This therefore requires holistic, science-led
solutions to mitigate risks and ensure scaling up
and sustainability. Below are the drivers of change,
which indicate pathways to create large-scale,
system level impact.

Multi-institutional consortium

As watershed management requires multi-
disciplinary expertise, a team of researchers
(hydrology, engineers, soil scientists, agronomists,
and GIS, socio-economic and gender experts)
from ICAR-CAFRI was formed. They were
involved in designing and implementing site
specific interventions, with the help of local
communities, in 2006 in the GKD watershed.
Similarly, ICRISAT and ICAR-CAFRI formed a
consortium to develop the PS watershed between
2012 and 2016. In the KISAN MITrA initiative,
a multi-institutional consortium was formed,
led by ICRISAT, to scale up a number of best
management practices: rain water harvesting,
agroforestry, productivity enhancement,
mechanization, fodder production, livestock
management and capacity building.

Institutional arrangements

To ensure the sustainability of interventions,
community-based organizations such as village
committees, self help groups, user groups and
environmental clubs have been promoted in
all project locations. The beneficiaries of the
various interventions have been identified and
intervention specific user groups were formed.
To ensure effective management, these groups
have been trained on the roles and responsibilities
relating to maintenance of the intervention assets.

For example, farmers with block plantation of
teak on field bunds have formed a user group
and collect proportionate user fees for the
maintenance of these trees. Similarly, village
committees have been formed in all project

locations. They decide on the sharing of inputs
and also suggest suitable locations for various
natural resource management interventions, on a
year to year basis.

Promoting accountability,
transparency, flexibility in
operation and ownership among
the community

The concept of a 'measurement book' (MB)
is strictly followed. This helps to maintain
accountability and transparency in the execution
of engineering works. Payments are based on
an actual MB, which is verified and vetted by
project partners, field staff and venders. There is
some flexibility in terms of planning, execution
and expenditure. Normally government-led
programs have predefined allocations for different
components even at minor scale. However,
in these projects researchers have had greater
flexibility to adjust physical and financial targets
as per the needs of the community. In addition,
expenditure relating to a specified activity is only
processed after completion.

Capacity building

Capacity building is an integral part of all these
interventions. The capacity of farmers, project
staff, and young professionals (including women),
has been strengthened through participatory field
demonstrations, field days and exposure visits.
For example, both the PS and GKD watersheds
have acted as sites of learning. More than 5000
farmers, policy makers and researchers have
visited the watershed and learned the nuances
of the interventions. During such visits, farmers
themselves have shared their experiences and
explained the innovation process followed in the
watershed. They also highlighted the changes in
their lifestyle before and after the interventions.
## 8. Conclusions

The Bundelkhand region of Central India has a number of challenges, however it holds many opportunities for sustainable crop intensification in the largely rainfed dominated landscape. To address both livelihood and environment goals in agricultural landscapes, this case study shows a successful approach to managing multiple interventions that can be achieved through partnership between farmers, researchers, government and private sector investors.

The traditional rainwater harvesting system was the lifeline of the Bundelkhand region. However, this has become defunct due to the failure of local institutions. Nonetheless this can be rejuvenated by following a hybrid approach, combining traditional knowledge with new innovations. Large areas of the Bundelkhand region are under permanent fallow, is waste land or has been degraded due to ravine formation. This land could be rejuvenated through various *in situ* interventions. Knowledge generating institutes, government agencies and private partners need to come together to harness such opportunities. A large number of farmers in the region are still using old cultivar varieties, which need to be replaced with climate-smart crop cultivars. International, national, state and local institutes and state agricultural universities need to work together with development agencies, policy makers and farming communities to screen and identify suitable crop cultivars specific to each district, and even further at smaller scales. Moreover, the large knowledge gaps that exist among village communities about beneficial approaches and technologies also hold huge opportunity.

The Government of India, and the state government, is placing large emphasis on developing village institutions such as self help groups, user groups and farmer producer organizations. These institutions require technical backstopping from knowledge generating institutes in order to achieve the desired goals. There is large scope for needs-based mechanization in the region. Technologies such as laser levelling, use of zero-tillage and other sowing, intercultural and harvesting instruments, need to be introduced, along with large scale capacity building of local youth for the effective utilization of available machinery. In addition to government agencies, the involvement of private partners and service providers, can bring further synergy towards achieving scaling up targets. Agroforestry is a sustainable solution to ensure long term sustainability, and strengthen ecosystem services (controlling land degradation and carbon sequestration), without compromising the production system. This case study identifies the pathways for adopting best management practices. Significant efforts are now required to scale up these interventions, across a larger area, in order to benefit those in similar agro-ecological regions.
## References

Dewandel, B., Perrin, J., Ahmed, S., Aulong, S., Hrkal, Z., Lachassagne, P., Samad, M. & Massuel, S. 2010. Development of a tool for managing groundwater resources in semi-arid hard rock regions: application to a rural watershed in South India. Hydrological Processes, 24(19): 2784-2797. DOI:10.1002/hyp.7696

Garg, K.K., Singh, R., Anantha, K.H., Anand, K. S., Venkata, R.A., Barron, J., Inder, D., Tewari, R.K., Suhas, P.W., Dhyani, S.K. & Sreenath, D. 2020. Impact of agricultural water management interventions on hydrological processes, crop intensification and agricultural productivity: A study in a meso-scale watershed, Bundelkhand region, Central India. Submitted to: Journal of Hydrology.

Garg, K.K., Karlberg, L., Barron, J., Wani, S.P., & Rockstrom, J. 2011. Assessing impacts of agricultural water intervention in the Kothapally watershed, Southern India. Hydrological Processes. Vol. 26, No. 3, p. 387-404. DOI: 10.1002/hyp.8138.

Garg, K.K. & Wani, S.P. 2013. Opportunities to Build Groundwater Resilience in the Semi-Arid Tropics. Ground Water, 51(5): 679-691. DOI:10.1111/gwat.1007

Glendenning, C.J. & Vervoort, R.W. 2010. Hydrological impacts of rainwater harvesting (RWH) in a case study catchment: The Arvari River, Rajasthan, India. Part 1: Field-scale impacts. Agricultural Water Management, 98(2): 331-342. DOI:10.1016/j.agwat.2010.09.003

Government of India. 2014. Companies (Corporate Social Responsibility Policy) Rules, 2014, Government of India, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Notification, New Delhi, dated 27th Feb 2014

Government of India. 2015. Economic Survey, 2015-16, Ministry of Finance Department of Economic Affairs Economic Division, Government of India. New Delhi.

Government of India. 2020. Welfare Schemes. National Portal of India. [Cited 15 July 2020] https://www.india.gov.in/my-government/schemes

Gupta, A. K., Nair, S.S., Ghosh, O., Singh, A. & Dey, S. 2014. Bundelkhand Drought: Retrospective

Analysis and Way Ahead. National Institute of Disaster Management, New Delhi, Page 148.

India Meteorological Department. 2005. Annual report 2005. India Meteorological Department, Ministry of Earth Sciences, Government of India, New Delhi

Joshi, P. K., Jha, A. K., Wani, S. P., Sreedevi, T. K. & Shaheen, F.A. 2008. Impact of Watershed Program and Conditions for Success: A Meta-Analysis Approach. Global Theme on Agroecosystems Report no. 46, Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics. pp. 24.

Meter, K. J.V., Steiff, M., McLaughlin, D. L., & Basu, N. B. 2016. The socio-ecohydrology of rainwater harvesting in India: understanding water storage and release dynamics across spatial scales. Hydrology and Earth System Science, 20: 2629-2647.

Mitra, A. & Rao, N. 2019. Gender, water, and nutrition in India: An intersectional perspective. Water Alternatives, 12(1), 169-191.

NITI Aayog. 2016. Human Development Report, Bundelkhand Human Development Report 2012. Prepared under NITI Aayog-UNDP Project on Human Development: Towards bridging inequalities. pp 258.

Padmaja, R., Kavitha, K., Pramanik, S., Duche, V.D., Singh, Y.U., Whitbread, A.M., Singh, R., Garg, K.K. & Leder, S. 2020. Gender transformative impacts from watershed interventions: Insights from a mixed-methods study in the Bundelkhand region of India. Transactions of the ASABE, 63(1), 153-163

Rao, A.V.R. K., Wani, S.P., Singh, K.K., Ahmed, M.I., Srinivas, K., Bairagi, S.D. & Ramadevi, O. 2013. Increased arid and semi-arid areas in India with associated shifts during 1971-2004. Journal of Agrometeorology, 15(1), 11-18.

Reddy, V.R., Reddy, M. S. & Palanisami, K. 2018. Tank rehabilitation in India: Review of experiences and strategies. Agricultural Water Management 209: 32-43.

Rockstrom, J. & Karlberg, L. 2009. Zooming in on the global hotspots of rainfed agriculture in water constrained environment. Chapter 2 in Wani, S.P.,
Rockstrom, J. & Oweis, T. (Eds). Rainfed agriculture: Unlocking the potential. Pp. 36-42. CABI, Wallingford, UK.

Sahu, R.K., Rawat, A.K., & Rao, D.L.N. 2015. Traditional rainwater management system ('Haveli') in Vertisols of central India improves carbon sequestration and biological soil fertility. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 200(1):94-101

Shah, T. 2003. Who should manage Chandeli tanks? IWMI-Tata Comment, 1/2003. 7p.

Shakeel, A., Jamal, A. & Zaidy, M.N. 2012. A regional analysis of food security in Bundelkhand region (Uttar Pradesh, India). Journal of Geography and Regional Planning. Vol. 5(9). [Cited: 1 October 2015] http://www.academicjournals.org/article/article1381916533_Shakeel%20et%20al.pdf Sharda, V.N., Kurothe, R.S., Sena, D.R., Pande, V.C. & Tiwari, S.P. 2006. Estimation of groundwater recharge from water storage structures in a semi-arid climate of India. Journal of Hydrology, 329(1): 224-243. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.02.015

Singh, R., Garg, K.K., Wani, S.P., Tewari, R.K. & Dhyani, S.K. 2014. Impact of water management interventions on hydrology and ecosystem services in Garhkundar - Dabar watershed of Bundelkhand region, Central India. Journal of Hydrology, 509, 132-149.

Tyagi, R.K. 1997. Grassland and Fodder, Atlas of Bundelkhand. Indian grassland and fodder research institute, Jhansi, pp 1-178.

UPWSRP. 2001. IWRM for rehabilitation of Bundelkhand region of Uttar Pradesh, A concept paper for inclusion of the project under phase-II of the Uttar Pradesh, Water Sector restructuring project.

Varua, M.E., Ward, J., Maheshwari, B., Dave, S. & Kookana, R., 2018. Groundwater management and gender inequalities: The case of two watersheds in rural India. Groundwater for Sustainable Development, 6, 93-100.

Wani, S.P., Anantha, K.H., Sreedevi, T.K., Sudi, R., Singh, S.N., & D'Souza, M. 2011. Assessing the Environmental Benefits of Watershed Development: Evidence from the Indian Semi-Arid Tropics. Journal

of Sustainable Watershed Science and Management, 1 (1): 10-20.

Wani, S.P., Joshi, P.K., Raju, K.V., Sreedevi, T.K., Wilson, J.M., Shah, A., Diwakar, P.G., Palanisami, K., Marimuthu, S., Jha, A.K., Ramakrishna, Y.S., Meenakshi Sundaram, S.S., & D'Souza, M. 2008 Community Watershed as a Growth Engine for Development of Dryland Areas. A Comprehensive Assessment of Watershed Programs in India. Global Theme on Agroecosystems Report No. 47, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India, pp. 156.

Wani, S.P. & Raju, KV. (Eds.) 2020. Community and Climate Resilience in the Semi-Arid Tropics, Springer Nature, 269 p. ISBN 978-3-030-29917-0

Government of India 2015. Statistical year book, India, 2015. Ministry of statistics and program implementation. New Delhi

India Meteorological Department, 2005. Daily rainfall data of Jhansi district between 1945 and 2005. Ministry of Earth Sciences, Government of India

## Acknowledgements

Authors gratefully acknowledges the financial support received from Government of Uttar Pradesh for implementing KISAN MITRA (Knowledge-based Integrated Sustainable Agriculture Network - Mission India for Transforming Agriculture) project in seven districts of Bundelkhand region of Uttar Pradesh state in Central India. Funding support received from CGIAR Research Program on Water Land and Ecosystem for monitoring data in Parasai-Sindh watershed of Jhansi district is highly appreciated. Authors also grateful to Swedish University of Agriculture Sciences (SLU), Uppsala, Sweden for facilitating the development of this case study.
# Scaling-up water management interventions for rainfed agriculture in the Ethiopian Highlands: status, issues, and opportunities

Mezegebu Getnet<fnref n="1" />, Anantha K.H.<fnref n="1" />, Kaushal K. Garg<fnref n="1" />, Jennie Barron<fnref n="2" />, Tilahun Amede<fnref n="1" />

## Summary

Ethiopia is the second most populous country in Africa with more than 110 million people. The capacity to feed its rapidly growing population largely depends on rainfed agricultural production systems, in a range of agro climatic regions from arid and semiarid lowlands to temperate highlands. Agriculture is undermined by both severe land degradation and high inter- and intra-seasonal rainfall variability. As a result, the current average productivity of rainfed farming remains low (1.7 t ha⁻<fnref n="1" /> for pulses and 2.7 t ha⁻<fnref n="1" /> for cereals). This is despite a slow yield increase (e.g. about 1.5 t ha⁻<fnref n="1" /> for cereals and 1 t ha⁻<fnref n="1" /> for pulses) due to the introduction of new crop cultivars, fertilizers and management practices. Recognising the large yield gap in rainfed systems, the Ethiopian government has, since 1970, initiated a number of public welfare programs. These have involved various natural resource management programs with a special focus on agricultural water management (AWM) in Sustainable Land Management Projects (SLMP). SLMPs, centered around rainfed production systems, have been implemented to address land degradation,

enhance crop and livestock productivity, and improve household incomes. Integrated resource management approaches have helped local communities obtain tangible benefits from AWM, and strengthened a number of ecosystem services, when compared to a sectoral approach. In the last 15 years, through SLMP 1 and 2, more than 2% of agricultural fields, and communal rainfed land, in Ethiopia, has been subject to AWM and sustainable land management. This has benefitted around 1.4 million households and supported environmental sustainability. Over 430,000 people have also benefited from related income generating activities. However, systematic data on various aspects of AWM is required to obtain a clear understanding of the overall impact of these interventions. This study proposes following a landscape approach, in order to realize the full potential of diverse AWM interventions, and a consortium approach to capacity building to achieve large scale, system level outcomes.

<footnote n="1">¹International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru 502324, Telangana State, India</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²SLU, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden</footnote>
# 1. Introduction

Food and water insecurity and land degradation are some of the major challenges of the 21st century. Land degradation affects about 30% of total global land area, and around three billion people reside on degraded land (Nkonya et al., 2016). Ethiopia, the second most populous country in Africa with a population of 110 million, is affected by land degradation (Gashaw et al., 2014; Abera et al., 2019). A rapidly growing population, inappropriate land management, rigid land tenure, along with industrialization and urbanization have significantly impacted land use patterns. Endowed with abundant natural resources, Ethiopia has one of the most diverse agro-ecological configurations in the world. With 74.3 million hectares of arable land, spread over 18 major agro-ecological zones at altitudes ranging from 148 meters to 4,620 meters above sea level, the country's diversity makes it suitable for growing a wide range of crops (ATA, 2019). Around 80% of the population of Ethiopia live in rural areas. Agriculture is the dominant economic sector, accounting for 35% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), 65% of employment, and over 80% of the country's export value (World Bank, 2019; Central Statistics Agency, 2018).

