration of forest management plans (PAF) and village forest management plans (PVAF) is done. Then, concrete activities are implemented: establishment of rural wood markets; commercialisation of wood and forest products; establishment of village development funds; implementation of SLM activities. Local people implement project activities at field level. The SLGs are the institutional beneficiaries of the approach, they participate in the manage- ment of generated income (e.g. taxes on products sold) and in turn support the mobilisation of local communities. The project provides technical and financial support (for village development funds earmarked for infrastructure projects). A Committee for Science and Technology (CST) with experts from CIRAD France and University of Niamey supervised programme implementation.

Strengths Remarks: Labour for SLM technologies is an in-kind contribution from the local people. But labour of development activities was paid by the project. Agricultural inputs: seeds, seedlings, imported fertilizers were paid by the project. Seeds collected in the forest and organic fertiliz- ers were supplied by the beneficiaries. Subsidies financed under the approach:

Approach costs were met by the following contributors / donors:

PFI is a potentially important direction for research and extension in SSA. Its principles have been taken up by, amongst others, the UNEP-GEF funded ‘Stimulating Community Initiatives in Sustainable Land Management’ project.

tnelr relations ana continue stuay or action projects, Inciudging Fro on otner subjects, after the FFS learning cycle is completed. The Farmer Field Schools on Integrated Land and Water Management (ILWM) in eastern and central Kenya focus on learning about how to improve manage- ment of land and water resources both on individual plot and farm level and within ‘landscapes’ and communal lands; including local watersheds, river- valleys, forested hill-tops, grazing lands, eroded gullies etc. Each FFS group experiments practically on selected SLM practices / measures. All learning takes place in the field and farmers usually meet once per week at a selected host farm in their locality to monitor their field experiments and to discuss emerging issues. Trained facilitators, usually agricultural advisors, guide farm- ers in their observation and analysis of what is taking place in the field. Local armer innovations are identified to feed indigenous knowledge into the FFS process: Innovators visit FFS groups or FFS members visit innovators farms to share their knowledge. The FFS process combined with the promotion of armer innovation has proven to contribute to strong and cohesive groups that are able to make informed decisions and change cultural and practical behav- iour in order to improve their production and land management. The process also builds self-confidence, and empowers especially women to take on lead- ership roles in the community. The impacts observed of FFS thus have strong biophysical and social dimensions.

Remarks: Community contributions included provision of land, manure, fencing materials, tools etc. and weekly contributions to the group savings account. Organisation / capacity development

Strengths Remarks: Funding for group level learning; mate- rials and farm inputs were given directly to the group as a grant for them to manage. Subsidies financed under the approach:

Case study area: pilot area covering four communities: Barre and Narquia in the Zecco and Ziou Departements, Nahouri Province, Burkina Faso; and Namoo and Feo, Bongo district in the Upper East Region of Ghana. Approach costs were met by the following contributors / donors:

Subsidies financed under the approach: VUDSIMICS HIIGhOCU UNOS! UIG AYUVUIOdUT I. No subsidies were given. Labour was not rewarded and inputs were not financed by the project. Benefits of SLM Approach

OF JUSUTICAUON, are UIE stall ulG POW WI) all TMOQUICS. In a learning-by-doing approach farmers are encouraged to try out any nev ideas identified during PLAR sessions on some parts of their fields reservec for new practices (‘innovation space’). This allows them to assess the impac of such innovations on their rice yield, or on the profitability of rice growin¢ and the rice business as a whole, and consequently to adapt and fine-tune the measures taken according to their needs. These innovation spaces are regularly visited as part of learning sessions for knowledge sharing betweer armers. Since 2005, innovations in land preparation, early transplanting o seedlings, weeds and water management - basically without external inputs - have resulted in three times higher yields, benefitting thousands of farmers Rice value chain activities started in 2008 with a view to empowering farm: ers’ position within the chains and improving the competitiveness. Groups are unifying into PLAR centres with common marketing of rice, and contract inpu oroviders and rice processors.

Case study area: Sofia Region, Madagascar; about 10,000 km? covered by approach. Benefits of SLM Approach Training and awareness raising

Approach costs were met by the following contributors / donors: Subsidies financed under the approach: Strengths

Remarks: Two sarcleuses (weeding equipment) per starting group are provided for free and remain property of the group.

Remarks: Incentives (other than education and motivation) have been used at very low levels. Common Interest Groups (CIGs) were then required to solicit help and assistance as need arises. Subsidies financed under the approach:

-- negative; - slightly negative; -/+ neutral; + slightly positive; ++ positive; +++ very positive; na: not applicable Annex table 1: development issues addressed

—— negative; — slightly negative; — /+ neutral; + slightly positive; ++ positive; +++ very positive Annex table 2: Benefit-cost ratio

-- negative; - slightly negative; -/+ neutral; + slightly positive; ++ positive; +++ very positive na: not applicable

-- negative; - slightly negative; -/+ neutral; + slightly positive; ++ positive; +++ very positive na: not applicable Annex table 4: Key factors for adoption

Key takeaways
AI

Sustainable Land Management (SLM) is crucial for addressing land degradation in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA).
The region's population growth exceeds 2% annually, necessitating a doubling of food production by 2030.
SLM practices must be adaptable to local conditions, integrating traditional knowledge and innovative techniques.
The text outlines 13 major SLM technologies and 47 case studies to guide implementation across SSA.
Improved water management and soil fertility are foundational to enhancing agricultural productivity and resilience.

References (196)

