Researchers


Researchers should provide information to be used by policy makers to formulate cost-effective
SWC programs. This requires calculating the costs and benefits of different technologies and the
conditions under which farmers do or do not invest in them.

By studying the technical and economic efficiency of indigenous and recommended practices,
researchers will provide information to SWC programme authorities about the tradeoffs between
technically optimal practices that farmers have been reluctant to accept and indigenous practices
that are second best technically but have proven acceptable to farmers. Since recommended
practices often require cooperation among farmers, an important component of such a study
would be to identify conditions when such cooperation is forthcoming.

Researchers should identify which practices are economically viable and can be financed through
commercial credit. They should also identify the conditions in which the social benefits of SWC
exceed the private benefits, such as when farmers lack sufficient information, are excessively
averse to risk, or have a short time horizon. This will indicate when and to what extent subsidies
are justified, and suggest policies to overcome constraints to farmers' investments.

Researchers must continue to develop new, less expensive soil conservation technologies. This
may be the best way to make SWC profitable and encourage busy, upwardly mobile farmers to
invest more. An example of such an effort is the World Bank's recent promotion of vetiver grass,
which in favorable growth conditions is inexpensive to plant and maintain. It is also compatible
with Indian SAT farmers' preferences for boundary-based SWC technology that concentrates soil
at the lower end of the field. However, it is unrealistic to think that vetiver or any other
technology is likely to be the single best option for every situation. For example, recent research
suggests that in the Indian SAT maintenance costs of vetiver are actually very high due to the dry
conditions (Sivamohan et al, 1990). Researchers should experiment with other vegetative SWC
measures that are also highly-valued for other uses, such as fodder, fuel, fruit, etc. Again, the best
vegetative SWC measure may not be the one that conserves soil the most effectively.

Finally, researchers should work in collaboration with SWC programme managers to test
different technologies and institutional arrangements in the field.

In conclusion, soil conservation programmes can become more cost-effective if they are based on
an understanding of farmers' perceptions about soil erosion and the conditions under which they
adopt and maintain soil conservation measures. Farmers would benefit by receiving land care
assistance that suits their needs, and society at large would benefit because public funds would
be better spent and the country's soil resources managed more efficiently.

Much more research is needed to measure the actual costs of erosion, both to farmers and to
society. This information is needed to determine how much should be spent to control erosion.
The preliminary findings reported here, meanwhile, will enable funds already devoted to
promoting soil conservation to be used more effectively.


GATEKEEPER SERIES NO. SA34