Ethiopia has serious land degradation challenges due to anthropogenic activities. As more forested and protected areas have been converted to crop and grass land, there has been a significant decline in the ecosystem services these provide. Per household land holding size has also been decreasing. The landscape of Ethiopia has been transformed through this land use change (Kassawmar et al., 2018). Soil losses of around 3-85 t ha⁻¹ year⁻¹, and as high as 300 t ha⁻¹ year⁻¹, have been reported (Gashaw et al., 2014; GIZ, 2015; Hurni et al., 2015). The annual cost of land degradation, associated with land use and land cover change, is estimated to be around $4.3 billion (Gebreselassie et al., 2016). Cultivated land is more vulnerable to soil losses, ranging from 50-180 t ha⁻¹ year⁻¹, due to various tillage approaches and the often steep slopes (Shiferaw and Holden, 1999; Adimassu et al., 2002). This has resulted in nutrient losses of 10-120 kg ha⁻¹ year⁻¹, siltation of downstream reservoirs, and productivity losses

in the uplands (Adimassu et al., 2002; Gebrehiwot et al., 2013). For example, heavy soil erosion (380 million tons annually) from upland areas of the Upper Blue Nile basin have caused serious siltation at the Great Ethiopian Renaissance Dam reservoir, reducing its live storage capacity (Hurni et al., 2015). The substantial loss of highly fertile top soil affects rainfed systems, further reducing production capacity, as soil nutrients and organic matter are lost. Rainfall in Ethiopia is characterized by high spatial variability, from 400 mm in the Somali region to 2300 mm in the Benishangul-gumuz region (Gummadi et al., 2017), with large year to year variability (Alhamshry et al., 2020). Except for a tendency towards increased main season rainfall (JJAS) in some parts of north eastern and south western Ethiopia (Gebrechorkos et al., 2019), rainfall analysis does not currently indicate any other significant trend. The large year to year rainfall variability may bring more uncertainty in terms of water resource availability, and the frequency of droughts or flood events. Maintaining and increasing rainfed production under changing rainfall patterns is therefore a critical priority, alongside the urgent need to reverse land degradation and rebuild soil health. Despite rapid economic development in the last two decades, poverty and food insecurity have remained serious challenges. In response, the Government of Ethiopia (GoE) implemented structural transformation through two phases of its Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP). GTP-I (2010-2015) targeted Ethiopia's long-term goal of becoming a middle-income country by 2025. Ethiopia achieved a growth rate goal of 10% per year during this period, which was close to its goal of at least 11%. Achievements and implementation lessons from GTP-I informed the formulation of the Second Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP-II), implemented 2016-2020.

GTP-II priorities for natural resource management capitalized on initiatives in the Climate-Resilient Green Economy (CRGE) Strategy, launched by the GoE in 2011. These seek to concurrently foster economic development and growth, reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, and improved climate change resilience. A major investment area of both GTP-I and GTP-II was
<figure><img src="image_51.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1:** *Journey of the Ethiopian land restoration program since 1970s onwards.*
*Source: Authors' elaborations based on literature review.*</figcaption></figure>

in tackling land degradation and the rehabilitation of watersheds and degraded landscapes. The GoE has attempted to address land degradation through various soil and water conservation measures (Figure 1), investing around US$8 billion since the 1970s (Figure 2) (Adimassu et al., 2018;

Nedessa and Wickrema, 2010). Ethiopia, and its development partners, have invested more in improving water and land management than any other country in Africa (Merrey and Gebreselasse, 2011).

<figure><img src="image_52.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2:** *Investment made in key agricultural water management programs in Ethiopia from 1975 to till date.*
*(Adimassu et al., 2018; Nedessa and Wickrema, 2010)*</figcaption></figure>

*Note:* Due to lack of information, small grants from locally operating NGOs and contributions from the community is not included in this calculation of investment.
The Sustainable Land Management Program (SLMP), a flagship program of the Ministry of Agriculture, was designed under the long-term (2009-2023) Ethiopian Strategic Investment Framework (ESIF) for Sustainable Land Management. SLMP was implemented in two phases; SLMP-1 (2009-2013) and SLMP-2 (2014-2019). SLMP-1 focused on sustainable land management (SLM) practices in 45 pilot watersheds, in six regions; Amhara, Tigray, Oromia, SNNP, Gambella, and Benishangul Gumuz. During SLMP-2 this was extended to 135 major watersheds, including the first 45 of SLMP-1 (Center for Development Research, 2019; Water and Land Resource Centre, 2018). The GoE and various development partners including; Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), the World Food Programme, the African Highlands Initiative, Menschen für Menschen, Save the Children, Catholic Relief Services and many others have invested in watershed management.

This case study focuses on assembling and synthesizing existing information on land and water management for scaling-up AWM interventions in the Ethiopian Highlands. This study describes the national program of SLM, which is the main national initiative to address production capacity in the predominantly rainfed, agricultural production systems of Ethiopia. The main objective is to distil lessons to inform policy. This study also examines the current status of watershed interventions of various initiatives to assess their impact and scope for improvement.

## Evolution of approaches in agricultural water management

Ethiopia is a particularly diverse country in terms of agro-ecology, range of elevations, farming systems, landscapes and production systems. All of these aspects affect the natural resources base, in particular the quantity and distribution of agricultural water resources. Land degradation in these diverse systems may require a range of management solutions. Raising awareness and mobilizing communities are the key to rehabilitating degraded landscapes in Ethiopia (Amede, 2003).

During the evolving journey of land restoration in Ethiopia, a number of technologies and practices have been adopted by smallholder farmers. This includes a range of soil and water conservation practices, *in situ* interventions (bunding, terracing, pits, diversion drainage ditches, conservation agriculture practices) and *ex situ* interventions (check dams, cut-off drains, and various gully control structures), together with biological interventions (tree planting, agroforestry, silvi pasture). *In situ* interventions harvest surface runoff locally in the field, enhance soil moisture availability, and control soil erosion. *Ex situ* interventions harvest a significant amount of surface runoff, and control land degradation, mostly in stream networks. Agroforestry interventions strengthen *in situ* interventions and address short and long-term productivity goals.

During the initial phase of the land restoration program, in the 1980s, the Ministry of Agriculture and World Food Program (WFP), with technical support from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), implemented a development project named: Rehabilitation of Forest, Grazing and Agricultural Lands (Project 2488). The predominant focus was on physical soil conservation practices (Table 1). A top-down, contractual approach was followed, which resulted in less planning and execution process transparency. In the 1990s, during the next phase of the land restoration program, the focus was also on agriculture development through the introduction of the Peasant Agricultural Development Program, along with later phases of the Rehabilitation of Forest, Grazing and Agricultural Lands project. The primary objectives of the project were to increase; the production of food grains, soil productivity, and the incomes of rural, smallholder farmers. Over its five phase, 20-year lifespan, efforts made through Project 2488 have been successful in afforestation, addressing feed and fodder availability, soil and water conservation, and agricultural productivity through landscape treatment (Nedessa and Wickrema, 2010). Consequently, it laid the foundation for the Managing Environmental Resources to Enable Transition (MERET) program. From 2000, many more integrated natural resource management programs were initiated to strengthen institutional
capacity, address poor productivity, and improve livelihoods, by introducing a holistic approach. This has ensured improved participation and tangible stakeholder benefits. These programs were supported by multiple donor agencies, as well as by national and international agencies (Table 1). Building on initial pilots, GoE and WFP merged farmer priorities with technical specifications for watershed and farm (field) soil management in rainfed production systems.

The result was the Local Level Participatory Planning Approach which developed into the MERET program, under the auspices of the Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP) (Tongul and Hobson, 2013). PSNP was implemented by GoE, with assistance from development partners. The program has been widely studied and found to have positively impacted food-insecure households (Weltejii et al., 2017; Rashid et al., 2013). Households that received technology

<table><caption>Table 1: A snapshot of projects and programs related to sustainable land management activities in Ethiopia.</caption><thead><tr><td>Time period</td><td>Program</td><td>Donors</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1975-1985</td><td>Rangelands Development Project</td><td>WB</td></tr><tr><td>1980-1982</td><td>Rehabilitation of Forest, Grazing and Agricultural Lands (Ethiopia 2488 original)</td><td>WFP, FAO</td></tr><tr><td>1982-1987</td><td>Ethiopia 2488/ Phase I</td><td>WFP, FAO</td></tr><tr><td>1988-1994</td><td>Ethiopia 2488/ Phase II</td><td>WFP, FAO</td></tr><tr><td>1995-1998</td><td>Ethiopia 2488/ Phase III</td><td>WFP, FAO</td></tr><tr><td>1999-2002</td><td>Ethiopia 2488/ Phase IV</td><td>WFP, FAO</td></tr><tr><td>2003-2006</td><td>MERET</td><td>WFP</td></tr><tr><td>2007-2011</td><td>MERET plus</td><td>WFP</td></tr><tr><td>1988-1997</td><td>Peasant Agricultural Development Program</td><td>WB</td></tr><tr><td>1997-2008</td><td>Sida-Amhara Rural Development Program</td><td>SIDA</td></tr><tr><td>1998-2005</td><td>Agricultural Research and Training Program (ARTP)</td><td>WB</td></tr><tr><td>2004-2009</td><td>Integrated Watershed Management in the Amhara Regional State</td><td>Government of the Netherlands</td></tr><tr><td>2005-2020</td><td>Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP)</td><td>Multilateral</td></tr><tr><td>2005-2011</td><td>Water Harvesting and Institutional Strengthening in Tigray (WHIST)</td><td>CIDA</td></tr><tr><td>2005-2011</td><td>Water Harvesting and Institutional Strengthening in Amhara (WHISA)</td><td>CIDA</td></tr><tr><td>2006-2012</td><td>Rural Capacity Building Project (RCBP)</td><td>WB</td></tr><tr><td>2008-2013</td><td>Sustainable Land Management Program (SLMP-1)</td><td>WB, GEF, GoE, FAO</td></tr><tr><td>2014-2019</td><td>Sustainable Land Management Program (SLMP-2)</td><td>WB, GEF, GoE, FAO, GIZ</td></tr><tr><td>2018-2020</td><td>Sustainable use of rehabilitated land for economic development (SURED)</td><td>GIZ, EU</td></tr></tbody></table>

(Adimassu et al., 2018; Nedessa and Wickrema, 2010)

Note: CIDA: Canadian International Development Agency; WB: The World Bank; GEF: Global Environment Facility; GoE: Government of Ethiopia; FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; GIZ: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit; SIDA: Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency; WFP: World Food Program
packages of agricultural support were found to
more likely be food secure (Gilligan et al., 2009).
In 2008, a major breakthrough came with the
formulation of the Ethiopian Strategic Investment
Framework for the Sustainable Land Management
Program which aimed to guide government and
civil society stakeholders towards promoting SLM
planning and investments, to address linkages
between poverty and land degradation (Merrey
and Gebreselassie, 2011; Abera, 2019). Ethiopia's
SLMP is designed to address concerns about the
production capacity of rainfed cropland, including
associated deforestation, with technical support
from GIZ. SLMP contributes to mitigation
of land degradation and improvement of crop
productivity, in selected watersheds, of target
regions of Ethiopia.

A large proportion of the population of Ethiopia
is landless with limited, or no, participation in
adoption of SLM measures. Previously there was
little clarity in the land tenure system, whereby
all land belongs to the government. Especially
common land held unclear tenure arrangements.
This hindered the participation of many land
users. Recognizing this, GIZ together with the
EU, initiated the Sustainable Use of Rehabilitated
Land for Economic Development (SURED)
project in 2018. The aim was to add value to
rehabilitated land under SLMP through increased
productivity and market linkages for products and
services, from the restored landscapes.

## 2. National actions for rainfed intensification from farm to landscape

A strong foundation for the SLMP projects has
been laid since 1970 through the legacy of good
practices from successive projects, including two
decades of actions through the Ethiopia 2488
project, and successor projects MERET and
MERET PLUS (2003-2011) (Amede et al. 2007).
The key common components of these projects
have been:

i. selection and prioritization of watersheds;

ii. engaging local officials and negotiating with the community;

iii. inventory assessment and constraint and opportunity analyses;

iv. developing base and development maps;

v. identification and prioritization of innovations;

vi. implementation; and

vii. participatory monitoring and evaluation.

SLMP-1 (2008-2013) introduced SLM practices
in selected areas through an integrated approach
beyond individual farmers' fields. It helped to
rehabilitate degraded land which had previously
been stripped of its economic value and was
considered unproductive. SLMP-1 supported a
comprehensive, strategic approach to improved
natural resource management over 190,000 ha,
involving 98,000 rural households.

SLMP-2 (2014-2019), was based on the
implementation experience and results of SLMP-
1. SLMP-2 was implemented through three
thematic components: (i) Integrated Watershed
and Landscape Management; (ii) Institutional
Strengthening, Capacity Development and
Knowledge Management; and (iii) Rural Land
Administration, Certification, and Land Use.
SLMP is currently planning a rapid impact
assessment of previous phases before it continues
to the next phase, which is expected to be
implemented up until 2023 (from personal
discussion with project leader). A schematic
description of the thematic components,
interventions, outputs and impacts is given in
Figure 3.

## Working with principles of natural resource management for rainfed crop and pasture land

The major entry point in SLMP-2 was supporting
farmers within the watershed boundary. It
involved the adoption and scaling up of best-
fit, sustainable land and water management
technologies and practices by smallholder farmers
in selected watersheds/woredas, on both private
fields and community land. A total of 874,300 ha
of land, across 135 watersheds (2.5% of the total
crop and pasture land of Ethiopia), was planned
to be converted to SLM practices by the end of
<figure><img src="image_53.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3: SLMP-1 (2008-2013) and SLMP-2 (2014-2019) theory of change (Source: World Bank, 2019; 2020)</figcaption></figure>

SLMP-2. 98.5% of the plan was achieved through investments made to implement SLM on 861,400 ha. On the communal lands 665,500 ha was treated using various physical structures. Various biological, soil and water conservation (SWC) measures were implemented across 75,000 ha (80%) of hilly areas (Box 1). The project treated about 65% of the total 142,200 ha of degraded land reported in the baseline study of the 135 watersheds. Consequently, about 709,400 households, of which 202,000 (28%) were female headed households, benefited directly from physical and biological structures on communal land.

## Landscape and community level interventions

Gully rehabilitation was an important intervention under SLMP. Around 5,500 ha of gully areas were treated using various measures including reshaping and biological re-vegetation. 3,000 ha of gully areas were restored and converted to productive land, equating to 74% of the total planned for. This investment benefited around 43,600 households directly (of which around 8,500 were female headed) by enabling the use of restored gulley areas for fodder and fruit production.
Box 1: Soil-water-biological practices

Soil and water conservation measures are helpful for arresting surface runoff, controlling soil ero-sion and land degradation. SWC along with biological interventions such as afforestation, agrofor-estry and fodder production, brings sustainability to the system. Field bunding, trenches, and ter-racing are important *in situ* interventions, whereas farm ponds and check dams, are important *ex situ* interventions. The photos below represent of some of these measures.

<figure><img src="image_54.png" /></figure>

Source: Center for Development Research, 2019. Photo from 2019 trip and documentation.
SLMP-2 implemented community forest management activities based on a communal land use plan. This focused on improving existing forest management practices, promoting afforestation and reforestation activities, and measures to reduce forest degradation.

About 16,000 ha (82% of the target) was delineated as under existing community forest management. Community forest management benefited around 71,600 households through afforestation and reforestation on non-agricultural lands, 131% of the project target. Around 22% of these households were female headed. Nearly, 17,600 ha (99.7% of the target) were covered by bamboo. To support supply of sufficient planting materials, the SLMP invested in the establishment and management of 22,500 ha (99.5% of the planned target) of nursery sites across the SLMP watersheds of the six regional states. Some of the nurseries were managed centrally whereas others were managed individually or by a group. Around 384 million seedlings were grown in these nurseries, equating to 102.63% of the target. Community pastureland management was another landscape level SLMP intervention. From a total pastureland area of 5,600 ha in the project watersheds, 4,500 ha (80%) had been treated with both physical and biological measures as of September 2018. The treated pasture land area served over 345,000 livestock. SLMP also invested in supporting community infrastructure developments. These included; water-harvesting structures, introduction of

water lifting structures, and construction of diversion weirs, potable water supply schemes and community roads. The project developed 803 small-scale irrigation schemes, benefitting around 20,700 households (of which 17% were female headed). Construction of community roads improved access to 603 micro-watersheds, achieving about 98% of planned targets.

## Farm/household level interventions

SWC measures on farmland, which can be considered good AWM practices, were a key investment area of SLMP interventions. During the project period, 137,200 ha of farmland was treated using physical SWC measures, of which 83,700 ha was also covered by biological SWC measures. A total of around 363,500 households benefited from this farmland treatment, accounting for 99% of the project target. This equates to 66% of the total number of households in the 135 watersheds. About 26% of beneficiaries were female headed households. The areas and beneficiaries of some selected interventions are presented in Table 2.

This project also implemented climate smart agriculture (CSA) activities, contributing to adaptation, mitigation and food security efforts. These are part of SLM technologies, with the potential to improve soil fertility and promote and

<table><caption>Table 2: Implementation of integrated watershed management interventions on selected land units</caption><thead><tr><td>Particulars</td><td>Area (ha)</td><td>No. of households benefited</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Communal land area covered by physical structures</td><td>95,460</td><td>740,800</td></tr><tr><td>Communal land area covered by biological measures</td><td>79,360</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Forest area demarcated</td><td>16000</td><td>71,600</td></tr><tr><td>Bamboo (natural + plantation)</td><td>27600</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Small scale irrigation</td><td>4730</td><td>20,700</td></tr><tr><td>Potable water</td><td>137,150</td><td>363,500</td></tr><tr><td>Conservation agriculture</td><td>37,200</td><td>150,600</td></tr><tr><td>Backyard livestock farming</td><td></td><td>63,800</td></tr><tr><td>Apiculture</td><td></td><td>10,800</td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: Center for Development Research, 2019
produce high value crops. These practices were implemented on 37,200 ha, benefitting around 150,600 households, 21% of which were female headed. Around 9,500 ha received other CSA measures, such as green manuring and cover crops, 56,600 ha received compost, and 7,300 ha were treated with agroforestry practices.