Baudeon F., H.M. Mwanza, B. Triomphe, M. Bwalya. 2007. Conservation agriculture in Zambia: a case study of Southern Province. Nairobi. African Conservation Tillage Network, Centre de Coopération Internationale de Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Baudron F., H.M. Mwanza, B. Triomphe, M. Bwalya and D. Gumbo. 2006. Challenges for the adoption of Conservation Agriculture by smallholders in semi-arid Zambia. Online: www.relma.org.
Boahen P, B.A. Dartey, G.D. Dogbe, E. A. Boadi, B. Triomphe, S. Daamgard-Larsen, J. Ashburner. 2007. Conservation agriculture as practised in Ghana. Nairobi. African Con- servation Tillage Network, Centre de Coopération Internationale de Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Bwalya, M. and M. Owenya. 2005. Soil and water Conservation to Conservation Agriculture Practices: experiences and lessons from the efforts Eotulelo Farmer Field School -a community based organisation. (http://www.sustainet.org/download/sustainet_publication_eafrica_part2.pdf).
Derpsch, R. 2008. No-Tillage and Conservation Agriculture: A Progress Report. In: No-Till Farming systems. 2008. Edited by Tom Goddard, Michael A. Zoebisch, Yantai Gan, Wyn Ellis, Alex Watson and Samran Sombatpanit, WASWC, 544 pp.
Ekboir, J., K. Boa and A.A. Dankyi. 2002. Impacts of No-Till Technologies in Ghana. Mexico D.F. CIMMYT. FAO Aquastat. http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/data/query/results.html FAO, 2002. Conservation Agriculture: Case studies in Latin America and Africa. Soils Bulletin 78.
FAO, 2005. Conservation Agriculture in Africa, A. Calegari, J. Ashburner, R. Fowler, Accra, Ghana FAO. 2008. Investing in Sustainable Agricultural Intensification, the role of Conservation Agriculture. Part III -a framework for action. An international technical workshop investing in sustainable crop intensification: The case for improving soil health, FAO, Rome: 22-24 July 2008. Integrated Crop Management Vol. 6-2008.
Giller, K.E., E. Witter, M. Corbeels and P.Tittonell. 2009. Conservation agriculture and smallholder farming in Africa: The heretic's view. Field Crops Research. GTZ Sustainet. 2006. Sustainable agriculture: A pathway out of poverty for East Africa's rural poor. Examples from Kenya and Tanzania. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit, Eschborn.
Haggblade S., G. Tembo, and C. Donovan. 2004. Household Level Financial Incentives to Adoption of Conservation Agricultural Technologies in Africa. Working paper no. 9. Food security research project. Lusaka, zambia
Kaumbutho P. and J. Kienzle, eds. 2007. Conservation agriculture as practised in Kenya: two case studies. Nairobi. African Conservation Tillage Network, Centre de Coopération Internationale de Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Kaumbutho P., J. Kienzle, eds. 2007. Conservation agriculture as practised in Kenya: two case studies. Nairobi. African Conservation Tillage Network, Centre de Coopération Inter- nationale de Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Mrabet, R. 2002. Stratification of soil aggregation and organic matter under conservation tillage systems in Africa, Soil & Tillage Research 66 (2002) 119-128
Nyende, P., A. Nyakuni, J.P. Opio, W. Odogola. 2007. Conservation agriculture: a Uganda case study. Nairobi. African Conservation Tillage Network, Centre de coopération Inter- nationale de Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
RELMA. 2007.Wetting Africa's appetite. Conservation agriculture is turning rainfall into higher crop yields and catching on. RELMA Review Series No. 3. ICRAF, Nairobi.
Rockström, J., P. Kaumbutho, J. Mwalley, A. W. Nzabi, M. Temesgen, L. Mawenya, J. Barron, J. Mutua and S Damgaard-Larsen. 2009. Conservation Farming Strategies in East and Southern Africa: Yields and Rainwater Productivity from On-farm Action Research. Soil & Tillage Research 103 (2009) 23-32.
Shetto R., M. Owenya, eds. 2007. Conservation agriculture as practised in Tanzania: three case studies. Nairobi. African Conservation Tillage Network, Centre de Coopération Internationale de Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
West T.O. and W.M. Post. 2002. Soil organic carbon sequestration rates by tillage and crop rotation. A global data analysis. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 66. Available from: http://soil.scijournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/66/6/1930?etoc WOCAT, 2009. WOCAT databases on SLM technologies and SLM approaches. www.wocat.net, accessed on 15 September 2009
Woodfine, A. 2009. Using sustainable land management practices to adapt to and mitigate climate change in Sub-Saharan Africa: resource guide version 1.0. TerrAfrica. www. terrafrica.org References and supporting information (continued): GTZ. 2006. Financing Small-scale Irrigation in Sub-Saharan Africa. Grimm J., M. Richter. Volume 1: Desk Study, December 2006. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusam- menarbeit (GTZ) GmbH, Commissioned by The World Bank . IWMI. 2007. Recognising Informal Irrigation in Urban and Peri-Urban West Africa. Water Policy Briefing, Issue 26.
Pretty, J. N., A. D. Noble, D. Bossio, J. Dixon, R. E. Hine, F. W. T. Penning de Vries, and J. I. L. 2006. Resource-conserving Agriculture Increases Yields in Developing Countries. Environmental Science & Technology, Vol. 40, No. 4.
Kulecho,I.K. and K. Weatherhead. 2008. Issues of irrigation of horticultural crops by smallholder farmers in Kenya. Irrig Drainage Syst (2006) 20:259-266
Mati, B. M. 2005. Overview of water and soil nutrient management under smallholder rainfed agriculture in East Africa. Working Paper 105. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute (IWMI).
Mati, B. M. 2008. Capacity Development for Smallholder Irrigation in Kenya. IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE. Irrig. and Drain. 57: 332-340 (2008)
Postel, S., P. Polak, F. Gonzales, and J. Keller. 2001. Drip Irrigation for Small Farmers -A New Initiative to Alleviate Hunger and Poverty. International Water Resources Association. Water International, Volume 26, Number 1, Pages 3-13, March 2001
Woltering, L., D. Pasternak, and J. Ndjeunga. 2009. The African Market Garden: Development of an Integrated Horticultural Production System for Smallholder Producers in West Africa. Submitted to Irrigation and Drainage. References and supporting information:
Alemayehu M., F. Yohannes, and P. Dubale. 2006. Effect of Indigenous Stone Bunding (KAB) on Crop Yield at Mesobit-Gedeba, North Shoa, Ethiopia. Land Degrad. Develop. 17: 45-54 (2006).
Amsalu, A. and J. de Graaff. 2007. Determinants of adoption and continued use of stone terraces for soil and water conservation in an Ethiopian highland watershed. Ecological Economics, 61 (2007) 294-302.
Bodnar, F. 2005. Monitoring for impact: evaluating 20 years of soil and water conservation in southern Mali.
IWMI. 2009. http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/africa/west/projects/Adoption%20Technology/Soil&WaterConservation/56-ImprovedStoneTerracing.htm, accessed on 15 September 2009. IWMI. 2009. http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/africa/west/projects/Adoption%20Technology/RainWaterHarvesting/50-Fanya%20juu.htm, accessed on 15 September 2009.
Kempkes, M. 1994. Analyse financière des cordons pierreux: cas d'étude de Tagalla, province du Sanmatenga au Burkina Faso; rapport des étudiants 44a Antenne Sahélienne, Ouagadougou.
Mati B. M. 2005. Overview of water and soil nutrient management under smallholder rainfed agriculture in East Africa. Working Paper 105. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute (IWMI).
