[LINK TO THE HOME PAGE OF THIS SITE]

1. In 2005 they were telling us that biofuels are the answer to global warming and that we should all “go green” by consuming renewable biofuels instead of fossil fuels. In fact they went so far as to put biofuel consumption and production as “offsets” in the strange mathematics of carbon emission “reduction” used by the industrialized countries to meet their Kyoto targets such that rich countries can pay poor countries to do some climate action on their behalf.
2. Around 2008, when Indonesia and other Asian countries responded to this call with an aggressive biofuels program we were told that these activities were bad for the environment and for biodiversity and that biofuels actually caused global warming.
3. And in 2010 biofuels were being promoted once again to fight global warming (Jet biofuel to take flight from 2012, Bangkok Post, August 18, 2010). Is “the science” really “settled” on the global warming issue? If so what is the “consensus” on the question of biofuels?
4. The issue was further complicated in in 2012 with Airlines rushing to switch from time tested kerosene-based jet fuel to biofuels at great cost and risk (Lufthansa will start using biofuels on all flights, Bangkok Post, May 11, 2012). They are lured by the riches of the carbon credits they can sell in the emissions trading market. Biofuels have value in the emissions trading market because global warming scientists were pushing biofuels as an antidote for climate change.
5. When their call was heeded by Asian palm oil growers and they began to plant new palm oil plantations to supply the new biodiesel market thus created, climate scientists made a u-turn on the biofuels idea saying that palm oil as a disaster , that “Asia’s growing palm oil farms are a climate change threat”, and that “Biofuels are harming developing countries” and “Palm oil may be an ecological disaster”. (All quotes are from the Bangkok Post).
6. So now, since this onslaught on biofuels by climate scientists in 2008, biofuels have lost their previously advertised value as renewable energy that can save the planet. Yet, it still carries billions of Euros in carbon credit value in the emissions trading market set up to save the planet. Climate science thus finds itself in the odd position of at once hailing biofuels consumption as a cure for climate change while at the same time calling for a ban on its production which they see as a accelerating climate change. It is one of many contradictions that have confused, befuddled, and discredited climate scientists and their half baked campaign against carbon dioxide.
7. This bizarre confusion in the consensus science of climate change is still with us today as seen in the odd text of the IPCC 2019 Land Management Report. It says that Governments challenged the IPCC to take a comprehensive look at the whole land-climate system and that the IPCC did this through many contributions from experts and governments worldwide and that this is the first time in IPCC report history that a majority of authors 53% are from developing countries”. That is to say, that in the age of political correctness what matters in the science of climate science is the percentage of IPCC authors that are from developing countries. More critical commentary below.

CRITICAL COMMENTARY ON THE IPCC LAND MANAGEMENT REPORT 2019

1. This report shows that better land management can contribute to tackling climate change, but is not the only solution. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from all sectors is essential if global warming is to be kept to well below 2C, if not 1.5C.  [Comment: “better land management can contribute to tackling climate change, but is not the only solution“. That “tackling climate change” is inserted in the sustainable land management context reveals that the real purpose of this document is to push the UN’s climate action program although no evidence has been submitted that such action in land management will reduce the rate of warming. Also one is left wondering what the reference is in the statement that “it is not the only solution“. If there are other solutions why are farmers being thus burdened in their sustainable land management practices. Clearly, the IPCC is not the appropriate UN agency for this job particularly since the UN has an agriculture agency called the Food and Agriculture Organization.]