As part of good practices aimed at promoting the adoption, sustainability and resilience of SLM technologies, open grazing was controlled. To realize this, SLMP-2 invested in fodder/ forage production, poultry promotion, as well as fattening and breed improvement activities.

Consequently, 63,800 households benefited from improved backyard livestock management, 55,100 households applied a cut and carry feeding system, and 18,100 households were involved in livestock breed improvement. Female headed households benefiting from backyard livestock management accounted for 22.9% of the total. 19% of female headed households benefited from cut and carry feeding systems, and 23% from using improved livestock breeds.

Developing incentive systems, and integrating income generating strategies into natural resource management practices, are necessary to maintain commitment to SLM investments (Amede et al., 2007). Apiculture was promoted as an alternative income generating activity, benefitting several

households. This benefited from watershed management interventions involving area closures, afforestation and enrichment plantation, among others. As a result of apiculture promotion in the 135 SLMP-2 watersheds, a total of 210 tons of honey and 12 tons of wax were produced. This benefitted 10,800 households, of which 19.7% were female headed.'

## Rural land administration, certification and land use

Rural land administration and certification was implemented to enhance smallholder farmer tenure security in the project area. There is evidence that this 'first-stage' land registration has had a positive effect in terms of increased investment, land productivity and land rental market activities. The government has since initiated another round of land registration and certification that involves technically advanced land survey methods and computer registration (Bezu and Holden, 2014). An important incentive to increase farmer and landowner motivation to adopt sustainable land and water management practices in individual fields was to increase tenure security (Table 3). This increases farmer confidence to invest in long term solutions.

<table><caption>Table 3: Summary of land registration and certification achievements</caption><thead><tr><td>No</td><td>Indicator/activity</td><td>Target</td><td>Achieved</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>Number of communal lands surveyed and mapped for certification</td><td>23,525</td><td>39,168</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Number of certificates issued for communal land</td><td>19,996</td><td>21,277</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Parcels of land surveyed and mapped for certification</td><td>1,917,325</td><td>1,695,636</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Individual parcels surveyed and mapped for certification</td><td>1,893,800</td><td>1,656,468</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Number of households issued with geo-referenced map-based certificate</td><td>473,450</td><td>410,205</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>Women who received 2nd level certificate Individually or jointly</td><td>340,088</td><td>287,144</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>Landless youth who have been issued a second level certificate</td><td>9,504</td><td>11,259</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>Landless female youth received land certificate</td><td>1,544</td><td>3,264</td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: Center for Development Research, 2019
Local level participatory land use plans were prepared in 545 kebeles<fnref n="1" /> to ensure engagement and ownership. This also enabled the design of measures in a collaborative way, helping to ensure context specific implementation directly including the voice of farmers.

## Project management and funding

As per the framework agreement for SLMP-2 implementation, the Ethiopian Government was responsible for ensuring that the project achieved its development objectives. The World Bank was required to make arrangements to ensure that loans and credit given were used only for the purposes for which they were intended. SLMP implemented a project management approach, that clearly set coordination, and monitoring and evaluation, processes, to achieve success.

SLMP-2 had a coordination structure, from federal to kebele level, following the structure of the government extension system. At the federal level, a national project coordination unit was established, composed of a multidisciplinary team (specialists in monitoring and evaluation, watershed management, land administration, safeguarding, infrastructure, procurement and finance), led by a national coordinator. A similar coordination setup was implemented, with key specialists, at regional level, and focal persons led coordination at woreda level. SLMP-2 had steering and technical committees at federal, regional, woreda, kebele and community levels, to facilitate and implement interventions.

Community participation was an important element of the design and implementation of SLMP (Amede et al., 2007). A household survey indicated that the majority of the community (69%) had participated in the SLM planning process, enabling them to prioritize their needs and interests (Center for Development Research, 2019). A total of 5,897 formal community-based institutions, self-help groups and associations were established, and made functional, across

intervention areas. About 431,300 people participated in income-generating activities under the implementation process. Similarly, 399,735 households are reported to have used at least three SLM technology packages on individual household lands in 2017 and 2018, suggesting a good adoption rate (Center for Development Research, 2019). Various capacity building, training and experience sharing, visits were conducted. These targeted the various components of the project at different levels. These adoption rates, supported by the capacity building, are good indicators of sustainability.

SLMP-2 put in place a web-based monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system for management and documentation of project results, at all levels (community, kebele, woreda, region and federal). The system had a planning and reporting tool, as well as M&E elements. However, a major limitation was that no comprehensive benchmarking was conducted at the start of each phase of the project. Furthermore, most of the assessments and success stories were conducted based on stakeholder feedback, without any triangulation through objective measurement of the changes. Therefore, a critical impact assessment is required to support the M&E findings.

There are also difficulties in assessing the actual investments made in SLMP activities, and associated PSNP programs. Both public and donor funding contributes to several components in each of the different regions. In addition INGOs, and other research institute linked activities, for example CGIAR programs and bilateral initiatives such as the R4D partnership with the Netherlands, benefit (Schmidt and Tadesse, 2019). One estimate suggests that between 2009-2013, the World Bank, the Global Environment Facility, the Government of Ethiopia and FAO funded a total of at least US $37.79 million to implement SLMP-I. Whereas, between 2014 and 2019, a US $94.65 million investment was made in SLMP-2 by these same funders plus GIZ (Adimassu et al., 2018).

<footnote n="1">¹kebeles: the smallest administrative unit in Ethiopia, that may contain several watersheds.</footnote>
## 3. Impact on agricultural production and various ecosystem services

### Improving water security and productivity

SLMP-2 influenced agricultural production systems by enhancing infiltration upstream, and increasing water resource availability downstream, especially through groundwater recharge, and also strengthened various ecosystem services. Kato et al. (2019) studied the impacts of SLMP programs in Amhara regional. Assessment revealed that the program has: (i) helped adoption of various best management practices at the plot level; (ii) significantly increased plot-level adoption of SLM practices, particularly of soil bunds and stone terraces; (iii) contributed to improved water security for both crop and livestock production; (iv) provided households in SLM-supported learning watersheds with more access to groundwater for irrigation; and (v) increased income from livestock products, compared to households in control watersheds. The study attributed the positive impacts of SLM, and complementary interventions on livestock income, to three key factors. These are: improved water security conditions in the learning watersheds, access to better animal forage planted along SLM structures, and animal vaccination and artificial insemination services, which were part of the broader set of interventions.

However, the study only found statistically significant differences in crop yields between SLM supported learning watersheds, and non-SLM supported control watersheds, in three of the ten crops analyzed. Hence, to improve rainfed cropping and pastures, emerging evidence suggests that retaining rainfall and reducing sediment loss is not sufficient to enhance crop yields. Measures to combine rainfall infiltration with; specially improved soil nutrients (through building organic matter or using mineral fertilizers), the use of climate information and other agronomic best practices, are essential. This is supported by

Adimassu et al. (2017), and further elaborated by Abera et al. (2019) (Figure 4) who demonstrated that only SWC combined with biological components (i.e. green or organic manure) result in increased yields.

### Reducing soil erosion and increasing ecosystem services

A meta-analysis of ecosystem services (yield productivity, soil carbon sequestration, erosion and surface runoff reduction) in Ethiopia, was undertaken by Abera et al. (2019). This included 103 peer reviewed, published studies, representing a wide range of methodologies, approaches and scales. The analysis showed that the various AWM interventions applied in multiple locations under SLMP-1 and 2, reduced average surface runoff by between 40-90% compared to the non-intervention stage. However, large variability was observed due to the diversity of land uses, soil types and slopes. Average soil erosion rate was reduced with 50-70%, depending on type of intervention, compared to the non-intervention stage. Biological interventions, conservation agriculture practices, and controlled grazing helped enhance soil organic carbon from 20 to 140%, compared to the non-intervention stage. The study also showed that there was a slight reduction in crop productivity with the implementation of field bunds, or biological interventions, alone (Figure 4). Importantly, it concluded that so far the major emphasis of SLMP2 interventions had been on SWC structures, with less coverage and success through beneficial combinations of *in situ* SWC and biological interventions, which have the highest agricultural productivity gain. Recent evaluations and impact assessments, show that there is scope to improve efforts to intensify rainfed crop and pasture systems, within SLMP. This may be achieved through better targeted and integrated approaches to rainfall, soil, crop and agronomic management, including soil nutrient management both on farm and at the watershed scale, combined with new knowledge generation and dissemination approaches.
<figure><img src="image_55.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4: Magnitude of effect of different SLM interventions. The bars show the mean value of impact indicators for major AWM interventions. (Source: Abera et al., 2019)</figcaption></figure>

A study of factors that influenced implementation of SLM practices in Tigray region suggested that the value of agricultural production of users of SLM was on average 77-100% higher than that of non-users (Haftu et al., 2019). Based on the comprehensive meta review, it appears that the benefits of improved land management in rainfed systems is largely related to reductions in sediment loss, and to some extent reduced runoff (i.e. increased infiltration), at the community and watershed levels. Farmers therefore need more support to enhance biological and

agronomic aspects in order to realize the full yield opportunity, a key goal of the SLMP interventions.

The long term data, obtained from the GoE Central Statistics Agency, reveal that crop yields in Ethiopia have an increasing trend between 2001-02 and 2015-16. There is a sharp increase in root crops such as sweet potato and Taro (Figure 5). However, yield levels of major rainfed crops are below the potential, resulting in huge yield gaps in the rainfed system. These are estimated, for
<figure><img src="image_56.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5: Change in crop yields in Ethiopia between 2001-02 and 2015-16 (Source: Central Statistical Agency, Government of Ethiopia)</figcaption></figure>

example, at 1.3 t ha⁻¹ for chickpea, 2.3 t ha⁻¹ for common bean, 10 t ha⁻¹ for maize, 3.7 t ha⁻¹ for millet, 5 t ha⁻¹ for sorghum and 6 t ha⁻¹ for wheat (GYGA, 2020). This requires the adoption of integrated approaches to enhance rainfed systems yield levels, in order to meet the growing demand for food grains in Ethiopia. There is a strong positive relationship between public investment and supporting policies at the national level, and this needs comprehensive implementation analysis at national and regional levels.

Implementation of SLMP interventions impacted the livelihoods of participating smallholder farmers (Kato et al., 2019). Hillside plantations produced fodder and tree poles, which increased household incomes. Furthermore, land certification has motivated the community to adopt sustainable land and water management practices (Figure 6). This motivated land holders to contribute two months worth of free labor per year, on a voluntary basis, to soil and water conservation practices.

<figure><img src="image_57.png" /><figcaption>Figure 6: Community perceptions of SLMP interventions (Source: Meaza et al., 2016)</figcaption></figure>
## Increasing vegetative cover (feed, energy, soil fertility and reducing competition)

An impact of the long years of SLM has been increased vegetation cover, and biomass, in the exclosure area. This has increased community access to forage for livestock, that made fattening possible, and enabled beekeeping activities. Improved vegetation and biomass increased soil fertility in farm lands and reduced competition for biomass for feed, firewood and other purposes.

## Economic benefits from treated areas

Experience from decades of SLM practice shows that unless rural communities gain economic benefit from restored landscapes, long-term sustainability is at risk. The German Government, GIZ and KfW collaborated with the Ethiopian Ministry of Agriculture, and relevant agricultural institutions, to implement the Sustainable Use of Rehabilitated Land for Economic Development (SURED) project (2018-2020). The aim was to add value to rehabilitated land under SLMP by increasing productivity, and improving market linkages for products and services from restored landscapes. Incomes generated from the introduction of high value crops, home gardens, beehives, community forests and grasses not only helped to increase household incomes, but also became an incentive for the implementation of more SLM practices. This is particularly important because the benefits were also distributed to landless youths and women.

## 4. Opportunities and synergies

Despite considerable efforts and investments by the Ethiopian government, there is still large scope for bridging yield gaps and reaching out to millions of smallholder farmers in the country. A recent study indicated that more than 75%

of smallholders depend on traditional cultivars and follow conventional practices, resulting in poor land and water use efficiency (Liniger et al., 2011). There is dire need to implement various best management practices. Below are some of the key aspects to be addressed further for overall development and improved smallholder farmer livelihoods.

## Developing SLM activity learning sites

There is a big opportunity to learn from the legacy of cascade projects implemented by the Ethiopian Government on SLM, aimed at increased productivity of dominant rainfed agriculture. SLMP Phase-1 introduced SLM practices to selected areas, and achieved significant progress in rehabilitating previously unproductive, degraded areas, within 45 critical watersheds in six regions. This provided benefits to rural households. SLMP-2 continued tackling poor cropland management practices, rapid depletion of vegetation cover, poor livestock grazing practices and land tenure insecurity by leveraging the successful outcomes of SLMP-1. SLMP-2 expanded its watershed restoration to cover 135 watersheds and integrated new activities targeting land productivity, deforestation, and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

Another point of note is that the SLMPs, and their precursor projects, have been executed in alignment with Ethiopia's existing extension system, which makes learning easier in the process of scaling up effective interventions to all regions and districts. SLMP includes a number of watersheds with good success stories to capitalize on, and these have been used as learning sites where field days and exchange visits have been organized. It is important to further develop these learning sites with new knowledge and improved technologies, including integrated land-water-crop-livestock-tree components at watershed and landscape scales.

A cluster approach will help to achieve more benefits for all stakeholders, including; farmers, researchers, policy makers, development agencies
and donors, when compared to a more sectoral approach. According to Abera et al. (2019) individual component interventions seem to be less effective, or ineffective, in creating impact and sustainability. An appropriate combination of *in situ*, *ex situ*, and biological, interventions is critical to achieving full impact potential. A number of management best practices will help to utilize available water resources more effectively. These include; the facilitation and promotion of improved quality seeds, soil quality assessments on farm and at the landscape level, all combined with local fertilizer design and advice (Tamene et al., 2018) and other agricultural inputs.

Learning sites will generate evidence on the various agro-ecological areas and help to optimize the site specific adaptation of diverse technologies, according to topography, soil type, rainfall and management practices. By applying a “seeing is believing” approach, more farmers will be able to realize the benefits of AWM by visiting these learning sites and adopting the management best practices demonstrated there.

## Dissemination of the SLM outputs by strengthening extension system

Agriculture extension plays a major role in disseminating technologies and bridging knowledge gaps. In order to reach a large number of farmers with SLM technologies, it is important for the extension system to identify; local 'champion' farmers that have a demonstrated success story, and also extension workers that have shown good skills in facilitating community level implementation. The major challenge to adoption of new practices, or improved technologies, by smallholder farmers is the lack of new, location specific knowledge among farmers or extension service. Moreover, due to socio-economic challenges, lack of infrastructure, and poor communication channels, these technologies are not reaching intended stakeholders in a timely way that would enable adoption. Therefore, greater emphasis should be placed on knowledge generation and dissemination, by involving relevant stakeholders.

Monitoring, data collection and impact evaluation As Abera et al. (2019), Adimassu et al. (2019) and Kato et al. (2019) concluded, there is a lack of data for impact assessments, and for learning that would improve future efforts. This relates to several key components of impact assessments, including; biophysical, meteorological, hydrological and socio-economic parameters. For example, most of the results on uptake of practices (section 2.2-2.4) are based on field-scale data collection, which is not representative of landscape or regional scales impacts on ecosystem services such as water and sediment flows, or different vegetation cover, due to scale effects. There is no systematic, long-term monitoring of the different water balance components or analysis of upstream and downstream effects. Understanding of enhanced water resource availability, due to AWM interventions and crop intensification, could be improved to better manage water resources in local landscapes and basins. For downstream users. Also, there is poor understanding of the effects of different SLMP-1 and 2 interventions on the temporal weather scenarios of normal, dry and wet years. A systems level analysis is largely missing. It is also important to better understand the technical and economic feasibility of the program, which is necessary for scaling-up good practices. In addition to the tangible benefits generated through implementation of various interventions at the farm and watershed scales, there is also a need to capture the various ecosystem services generated by these interventions. Long-term data monitoring would help to improve understanding of both the sustainability of interventions and their impact, which is critical to informed decision-making by policy makers and donors.

## Institutional strengthening and capacity development

Building partnerships between national and international research institutions, universities, non-governmental organizations, and government agencies will help to develop synergy among the various institutions involved in rural development through the programs like SLMP and PSNP. All these institutions share a common goal of achieving system level outcomes to bridge
the rainfed yield gap. There is considerable knowledge available, generated by institutions such as research and academic institutes, and state universities, which needs to reach the field level if it is to play a role in achieving large scale outcomes. Non-governmental organizations and government agencies need to work closely with these knowledge generating institutes to facilitate dissemination through the appropriate channels. A strong feedback mechanism also helps knowledge generating institutions to modify technologies and approaches, based on local requirements, and the feasibility of these in different agroecological zones.

