lines. Boundary-based systems, though less technically efficient than the recommended contour-
based systems from the narrow perspective of only conserving soil, may provide the greatest net
benefits because experience shows that farmers are more willing to adopt and maintain them.

Given the proper mandate, SWC programmes are in a unique position to experiment with different
approaches to maximize effectiveness. They can compare the efficiency of different technologies
at the field level and test how much farmers are willing to pay for them, analyze the varying
interests of different groups and the distribution of benefits and costs among them, and experiment
to identify circumstances under which farmers are willing to cooperate with each other. This work
should be done in collaboration with agricultural and social science researchers.

SWC programmes can only gain such vital information, however, if they eliminate the current
orientation toward measuring success by physical targets achieved. This narrow, inflexible focus
makes it impossible to explore and benefit from the diverse and often subtle factors that determine
adoption and maintenance of SWC practices.

Education and information dissemination can be a very important tool for promoting SWC.
Experience in Australia and Africa has found that increasing public awareness has improved the
performance of SWC programmes (Chamala and Mortiss, 1990; Allwright, 1992; Critchley,
1990). Spreading information about the costs of erosion and alternative means of controlling it
should be an integral component of SWC efforts.


Policy Makers

The government should subsidize SWC only in those situations when it is socially profitable to
do so, and policy makers should encourage researchers to provide them with information to
indicate when this is the case. But even outside the area of financial incentives, policy makers
have a large sphere of influence on erosion through the manipulation of policy. In this regard,
particular efforts are needed to address erosion problems on the fields of short-term tenants and
non-practicing or absentee landlords. One option is to subsidize SWC investments by tenants, but
policy makers can and should encourage longer-term tenancy, selectively discourage absentee-
ism by large landowners (perhaps by means of a land tax), and encourage remaining absentees to
plant perennial vegetation on their land. Likewise, in order to encourage farmers to plant more
trees, policy makers should relax laws restricting harvesting and transporting trees from private
land. Continued research on farmer adoption patterns is needed to supply policy makers with
information necessary for designing precise policies.

Macroeconomic policies also influence SWC investments by affecting the prices of farm inputs
and outputs. This changes the profits of different farming activities, including conservation
investments. References are given for readers interested in this subject (Mironowski, 1986;
Barbier, 1988; Conway and Barbier, 1990).


GATEKEEPER SERIES NO. SA34