Mwangi J.N., T.O. Mboya and Kihumba. 2001. Improved Maize Production in Central Kenya with Adoption of Soil and Water Conservation Measures. Seventh Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Maize Conference, 11th-15th February, 2001. pp. 299-300.
Spaan, W.P. 2003. Consuming the savings: water conservation in a vegetative barrier system at the Central Plateau in Burkina Faso., Wageningen University and Research Centre, Wageningen.
Tenge, A.J., J. De Graaff, J.P. Hella. 2005. Financial efficiency of major soil and water conservation measures in West Usambara highlands, Tanzania. Applied Geography 25, 348- 366. UNEP. 1998. Sourcebook of Alternative Technologies for Freshwater Augumentation in Africa. Newsletter and Technical Publications.http://www.unep.or.jp/ietc/Publications/Tech- Publications/TechPub-8a/fanya.asp, accessed on 28.10.2009.
WOCAT. 2009. WOCAT databases on SLM technologies and SLM approaches. www.wocat.net, accessed on 15 September 2009. References and supporting information: Bekele-Tesemma, A. (ed). 2007. Profitable agroforestry innovations for eastern Africa: experience from 10 agroclimatic zones of Ethiopia, India, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda. World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Eastern Africa Region.
Boffa, J. M. 1999. Agroforestry parklands in sub-Saharan Africa. Conservation Guide 34. FAO. http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/x3940e/X3940E10.htm#ch7.4
Chirwa, P.W. 2003. Tree and crop productivity in Gliricidia/Maize/Pigeonpea cropping systems in southern Malawi, Ph.D dissertation, University of Nottingham. Critchley, W. forthcoming. More People, More Trees. Practical Action Publications.
FAO. 2005. Realising the economic benefits of agroforestry: experiences, lessons and challenges. State Of The World's Forests, P. 88-97.
Franzel S. and C. Wambugu. 2007. The Uptake of Fodder Shrubs among Smallholders in East Africa: Key Elements that Facilitate Widespread Adoption. In Hare, M.D. and K. Wongpichet (eds). 2007. Forages: A pathway to prosperity for smallholder farmers. Proceedings of an International Symposium, Faculty of Agriculture, Ubon Ratchathani Uni- versity, Thailand, 203-222.
Leakey, R.R.B., Z. Tchoundjeu, K. Schreckenberg, S. Shackleton and C. Shackleton. 2005. Agroforestry Tree Products (AFTPs): Targeting Poverty Reduction and Enhanced Liveli- hoods. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 3: 1-23.
Nair, P. K. R B., M. Kumar and V.D. Nair. 2009. Agroforestry as a strategy for carbon sequestration. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2009, 172, 10-23.
Sinclair, F. L. 1999. A general classification of agroforestry practice. Agroforestry Systems 46: 161-180.
Sood, K. K. and C. P. Mitchell. 2009. Identifying important biophysical and social determinants of on-farm tree growing in subsistence-based traditional agroforestry systems Agro- forest Syst (2009) 75:175-187.
Verchot, L. V., M. Van Noordwijk, S. Kandji, T. Tomich, C. Ong, A. Albrecht, J. Mackensen, C. Bantilan, K. V. Anupama and C. Palm. 2007. Climate change: linking adaptation and mitigation through agroforestry. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Change 12: 901-918.
WOCAT, 2009. WOCAT database on SLM technologies and SLM approaches. www.wocat.net, accessed on 15 September 2009.
Woodfine, A. 2009. Using sustainable land management practices to adapt to and mitigate climate change in sub-Saharan Africa: resource guide version 1.0. TerrAfrica. www. terrafrica.org Zomer, R., A. Trabucco, R. Coe and F. Place. 2009. Trees on Farm: Analysis of Global Extent and Geographical Patterns of Agroforestry. ICRAF Working Paper no. 89. Nairobi, Kenya: World Agroforestry Centre. 60pp. References and supporting information : FAO. 2009. Grasslands: enabling their potential to contribute to greenhouse gas mitigation. A submission by The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations1. Work- shop held at FAO Rome 15 -17 April 2009.
FAO. 2007. TerrAfrica-A Vision paper for Sustainable Land Management in Sub-Saharan Africa. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. FAO. 2001. Mixed crop-livestock farming-a review of traditional technologies based on literature and field experience. FAO, Animal production and health papers 152 (http://www. fao.org/DOCREP/004/Y0501E/Y0501E00.HTM)
Gebremedhin, B., J. Pender, and T. Girmay. 2004. Collective action for grazing land management in crop-livestock mixed systems in the highlands of northern Ethiopia. Agricultural Systems 82 (2004) 272-290.
IFAD. 2009. Integrated-Livestock Farming Systems. Thematic paper 12-13 January 2009
Lenné, J. and D. Thomas. 2006. Integrating crop-livestock R & D in sub-Saharan Africa: option, imperative or impossible? Outlook on Agriculture, Volume 35, Number 3, pp. 167- 175(9)
Liniger, H.P. and D.B. Thomas 1998: GRASS: Ground cover for the Restoration of the Arid and Semi-arid Soils. In: Advances in GeoEcology 31, 1167-1178, CATENA Verlag, Reiskirchen.
Ogle, B. 1996. Livestock Systems in Semi-Arid Sub-Saharan Africa, Integrated Farming in Human Development -Workshop Proceedings
Otte J. and V. Knips. 2005. Livestock Development for Sub-Saharan Africa. PPLPI Research Report Nr. 05-09. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome, Italy Pell, A.N. 1999. Integrated crop-livestock management systems in sub Saharan Africa. Environment, Development and Sustainability 1: 337-348.
Powell, J. M., R. A. Pearson, and P. H. Hiernaux. 2004. Crop-Livestock Interactions in the West African Drylands. Agron. J. 96:469-483.
Van Keulen, H. and H. Schiere. 2004. Crop-Livestock Systems: Old Wine in New Bottles? In New Directions for a Diverse Planet. Proceedings of the 4th International Crop Science Congress, Brisbane, Australia, 26 September-October 2004. http://www.cropscience.org.au/icsc2004/symposia/2/1/211_vankeulenh.htm WOCAT, 2009. WOCAT database on SLM technologies and SLM approaches. www.wocat.net, accessed on 15 September 2009
Woodfine, A. 2009. Using sustainable land management practices to adapt to and mitigate climate change in Sub-Saharan Africa: resource guide version 1.0. TerrAfrica. www. terrafrica.org. References and supporting information: Briske D. D., J. D. Derner, J. R. Brown, S. D. Fuhlendorf, W. R. Teague, K. M. Havstad, R. L. Gillen, A. J. Ash, and W. D. Willm. 2008. Rotational Grazing on Rangelands: Reconciliation of Perception and Experimental Evidence. Rangeland Ecol Manage 61:3-17.
Cecchi, G., W. Wint, A. Shaw, A. Marletta, R. Mattioli and T. Robinson. 2010. Geographic distribution and environmental characterisation of livestock production systems in Eastern Africa. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 135 (2010) 98-110.
Davies, J., M. Niamir-Fuller, K. Kerven and K. Bauer. 2010. Extensive livestock production in transition: the future of sustainable pastoralism. In Livestock in a Changing Landscape, Volume 1, Drivers, Consequences, and Responses. Steinfeld, H., H. A. Mooney, F. Schneider and L. E. Neville (eds). Washington, DC: Island Press.
Davies, J. 2008. Turning the tide: Enabling sustainable development for Africa's mobile pastoralists Natural Resources Forum 32 (2008) 175-184.
Derry, J.F. and R.B. Boone. 2010. Grazing systems are a result of equilibrium and non-equilibrium dynamics. Journal of Arid Environments 74( 2): 307-309.
FAO, 2009. Grasslands: Enabling their potential to contribute to greenhouse gas mitigation. A submission by The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations1. workshop held at FAO Rome 15 -17 April 2009.