**5. Way forward**

The SLMPs in Ethiopia have had considerable success in contributing to the intensification of rainfed systems for millions of smallholder farmers, over more than 15 years. Efforts through SLMP-1 and 2 have focused on controlling land degradation, contributing to enhanced agriculture and livestock productivity, and strengthening a number of associated field and watershed ecosystem services. Detailed analysis of the benefits and impacts are challenging to quantify, due to the lack of systematic monitoring. Current yield levels of major crops are still far from the full potential of rainfed systems, indicating a substantial opportunity to improve current resource use efficiency. This may offer opportunities to improve the efficacy of future programs. Key aspects to be considered when preparing strategies for future interventions, include:

* the need to use an integrated approach, involving soil-crop-water-tree-livestock components, from field to landscape scales, in order to realize the full benefits of rainfed systems. A thorough analysis of the anticipated impacts of climate change on different agro-ecosystems also needs to be taken into account when designing interventions, to improve sustainability and resilience. The use of climate information (including seasonal and short-range forecasts) and agro-advisories needs to be strengthened by involving competent public and private institutions.

* thorough analysis of the technical, and economic, feasibility of various interventions will help to prioritize interventions, leading to better investment decisions. This could help generate evidence on the scaling-up potential of the best management practices.

* establishing a few, select benchmarks and learning sites, with long-term data monitoring, which capture baseline hydrology, meteorology, agriculture and livestock productivity, change in land use, and socio-economic parameters, at field and landscape levels. This information would help to generate strong evidence for the likely success, or failure, of particular interventions, and also help to inform appropriate corrective measures. Success stories and case studies should be documented to foster awareness among stakeholders of the performance of the best management practices. Similarly, visits to expose diverse stakeholders to these approaches, and their outcomes, should continue to be organized. This would foster awareness, and help them to better understand the usefulness of such initiatives.

* exploring the use of state-of-the-art technologies such as GIS, remote sensing, ICT, and simulation modeling to identify hotspots in respective regions, inform technology prioritization, map the creation of assets and infrastructures, monitor changes in land use, and to analyze impacts. Emerging and existent ICT tools offer opportunities for large scale knowledge dissemination, feedback analysis, and real time monitoring, which can support accountability and transparency.

* making efforts to reach all regions and districts of Ethiopia, by expanding beyond the project watershed approach to include a larger number of community owned watersheds, while utilizing structural alignment, coordination and M&E experiences from SLMP in the agriculture extension system.
References

Abera, W., Tamene, L., Tibebe, D., Adimassu, Z., Kassa, H., Hailu, H., Mekonnen, K., Desta, G., Summer, R., & Vercho, L. 2019. Characterizing and evaluating the impacts of national land restoration initiatives on ecosystem services in Ethiopia, Land Degradation and Development

Adimassu Z., Mekonnen K., Yirga C. & Kessler A. 2002.
Effect of soil bunds on runoff, soil and nutrient losses,
and crop yield in the central highlands of Ethiopia,
Land Degradation and Development, https://doi.
org/10.1002/ldr.2182

Adimassu, Z., Langan, S., Johnston, R., Mekuria, W. & Amede, T. 2017. Impacts of Soil and Water Conservation Practices on CropYield, Run-off, Soil Loss and Nutrient Loss in Ethiopia: Review and Synthesis. Environmental Management 59, 87–101 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-016-0776-1

Adimassu, Z., Langan, S., & Barron, J. 2018. Highlights of soil and water conservation investments in four regions of Ethiopia. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute (IWMI). 35p. (IWMI Working Paper 182). doi: 10.5337/2018.214

Alhamshry, A., Almaw, A., Yasuda, H., Kimura, R.,
& Shimizu, K. 2020. Seasonal Rainfall Variability
in Ethiopia and Its Long-Term Link to Global Sea
Surface Temperatures, Water 2020, 12, 55; doi:10.3390/
w12010055

Amede, T. 2003. Opportunities and Challenges in Reversing Land Degradation: The Regional Experience

(In:Amede, T. (ed), 2003. Natural resource Degradation and Environmental Concerns in the Amhara National Regional State: Impact on Food Security. Ethiopian Soils Science Society. Pp. 173-183).

Amede, T., Kassa, H., Zeleke, G., Shiferaw, A., Kismu, S., & Teshome, M. 2007. Working with Communities and Building Local Institutions for Sustainable Land Management in the Ethiopian Highlands, Mountain Research and Development Vol 27 (1): 15–19

Amede, T., Gashaw, T., Legesse, G., Tamene, L., Mekonnen, K., Thorne, P., & Schulz, S. 2020. Landscape positions dictating crop fertilizer responses in wheat-

based farming systems of East African Highlands.
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 1–13.
https:// doi.org/10.1017/S1742170519000504

ATA (Agricultural Transformation Agency). 2019.
Annual Report 2018-19, [Cited 15 July 2018] http://www.ata.gov.et/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/ANNUALREPORT-2011.pdf

Bezu, S. & Holden, S. 2014. Demand for second-stage land certification in Ethiopia: Evidence from household panel data, Land Use Policy vol. 41 pp. 193-205

Center for Development Research. 2019. Sustainable Land Management Project II: Borrowers report, pp 82

Central Statistics Agency. 2018. Area and production of major crops, Agricultural sample survey for 2017/18, statistical bulletin 589, Addis Ababa Ethiopia

Croppenstedt, A., Demeke, M. & Meschi, M. 2003.
Technology Adoption in the Presence of Constraints:
the Case of Fertilizer Demand in Ethiopia, Review of
Development Economics, 7(1), pp 58-70

Haftu, E., Teklay Negash, T. & Aregay, M. 2019. Factors that influence the implementation of sustainable land management practice in by rural households in Tigray, Ethiopia. Ecological Processes, 8:14

FAO. 2019. Small family farms country factsheet,
I8911EN/1/03.18

Gashaw T., Bantider A., & G/Silassie, H. 2014.
Land Degradation in Ethiopia: Causes, Impacts and
Rehabilitation Techniques. Journal of Environmental
and Earth Science.Vol.4, No.9.

Gebrechorkos, S. H., Hülsmann, S. & Bernhofer, C. 2019. Long-term trends in rainfall and temperature using high-resolution climate datasets in east Africa, Scientific reports, Nature research, 9:11376. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-47933-8

Gebrehiwot, S.G., Seibert, J., Gärdenäs, A.I., Mellander, P. & Bishop, K. 2013. Hydrological change detection using modeling: Half a century of runoff from four rivers in the Blue Nile Basin, Water Resources Research 49(6):1-10

Gebreselassie, S., Kirui, O.K., & Mirzabaev, A. 2015.
Economics of Land Degradation and Improvement
in Ethiopia. Economics of Land Degradation and Improvement – A Global Assessment for Sustainable Development. pp 401–430, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19168-3_14

Gilligan, D.O., Hoddinott, J., & Taffesse, A.S., 2009. The Impact of Ethiopia's Productive Safety Net Programme and its Linkages, The Journal of Development Studies, 45:10, 1684–1706, DOI: 10.1080/00220380902935907

GIZ. 2015. GIZ Ethiopia: Lessons and Experiences in Sustainable Land Management, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH, Bonn and Eschborn, Germany, pp 236. [Cited 15 July 2018] https://wocatpedia.net/images/c/c1/Giz2015-en-lessons-experience-sustainable-land-management-Ethiopia_8.15.pdf

Gummadi, S., Rao1, K.P.C., Seid, J., Legesse, G., Kadiyala1, M.D.M., Takele, R., Amede, T. & Whitbread, A. 2017. Spatio-temporal variability and trends of precipitation and extreme rainfall events in Ethiopia in 1980–2010, Theoretical and Applied Climatology, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-017-2340-1

GYGA. 2020. Global Yield Gap Atlas, [Cited 15 July 2018] http://www.yieldgap.org/Ethiopia

Haileslassie, A., Peden, D., Gebreselassie, S., Amede, T., Wagnew, A. & Taddesse, G. 2009. Livestock water productivity in the Blue Nile Basin: assessment of farm scale heterogeneity. The Range land Journal 31: 213–222.

Hurni, K., Zeleke, G., Kassie, M., Tegegne, B., Kassawmar, T., Teferi, E., Moges, A., Tadesse, D., Ahmed, M., Degu, Y., Kebebew, Z., Hodel, E., Amdihun, A., Mekuriaw, A., Debele, B., Deichert, G. & Hurni, H. 2015. Economics of Land Degradation (ELD) Ethiopia Case Study. Soil Degradation and Sustainable Land Management in the Rainfed Agricultural Areas of Ethiopia: An Assessment of the Economic Implications. Report for the Economics of Land Degradation Initiative. 94 pp.

Kassawmar, T., Zeleke, G., Bantider, A., Gessesse, G.D. & Abraha, L. 2018. A synoptic land change assessment of Ethiopia's Rainfed Agricultural Area for evidence-based agricultural ecosystem management. Water and Land Resource Centre (WLRC). Biomass Carbon Stocks Assessment for Sustainable Land Management Practices in SLMP Watersheds. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. pp 45.

Kato, E., Mekonnen, D., Tiruneh, S. & Ringler, C. 2019. Sustainable land management and its effects on water security and poverty: Evidence from a watershed intervention program in Ethiopia. IFPRI Discussion Paper 1811. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). https://doi.org/10.2499/p15738coll2.133144

Liniger, H.P., Studer, R.M., Hauert, C. & Gurtner, M. 2011. Sustainable Land Management in Practice – Guidelines and Best Practices for Sub-Saharan Africa. TerrAfrica, World Overview of Conservation Approaches and Technologies (WOCAT) and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)

Meaza, H., Tsegaye, D. & Nyssen, J. 2016. Allocation of degraded hillsides to landless farmers and improved livelihoods in Tigray, Ethiopia. Norwegian Journal of Geography 70(1), 1–12

Merrey, D.J. & Gebreselassie, T. 2011. Promoting improved rainwater and land management in the Blue Nile (Abay) basin of Ethiopia. Annexes. Nairobi, Kenya, ILRI.

Nedessa, B. & Wickrema, S. 2010. Disaster Risk reduction: Experience from the MERET project in Ethiopia. In: Omamo, S.W., Ugo, G. & Sandstrom, S. (Eds) Revolution: From Food Aid to Food Assistance, Innovations in overcoming Hunger, WFP. pp 426

Nkonya, E., Mirzabaev, A., & Braun, J.V. 2016. Economics of Land Degradation and Improvement: An Introduction and Overview. In: Nkonya, E., Mirzabaev, A., & Braun, J.V. (Eds) Economics of Land Degradation and Improvement – A Global Assessment for Sustainable Development, Springer Cham Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London, ISBN 978-3-319-19168-3 (eBook), DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-19168-3.

Rashid, S., Tefera, N., Minot, N. & Ayele, G. 2013. Fertilizer in Ethiopia: An Assessment of Policies, Value Chain, and Profitability (December 2013). IFPRI Discussion Paper 01304. [Cited 15 July 2020] https://ssrn.com/abstract=2373214

Schmidt, E., & Tadesse, F. 2019. The impact of sustainable land management on household crop production in the Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia. Land Degradation and Development 30:777–787. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.3266
## Acknowledgements

Authors would like to thank the experts of SLM Program Coordination Unit for providing the required information. Authors also gratefully acknowledges Swedish University of Agriculture Sciences (SLU), Uppsala, Sweden for facilitating the development of this case study.

Shiferaw, B. & Holden, S.T. 1999. Soil Erosion and Smallholders' Conservation Decisions in the Highlands of Ethiopia. World Development, 27, 739-752. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(98)00159-4

Tadesse G. 2001. Land degradation: a challenge to Ethiopia. Environmental Management, 27: 815-824

Tadesse, M. 2014. Fertilizer adoption, credit access, and safety nets in rural Ethiopia, Agricultural Finance Review, Vol. 74 No. 3, pp. 290-310. https://doi.org/10.1108/AFR-09-2012-0049

Tamene D, Anbessa B, Legesse TA, Dereje G. 2018. Refining Fertilizer Rate Recommendation for Maize Production Systems in Assosa, North Western Ethiopia. Adv Tech Biol Med 6: 253. doi:10.4172/2379-1764.1000253

Tongul, H. & Hobson, M. 2013. Scaling up an integrated watershed management approach through social protection programmes in Ethiopia: the MERET and PSNP schemes. Hunger, Nutrition, Climate Justice, 2013, A New Dialogue: Putting People at the Heart of Global Development, 15-16 April 2016, Dublin Ireland.

Water and Land Resource Centre. 2018. Developing and managing the knowledge base for the natural resource and sustainable land management in Ethiopia, Biomass carbon assessment for sustainable land management Practices in SLMP Watersheds, Vol. VI-A, PP 45

Welteji, D., Mohammed, K. & Hussein, K. 2017. The contribution of Productive Safety Net Program for food security of the rural households in the case of Bale Zone, Southeast Ethiopia. Agriculture and Food Security 6 (53). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-017-0126-4

World Bank. 2019. Sustainable Land Management Project, Implementation Completion and Results Report, World Bank Report. [Cited 15 July 2020] http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/470921571491240529/pdf/Ethiopia-Sustainable-Land-Management-Project.pdf

World Bank. 2020. Ethiopia—Sustainable Land Management Project I and II. Independent Evaluation Group, Project Performance Assessment Report 153559. Washington, DC: World Bank.
# Sustainable land management with conservation agriculture for rainfed production: The case of Paraná III watershed (Itaipu dam) in Brazil

Ivo Mello<fnref n="1" />, Glaucio Roloff<fnref n="2" />, François Laurent<fnref n="3" />, Emilio Gonzalez<fnref n="4" /> and
Amir Kassam<fnref n="5" />

*This chapter is a contribution to the Background Report to the FAO ESA 2020 SOFA Report on Agricultural Water Management, under a contract between the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU) and the European Conservation Agriculture Federation (ECAF). June 2020.*

## Summary

This case study examines measures taken in the Paraná III watershed, that drains into the Itaipu reservoir (Brazil-Paraguay), to establish sustainable land management for agricultural production intensification based on no-till Conservation Agriculture (CA). Prior to initiation of hydropower production from Itaipu, in May 1984, agriculture in the watershed was based on the conventional tillage production system. This caused significant soil erosion and surface runoff, polluting water courses with sediments, agrochemicals and organic waste, resulting in premature filling and eutrophication. The operational lifespan of the Itaipu hydropower

complex was initially estimated to be 60 years. Within the framework of Itaipu Binacional's Cultivando Agua Boa (Cultivating Good Water) program, most agricultural land use was then transformed to no-till CA. Later this was improved through participatory support, based on a self-assessment method involving scoring of soil quality and land use parameters. CA-based land use resulted in increased crop productivity, a drastic reduction in runoff and soil erosion, and significant improvement in the quality of water discharging into water courses, Itaipu reservoir, and through the dam. A participatory extension program promoting CA systems was

<footnote n="1">¹Instituto Rio Grandense do Arroz - IRGA, Av. Farrapos, 3999 - Navegantes, Porto Alegre - RS, 90220-007, Brazil. ivomello@yahoo.com</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²Universidade Federal da Integração Latino-Americana – UNILA, Av. Silvio Américo Sasdelli, 1842 - Vila A, Foz do Iguaçu - PR, 85866-000, Brazil (retired). roloffg@hotmail.com</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³Espaces et Sociétés, Le Mans Université, avenue O. Messiaen, 72 085 Le Mans, France. francois.laurent@univ-lemans.fr</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴Departamento de Ingeniería Rural. ETSIAM. Universidad de Cordoba, Spain, and European Conservation Agriculture Federation (ECAF), Brussels, Belgium. emilio.gonzalez@uco.es</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵University of Reading, Earley Gate, Reading, Berkshire, RG6 6AR, UK. amirkassam786@googlemail.com</footnote>
available to all farmers, from smallholders to
large-scale. Currently, 91% of agricultural land
area in the watershed is under CA, which supports
productivity and incomes, while also contributing
to water related ecosystem services. Overall
economic, social and environmental development
of the Paraná III watershed is based on a socially
and economically equitable framework, managed
collaboratively by several entities. This calls for
the whole watershed population to be engaged
in improving quality of life and ensuring the
watershed is an area of opportunity and hope.
CA-based land use management, and soil and
water conservation practices, have increased
the operational lifespan of Itaipu hydropower
complex by more than five-fold, offering long-
term economic security to the population of the
watershed. Given the need to ensure equitable

development of all relevant economic, social
and environmental sectors in the watershed,
productive and sustainable agriculture continues
to be both a key economic driver of change and
an area of opportunity.

