case for farmers with substantial off-farm income.


 3. Farmers invest more if they have more resources at their disposal, other things being equal:
 those with bullocks and healthy family labour are more likely to invest than those without.

 4. The tenure arrangements under which farmers operate affect investment levels: those who
 cultivate their own land are much more likely to invest in soil conservation than those
 renting or sharecropping someone else's land. Likewise, landlords leasing out their land do
 not appear to invest much in soil conservation.

 5. Land quality also determines investment levels. Most farmers have more than one plot, and
 they invest in their most productive plot first. Those who have irrigated land invest less on
 their dryland plots than those without irrigated land.

 6. Where it is technically feasible, farmers invest in soil conservation in a stepwise manner,
 strengthening structures annually as needed. This reduces the initial investment and
 postpones costs to the future.

 7. Farmers prefer to invest in soil conservation individually or in cooperation with an adjacent
 farmer rather than in large, cooperative groups.


Hypothesis 1: Awareness of Soil Erosion and its Consequences

Farmers will only invest in soil conservation if they are aware of erosion and its potential yield-
reducing effects. Our research indicates that they are very clearly aware. Virtually all farmers
surveyed explained in detail the erosion threat to their land and its effects on production, the
measures required for prevention, and their costs.

Farmers list three main harmful effects of erosion: loss of soil, loss of water, and loss of nutrients
(farm yard manure and fertilizer) from their fields. Where soil is shallow, they stress that losing
large amounts of soil is unacceptable. However, when soil is deep and erosion is mild, they are
more concerned about losing nutrients and water than losing soil. Not surprisingly, SWC
investment appears to be positively correlated to application of farm yard manure.

Farmers also distinguish between damage to soil that they perceive as irreversible and that which
they believe can be corrected. Nutrient loss is seen as perhaps the major cost of soil erosion, and
it is clearly reversible. Generous application of fertilizer and organic matter can rebuild eroded
soil within five years, according to most farmers surveyed. Likewise, gully erosion is seen as
reversible. This is because it only affects a small portion of the field. Once the gully is plugged,
it is gradually filled by soil from upper fields and within the same field. On the other hand, sheet
erosion is seen to cause irreversible damage, especially where soil is very shallow. (In deep soil
areas farmers appear not to perceive sheet erosion.)

Farmers are not necessarily correct in thinking that damage due to gully erosion can be fully
reversed, unless they gain soil from erosion upstream. It is likely that we do not fully understand


GATEKEEPER SERIES NO. SA34