FAO. 2004. Carbon Sequestration in drylands soils. World Soil Resources Reports 102. FAO. FAO. 2001. Pastoralism in the new millennium. Animal Production And Health Paper 150. FAO.
Gebremedhina, B., J. Pender and G. Tesfay. 2004. Collective action for grazing land management in crop-livestock mixed systems in the highlands of northern Ethiopia. Agricultural Systems Volume 82, Issue 3 pp 273-290.
Hatfield, R. and J. Davies. 2006. Global Review of the Economics of Pastoralism. The World Initiative for Sustainable Pastoralism, IUCN, Nairobi Homann, S., B. Rischkowsky, J. Steinbach and M. Kirk. 2005. Towards endogenous development: Borana pastoralists' response to environmental and institutional changes. Deutscher Tropen tag. Stuttgart-Hohenheim, October 11-13, 2005.
Oba, G., N.C. Stenseth and W.J. Lusigi. 2000. New perspectives on sustainable grazing management in arid zones of SSA. BioScience, Volume 50: pp 35 -51.
Ogle, B. 1996. Livestock Systems in Semi-Arid Sub-Saharan Africa, Integrated Farming in Human Development -Workshop Proceedings. http://www.ardaf.org/NR/rdonlyres/E0E2790E-F1FF-4F65-818E-1716735E1070/0/199618BrianOgle.pdf References and supporting information: Arborvitae. 2006. Forest plantations: the good, the bad and the ugly. The IUCN/WWF Forest Conservation Newsletter. September 2006. Vol.31.
Chamshama, S.A.O. and F.O.C. Nwonwu. 2004. Forests Plantations in Sub-Saharan Africa -A short report prepared for the project 'Lessons Learnt on Sustainable Forest Management in Africa.
Chamshama S.A.O., F.O.C. Nwonwu, B. Lundgren and G.S. Kowero. 2009. Plantation Forestry in Sub Saharan Africa: Silvicultural, Ecological and Economic Aspects. Discov. Innov., 2009; 21 (SFM Special Edition No.
CIFOR. 1998. Centre for International Forestry Research. CIFOR Annual Report 1998. http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/publications/Html/AR-98/Plantation.html, accessed on 17 November 2009.
Cossalter, C. and C. Pye-Smith. 2003. Fast-wood forestry: Myths and realities. CIFOR, Jarkata, Indonesia. 50 p.
Ekisa G.T. 2009. Community Participation in Afforestation and Agroforestry Programmes in Kenya: The influence of biophysical environmental in the case of Teso District. FAO, 2001. Mean annual volume increment of selected industrial forest plantation species. Luis Ugalde and Osvaldo Pérez. Working Paper FP/1, FAO Rome (Italy) FAO. 2002. Hardwood plantations in Ghana. F. Odoom. June 2002. Working Papert FP/24.
FAO. 2003. Forestry Outlook Study for Africa -Subregional Report West Africa. African Development Bank, European Commission. FAO. 2003. Forestry Outlook Study for Africa. African Development Bank, European Commission. FAO. 2004. Carbon sequestration in dryland soils. World Soil Resources Reports, No. 102, Rome, Italy.
FAO. 2006. Responsible management of planted forests: voluntary guidelines. Planted Forests and Trees Working Paper FP37E, Rome, Italy FAO. 2006. Global planted forests thematic study: results and analysis, by A. Del Lungo, J. Ball and J. Carle. Planted Forests and Trees Working Paper 38. Rome. FAO. 2009. Planted Forests. http://www.fao.org/forestry/plantedforests/en/ accessed on 22 September 2009. FAO. 2010. Forestry Photos. http://www.fao.org/mediabase/forestry/, accessed on 6 June 2010.
GTZ. 2009. Running dry? Climate change in drylands and how to cope with it. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), GmbH. Oekom Verlag, München Kanowsky P. and H. Murray, 2008. Intensively Managed Planted Forests -Toward best practice. Summary and Recommendations from TFD's IMPF Initiative June 2005 - June 2008. The Forests Dialogue. TFD Publication Number 1 2008.
Nawir, A.A., H. Kassa, M. Sandewall, D. Dore, B. Campbell, B. Ohlsson and M. Bekele. 2007. Stimulating smallholder tree planting -lessons from Africa and Asia, Unasylva 228, Vol. 58. References and supporting information: Blay, D., 2007. Multi-stakeholder forest management: A case from the humid zone in Ghana. Forest Management Working PaperWorking Paper FM/32. FAO, Rome (Italy). CIFOR. 2006. African Dry Forest Website. http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/dryforest/_ref/home/index.htm, accessed on 15 February, 2010. CIFOR. 2006. Map of Location. http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/dryforest/_ref/home/map.htm, accessed on 17 May 2010. CIFOR. 2006. Miombo Woodland -Policies and Incentives. http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/miombo/project.htm, accessed on 23 September 2009 CIFOR. 2008. Poverty Environment Network -A comprehensive global analysis of tropical forests and poverty. http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/pen/_ref/news/penews/2010/ penews-1-2010.htm#burkina, accessed on 17 Mai 2010.
CIFOR. 2009. CIFOR annual report 2008: Thinking beyond the canopy (2009).
FAO. 1997. R. Bellefontaine, A. Gaston and Y. Petrucci (online 2000), Management of natural forests in dry-tropical zones. Series title: FAO Conservation Guide -32. http://www.fao. org/docrep/005/w4442e/w4442e00.htm#Contents FAO. 2003. Forestry Outlook Study for Africa -Subregional Report West Africa. African Development Bank, European Commission. FAO. 2003. Forestry Outlook Study for Africa. African Development Bank, European Commission.
FAO. 2006. Fire management -global assessment 2006 A thematic study prepared in the framework of the Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005, Series title: FAO Forestry Paper-151. References and supporting information (continued): FAO. 2008. Towards sustainable forest management. http://www.fao.org/forestry/sfm/en/ accessed on 23 September 2009.
FAO. 2008. Understanding forest tenure in Africa: opportunities and challenges for forest tenure diversification. Forestry Policy and Institutions Working Paper 19 FAO. 2010. Guidelines on sustainable forest management in drylands of Sub-Saharan Africa. 17th AFWC Session, revised draft version. (final document under publication in June 2010) FAO. 2008. Links between National Forest Programmes and Poverty Reduction Strategies, by R.McConnell. FAO. 2010. Forestry Photos. http://www.fao.org/mediabase/forestry/, accessed on 6 June 2010.
FARMAFRICA. 2009. Tanzania Participatory Forest Management Project. http://www.farmafrica.org.uk/smartweb/tanzania/tanzania-participatory-forest-management-project accessed on 23 September 2009 Forestry Policy and Institutions Working Paper No. 22. Rome.
German L.A. (ed.), Karsenty, A. (ed.), Tiani A.M., (ed.). 2009. Governing Africa's forests in a globalised world. Earthscan Publications. London.
Mogaka, H., Simons, G., Turpie, J., Emerton, L. and Karanja, F. 2001. Economic Aspects of Community Involvement in Sustainable Forest Management in Eastern and Southern Africa. IUCN -The World Conservation Union, Eastern Africa Regional Office, Nairobi.
NGARA. 2010. Network for Natural Gums and Resins in Africa (NGARA), http://www.ngara.org/index.htm, accessed on 18 March 2010.
Odera, J. 2004. Lessons Learnt on Community Forest Management in Africa. A report prepared for the project 'Lessons Learnt on Sustainble Forest Management in Africa.' TECA-FAO. 2010. Technology for Agriculture -proven technologies for smallholders. http://www.fao.org/teca/content/replacing-need-labour-intensive-traditional-methods-mechani- cal-press-making-shea-butter-nort, accessed on 25 March 2010.