# 1. Introduction

When the Itaipu dam complex began operating
in May 1984, on the border between Brazil and
Paraguay (Figure 1), its working lifespan was
expected to be around 60 years, on a worst case
scenario. This was because of the heavy sediment,
agrochemical, and animal manure loads of water
draining from the Paraná III, and Ivai river,
watersheds into Itaipu reservoir. The polluted
discharge caused siltation and eutrophication,

<figure><img src="image_58.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1: Location of Itaipu dam, Paraná III watershed and municipalities involved in the program (data source: IBGE)</figcaption></figure>
which posed a serious threat to power generation infrastructure and the reservoir's economic, recreational and tourism potential. This case presents one of the measures taken within the Cultivando Agua Boa (CAB) (Cultivating Good Water) strategy, implemented by the Itaipu Binacional (IB) authorities, to improve the quality of water discharging into Itaipu reservoir. IB established a long-term participatory strategy to improve agricultural land management on small to large farms, initially in the Paraná III basin. The aim was to minimize water runoff and erosion, and so reduce the sediment, agrochemical and animal manure load of water draining into the reservoir. The strategy included animal manure bioenergy generation and reductions in agrochemical use. Replacement of conventional tillage agriculture by no-till farming, known as Conservation Agriculture (CA), and an ongoing participatory program to improve the quality of CA at farm level, were at the core of the land use transformation strategy. The overall result has been an increase in the life expectancy of the Itaipu dam complex to 350 years, with co-benefits in the watershed related to increased farm productivity and incomes (Laurent et al., 2011; ANA, 2011; WWAP/UN-Water, 2018).

## 2. Methods and materials

Agricultural development in CAB deals with the adoption and improvement of land use, based on the no-till CA system. This case study examines the results of the Itaipu land management strategy as documented in several technical reports, and interviews with farmers and other stakeholders involved in participatory extension within the study region. Public data, provided by the county scale agricultural census of the Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE) (Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics) and the MapBiomas database, is also used. MapBiomas provided maps of land use based on automated classifiers developed and operated from a Google Earth Engine platform, to generate an historical series of annual land cover of Brazil, at 30m resolution. Additionally, much has been written about the Itaipu experience in the literature, and this has also been used (Mello and Van Raij, 2006;

Laurent et al., 2011; Viviane de Souza et al., 2018; Faia, 2018; Lee et al., 2018; Anderson, 2018).

## 3. Challenges of rainfed production and livelihood systems in the study area

The west of Paraná State in Brazil was covered with dense sub-tropical forest until the 1950s. From then on, smallholder farmers coming from the south (Rio Grande do Sul and Santa Catarina) and from the east (eastern Paraná and São Paulo) cleared the forest. Farmers cultivated corn and raised pigs in the valleys, and grew soybeans and wheat on the plateaus. During the 1970s, large, mechanized farms expanded across the plateau pushing smallholders in the valleys to the west (Paraguay) or to the north (State of Mato Grosso). Transformation of the region was rapid, supported by state subsidies and bank loans, with the participation of large private groups of agro-suppliers and from the agro-food industry (Bardy et al., 1977; Gregory, 2002). Original forest only remains in the well protected Foz do Iguaçu National Park, in very few, dispersed, remnant patches in the agricultural landscape, on steep or stony areas, and along riverbanks (Figure 2).

In 1973, the presidents of Paraguay and Brazil signed an agreement to build the largest hydroelectric dam in the world, on the Paraná river, which forms the border between the two countries. The Itaipu dam complex was built between 1975 and 1982. The first hydroelectric turbine began operating in May 1984. The power plant is now the second largest in the world in installed capacity (14,000 MW). The reservoir, formed by the dam, is 150 km long, covering an area of 1,350 km², (Figure 1). Water from the Paraná III watershed, covering an area of 8,389 km² (Figure 2) equal to a fifth of the size of Switzerland, drains into the reservoir. The Itaipu dam is managed by IB, a public enterprise, joint owned by the governments of Paraguay and Brazil. In 1994, the American Society of Civil Engineers named Itaipu dam one of the seven modern wonders of the world (Withers, 2020).
<figure><img src="image_59.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2: Land use in the Brazilian part of the Itaipu area (MapBiomas, 2017)</figcaption></figure>

The Paraná III watershed, with a population of nearly one million inhabitants, is the main influence on the hydropower reservoir. The watershed has a sub-tropical humid climate without a marked dry season. Temperature seasonality occurs because the area is located away from equator. According to Koppen classification, the southwest region of the State of Paraná

has a sub-tropical climate (Cfa), with average temperatures under 18°C and infrequent frost in the coldest month, and above 22°C during the warm summer months. Annual rainfall varies from 1,550 mm in the far north (Guaira region) to 2.125 mm in the south of the watershed (Cascavel region). There are no rainless months. The driest months are in winter (July and August)
with around 75 mm of rainfall per month, and the wettest are in the summer (November to March) (Caldana et al., 2019). The soils, mainly Oxisols derived largely from basaltic bedrock, and some from sandstone, are naturally deep, highly weathered and well drained when not disturbed. Topography is mainly rolling hills with long, gentle slopes, with some patches of shorter, steep slopes.

The watershed is home to more than 35,000 local farms, all mechanized. 43% of these cover up to 10 hectares, and many of the rest up to 50 hectares or more. Smallholder farms, of less than 50 hectares, comprise 76.4% of the total (IBGE, 2017). The two main cropping seasons are summer, from October to March, and winter, from April to September, with crop establishment in August-October and March-May respectively. Summer crops are mainly soybean and maize, with other associated crops such as dry beans, sunflower, cotton and cassava. Winter crops are mainly wheat, barley and oats (Muzzili, 2001). Around 1 million dairy and beef cattle, over 1.5 million pigs, and 30 million poultry, are farmed within the watershed, along with multiple agro-industries based on these crop and animal production practices. The intensity of conventional tillage agriculture and animal protein production in the basin area began to impact Itaipu reservoir in the 1980s.

<figure><img src="image_60.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3: Water course in Paraná III watershed with high sediment load. December 2010 (Francois Laurent)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_61.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4: Monthly variations in nitrates in Itaipu reservoir, 1983 (Sorrenson and Montoya, 1984)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_62.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5: Monthly variations in phosphorus in Itaipu reservoir, 1983 (Sorrenson and Montoya, 1984)</figcaption></figure>

Collectively, deforestation, runoff and intensive soil tillage have affected water quality in water courses and the Itaipu reservoir. These practices led to extremely high rates of soil erosion, reaching 50 t ha⁻¹yr⁻¹, and to high sediment loads flowing through water courses (Figure 3), into Itaipu dam, and in downstream water. Nitrogen (Figure 4) and phosphorus (Figure 5) fluxes, from fertilizers and pesticides, increased in the surface water system at the time of tillage due to high rates of runoff and soil erosion.
<figure><img src="image_63.png" /><figcaption>Figure 6: Eutrophication in Itaipu reservoir (source: Ivo Mello)</figcaption></figure>

This led to severe eutrophication in parts of the reservoir (Figure 6). Since completion of the dam, eutrophication and premature sediment filling (Figure 7) of the reservoir have threatened Itaipu's hydropower production and infrastructure (Ribeiro Filho et al., 2011). Threats that are now compounded by the impacts of climate change.

Consequently, IB financed a large program called “Cultivando Água Boa” (CAB) (Cultivating Good Water), between 2003-15. Since then the “Itaipu Sustentável” (Sustainable Itaipu) program has succeeded CAB. These programs focus on wastewater treatment plants, forest conservation around the reservoir and along riverbanks, slope stabilization and anti-slide management, and development of agricultural practices that produce more positive externalities. Environmental goals are linked to quality of life improvements for local communities, through public and private commitments between IB and the 28 watershed municipalities, cooperatives, associations, NGOs, schools, universities, and farmers. Governance of the program is based on public participation.

The regional agro-ecological conditions make the watershed highly productive, allowing five commercial crops every two years in most of the basin, or two crops a year in higher, colder areas.

Agricultural production is rainfed. Around 47% of the Paraná III basin area is covered in annual crops (MapBiomas, 2017). Productivity is high: in 2018, a mean of 3.5 t ha⁻¹ for soybean (up to 5.5 t ha⁻¹ in some farms) and 5.6 t ha⁻¹ (up to 8.0 t ha⁻¹ in some farms) for maize (IBGE data base: Produção Agrícola Municipal). Soybean (Figure 12) and maize (Figure 13) crop productivity have continued to increase in the last decade despite some years of drought (IBGE, 2017).

<figure><img src="image_64.png" /><figcaption>Figure 7: Sediment deposition and eutrophication, mouth of river São Francisco Verdadeiro where it enters Itaipu reservoir (source: Glaucio Roloff)</figcaption></figure>
## 4. Driving change in agricultural intensification through soil, water and agronomic management in rainfed production systems

In 2003, recognizing the links between the altered watershed hydrology of the dam, the poverty of the region, and the environmental harm associated with both agriculture and energy production, IB expanded its mission to include social and environmental stewardship of the Paraná III watershed (ITAIPU, 2017). On the Brazilian side of the basin, it initiated the CAB program as a response. CAB focused on 63 initiatives, including conservation of water, protection of farmland and forests, and the adoption of strategies to reduce land and water pollution from agriculture. These included the use of no-till farming, promotion of rural sanitation and wastewater treatment, reduced use of pesticides, and forest and stream protection. Through CAB, which was principally based on civil society's participation in the farming settlements, IB built a model example of a multidimensional framework for local stewardship of land and water resources (ITAIPU, 2017). In 2015, IB received the Best Water Management Practices Award from the United Nations *Water for Life* program. In 2017, Itaipu Binational's effort earned praise from UNESCO, which designated the 1 million ha territory of the Paraná III watershed a Biosphere Reserve. More recently CAB has been replaced by an extended initiative *Itaipu Sustentável* (Sustainable Itaipu)<fnref n="1" />.

Land in the Paraná III watershed is protected with anti-erosive contour bunds and terraces, which were constructed and are maintained mechanically (Figure 8). 80% of construction costs were financed by Itaipu's programs. The bunds were designed with the aim of stopping and retaining runoff water generated by an intensity of rainfall with a 10 year frequency. The high

hydraulic conductivity of the Oxisols allows infiltration of water between bunds but with intensive tillage infiltration is impaired, causing water runoff and erosion of topsoil, leading to crop damage. Although most farmers accepted construction of these bunds not all of them are well-maintained. Some farmers have even cut through them when they consider the bunds to be too closely spaced or if they pose a hindrance to the passage of machinery.

However, the main land use practice which helps to maintain high infiltration rates in the terraces, and to minimize runoff and erosion as well as raising productivity, is Conservation Agriculture (CA). CA has been promoted in the watershed since the 1980s, and its effectiveness was further improved during the 1990s.

The Agricultural Research Institute of Paraná State (IAPAR), together with IB, created the concept of a “no-tillage system with quality” (Muzilli, 2006). This clarified to farmers that adopting no-tillage (NT), in conjunction with other conservation practices, would qualify as CA, as well as helping to maintain contour bunds and terraces. IAPAR worked closely with the Technical Assistance and Rural Extension Service of Paraná (EMATER/PR) to develop and transfer suitable no-till technologies to smallholders, including to those using animal traction. They were responsible for the wide-scale adoption of CA in the Paraná III watershed, and throughout

<figure><img src="image_65.png" /><figcaption>Figure 8: Contour bunds, with terraces in between, constructed across the slope to stop runoff and soil erosion. December 2010 (source: Francois Laurent)</figcaption></figure>

<footnote n="1">¹ https://www.itaipu.gov.br/meioambiente/politica-ambiental</footnote>
the state of Paraná (Muzilli, 2001, Muzilli, 2006). IB also partnered with FEBRAPDP and EMATER/PR to reduce sediment and nutrient loads being deposited in the reservoir. This involved, amongst other actions, establishing a methodology to improve the quality of CA, at the farm level, in the Paraná III watershed. A national census of soil management, conducted by IBGE in 2017, showed that 81% of farms were managed under NT systems, and 19% under conventional tillage systems. 89% of agricultural cropland was managed with NT systems. We emphasize here that NT alone does not constitute a CA system.

Section (i) describes the concept and practice of CA. Section (ii) describes a self-assessment system introduced to improve the quality of CA systems on individual farms.

## Conservation Agriculture systems

FAO defines CA as "an approach to managing agro-ecosystems for improved and sustained productivity, increased profits and food security while preserving and enhancing the resource base and the environment" (FAO, 2020). CA is characterized, along with other complementary good agricultural practices of crop and production management, by the practical application of three linked principles, namely (Kassam, 2020):

* **Principle 1:** Continuous no, or minimal, mechanical soil disturbance, implemented by the practice of no-till seeding or broadcasting of crop seeds, and direct placing of planting material into untilled soil; and causing minimum soil disturbance from any cultural operation, harvest operation or farm traffic;

* **Principle 2:** Maintenance of a permanent biomass soil mulch cover on the ground surface, implemented by retaining crop biomass, root stocks and stubbles and cover crops and other sources of *ex situ* biomass; and

* **Principle 3:** Diversification of crop species, implemented by adopting a cropping system with crops in rotations, and/or sequences and/or associations involving annuals and

perennial crops, including a balanced mix of legume and non-legume crops.

CA enhances biodiversity and natural biological processes above and below ground surface. Soil interventions such as mechanical tillage are reduced to an absolute minimum or avoided, and external inputs such as agrochemicals and plant nutrients, of mineral or organic origin, are applied optimally and in ways and quantities that do not interfere with, or disrupt, the biological processes (FAO, 2020).

In this way CA facilitates good agronomy, such as timely operations, and improves overall land husbandry for rain-fed and irrigated production. Complemented by other known good practices, including the use of quality seeds, and integrated pest, nutrient, weed and water management, CA is a base for sustainable agricultural production intensification (Kassam et al., 2009, 2013; Jat et al., 2014; Farooq and Siddique, 2014; Friedrich, 2013). Overall crop and biomass production within a season increases over time under CA management, compared to tillage-based management, since unproductive times used for tillage and land preparation are eliminated, and soil moisture and carbon are conserved. Simultaneously, CA complies with generally accepted ideas on ecological sustainability because the three principles, when implemented, act similarly to land with natural vegetation (Kassam et al., 2009, 2013, 2014; Dumanski et al., 2014; Shaxson et al., 2008; Basch et al., 2012; Kassam, 2020).

Increased cropping system diversity, also involving cover crops, and stimulation of biological processes in the soil and above soil surface, combined with reduced erosion and leaching, can lead to increased retention and use of water and nutrients. This can also result in a decline in the application of mineral fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides, in the longer term (Sorrenson, 1997). Groundwater resources are replenished through improved water infiltration, reduced surface runoff, and greater water retention in the soil (Pan et al., 2018). All this improves the return flow of soil water and groundwater into streams and rivers in a more regulated manner. Water quality
is improved because of reduced agrochemical
and soil nutrient contamination levels, through a
decline in leaching and soil erosion (Bassi, 2000).

CA has been proven to: (i) sequester organic
carbon in the soil at a rate ranging from about
0.1–0.5 t ha⁻¹ year⁻¹, or more, depending on; the
amount of biomass being returned, prevailing soil
organic carbon content, thermal and moisture
climate, length of growing season, soil type and
fertility, and cropping systems and management
practices (Amado et al., 2006; Gonzales-Sanchez
et al., 2012; Sá et al., 2013; Corsi et al., 2014); (ii)
reduce labour requirements, generally by about
50%, which allows farmers to save time and
machinery costs (Saturnino and Landers, 2002;
Baker et al., 2007; Lindwall and Sonntag, 2010;
Baig and Gamache, 2009; Crabtree, 2010); and
(iii) save around 60%, or more, on fuel (Sorrenson
and Montoya, 1984, 1991; Friedrich et al., 2009).
Overall, CA has been shown to contribute to
both climate change adaptability and mitigation
(Gonzalez-Sanchez et al., 2012, 2017, 2019, 2020;
Sá et al., 2013, 2020a, 2020b).

In Brazil, NT was first introduced in the early
1970s, through the initiative of pioneer farmers
of Paraná State and extension agronomists.
Initially the aim was to control water runoff
and soil erosion (Telles et al., 2013; Calegari
et al., 2014). Later the objective expanded to
include improving soil health and productivity
by integrating other complementary practices
to form CA systems. Introduction of NT was a
response to the use of intensive tillage systems in
grain production areas. In the 1970s and 1980s
these were causing severe soil erosion losses and
soil degradation, which in turn was affecting
productive capacity and crop yields (Bolliger et al.,
2006).

Paraná was, in the early 1970s, also one of
the states that pioneered NT research and
development at the national level (Ekboir, 2003;
Freitas and Landers, 2014). Between 1977 and
1991, agricultural research conducted by IAPAR,
in partnership with the then Gesellschaft für
Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), proved
that production systems based on NT and
soil mulch cover, involving cover crops in the

cropping system, are efficient in controlling
water erosion (Derpsch et al., 1986). Research
efforts supported the technical and scientific base.
Later, this led to technology development and
transfer, consolidating NT cropping with mulch
cover as a reference management system for soil
conservation. Throughout the 1990s the NT
system expanded rapidly across Paraná and the
other Brazilian states (Calegari et al., 2014). Now
the term 'NT system' is often used synonymously
with CA.