WFSE, 2009. Making Sub-Saharan African Forests work for People and Nature -Policy approaches in a changing global environment. Published by Special Project on World Forests, Society and Environment (WFSE) of the International Union of Forest Research Organisations (IUFRO), World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) and the Finish Forest Research Institute (METLA). References and supporting information: Blay, D. 2007. Multi-stakeholder forest management: A case from the humid zone in Ghana. Forest Management Working PaperWorking Paper FM/32. FAO, Rome (Italy). Central African Regional Program for the Environment (CARPE), 2010. http://carpe.umd.edu/, accessed on 15 February 2010.
Eba'a Atyi R., Devers D., de Wasseige, C and Maisels F. 2009. State of the forests of Central Africa: Sub-regional synthesis. In Dewasseige, C., Devers D., de Marcken P., Eba'a Atyi R., Nasi R. et Mayaux Ph., (eds) The forest of the Congo Basin: State of the forest 2008. P:127-140. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
FAO. 1997. R. Bellefontaine, A. Gaston and Y. Petrucci (online 2000), Management of natural forests in dry-tropical zones. Series title: FAO Conservation Guide -32.
FAO. 2003. Forestry Outlook Study for Africa -Subregional Report West Africa. African Development Bank, European Commission. FAO. 2003. Forestry Outlook Study for Africa. African Development Bank, European Commission.
FAO. 2003. Sustainable management of tropical forests in central Africa. Forestry Paper -143 http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/y4853e/y4853e03.htm#P169_7514 FAO. 2008. Towards sustainable forest management. http://www.fao.org/forestry/sfm/en/ accessed on 23 September 2009.
FAO. 2008. Understanding forest tenure in Africa: opportunities and challenges for forest tenure diversification. Forestry Policy and Institutions Working Paper 19 FAO. 2009. State of the Worlds Forests 2009. FAO. 2008. Links between National Forest Programmes and Poverty Reduction Strategies, by R.McConnell.
FARMAFRICA. 2009. Tanzania Participatory Forest Management Project. http://www.farmafrica.org.uk/smartweb/tanzania/tanzania-participatory-forest-management-project. FSC. 2010. Forest Stewardship Council. http://www.fsc.org, accessed on 15 February 2010
German L.A. (ed.), Karsenty A. (ed.), Tiani A.M. (ed.). 2009. Governing Africa's forests in a globalised world. Earthscan Publications. London.
ITTO, 2010. International Tropical Timber Organisation. http://www.itto.int/en/feature09/, accessed on 15 February 2010. References and supporting information (continued):
Karsenty, A., and Gourlet-Fleury, S. 2006. Assessing Sustainability of Logging Practices in the Congo Basin's Managed Forests: the Issue of Commercial Species Recovery. Ecology and Society 11(1): 26. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art26/
Lescuyer, G., Eba'a Atyi, R. and Cerutti, P. 2009a. Consommations nationales de bois d'oeuvre en Afrique Centrale: un enjeu majeur pour la gestion forestière durable. Paper presented at the world forestry congress. Buenos Aires, Argentina. 18-23 Octobre 2009.
Lescuyer, G., Karsenty, A., and Eba'a Atyi R. 2009b. A new tool for sustainable forest management in Central Africa: Payments for Environmental Services. In Dewasseige, C., Devers D., de Marcken P., Eba'a Atyi R., Nasi R. et Mayaux Ph., (eds) The forest of the Congo Basin : State of the forest 2008. P:15-41. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
Mogaka, H., Simons, G., Turpie, J., Emerton, L. and Karanja, F. 2001. Economic Aspects of Community Involvement in Sustainable Forest Management in Eastern and Southern Africa. IUCN -The World Conservation Union, Eastern Africa Regional Office, Nairobi.
Nasi, R., B. Cassagne, A. Billand. 2006. Forest management in Central Africa: where are we? International Forestry Review 8(1):14-20.
Nasi, R., J.-C. Nguinguiri, D. Ezzine de Blas (Eds.). 2006. Exploitation et gestion durable des forêts d'Afrique Centrale : la quête de la durabilité. ITTO, CIFOR, CIRAD, L'Harmattan, Paris, 429p.
Odera, J., 2004. Lessons Learnt on Community Forest Management in Africa. A report prepared for the project 'Lessons Learnt on Sustainble Forest Management in Africa.' Owen, J., 2004. Can Central Africa's Rain Forests Live With Logging? National Geographic. Novemter 2004. Tropical Forest Update. 2009. Owning Africa's forests. A newsletter from the International Tropical Timber Organistion to promote the conservation and sustainable development of tropical forests. Vol.19-2
Tropical Forests and Climate Change Adaptation (TroFCCA). 2010. http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/trofcca/_ref/home/index.htm, accessed on 15 February 2010. References and supporting information: CIFOR. 2006. Payments for Environmental Services. http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/pes/_ref/about/index.htm, accessed on 15 January, 2010. COFTA. 2010. Cooperation for Fair Trade in Africa. http://www.cofta.org/en/en/index.asp, accessed on 21 June 2010.
Critchley W., 2010. Sustainable Land Management course presentation: "Biodiversity, GM and Organic Production". VU-University Amsterdam. DESIRE. 2010. DESIRE-Project. http://www.desire-project.eu/ Ethiocat. 2007. Soil and Water Conservation Practices for Sustainable Land Management in Ethiopia.
Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International & International Fair Trade Association. 2008. A Charter of Fair Trade Principles. http://activistnotes.wordpress.com/2008/06/06/a- draft-charter-of-fair-trade-principles-flo-and-ifat/, accessed on 1 June 2010.
Falkenmark,M., P. Fox, G. Persson and J. Rockström. 2001. Water Harvesting for Upgrading of Rainfed Agriculture -Problem Analysis and Research Needs. SIWI Report 11. Stockholm International Water Institute.
FAO. 2003. Workshop on Tropical Secondary Forest Management in Africa: Reality and Perspectives. Proceedings. http://www.fao.org/Docrep/006/J0628e/J0628E30.htm, accessed on 15 January 2010.
FAO. 2004. The state of food and agriculture 2003-2004: agricultural biotechnology -meeting the needs of the poor? Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. FAO. 2007. The State of Food and Agriculture -Paying Farmers for Environmental Services. FAO Agriculture Series No. 38. FAO. 2010. Organic Agriculture. http://www.fao.org/organicag/oa-home/en/, accessed on 29 March 2010.
FAO. 2010. Payments for Environmental Services from Agricultural Landscapes http://www.fao.org/ES/esa/pesal/index.html, accessed on 15 January 2010. ISRIC -World Soil Information. 2010. Green Water Credits. http://www.isric.org/UK/About+ISRIC/Projects/Current+Projects/Green+Water+Credits.htm, accessed on 14 June 2010.
Meleca, A., 2008. The Organic Answer to Climate Change. http://www.organicguide.com/community/education/the-organic-answer-to-climate-change/
Moges A. and N. M. Holden. 2008. Estimating the rate and Consequences of Gully Development, a Case Study of Umbulo Catchment in Southern Ethiopia. Land Degrad. Develop. 19: 574-586 (2008).
Müller-Lindenlauf M. 2009. Organic Agriculture and Carbon Sequestration. Possibilities and constrains for the consideration of organic agriculture within carbon accounting systems. FAO. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/012/ak998e/ak998e00.pdf, accessed on 29 March 2010.
Salami A., B. Abdul Kamara and Z. Brixiova. 2010. Smallholder Agriculture in East Africa: Trends, Constraints and Opportunities, Working Papers Series N° 105 African Develop- ment Bank, Tunis, Tunisia.
The Katoomba group. 2008. http://www.katoombagroup.org/regions/africa/documents/2009_scoping_report.pdf, accessed on 15 January 2010. UNEP-UNCTAD. 2008. Organic Agriculture and Food Security in Africa. United Nations, New York and Geneva.