In Brazil, official data on the number of farms
using, and areas under, NT were first collected
and disseminated by the Agricultural Census
2006, of the Brazilian Institute of Geography and
Statistics (IBGE) (Fuentes-Llanillo et al., 2013).
This enabled a more detailed understanding of
the magnitude of NT practices and NT systems. A
first comparison has been made possible with the
Agricultural Census of 2017, which enabled an
accurate assessment of the change in spread of the
practice of NT in NT systems.

According to IBGE (2017), NT in Paraná State is practiced in around 4.9 M ha (82%) of agricultural land, an increase of 29% from 3.8 M ha (76.5%) in 2006. Soybean, as a summer crop, has been driving the expansion of the NT-based cropping area when used for intensive grain production of both soybean and maize. Yet a true CA cropping system involves, in addition to NT, the use of several other crops. Mixtures of cover crops, including for example, under sowing maize crop with cover crops such as brachiaria, black oats or hairy vetch, can be used. This aims to produce extra biomass, add atmospheric nitrogen to the soil, maintain soil cover before the next main crop, and promote plant nutrient recycling. The use of this approach has generally been used in all agricultural land in Brazil in which CA has been promoted, since the early 1970s. In 2018, the total rainfed cropland area under CA was about 33 M ha, having started in 1972, expanded to 25.5 M ha by 2008/09, and then further increased by around 30% since then. This now accounts for 81% of total cropland in Brazil. Additionally, there is a significant amount of land under CA with trees and livestock.
## A self-assessment system to improve the quality of CA

In the 1980s and 1990s, farmers in the Paraná III watershed, as elsewhere in Brazil, largely adopted NT practices. However, in order to develop good quality CA involving soil biomass cover and diversified cropping, solutions adapted to the needs and constraints of farmers in the local context must be found (Scopel et al., 2004). Strategies proven to be effective in promoting change in farming communities, in Brazil, including in the Paraná III watershed, share two important characteristics:

* Community mobilization and participation as the backbone of the change strategy. This can occur with the establishment of trained groups in the communities, so that participants themselves can improve social and economic conditions through collective action. Such capacities must be built in a participatory way, through ideas, initiatives and actions of group members themselves. In the specific case of Paraná III watershed, IB invested in land stabilization by constructing contour bunds, or banks and terraces, at landscape and farm levels. This benefits farmers and serves as an incentive to participate in conservation practices through common actions.

Community participation is one of the pillars of CAB. The CAB program provided an umbrella for various actions taken to enhance the sustainability of hydroelectric power generation. It was subsidized economically by IB, always in a systemic way, aiming to integrate all sub-programs. Resource contributions from IB subsidize actions such as terracing at farm level, provided that the farmer participates (even if through representation) in the municipal management committee. The Municipal Steering Committee decides priorities for application of resources, according to sub-sectorial plans, in a participatory manner.

* Conducting group evaluations of; small, medium and large farms through a self-evaluation process to improve understanding of the agronomic and environmental effects of adopting CA systems; and of the interactive mechanisms involved in improving the quality of CA practices. Most farms had already adopted the practice of NT before the CAB program. The program was not structured to convince the farmer to simply adopt the three pillars of CA. The objective was to demonstrate to a farmer, within the physical-social scope of his/her microwatershed, that attitudes and actions in relation to the management of the soils of his/her farm property can add value to the productive process (more profit with less resources). That it can offer externalities that the regional population was interested in, for example, the quality of water that their production process delivers to the hydrological cycle of the Paraná III watershed. This can be viewed as an ecosystem or environmental service provided by farmers to generate sustainable, renewable energy. The CAB program then delivers value back to farmers by improving facilities, such as contour bunding or banks and terraces.

IB is a two-country state company, hence its resources are public. The CA improvement part of this program was financed by IB through FEBRAPDP, a non-profit, non-governmental organization. The main aims of FEBRAPDP were to promote and coordinate the adoption of no-till cropping and to assist farmers to develop the practice into a good quality CA system. FEBRAPDP enabled the program to assemble a core team of professionals and consultants to meet mutually established objectives. One main result was the establishment of a participatory, self-assessment methodology used to evaluate the adherence of individual farming practices to the three interlinked principles of CA. Importantly, there was also participation, mainly in the form of non-financial assets, by local municipalities, EMATER (Parana State Extension Agency), and farmer's cooperatives, a mainstay of local agribusiness.
IB partnered with FEBRAPDP, in the Paraná III watershed, to carry out land use improvements involving both the adoption, and enhancement, of CA at the farm level. The goal was to reduce soil erosion and improve farm economic performance. IB, in partnership with, FEBRAPDP, worked to strengthen the ability of farmers to adopt CA and to formulate their own solutions based on a diagnostic system of self-assessment of their CA practices (Bartz et al., 2011). The project, begun in 2009, was built on a participatory approach, involving farmers in meetings and field visits across six sub-watersheds. The entire process was voluntarily, validated by external agents and indicators, and comprised the following steps (Bartz et al., 2011):

i. In December 2009, a two-day meeting was held, involving agronomists, environmental scientists and engineers, and agricultural leaders from each community, to exchange knowledge on soil conservation, fertilization and water resources.

ii. A survey was then carried out in February 2010 through a questionnaire conducted with 237 farmers. Most were smallholders (77% cultivating less than 30 ha). Data collected included: size of area under no-till, time of adoption of no-till, type of no-till, duration of soil exposure without cover, level of satisfaction with the production system, difficulties and problems encountered, and conservation related operations used such as terracing and contour bunding.

iii. In April 2010, validation meetings were conducted to present the results of farmer interviews in each of the six sub-watersheds. Discussions were conducted to obtain the maximum number of opinions on the results, and to generate a participatory environment. From the set of indicators thus identified, some were chosen by farmers to form the axis of the multi-criteria analysis, namely: no-till effectiveness, crop rotation, soil and water conservation, crop fertilization, and farmer's involvement in no-till. The indicators required neither costly measures nor external engineering and were based on farmer

observations and knowledge. These are either quantitatively or qualitatively assessed, compared to a local benchmark (Table 1).

iv. 25 farmers representing the six sub-watersheds were selected as candidates to apply the self-assessment system on their farm properties. The survey provided a register of comparable data between farmers and even between different plots on the same farm. The aggregation, by weighted sum, of indicators results in a No-Till System Quality Index (NTSQI). Details of the conceptual framework underlying the derivation of NTSQI and its trial application in Western Paraná is given in Roloff et al. (2011), summarized below.

The NTSQI is built upon indicators that reflect four key land use system components, directly or indirectly, namely: no-till, soil mulch cover, diversified crop rotation and runoff management. Crop rotation and, partially, soil mulch cover permanence are evaluated through rotation intensity (RI), rotation diversity (RD) and crop residue persistence (RP). Soil cover permanence, also partially, and absence of tillage are assessed by tillage frequency (TF). Runoff is addressed by terrace adequacy (TA), based on runoff over-topping frequency (runoff water overflowing the contour bunds), and conservation evaluation (CE), based on the absence of signs of erosive runoff. Plant nutrition, indirectly linked to soil cover permanence by its affect on crop growth, is evaluated through balanced nutrition (BN). Farmer commitment to no-till, an indirect indicator of the combined components, is evaluated through its adoption time (AT).

The NTSQI is calculated by the sum of indicators multiplied by respective weights, in order to generate easy to understand values of quality parameters, from 0 to 10. Farmer self-assessment generates a score for each quality indicator, and a total score for the adopted production system, at various scales: plot, farm, sub-watershed and Paraná III watershed. After saving the self-assessment, the system generates a report for each farm. This summarizes information computed through the diagnosis, providing a scoring matrix
of the program indicators. Based on this, and suggestions from field technicians, the report concludes with an assessment of strengths, items for improvement and a set of actions to improve the quality of the farm's no-till system, called the "Attitudes Agreement". This is very relevant as it enables farmers to assess their farms, and it generates a quality management system indicating a cycle of planning, action, verification and feedback for continuous improvement. Optionally,

farmers can participate in comparative ranking within the same sub-watershed or entire Paraná III watershed.

The results of NTSQI at farm scale, for 25 farms in the six sub-watersheds, are presented in Roloff et al. (2011). The NTSQI varies from a low value of 4.8, for a farm in the Sanga Mineira sub-watershed, to a high value of 9.7, for a farm in the Aquiles Orlando sub-watershed, indicating that

<table><caption>Table 1: No-Till System Quality Index (NTSQI) indicators (Itaipu Binacional, 2011)</caption><thead><tr><th>Axis</th><th>Indicator</th><th>Justification</th><th>Assessment</th><th>Weight</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="5">Crop rotation</td><td>Crop rotation intensity (RI).</td><td>- Soil protection by active crop</td><td>Ratio number of crops maximum number possible during 3 year period.</td><td rowspan="5">1.5</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Crop rotation and level of soil cover during a time step.</td><td>- Mulch production</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>- Maintaining macroporosity</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>- Nutrient recycling</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Rotation diversity (RD)</td><td>- Diseases, weed control<br>- Diversity of depth explored by roots for nutrients recycling</td><td>Ratio of effective number of species used/ideal number (4) during 3 year period.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Mulch persistence (RP)</td><td rowspan="4">- Resulting from C/N ratio<br>- Erosion reduction<br>- Evaporation reduction<br>- Biological</td><td>Ratio of number of crops that are graninous/ideal number (6) during 3 year period.</td><td rowspan="4">1.5</td></tr><tr><td>Ratio of years without tillering/ considered time to reach an equilibrium in no-till (6 years).</td></tr><tr><td>Terrace adequacy (TA), to assess runoff based on runoff over-flowing frequency.</td><td>- Superficial runoff limitation by increasing infiltration time</td></tr><tr><td>Conservation evaluation (CE) based on the absence of signs of erosive runoff</td><td>- Infiltration process<br>- Erosion process</td></tr><tr><td>Crop fertilization</td><td>Balanced plant nutrition (BN)<br>based on fertilization balance and soil analysis.</td><td>- Avoid nutrient excess (mainly Phosphorus, responsible for freshwater eutrophication)</td><td>Use of fertilization balance or soil analysis</td><td>1.0</td></tr><tr><td>Farmer's history of no-till</td><td>Duration of no-till adoption time (AT)</td><td>- More time means farmers should be more experienced</td><td>Number of years in no-till/ideal number (22 yrs)</td><td>1.0</td></tr></tbody></table>
NTSQI is capable of clearly differentiating the quality of CA and soil and water conservation practices at the farm level. The indicator with the highest frequency of critical cases was Terracing adequacy (TA), with 52%. This suggests issues related to terracing with contour bunding should be prioritized in sub-watershed projects. Rotation diversity (RD) and Mulch persistence (RP) appear critical in 32% of cases, demonstrating they need improvement. This suggests that actions aimed at improving the quality of the CA system for those farmers must focus on Terracing adequacy (with contour bunding) and on increasing the number of cover crops in the rotation, by using winter cover crops such as black oats. This is useful for defining priorities to improve overall environmental externalities of no-till systems in the area.

CA systems are known to improve soil organic matter which enhances soil functions and health, and crop performance. As expected, the NTSQI showed a close relationship to soil organic matter of the first layer (0-10 cm depth), with an R² of 0.60 (n=23, 2 farms were erased for not consistent values). Thus, the index has a valuable ability to reflect soil organic matter differences, improvement and conservation.

Farmers were also trained to count earthworms and classify the numbers (Table 2, Figure 9, Figure 10), applying the method defined by Anderson et al. (1993). Earthworms are very sensitive to

conservation practices and they are fundamental to improving soil health and function, and to the environment. Where there are more earthworms, there is greater biological macroporosity, more organic matter cycling, and enhanced levels of bioavailable plant nutrients. From the no-till assessment viewpoint, the earthworm indicator is complementary to NTQI. Earthworm density is a general indicator of the impacts of the farming system on soil biology, while NTQI is an indicator of the means necessary to achieve good biological and physical soil functioning. Two earthworm counts were conducted by the FEBRAPDP team (December 2010 and February 2011), in 49 plots of the 25 participant farms. The results show an uneven variation between farms in soil biological activities, ranging from poor to excellent (Figure 10).

<figure><img src="image_66.png" /><figcaption>Figure 9: Earthworm counting to assess the quality of the no-till system at plot scale (François Laurent, December 2010)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_67.png" /><figcaption>Figure 10: Earthworm ranking results in the 25 participant farms (Bartz, 2011)</figcaption></figure>
Since 2011, through the SoloVivo network, led by Embrapa (Brazilian National Research Entreprise on Agriculture), and funded by IB, the no-till system scoring method and the NTSQI farm level assessment for improving CA quality has been disseminated in other regions of Brazil, including Goiás, Mato Grosso do Sul, São Paulo, and Paraná e Rio Grande do Sul (Martins et al., 2018). The concept and structure of NTSQI allows for regional customization through stakeholder contributions.

## 5. Economic and environmental benefits of no-till CA system

### Adoption of CA systems and economic benefits

According to Telles et al. (2019), some form of CA is practiced in 89% of the Paraná III watershed. Figure 11 shows that 14 of the 29 Paraná III watershed municipalities use CA in more than 91% of areas dedicated to temporary crops. These municipalities are mainly located in the central region of the watershed. The area dedicated to annual crops managed through CA ranges from 71-90% in 10 municipalities, from 51-70% in 3 and from 38-50% in 2. The quality of CA varies across different areas and there is also variation in the adoption of other conservation practices such as contour bunding and terracing. However, as a result of the watershed-scale adoption of CA, the Paraná III watershed has become known for its high agricultural productivity with small-scale and large-scale farmers using modern, mechanized, intensive and highly technical systems. Small-scale farmers have access to affordable no-till seeding and spraying services. The watershed is also known for its equitable community-based rural and agricultural development which has benefitted participating farmers, small and large-scale, as well as the watershed's non-agricultural population.

Through the adoption of CA, crop yields have shown continued increases. Figures 12 and 13 show soybean and maize yields from 1996 to 2018. Since 1996, there have been increases in soybean yields of around 40%, and 70% in maize yields. There has also been a 30-50% decrease in

fertilizer use for both crops, as biological forms of nutrient pools increase in the soil as a result of more soil organic matter.

The economic impact of CA adoption can be best described through the example of two farms (small and large). The small farm is situated in the Paraná III watershed. The large farm is in the Itapua region, on the Paraguay side of the Itaipu reservoir, where similar CA-based land use development was followed. CA systems were applied on farms of all sizes. The adoption and improvement of CA systems was a grand scale, technological revolution in Brazil, including in the state of Paraná. A break though was achieved by FEBRAPDP when it partnered with the seeding equipment industry and encouraged the manufacture of no-till seeders for all farm sizes, including smallholders using animal traction, at costs compatible with their realities.

<figure><img src="image_68.png" /><figcaption>Figure 11: Adoption of CA system in the Paraná III watershed. (Telles et al., 2019)</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_69.png" /><figcaption>Figure 12: Mean soybean productivity in the Paraná III watershed (IBGE - Produção Agrícola Municipal)</figcaption></figure>

## The case of a smallholder farmer, Itaipulandia, Buriti sub-watershed, Paraná III watershed

Ilario Holzwending is a smallholder farmer who owns 8 ha of land, and rents another 13 ha. He is married with three grown up children. He remembers that when he first moved into the area with his father, as a small boy, in the 1960s, mud

and erosion were everywhere because of intensive tillage farming. Adoption of good quality CA brought the erosion under control, allowed the land to regenerate and remain protected as a highly productive asset in the soybean-maize-cover crop based cropping system (Figure 14). The NTSQI score of his farm was above 8.4 in 2011, meaning that the CA quality rating of his farm was Class 1, or excellent.

Ilario rents another 13 ha and developed a 15 cow dairy operation on it, which his wife

<figure><img src="image_70.png" /><figcaption>Figure 13: Mean maize productivity in the Paraná III watershed (IBGE - Produção Agrícola Municipal)</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_71.png" /><figcaption>Figure 14: Farmer Ilario Holzwendling's CA cropping system maize field after harvest, August 2011. Left to right: Theodor Friedrich (FAO, Rome), Amir Kassam (FAO, Rome), Ivo Mello (no-till agronomist), farmer Ilario Holzwendling and his son. (Amir Kassam)</figcaption></figure>

manages. Ilario also purchased a second-hand, 2 m wide no-till disk seeder (Figure 15) and further supplements his income by offering no-till seeding services and extension advice on CA-based land management, to smallholder farmers in his area.

From their farm income, the Ilario family have been able to build a bungalow on their land and educate their children. All three now work as agronomists in the governmental extension service, earning a good living and are keen to remain in the agricultural sector.