UNESCO. 2005. Teaching and learning for a sustainable future. http://www.unesco.org/education/tlsf/TLSF/theme_c/mod16/uncom16t03.htm, accessed on 15 January. Wikipedia. 2010. Fair trade. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_trade, accessed on 1.June 2010.
WOCAT. 2007. Where the land is greener -case studies and analysis of soil and water conservation initiatives worldwide. Editors: Hanspeter Liniger and William Critchley. WOCAT. 2009. WOCAT Database on SLM Technologies. www.wocat.net References and supporting information:
Asiabaka, C. C., 2002. Promoting sustainable extension approaches: Farmer field school (FFS) and its role in sustainable agricultural development in Africa. Int. J. of Agri. and Rural Dev.; 3(46-53).
Bass, S., S. J. Scherr, Y. Renard, S. Shames. 2009. New Directions for Integrating Environment and Development in East Africa: Key Findings from Consultations with Stakeholders in Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda. Ecoagriculture Discussion Paper no. 3. Washington, D.C., Ecoagriculture Partners.
Baumann, P., M. Bruno, D. Cleary, O. Dubois and X. Flores. 2004. Applying people centred development approaches within FAO -Some practical lessons. LSP Working Paper 15. FAO.
Curtis, M., 2007. Deadly Combination: The Role of Southern Governments and the World Bank in the Rise of Hunger. Understanding the Issue (2/2007). Critchley, W., 2007. Working with Farmer Innovators. CTA.
DANIDA., 2007. Community-based natural resource management. Technical Note. http://www.danidadevforum.um.dk/en/servicemenu/News/CommunityBasedNaturalManage- ment.htm Eicher, C. K., 2007. Agricultural extension in Africa and Asia. Staff Papers 7431, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics. FAO. 2008. Farmer field schools on land and water management in Africa. Proceedings of an international workshop in Jinja, Uganda. 24-29 April, 2006.
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 Development for Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resource Management: A Sourcebook. Volume 1: Understanding Participatory Research and Development. International Potato Center -Users' Perspectives with Agricultural Research and Development, Laguna, Philippines and International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada.
Hatcher, J., 2008. Dialogue, consensus and vision -PNTD more than a methodology: a strategy for territorial interaction and integration (edited by P. Groppo, FAO). Land and Water Division, FAO.
Hurni, H., 1996. Precious Earth -From soil and water conservation to sustainable land management. Geographica Bernensia. Liniger, H.,1995. Endagered water, a global overview of degradation, conflicts and strategies for improvement. CDE.
Pretty, J., 2001. Compendium of Land and SARD Cases: Supporting Document to Task Managers' Report to CSD+10 on the Land and Agriculture Cluster for Chapters 10, 12 and 14 of Agenda 21. Compendium of Land and SARD Cases: April 2001.
Shiferaw, B. A., J. Okello and R. V. Reddy. 2009. Adoption and adaptation of natural resource management innovations in smallholder agriculture: reflections on key lessons and best practices. Environ Dev Sustain (2009) 11:601-619.
WOCAT. 2007. Where the land is greener-case studies and analysis of soil and water conservation initiatives worldwide. Editors: Hanspeter Liniger and William Critchley. WOCAT. 2008. A Framework for documentation and evaluation of sustainable land management Approaches -basic. WOCAT questionnaire.
AfDB, UNECA and OECD. 2009. African Economic Outlook 2008/09. Paris and Tunis: AfDB and OECD. Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA). 2010. Statement from chairman: Africa's breadbas- kets: key to achieving food security. http://www.agra-alliance.org/section/news/chairman_speech/;
Aune, J. B. and A. Bationo. 2008. Agricultural intensification in the Sahel: the ladder approach. Agricul- tural Systems 98: 119-125.
Bonkoungou, E.G. 2001. Biodiversity in the drylands: Challenges and opportunities for conservation and sustainable use. Challenge Paper. The Global Drylands Initiative, UNDP Drylands Development Centre, Nairobi, Kenya.
Bot, A. and J. Benites. 2005. The importance of soil organic matter: key to drought-resistant soil and sustained food production. FAO soils bulletin 80. FAO, Rome, Italy.
Castillo, G. E., R. E. Namara, H. M. Ravnborg, M. A. Hanjra, L. Smith, M. H. Hussein, C. Béné, S. Cook, D. Hirsch, P. Polak, D. Vallée and B. van Koppen. 2007. Reversing the flow: agricultural water management pathways for poverty reduction. In: Molden, D. (Ed.), Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture: Water for Food, Water for Life. International Water Management Institute (IWMI)/ EarthScan, London/ Colombo, (Chapter 4), pp. 149-191.
Crepin, C., S. Danyo and F. Sperling. 2008. Land management and climate change. Draft issues paper. World Bank. Critchley, W., 2007. Working with farmer innovators. CTA, Wageningen. The Netherlands.
Desanker, P.V., 2002. The impact of climate change on life in Africa: climate change and vulnerability in Africa. World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), Washington DC, USA.
Desanker, P.V. and C. Magadza. 2001. Africa. In McCarthy J. J., et al. (Eds.), Climate change 2001: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Cambridge University Press, pp. 487-531.
Dixon, J., A. Gulliver and D. Gibbon. 2001. Farming systems and poverty: improving farmers' liveli- hoods in a changing world. FAO, Rome, Italy.
Drechsel, P., A. Olaleye, A. Adeoti, L. Thiombiano, B. Barry and K. Vohland. 2005. Adoption driver and constraints of resource conservation technologies in Sub-Saharan Africa. 21pp. http://www.iwmi. cgiar.org/africa/west_africa/projects/AdoptionTechnology/AdoptionConstraints-Overview.pdf Envirotrade. 2010. Carbon trading: the market. http://www.envirotrade.co.uk/html/resources_market.php Eswaran, H., R. Lal and P.F. Reich. 2001. Land degradation: an overview. Responses to land degrada- tion. Proc. 2 nd . International Conference on Land Degradation and Desertification. New Delhi, India: Oxford Press. http://soils.usda.gov/use/worldsoils/papers/land-degradation-overview.html.
Eswaran H., R. Almaraz, E. van den Berg and P. Reich. 1997. An assessment of the soil resources of Africa in relation to productivity. Geoderma 77:1-18.
Falkenmark, M., C. M. Finlayson, L. J. Gordon, E. M. Bennett, T. M. Chiuta, D. Coates, N. Ghosh, M. Gopalakrishnan, R.S. de Groot, G. Jacks, E. Kendy, L. Oyebande, M. Moore, G. D. Peterson, J. M. Portuguez, K. Seesink, R. Tharme and R. Wasson. 2007. Agriculture, water, and ecosystems: avoiding the costs of going too far. In: Molden, D. (Ed.), Comprehensive Assessment of Water Man- agement in Agriculture: Water for Food, Water for Life. International Water Management Institute (IWMI)/ EarthScan, London/ Colombo, (Chapter 6), pp. 233-277.
Falkenmark, M. and J. Rockström. 2006. The new blue and green water paradigm: breaking new ground for water resources planning and management. Journal of water resources planning and management May/ June.
FAO, 2004. The State of Food and Agriculture 2003-2004 -Agricultural Biotechnology. Meeting the Needs of the Poor? FAO Agricultural Series No. 35.
FAO. 2009a. Food security and agricultural mitigation in developing countries: options for capturing synergies. FAO, Rome, Italy.
FAO, 2009b. FAO -Profile for climate change. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/012/i1323e/i1323e00.pdf FAO. 2008a. TerrAfrica -A vision paper for Sustainable Land Management in Sub-Saharan Africa. FAO, Rome, Italy. FAO. 2008b. Water and the rural poor: interventions for improving livelihoods in Sub-Saharan Africa, edited by Faurès J. M. and G. Santini. FAO, Rome, Italy.