## The case of a large farm on the Paraguay side of the Itaipu reservoir

The financial impacts of good quality CA were analysed in detail by Sorrenson et al. (1997) in the watershed on the opposite side of the Itaipu

reservoir, in Paraguay, where a similar CA-based land improvement program was implemented. The financial performance of a typical large-sized farm (135 ha), in the Itapua region, were traced over a 10 year period from the late 1980s while the quality of the CA system was being

<figure><img src="image_72.png" /><figcaption>Figure 15: No-till seeder belonging to farmer Ilario Holzwendling, who provides no-till seeding service to smallholders to supplement his income. (Amir Kassam)</figcaption></figure>
improved. Farm model results for the overall farm, as well as separately for each crop and for each crop rotation, were produced. The farm model was based on thorough analysis of data from the case study farm (and others) spanning a number of years. Therefore the results can be confidently considered indicative of what was actually being realised in practice by farmers on both sides of the Itaipu reservoir, as a result of practicing good quality CA systems.

Results are shown in Figure 16. The changes in farm income and costs are also based on actual farmer experience in the region. Farm costs (both variable and fixed costs, the latter exclusive of the cost of NT equipment) increased under the CA system, compared to conventional tillage (CT), but these increases were less than the corresponding increases in gross farm income. Net farm income increased considerably under CA, from US$ 9,770 in year 1 to US$ 33,700 in year 10. Under CT it decreased from US$ 7,300 to US$ 1,100. In each of these years, net farm income was higher under CA than CT. A similar study of a medium-sized farm (45 ha) showed that in year six, the CT farm was making an annual loss of US$ 158 compared to a profit of US$ 20,043 in

the CA farm. By year 10 the CT farm was losing US$ 3,013 annually compared to an annual profit of US$ 31,142 in the CA farm (Sorrenson et al., 1997).

Risks, defined as the probability of net farm income falling below zero in any given year, were also analysed by Sorrenson et al. (1997), who concluded that farm risks decreased considerably following the adoption of a CA system, compared to CT. The main reasons for this were: (1) higher and more stable yields in CA, due to improved soil structure, higher water infiltration and soil moisture retention, and reduced pests and diseases; (2) the impact of lowering farm income when soybean and wheat prices fall is less under NT, because it is possible to diversify into other cash crops; (3) reduced fuel use under NT, lowering the impact of any increase in the price of fuel; (4) over time, lower fertiliser and herbicide costs per crop under NT, as the impact of green manure crops, and reduced fallow periods between crops, take effect. Sorrenson et al. (1997) concluded that a situation such as the one presented here, whereby highly attractive financial returns are accompanied by a lowering of risk, is rarely encountered in agricultural technology development. Generally,

<figure><img src="image_73.png" /><figcaption>Figure 16: Net farm income for CA system compared with conventional tillage (CT). (Sorrenson et al., 1997)</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_74.png" /><figcaption>Figure 17: Spillway of Itaipu dam showing water with low sediment load, December 2010 (François Laurent)</figcaption></figure>

more profitable technologies carry with them concomitantly higher risks which necessitate farmers to weigh-up accepting these in exchange for higher profits, as opposed to operating at lower average profit but with lower risk.

## Erosion and water quality

Water quality is affected by sediment and agrochemical loads. Many studies in Brazil have shown that CA-based land use in the Paraná III watershed have resulted in drastically reduced soil erosion. In some cases, erosion is reduced to negligible levels (Derpsch et al., 1986; Venialgo, 1996; ISTRO, 1997; Sorrenson, 1997; Sorrenson et al., 1997; Sorrenson and Montoya, 1984, 1991; Ribeiro Filho et al., 2011; Faia et al., 2018). This can be seen from the colour of water; in water courses, the Paraná river, the Itaipu reservoir, and passing through the dam (Figure 17). Most studies, including longitudinal studies, show that water draining into Itaipu reservoir is; less polluted with agrochemicals, carries much less sediment, and has a greater transparency (Ribeiro Filho et al., 2011;

Faia et al., 2018). An extension of the working life of Itaipu dam, from the original 60 years to 350 years now (WWAP/UN-Water, 2018), is a major result of this. However, studies also show that much needs to be done in terms of maintaining the various soil and water conservation practices to continue keep water pollution, from various sources, to a minimum (Anderson, 2018). This is a key objective of IB, and their wide range of cross-sectoral programs.

## 6. Discussion of findings and system sustainability

The success of CA in the Paraná III watershed has been achieved by increasing crop and farm productivity, and incomes, while also improving the sustainability of the soil resource base.

This required a full, integrative approach involving no-till, soil mulch cover and a diversified rotation with cover crops. These are the fundamental
practices of CA systems. The methodology developed within Itaipu's programs, to improve the quality of CA, produces farmers who are more knowledgeable and confident about their CA practices. The quality improvement, self-assessment scheme, based on field observations and cost-effective measurements, enabled them to keep production costs low while improving their long-term productivity. Society benefits from the positive externalities of CA systems through reductions in sedimentation and eutrophication of Itaipu reservoir. This in turn reduces power generating costs and increases the operating lifespan of the Itaipu hydropower complex. Water resources, and aquatic ecosystems, in the Paraná III watershed are also better protected through cleaner, less contaminated water because of sustainable, CA-based, agricultural land use. The experience of introducing CA, and land water conservation practices, in the Paraná III watershed is summarised in the theory of change in Figure 18.

Managing the productivity and sustainably of the whole Paraná III watershed is a massive responsibility, requiring multi-sectoral, and socially inclusive, management of continuity and change. Although the Itaipu project had a controversial beginning, the community

development framework within which IB manages its affairs has much to do with its enviable economic, social and environmental achievements. Promotion of best practices in the management of agricultural soils, water resources, and ecosystem conservation, are part of the framework. This includes the adoption, and practice, of good quality CA-based land use systems, animal manure management, forest and biodiversity enhancement, and riparian vegetation maintenance (Anderson, 2018). There is an ongoing need for a participatory approach to the technical and management training of farmers, land managers, civil society groups and institutions, in order to observe best practices. This can minimize negative externalities from agricultural land use, and optimize productivity and ecosystem services. It can also help in minimizing, or reversing, deforestation and biodiversity loss, thus creating more opportunities for ecosystem services and tourism development.

The Paraná III watershed experience shows that overcoming water quality problems, requires the involvement of all stakeholders, through an integrated approach, in order to act on both accidental and historical, point and non-point pollution, from agricultural and urban origins. This was possible in the Paraná III watershed

<figure><img src="image_75.png" /><figcaption>Figure 18: Theory of change for Conservation Agriculture, and soil and water conservation, in the Paraná III watershed: strategies, changes, outputs and outcomes</figcaption></figure>
due to IB and a profound paradigm shift
from centralized and curative management
to participative and preventive management.
Strong investment of human and financial
capital, to support a transition to more ecological
systems was possible through technical advice,
and facilitation of farmer groups. This was all
achievable due to the financial means generated
by the hydroelectric power plant.

Stakeholders wanted to link conservation of
water resources with agricultural production,
not consider them mutually opposed. Under CA,
recommended solutions, based on soil ecosystem
services, did not reduce agricultural productivity
to protect the environment but instead reinforced
long term productivity. Permanent soil cover,
with no-till, limits erosion and regulates runoff
over time by increasing infiltration resulting in
aquifer recharge. It also increases soil biological
activity, enriches fertility, and makes crops more
resilient to drought through better rooting and
water infiltration. Diversification of crop rotations
reduces pressure on soil and crop health and
reduces the need for pesticides, which is good
for water resources and saves farmers money. It
also leads to better exploration of soil fertility, in
particular by associating cereals with legumes, like
soybeans.

CA takes into account the multifunctionality
of agriculture by linking ecosystem services
with productivity. It generates more positive
externalities (carbon sequestration, water
infiltration, biodiversity, reduction in erosion),
while improving crop resilience and enabling
producers to reduce inputs. As can be seen from
graphs of the region, productivity of soybeans and
corn increased (Figures 12 and 13). The consensus
is that this is due in large part to the spread of CA.

This experience shows the value of participatory
approaches aimed at ensuring that technical
choices are made with producers. Participation
enabled them to assess for themselves the quality
of their system with simple, visible indicators that
do not require external technologies. Farmers
who better understand interactions between
their techniques, soil life and crop growth, can
constantly improve and best adapt CA to the

specifics of their land. They gain autonomy, know-
how, and knowledge of environmental processes
and so become the best agents of improved water
quality.

However, further progress remains to be made. Firstly, in the diversification of crop rotations. Soybeans are a very profitable crop and it is difficult to replace them with other crops in order to lengthen rotations. Soybean has a low C:N ratio, which leads to rapid mineralization of organic matter. Enrichment by straw cereals in rotation would increase organic matter content, but this remains difficult because they offer lower returns than soybean. Another challenge is to reduce pesticide use, which is high in the region. Persistent pollutants are dangerous to health and the environment, and although banned in other countries, some are authorized for use in Brazil. The development of practices that limit pest pressure, and so the use of these types of pesticides, is a priority.

There are indications that climate, and land use,
change is leading to increased water discharge
into the Paraná River, and that peak discharge is
shifting from February to March/April. Climate
change may also modify watershed hydrology,
resulting in more extreme events such as
droughts and floods, which may damage public
infrastructure. In Brazil, including in Paraná state,
few studies have evaluated the impacts of climate
change on hydropower reservoirs. Some studies
have more generally evaluated the impact on
river basins, not directly evaluating hydroelectric
reservoirs. Given the all-pervasive nature of
climate change impacts, studies examining Itaipu
watershed development and climate change are
essential for forward planning and in order to
make adjustments in all the sectors, as well as
for emergency readiness. CA is a core element
of climate smart agriculture. This is because it
is productive, has good resilience to biotic and
abiotic stresses, and is a good mitigator of climate
change impacts. However, it is important to assess
how adaptable all the other value chain linkages
and institutions are to climate change across
different sectors.
The Itaipu hydropower project, and Paraná III watershed development programs, are based on equitable, social and economic goals, which demand that everyone living and working in the watershed becomes fully and responsibly engaged in the joint effort. Thus, the potential sustainability of overall economic, social and environmental development of the watershed and the Itaipu dam remains high.

## 7. Conclusions with lessons related to policy and new knowledge

This case describes the actions taken by IB to establish sustainable agricultural land use in the Paraná III watershed. Over 90% of the agricultural land was able to be converted from the degrading tillage agriculture system to a CA system, albeit with varying quality. This enabled farmers to manage their rainfed farms productively and sustainably while also delivering water related ecosystem services at farm, landscape and watershed levels. The multi-institutional research and development, and extension, efforts, relating to the adoption of CA were based on locally formulated practices and technologies, and also on a participatory support program aimed at improving the quality of CA systems.

As a result of adopting CA production systems, farmers have been able to minimize soil erosion and runoff, increase water infiltration into the soil, and maximize water retention for production. At the same time, CA-based land use has led to more productive agriculture for farmers and has been a major driving force for economic and rural development.

In terms of new, transferable knowledge about efficient water management for rainfed production and system sustainability, the Paraná III watershed development offers several policy and technical lessons:

1. Tillage agriculture is not suitable for sustainable land management. Only good quality no-till CA systems can offer higher productivity and incomes, while mobilizing the ecosystem services needed by society, resulting in the effective functioning and maintenance of the Itaipu hydroelectric complex.

2. Sustainable agricultural production intensification and protection of ecosystem functions and services are not mutually exclusive. They are two sides of the same coin, feeding into one another. With any form of tillage agriculture, this is simply not possible, because soil-mediated functions and processes are debilitated.

3. Community-based soil and water conservation programs can be developed in a socially equitable manner so that both smallholders and larger-scale farmers, as well as civil society, can work and live in a mutually reinforcing and self-empowering manner.

4. The achievements of the Itaipu project have been dependent upon the goodwill, investments and cooperation of several ministries (energy, water, agriculture, environment, social development, health and education), all of whom worked constructively together for the benefit of all. Their inputs included construction of bunds and terraces, riparian vegetation, safe pesticide disposal sites, farm-based biodigesters and payment for biogas, research and extension. This emphasizes the importance of intersectoral approaches.

5. Land and water related developments on the Brazilian side of Itaipu reservoir also took place in Paraguay, a country dominated by smallholder farmers at that time, many of them relying on animal farm power. Yet, like farmers on the Brazilian side, they transformed their agricultural approach, based on good quality CA, to become the 4th
largest exporter of soybeans in the world by 2020² Brazil being the top global exporter. Both Brazil and Paraguay have gained much from Itaipu hydropower and watershed development cooperation on both sides of the Paraná river and the Itaipu reservoir.

Effectively achieving a multi-sectoral approach to economic, social and environmental development at all levels in the Paraná III watershed, given its size and 1 million inhabitants, is in essence equivalent to managing a small nation. A large proportion of the watershed population rely on agriculture, and related sectors, for their livelihoods. Productive and sustainable agriculture is not only a key driver for economic and social change, it is also a necessary foundation for both a good quality of life and for delivering soil and land mediated ecosystem services to society. The

agriculture and rural development achievements in the Paraná III watershed, and those of the Itaipu hydropower complex, have been nationally and internationally recognized. Increasing the working lifespan of the complex by more than five-fold bodes well for the future, and gives hope to its population that the Paraná III watershed has the potential to remain an area of opportunity for the foreseeable future.

<footnote n="2">² http://www.worldstopexports.com/soya-beans-exports-country/ (accessed May 30, 2020)</footnote>
## References

Amado, T., Bayer, C., Conceição, P., Spagnollo, E., Costa De Campo, B. & DaVeiga, M. 2006. Potential of carbon accumulation in no-till soils with intensive use and cover crops in Southern Brazil. Journal of Environment Quality 35, 1599-1607. doi: 10.2134/jeq2005.0233

ANA (Agência Nacional de Água). 2011. ANA abre seleção para projetos de conservação de água e solo [ANA calls for projects on water and soil conservation]. ANA website. [Cited 28 May 2020]. www2.ana.gov.br/Paginas/imprensa/noticia.aspx?id_noticia=9304

Anderson, W. 2018. Restoring the watershed of one of the world's largest dams could save millions. Initiative 20X20. [Cited 28 May 2020]. https://initiative20x20.org/news/restoring-watershed-one-worlds-largest-dams-could-save-millions

Anderson, J.M., & Ingram, J.S.I. 1993. Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility: A Handbook of Methods, 2nd ed. International Union of Biological Sciences, International Society of Soil Science (Eds.), CAB International, Wallingford, UK.

Baig, M.N. & Gamache, P.M. 2009. The Economic, Agronomic and Environmental Impact of No-Till on the Canadian Prairies, (Alberta, Canada: Alberta Reduced Tillage Linkages).

Baker, C.J., Saxton, K.E., Ritchie, W.R., Chamen, W.C.T., Reicosky, D.C., Ribeiro, M.F.S., Justice, S.E. & Hobbs, P.R. (Eds). 2007. No-Tillage Seeding in Conservation Agriculture, 2nd ed. Wallingford: CABI and Rome: FAO.

Bardy, P., Cail, M., & Gaignard, R. 1977. Recherches sur les types de colonisation agricole dans le bassin moyen du Paraná (Argentine, Brésil, Paraguay). Caravelle Cah. Monde Hisp. Luso-Brés. 169-186.

Bartz, M.L.C. 2011. Ocorrência e Taxonomia de Minhocas em Agroecossistemas no Paraná, Brasil (Tese de Doutorado). Universidade Estadual de Londrina, Paraná, Brazil.

Bartz, H.A., Samek, J.M., Mello, I., Bley, C., Toledo, R., Bartz, M., Tamiozzo, T., Bortoluzzi, J., & Kotz, J. 2011. Metodologia participativa para avaliar a qualidade do

plantio direto na bacia hidrográfica Paraná III. Itaipu Binacional, FEBRAPDP.

Bartz, M.L.C., 2011b. Ocorrência e Taxonomia de Minhocas em Agroecossistemas no Paraná, Brasil (Tese de Doutorado). Universidade Estadual de Londrina, Paraná, Brazil.

Basch, G., Kassam, A., Friedrich, T., Santos, F.L., Gubiani, P.I., Calegari, A., Reichert, J.M. & dos Santos, D.R. 2012. Sustainable soil water management systems. In: Lal, R. & Stewart, B.A. (Eds.). Soil Water and Agronomic Productivity, Advances in Soil Science. 229-289. CRC Press.

Bassi, L. 2000. Impactos Sociais, Econômicos e Ambientais na Microbacia Hidrográfica Do Lajeado São José, Chapecó, SC; EPAGRI, Documentos No 203.

Bolliger, A., Magid, J., Amado, T.J.C., Skóra Neto, F., Santos Ribeiro, M.F., Calegari, A., Ralisch, R., & Neergaard, A. 2006. Taking Stock of the Brazilian “zero till Revolution”: A Review of Landmark Research and Farmers’ Practice. Advances in Agronomy 91, 47-110.

Caldana, N.F. da Silva, Nitsche, P.R., Martelócio, A.C., Rudke, A.P., Zaro, G.C., Ferreira, L.G.B., Zaccheo, P.V.C., de Carvalho, S.L.C., & Martins, J.A. 2019. Agroclimatic Risk Zoning of Avocado (Persea americana) in the Hydrographic Basin of Paraná River III, Brazil. Agriculture 2019, 9, 263; doi:10.3390/agriculture9120263

Calegari, A., Araújo, A.G., Costa, A., Fuentes-Llanillo, R., Casão Junior, R., & Santos, D.R. 2014. Conservation Agriculture in Brazil. In: R.A. Jat, K.L. Sahrawat and A.H. Kassam, (Eds.) Conservation Agriculture: Global prospects and challenges. CABI, Wallingford, UK. 424 pp.

Corsi, S., Friedrich, T., Kassam, A. & Pisante, M. 2014. A review of carbon sequestration through conservation agriculture. In: Heng, L.K., Sakadevan, K., Dercon, G. & Nguyen M.L. (Eds). Proceedings of the International Symposium on Managing Soils for Food Security and Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation. FAO, Rome. pp 205-207.
Crabtree, B. 2010. Search for Sustainability in Dryland Agriculture. Western Australia: Crabtree Agricultural Consulting, Perth.

Derpsch, R., Sidiras, N. & Roth, C.H. 1986. Results of studies made from 1977 to 1984 to control erosion by cover crops and no-tillage techniques in Paraná, Brazil. Soil Tillage Res. 253-263.

Viviane de Souza, D., Pereira da Luz, M., Medero, G. M. & Ferreira, N.D.T. 2018. An Overview of Hydropower Reservoirs in Brazil: Current Situation, Future Perspectives and Impacts of Climate Change. Water, 10, 592. doi:10.3390/w10050592

Dumanski, J., Reicosky, D.C. & Peiretti, R.A. 2014. Pioneers in soil conservation and conservation agriculture. Special issue, International Soil and Water Conservation Research. 2(1), March 2014.

Ekboir, J.M. 2003. Research and technology policies in innovation systems: zero tillage in Brazil. Research Policy 32(4), 573-586.

Faia, H.B. 2018. Infrastructure ecology as a planning paradigm: Two case studies. In: Sustainable Development Studies. Brebbia, C.A., Marco, E., Longhurst, J., & Booth, C. (Eds) WIT Press, Southampton, UK

FAO, 2020. Conservation Agriculture? FAO CA website. [Cited 20 May 2020]. http://www.fao.org/conservation-agriculture

Farooq, M. & Siddique, K.H.M. (Eds) 2014. Conservation Agriculture. Springer International, Switzerland.

Freitas, P.L., Landers, J.N. 2014. The transformation of agriculture in Brazil through development and adoption of zero tillage conservation agriculture. International Soil and Water Conservation Research 2(1), 35-46.

Friedrich, T. 2013. Conservation agriculture as a means of achieving sustainable intensification of crop production. Agriculture for Development, 19,7.

Friedrich, T., Kassam, A.H. & Shaxson, F. 2009. Conservation Agriculture, In: Agriculture for Developing Countries. Science and Technology

Options Assessment (STOA) Project, European Technology Assessment Group: Karlsruhe, Germany.

Fuentes-Llanillo, R., Telles, T. S., Soares Junior, D. & Pellini, T. 2013. Tillage systems on annual crops in Brazil: figures from the 2006 Agricultural Census. Semina: Ciências Agrárias 34(6), 3691-3698.

González-Sánchez, E.J., Ordóñez-Fernández, R., Carbonell-Bojollo, R., Veroz-González, O. & Gil-Ribes, J.A. 2012. Meta-analysis on atmospheric carbon capture in Spain through the use of conservation agriculture. Soil Tillage Research 122, 52-60. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2012.03.001

González-Sánchez, E.J., Moreno-Garcia, M., Kassam, A., Holgado-Cabrera, A., Trivino-Tradas, P., Carbonell-Bojollo, R., Pisante, M. Veroz-Gonzalez, O. & Basch, G. 2017. Conservation Agriculture: Making Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptability Real in Europe. European Conservation Agriculture Federation (ECAF). 154 pp.

Gonzalez-Sanchez, E.J., Veroz-Gonzalez, O., Conway, G., Moreno-Garcia, M., Kassam, A., Mkomwa, S., Ordóñez-Fernandez, R., Triviño-Tarradas, P. & Carbonell-Bojollo, R. 2019. Meta-analysis on carbon sequestration through Conservation Agriculture in Africa. Soil & Tillage Research, 190, 22-30.

Gonzalez-Sanches, E.J., Veroz-Gonzalez, O., Morena-Garcia, M., Gil-Ribes, J.A., Roman-Vazquez, J., Kassam, A., Conway, G., Mkomwa, S., Trivino-Tarradas, P., Miran-Fuentes, A., Marquez-Garcia, F. & Carbonell-Bojollo, R.M. 2020. Conservation Agriculture: climate change mitigation and adaptability benefits. In: Kassam, A.H. (Ed.) Advances in Conservation Agriculture Volume 2: Practice and Benefits. pp 303-334. Burleigh Dodds, Cambridge, UK.

Mello, I. & Van Raij, B. 2006. No-till for sustainable agriculture in Brazil. Proceedings of the World Association for Soil and Water Conservation, P1, pp. 49-57.

Gregory, V. 2002. Os eurobrasileiros e o espaço colonial: migrações no Oeste do Paraná, 1940-70. EDUNIOESTE, Cascavel, Brazil.
IBGE. 2017. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. Censo agropecuário 2017. [Cited 31 October 2019]. https://sidra.ibge.gov.br

ISTRO. 1997. International Soil Tillage Research Organization (ISTRO), INFO-EXTRA, Vol.3 Nrº 1, January 1997.

Itaipu Binacional. 2011. Metodologia participativa para avaliação da qualidade do sistema plantio direto na bacia do Parana III. Foz de Iguaçu, Brazil.

ITAIPU. 2017. Itaipu dam work to combine energy, environment and biodiversity, Itaipu Dam statement on commitment at COP 23, External statement on 8 November 2017, Budapest, Hungary. [Cited 28 May 2019]. https://unfcc.int/news/itaipu-dam-works-to-combine-energy-environment-and-biodiversity

Jat, R.A., Sahrawat, K.L. & Kassam, A.H. (Eds). 2014. Conservation Agriculture: Global Prospects and Challenges (Wallingford: CABI).

Kassam, A. H. (Ed). 2020. Advances in Conservation Agriculture. Volume 1: Science and Systems, Volume 2: Practice and Benefits. Buleigh Dodds, Cambridge, UK.

Kassam, A.H., Friedrich, T., Shaxson, F. & Pretty, J. 2009. The spread of conservation agriculture: justification, sustainability and uptake. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 7(4), 292–320. doi: 10.3763/ijas.2009.0477

Kassam, A.H., Basch, G., Friedrich, T., Shaxson, F., Goddard, T., Amado, T., Crabtree, B., Hongwen, L., Mello, I., Pisante, M. & Mkomwa, S. 2013. Sustainable soil management is more than what and how crops are grown, In: Lal, R. & B.A. Stewart, B.A. (Eds) Principles of Soil Management in Agro-Ecosystems. Advances in Soil Science. Boca Raton, FA, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.

Kassam, A.H., Derpsch, R. & Friedrich, T. 2014. Global achievements in soil and water conservation: the case of conservation agriculture. International Soil and Water Conservation Research 2(1), 5–13. doi: 10.1016/S2095-6339(15)30009-5

Laurent, F., Leturcq, G., Mello, I., Corbonnois, J. & Verdum, R. 2011. La diffusion du semis direct au

Brésil, diversité des pratiques et logiques territoriales: L'exemple de la région d'Itaipu au Paraná. Confins, 12. [Cited 28 May 2019]. https://journals.openedition.org/confins/7143.

Lee, E., Livino, A., Han, S.-C., Zhang, K., John Briscoe, Kelman, J. & Moorcroft, P. 2018. Land cover change explains the increasing discharge of the Paraná River. Regional Environmental. Published online 9 April 2018. [Cited 28 May 2019]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-018-1321-y

Lindwall, C. W. & Sonntag, B. (Eds). 2010. Landscape Transformed: The History of Conservation Tillage and Direct Seeding. Knowledge Impact in Society. Saskatoon: University of Saskatchewan.

MapBiomas. 2017. Collection of Brazilian Land Cover & Use Map Series (Collection of Brazilian Land Cover & Use Map Series. Brazilian Annual Land Use and Land Cover Mapping Project. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Estimation System (SEEG), Brazil Climate Observatory. [Cited 28 May 2019]. http://mapbiomas.org

Martins, A.L. da S., Conte, O., Oliveira, P. de, Dossa, Á.A., Debiasi, H., Franchini dos Santos, J.C., Hernani, L.C., Ralisch, R., Leonardo, H.C.L., Lunardi, L., Salton, J.C., Tomazi, M., Pitol, C., Bona, F.D. de, & Boeira, R.C. 2018. Avaliação ex ante do Índice de Qualidade Participativo do Plantio Direto (IQP) com Produtores do Centro-Sul do Brasil, Documentos No. 203. Embrapa, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

Muzilli, O. 2001. Soil Conservation Policies in the State of Parana, Brazil - The Role of Agricultural Research and Development to Attain Sustainability. Pages 087-089. In: Stott, D.E., Mohtar, R.H. & Steinhardt, G.C. (Eds). Sustaining the Global Farm. Selected papers from the 10th International Soil Conservation Organization Meeting held May 24-29, 1999 at Purdue University and the USDA-ARS National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory. Pages 087-089.

Muzilli, O. 2006. Manejo do solo em sistema de plantio direto. In: Casão, J.R., Siqueirar, Mehta, Y.R. and Passini, J.J. (Eds), Sistema plantio direto com qualidade, Londrina: IAPAr, Foz do Iguaçu: ITAIPU Binacional, p. 9-28.
Pan, R., da Silva Martinez, A., Brito, T. S. & Seidel, E. P. 2018. Processes of Soil Infiltration and Water Retention and Strategies to Increase Their Capacity. Journal of Experimental Agriculture International 20(2): 1-14, 2018. Article no: JEAI.39132.

Ribeiro Filho, R., Petrere Junior, M., Benassi, S.F. & Pereira, J.M.A. 2011. Itaipu reservoir limnology: eutrophication degree and the horizontal distribution of its limnological variables. Braz. J. Biol. 71, 889-902. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1519-69842011000500010

Roloff, G., Lutz, R.A.T. & Melo, I. 2011. An index to assess the quality of no-till systems – conceptual framework. 5th World Congress of Conservation Agriculture incorporating 3rd Farming Systems Design Conference, September 2011 Brisbane, Australia.

Sá, J.C. de M., Bürkner Dos Santos, J., Lal, R., De Moraes, A., Tivet, F., Freire Machado Sá, M., Briedis, C., De Oliveira Ferreira, A., Eurich, G., Farias, A. & Friedrich, T. 2013. Soil-specific inventories of landscape carbon and nitrogen stocks under no-till and native vegetation to estimate carbon off-set in a subtropical ecosystem. Soil Science Society of America Journal 7(76), 2094-2110. doi: 10.2136/sssaj2013.01.0007

Sá, J.C. de M., Tivet, F., Lal, R., Ferreira, A. de O., Inagaki, T.M., Goncalves, D.P., & Romaniw, J. 2020a. Carbon management practices and benefits in Conservation Agriculture systems: carbon sequestration rates. In: Kassam, A.H. (Ed.) Advances in Conservation Agriculture Volume 2: Practice and Benefits. pp 199-228. Burleigh Dodds, Cambridge, UK.

Sá, J.C. de M., Tivet, F., Lal, R., Ferreira, A. de O., Inagaki, T.M., Goncalves, D.P., & Romaniw, J. 2020b. Carbon management practices and benefits in Conservation Agriculture systems: soil organic carbon fraction losses and restoration. In: Kassam, A.H. (Ed.) Advances in Conservation Agriculture Volume 2: Practice and Benefits. pp 229266. Burleigh Dodds, Cambridge, UK.

Saturnino, H.M. & Landers, J.N. 2002. The Environment and Zero Tillage, APDC-FAO: Brasilia, Brazil, UDC 504: 631/635, CDD 631.521

Scopel, E., Triomphe, B., Ribeiro, M.F.S., Séguy, L., Denardin, J.E. & Kochann, R.A. 2004. Direct

seeding mulch-based cropping systems (DMC) in Latin America. In: Turner, N., Angus, J., McIntyre, L., Robertson, M., Borrell, A. & Lloyd, D. (Eds.). Proceedings of the 4th International Crop Science Congress "New Directions for a Diverse Planet", 26 Sep. - 1 Oct. 2004. Gosford : Regional Institute, Brisbane, Australia, pp. 1-15.

Shaxson, F., Kassam, A., Friedrich, T., Boddy, B. & Adekunle, A. 2008. Underpinning the benefits of conservation agriculture: sustaining the fundamental of soil health and function. Main document for the workshop on Investing in Sustainable Crop Intensification, The Case of Soil Health 24-27 July 2008 (Rome: FAO).

Sorrenson, W.J. 1997. Financial and economic implications of no-tillage and crop rotations compared to conventional cropping systems. TCI Occasional Paper Series No.9, Rome, FAO.

Sorrenson, W.J. & Montoya, L.J. 1984. Implicações Econômicas Da Erosão Do Solo E De Practices Conservacionistas No Paraná, Brasil. IAPAR: Londrina, GTZ, Eschborn, (unpublished).

Sorrenson, W.J. & Montoya, L.J. 1991. Chapter about the economics of tillage practices In: Derpsch, R., Sidiras, C. H. N. & Kopke, U. (Eds). 'Controle Da Erosão No Paraná, Brasil: Sistemas De Cobertura Do Solo, Plantio Direto E Preparo Conservacionista Do Solo', (Eschborn: GTZ), 165-192

Sorrenson, W.J., Portillo, J.L. & Núñez, M. 1997. Economics of no-tillage and crop rotations. Policy and investment implications. Final Report, 1 October 1997. FAO Report No: 97/075 ISP-PAR. [Cited 28 May 2019]. http://www.rolf-derpsch.com/en/no-till/economics-mechanized/

Telles, T.S., Dechen, S.C.F. & Guimaraes, M.F. 2013. Institutional landmarks in Brazilian research on soil erosion: a historical overview. Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo 37, 1431-1440.

Telles, T.S., Lourenco, M.A.P., Oliveira, J.F., Costa, G.V. & Barboasa, G.M.C. 2019 Soil conservation practices in a watershed in Southern Brazil. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências vol.91 no.3 https://doi.org/10.1590/0001-3765201920180578
Venialgo, N. 1996. Efecto de dos sistemas de labranza en el control de la pérdida de suelo por erosión hídrica. Trabajo presentado en el II Encuentro Latinoamericano de Siembra Directa en Pequeñas Propiedades, Edelira, Paraguay, 11 – 14 de marzo 1966.

Withers, N. 2020. The Itaipu Dam and hydroelectric plant: a modern wonder of the world. Engineeringpro. Fircrof website. [Cited 25 May 2020]. https://www.fircroft.com/blogs/the-itaipu-dam-and-hydroelectric-plant-a-modern-wonder-of-the-world-01122115433

Workman, D. 2020 Soya beans exports by country, [Cited 30 May 2020]. http://www.worldstopexports.com/soya-beans-exports-country/

WWAP/UN-Water. 2018. 2018 UN World Water Development Report, Nature-based Solutions for Water. World Water Assessment Programme, UNESCO.

## Endnote

All five co-authors have followed developments in Paraná III for many years (e.g. see Photos 1, 2 and 3) and two of the co-authors (Ivo Mello and Glaucio Roloff) participated in the agricultural extension process to improve CA systems in the watershed within the Cultivando Agua Boa (CAB) strategy implemented by the IB authorities. During that period, Ivo Mello was the chairman of the Confederation of American Associations for the Production of Sustainable Agriculture (CAPAAS) and general secretary of the Brazilian No-Till Federation, or Federação Brasileira de Plantio Direto na Palha (FEBRAPDP), with Herbert Bartz as its President. Glaucio Roloff was professor at the University for Latin American Integration at Iguassu Falls, a government supported project initiated in 2007. The university doesn't aim to offer traditional careers, but instead new, integrative curricula with crosscutting issues related to environmental, economic and social development. Both he and Ivo Mello were physically co-located at the IB complex during the time when the strategy for land use improvement was being formulated and tested within the CAB program, and Amir Kassam (based at FAO, Rome, at that time), Francois Laurent (based at Le Mans University in France), and Emilio Gonzalez-Sanchez (based at Cordoba University) were visiting collaborators.

## References
<figure><img src="image_76.png" /></figure>

SLU

SCIENCE AND
EDUCATION FOR
SUSTAINABLE
LIFE