FAOSTAT. 2008. Agricultural statistics. Available at http://faostat.fao.org/ FAOSTAT, 2004. Agricultural statistics. Available at http://faostat.fao.org/ Fox, P., J. Rockström and J. Barron. 2005. Risk analysis and economic viability of water harvesting for supplemental irrigation in semi-arid Burkina Faso and Kenya. Agricultural Systems 83 (3), pp. 231-250.
Gitonga, J.N.L., 2005. Monitoring and modeling crop growth, water use and production under dry-land environment west and northwest of Mount Kenya. PhD thesis, Dept. of Geography, University of Bern, Switzerland.
Harrison, S.G., G.B. Masefield, M. Wallis, and B.E. Nicholson. 1969; 1985. The Oxford Book of Food Plants. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Henao, J. and C. Baanante. 2006. Agricultural production and soil nutrient mining in Africa: implication for resource conservation and policy development. IFDC Tech. Bull. International Fertilizer Develop- ment Center. Muscle Shoals, Al. USA.
Hurni, H. 1997. Concepts of sustainable land management. ITC Journal Vol. Nr. 3/4, 210-215.
ILEIA -the Centre for Learning on sustainable agriculture and the secretariat of the global Agri- Cultures network. 2001. http://ileia.leisa.info/index.php?url=show-blob-html.tpl&p%5Bo_ id%5D=239119&p%5Ba_id%5D=211&p%5Ba_seq%5D=1; accessed 15.1.2010. International Assessment of Agricultural knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD). 2009a. Synthesis report -A synthesis of the global and sub-global IAASTD reports, edited by Beverly D. McIntyre, H. R. Herren, J. Wakhungu and R.T. Watson. http://www.agassess- ment.org/reports/IAASTD/EN/Agriculture%20at%20a%20Crossroads_Synthesis%20Report%20
English).pdf International Assessment of Agricultural knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD). 2009b. Sub Saharan Africa (SSA), sub-global IAASTD reports. International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM). 2009. The principles of organic agriculture. http://www.ifoam.org/about_ifoam/principles/index.html; accessed 22 March 2010. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). 2010. SLM Advisory Services: Key Institutional, Financing, and Economic Elements for Scaling Up Sustainable Land Management in Nigeria. Syn- thesis Report. International Soil Reference and Information Centre (ISRIC). 2010. Green Water Credits. http://www. isric.org/UK/About+ISRIC/Projects/Current+Projects/GWC+Introduction.htm; accessed 17 January 2010. IPCC. 2007. Climate change 2007 -Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the IPCC. Available from: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccrep- orts/ar4-wg2.htm ISRIC -World Soil Information. 2010. Green Water Credits. http://www.isric.org/UK/About+ISRIC/ Projects/Current+Projects/Green+Water+Credits.htm, accessed on 14 June 2010.
Lastarria-Cornhiel, S. 2006. Feminization of Agriculture: Trends and Driving Forces (version 1.0). This document is part of a series of contributions by Rimisp for Rural Development (www.rimisp.org) to the preparation of the World Development Report 2008 'Agriculture for Development'.
Liniger, H.P. and W. Critchley. 2008. Safeguarding water resources by making the land greener: knowl- edge management through WOCAT. In: Bossio D. and K. Geheb (Eds), Conserving Land, Protect- ing Water (Comprehensive Assessment of water management in agriculture series). CABI, IWMI, CGIAR Challenge Program on Water & Food.
Liniger, H.P., 1995. Endangered water, a global overview of degradation, conflicts and strategies for improvement. Centre for Development and Environment (CDE), Bern, Switzerland.
Liniger, H.P., J. Gikonyo, B. Kiteme and U. Wiesmann. 2005. Assessing and managing scarce tropi- cal mountain water resources -The case of Mount Kenya and the semi-arid Upper Ewaso Ng'iro Basin. Mountain Research and Development 25(2); 163-173.
McCann, J.C., 2005. Maize and grace: Africa's encounter with a new world crop 1500-2000. Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, US.
Molden, D., T. Y. Oweis, P. Steduto, J. W. Kijne, M. A. Hanjra, P. S. Bindraban, B. A. M. Bouman, S. Cook, O. Erenstein, H. Farahani, A. Hachum, J. Hoogeveen, H. Mahoo, V. Nangia, D. Peden, A. Sikka, P. Silva, H. Turral, A. Upadhyaya, and S. Zwart. 2007. Pathways for increasing agricultural water productivity. In: Molden, D. (Ed.), Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agri- culture: Water for Food, Water for Life. International Water Management Institute (IWMI)/ EarthS- can, London/ Colombo, (Chapter 7), pp. 279-310.
Mortimore, M. with contributions from S. Anderson, L. Cotula, J. Davies, K. Faccer, C. Hesse, J. Mor- ton, W. Nyangena, J. Skinner and C. Wolfangel. 2009. Dryland opportunities: a new paradigm for people, ecosystems and development, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland; IIED, London, UK and UNDP/ DDC, Nairobi, Kenya. x + 86p.
Nkomo, J.C., A. Nyong and K. Kulindwa. 2006. The impacts of climate change in Africa. Report pre- pared for the Stern Review. Available from: www.sternreview.org.uk
Oldeman, L.R., 1998. Soil degradation: a threat to food security?, Report 98/01. The Netherlands: International Soil Reference and Information Centre (ISRIC), Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Oldeman, L.R., 1994. The global extent of land degradation. In Greenland D.J. and I. Szabolcs (Eds.), Land Resilience and Sustainable Land Use, pp. 99-118. Wallingford, UK, CABI.
Oweis, T., and A. Hachum. 2001. Reducing peak supplemental irrigation demand by extending sowing dates. Agric. Water Manage. 50:109-123.
Pender, J., C. Ringler, M. Magalhaes and F. Place. 2009. The Role of Sustainable Land Management for Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation in Sub-Saharan Africa. A TerrAfrica partnership pub- lication, Washington, D.C.
Pender, J. F., 2008. The world food crisis, land degradation and sustainable land management: link- ages, opportunities and constraints. Mimeo. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, D.C. Reich, P.F., S.T. Numbem, R.A. Almaraz and H. Eswaran. 2001. Land resource stresses and desertifi- cation in Africa. In: Bridges, E.M., I.D. Hannam, L.R. Oldeman, F.W.T. Pening de Vries, S.J. Scherr, and S. Sompatpanit (Eds.), Responses to Land Degradation. Proc. 2 nd . International Conference on Land Degradation and Desertification, Khon Kaen, Thailand. Oxford Press, New Delhi, India.
Rockström, J., N. Hatibu, T. Oweis, S. Wani, J. Barron, A. Bruggeman, J. Farahani, L. Karlberg, and Z.Qiang. 2007. Managing water in rainfed agriculture. In: Molden, D. (Ed.), Comprehensive Assess- ment of Water Management in Agriculture: Water for Food, Water for Life. International Water Man- agement Institute/EarthScan, London/Colombo, (Chapter 8), pp. 315-352.
Rockström, J., J. Barron and P. Fox. 2003. Water productivity in rainfed agriculture: challenges and opportunities for smallholder farmers in drought prone tropical agro-ecosystems. In: Kijne, J.W., R. Barker and D. Molden (Eds), Water Productivity in Agriculture: Limits and Opportunities for Improvements, CABI, Wallingford, U.K., pp. 145-161.
Rockström, J. 2003. Water for food and nature in drought-prone tropics: vapour shift in rain-fed agri- culture. Royal Society Transactions B Biological Sciences 358 (1440): 1997-2009.
Sanchez P.A., 2002. Soil fertility and hunger in Africa. Science 295, 2019-2020. Available from: http:// www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/295/5562/2019?siteid=sci&ijkey=EMQmOjsSVVbg6
Sanchez P.A., K.D. Sheperd, M.J. Soule, F.M. Place, R.J. Buresh, A.-M.I. Izac, A.U. Mokwunye, F.R. Kwesiga, C.G. Ndiritu and P.L. Woomer. 1997. Soil fertility replenishment in Africa: an investment in natural resource capital. In: Buresh R.J., P.A. Sanchez and F. Calhoun (Eds.), Replenishing Soil Fertility in Africa. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, Wisconsin.
Scherr, S.J. and S. Sthapit. 2009. Farming and land use to cool the planet. In: Starke, L. et al (Eds.) State of the World 2009 -Confronting Climate Change. Earthscan, London, UK.
Schwilch G., F. Bachmann and H.P. Liniger. 2009. Appraising and selecting conservation measures to mitigate desertification and land degradation based on stakeholder participation and global best practices. Land Degradation & Development 20: 308-326.
Smith, F., 2008. Women: guardians of West Africa's crop diversity. Geneflow'08: 27. Bioversity.
Stern, N., 2007. The economics of climate change -The Stern Review. Cambridge University Press, UK.
Stotz, S., 2009. Identification of SLM best bet practices in Sub-Saharan Africa and an analysis of the upscal- ing potential of different technologies. Bachelor study 03-907-185. University of Bern, Switzerland.
Studer, C., 2009. Management der limitierten Ressource Wasser in der Land-und Forstwirtschaft. Script, Swiss College of Agriculture. Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development (SARD). 2007. Conservation agriculture in Africa. SARD policy brief 18.
Tanner, C.B., and T.R. Sinclair. 1983. Efficient water use in crop production: research or re-search? In Taylor H.M., W.A. Jordan and T.R. Sinclair (Eds.), Limitations to Efficient Water Use in Crop Produc- tion. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin.
TerrAfrica. 2009. Sustainable land management in Sub-Saharan Africa. Draft TerrAfrica overview paper. TerrAfrica. 2008. Policies for scaling up sustainable land management: resource guide for policymak- ers. Final draft. A TerrAfrica partnership publication.
TerrAfrica. 2007. Assessment of the barriers and bottlenecks to scaling-up SLM investments through- out Sub Saharan Africa. TerrAfrica SIP Activity 1.4.
UNESCO. 2006. Curriculum rationale. Understanding sustainable development. http://www.unesco. org/education/tlsf/TLSF/theme_a/mod02/uncom02t02.htm; accessed 3 March 2010.
UN-REDD Programme. 2009. The United Nations collaborative programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation in Developing countries. http://www.un-redd.org/ Verchot, L., F. Place, K. Shepherd and B. Jama. 2007. Science and technological innovations for improving soil fertility and management in Africa. A report for the NEPAD Science and Technology Forum. Working Paper of World Agroforestry Centre.
Versfeld, D.B., D.C.Maitre, and R.A. Chapman. 1998. Alien invading plants and water resources in South Africa: a preliminary assessment. Water Research Commission Report No. TT 99/98.
Wikipedia. 2010. Integrated pest management. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_pest_manage- ment; accessed 22 March 2010.
WOCAT. 2008. A framework for documentation and evaluation of sustainable land management: tech- nologies basic questionnaire. www.wocat.net WOCAT. 2007. Where the land is greener -case studies and analysis of soil and water conservation initiatives worldwide. Editors: Hanspeter Liniger and William Critchley.
Woodfine, A. 2009. Using sustainable land management practices to adapt to and mitigate climate change in sub-Saharan Africa: resource guide version 1.0. TerrAfrica. www.terrafrica.org.
World Bank (WB). 2010. Managing land in a changing climate: an operational perspective for Sub- Saharan Africa. Draft version Report No.: 54134-AFR. WB, Washington D.C. World Resources Institute (WRI) in collaboration with United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and World Bank (WB). 2005. World Resources 2005: The Wealth of the Poor-Managing Ecosystems to Fight Poverty. WRI, Washington, D.C. Zhi You, L., 2008. Africa infrastructure country diagnostic: irrigation investment needs in Sub-Saharan Africa. information: Bennett, G. W., J. M. Owens, R. M. Corrigan. 2004. Truman's Scientific Guide to Pest Management Operations, 6th edition. Purdue University/ Questex Press.
Dixon, J., A. Gulliver and D. Gibbon. 2001. Farming systems and poverty -Improving farmers' liveli- hoods in a changing world. FAO and World Bank, Rome and Washington D.C. FAO. 2009. Country support tool for scaling-up Sustainable Land Management in Sub-Saharan Africa. Version 1.0. A TerrAfrica partnership publication.
Gabathuler, E., F. Bachmann and A. Kläy (2011). Reshaping Rural Extension. Learning for Sustainability (LforS) -An Integrative and Learning-based Advisory Approach for Rural Extension with Small- Scale Farmers. Margraf Publishers: Weikersheim.
GTZ. 2009. Running dry? Climate change in drylands and how to cope with it. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), GmbH. Oekom Verlag, München.
Hurni, H., 2000. Assessing sustainable land management (SLM). Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environ- ment Vol. 81 Nr. 1-10.
Müller-Lindenlauf, M., 2009. Organic agriculture and carbon sequestration -Possibilities and constrains for the consideration of organic agriculture within carbon accounting systems. FAO, Rome, Italy. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/012/ak998e/ak998e00.pdf
Neuenschwander, P., C. Borgemeister and J. Langewald (eds). 2003. Biological Control in IPM Sys- tems in Africa. CAB International.
Noble, A.D., J. Pretty, F.W.T. Penning de Vries and D. Bossio. 2005. Development of bright spots in Africa: cause for optimism. In: Penning de Vries, F.W.T. (Ed), Bright Spots Demonstrate Community Successes in African Agriculture. Working Paper 102. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute (IWMI).
Oweis, T. and A. Hachum. 2006. Water harvesting and supplemental irrigation for improved water productivity of dry farming systems in West Asia and North Africa. Agricultural Water Management 1-3: 57-73.
Patel, R. and E. Holt-Giménez. 2008. The new green revolution and world food prices. http://www. foodfirst.org/en/node/2083; accessed 22 March 2010.
Reij, C. and A. Waters-Bayer. 2001. Farmer innovation in Africa. Earthscan Publication, London. UK.
Shiferaw, B. A., J. Okello and R. V. Reddy. 2009. Adoption and adaptation of natural resource manage- ment innovations in smallholder agriculture: reflections on key lessons and best practices. Environ Dev Sustain 11:601-619.
Sustainet Broschure. 2004. Combating World Hunger Through Sustainable Agriculture. http://www. sustainet.org/download/sustainet_broch_eng.pdf
Swift, M.J., K.D. Shepherd (Eds). 2007. Saving Africa's Soils: Science and Technology for Improved Soil Management in Africa. Nairobi: World Agroforestry Centre Tripp, R., 2006. Is low external input technology contributing to sustainable agricultural development? Natural Resource Perspectives 102, Overseas Development Institute (ODI).
Würth, F., 2010. Sustainable Land Management in the Face of Climate Change in Sub-Saharan Africa. Bachelor study. University of Bern, Switzerland.
Zomer R., A. Trabucco, R. Coe and F. Place. 2009. Trees on farm: analysis of global extent and geo- graphical patterns of agroforestry. ICRAF Working Paper no. 89. Nairobi, Kenya: World Agroforestry Centre. 60pp.

Case study. Forest beekeeping – Cameroon

Sign up for access to the world's latest research

Abstract

Key takeawaysAI

Related papers

Related papers

References (196)

Key takeaways
AI