1. IPCC: In 2015, governments backed the Paris Agreement goal of strengthening the global response to climate change by holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2ºC above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the increase to 1.5ºC. Biofuels & The Land Climate System: Land must remain productive to maintain food security as the population increases and the negative impacts of climate change on vegetation increase. Therefore, there are limits to the contribution of land to addressing climate change with cultivation of energy crops and afforestation. It takes time for trees and soils to store carbon effectively. Biofuel production needs to be managed to avoid risks to food security, biodiversity and land degradation. Desirable outcomes will depend on locally appropriate policies and governance systems. [Comment-1: The purpose of the document is to describe the role of land use by humans in the climate system but what is a “land climate system“. The invention and interjection of this phrase may help the UN’s bureaucratic needs but does not serve the purpose of clarity in communication. Perhaps this kind of language is used to create an air of elevated scientific reality, perhaps of some deep scientific knowledge yet unspecified, known by the IPCC, but with which the reader is not as familiar. Such bureaucratic tools have no place in clear science communication.]  [Comment-2: [“Land must remain productive to maintain food security as the population increases and the negative impacts of climate change on vegetation increase. Therefore, there are limits to the contribution of land to addressing climate change with cultivation of energy crops and afforestation“. This is a bizarre and fraudulent way for the IPCC to acknowledge its gross and destructive error in the promotion of biofuel as a way of combating climate change. The error was pointed out early on by agricultural science as well as the FAO with reference to not only the allocation of land resources (mentioned by the IPCC in this document) but also, and more importantly, the allocation of critical and scarce resources such as phosphorus fertilizer (omitted in this IPCC document). It should be noted that at that time, many researchers along with the FAO had argued that the mis-allocation of phosphorus fertilizer to climate action would adversely affect food production and food security. An even bigger issue in Southeast Asia is that the push for biodiesel production from palm oil led to a devastating destruction by fire of tens of millions of hectares of forest particularly in Indonesia. The IPCC and its minions must take full responsibility for the destructive failure of their idea, even now promoted by the IPCC, that all the world’s problems can now be framed in terms of climate change and that their resolution is somehow tied in with climate action.]  Comment-3:  [The issue of food security and land use is an agricultural issue and the UN has an agriculture agency in the form of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). That the UN and the world now depend on IPCC climate science experts for food and agriculture issues such as food security and land use, is a worrying sign of how distorted and dysfunctional the UN has become as a global body by having morphed into a one-issue creature that sees everything in terms of climate change and climate action.]
2. IPCC: Land is a critical resource: Sustainability in agriculture is needed to tackle climate change because land plays an important role in the climate system. Agriculture, forestry and other types of land use account for 23% of human greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time natural land processes absorb carbon dioxide equivalent to almost a third of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels and industry. Therefore, management of land resources sustainably helps to address climate change.  Comment: [Here, the IPCC having admitted that it had gone wrong when it had redefined land as a climate action device in terms of biofuel production, instead of defining land as a critical food and agriculture asset, now goes back to that same flawed position that got them into the biofuel blunder. Thus, once again, the climate priority of the UN and the IPCC redefines the role of land in terms of climate change and climate action having paid lip service to its food and agriculture function.]
3. IPCC: Land already in use could feed the world in a changing climate and provide biomass for renewable energy, but early, far-reaching action across several areas is required. The conservation and restoration of ecosystems and biodiversity is necessary. Desertification and land degradation: When land is degraded, it becomes less productive, restricting what can be grown and reducing the soil’s ability to absorb carbon. This exacerbates climate change, while climate change in turn exacerbates land degradation in many ways. The solution is sustainable land management. The choices we make about sustainable land management can help reduce and in some cases reverse these adverse impacts. Comment: [Sustainable land management in the traditional sense (see bibliography below) has to do with maintaining its productivity over a longer life span. Here, the IPCC uses the same phrase to mean something entirely different. While appearing to present “sustainable land management as a tool to help farmers, it appears that the real purpose of this verbiage is to sell its climate agenda in terms of using land to absorb carbon. In this context it should be noted that the “human cause” argument in global warming is that in the industrial economy humans started bringing up fossil fuels from under the ground, where they had been sequestered from the carbon cycle for millions of years, and injecting that carbon into the current account of the carbon cycle. This injection of carbon is taken as an artificial and unnatural perturbation of the carbon cycle and therefore of the climate system by way of the GHG effect of atmospheric CO2. This extension of AGW theory from the impact of the “industrial economy” on climate to all human activities, even those that predate the Industrial Revolution, is arbitrary and capricious. The perturbation of the current account of the carbon cycle with “external carbon” can only be assessed in terms of non-surface carbon that is peculiar to the industrial economy][LINK] .
4. IPCC: In a future with more intensive rainfall the risk of soil erosion on croplands increases, and sustainable land management is a way to protect communities from the detrimental impacts of this soil erosion and landslides but there are limits to the ability of sustainable land management to control soil erosion. There are land areas known to experience desertification. These lands are vulnerable to climate change extreme events including drought, heatwaves, and dust storms, with an increasing global population providing further pressure. Comment: [ So what? What on earth is the point of this item in the context of this report? Has climate science shown that global warming has caused soil erosion, landslides, or desertification? or is it some inane bureaucratic climate verbiage derived from the UN’s standard climate fear mongering database? That you need to stick things like that in a report about sustainable land management exposes your hidden agenda.]
5. IPCC: We propose options to tackle land degradation, and prevent or adapt to further climate change. It also examines potential impacts from different levels of global warming. New knowledge shows an increase in risks from dryland water scarcity, fire damage, permafrost degradation and food system instability, even for global warming of around 1.5°C. Very high risks related to permafrost degradation and food system instability are identified at 2°C of global warming. Comment: [Sadly, this laundry list of standard and unproven climate impacts is neither new nor knowledge. In fact the invention of scary climate impacts to sell climate action propositions is standard operating procedure of the UN, the IPCC, and the whole of the climate movement that you have organized. Please see [LINK] . 
6. IPCC: Food security: Coordinated climate action can simultaneously improve land, food security and nutrition, and help to end hunger. The report highlights that climate change is affecting all four pillars of food security: availability (yield and production), access (prices and ability to obtain food), utilization (nutrition and cooking), and stability (disruptions to availability). Food security will be increasingly affected by future climate change through yield declines especially in the tropics increased prices, reduced nutrient quality, and supply chain disruptions. Comment: [That “climate change is affecting all four pillars of food security” and that “food security will be increasingly affected by future climate change through yield declines” are utter and complete falsehoods with no evidence provided by the UN or by anyone else. That the UN is still holding that line after evidence to the contrary reveals that this document is not an information delivery vehicle but a vehicle for climate activism and fear mongering.  
7.  IPCC: We will see different effects in different countries, but there will be more drastic impacts on low-income countries in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean. About 1/3 of food produced is lost or wasted. Causes of food loss and waste differ substantially between developed and developing countries, as well as between regions. Reducing this loss and waste would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve food security. Comment: [Yes there is food waste in third world poor shit-hole countries and that derives mostly from not having refrigerators, potable water, and inadequate protection from insects and rodents. These things are not climate impacts. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is not a method of attaining food security. Giving these people fossil fuels, electricity, and refrigerators, and increasing their greenhouse gas emissions is the more rational response to their pitiful condition. Poverty is not an opportunity to sell climate snake oil. 
8. IPCC: Some dietary choices require more land and water, and cause more emissions of heat-trapping gases than others. Balanced diets featuring plant-based foods, such as coarse grains, legumes, fruits and vegetables, and animal-sourced food produced sustainably in low greenhouse gas emission systems, present major opportunities for adaptation to and limiting climate change. Comment: [The “human cause” argument in global warming is that in the industrial economy humans started bringing up fossil fuels from under the ground, where they had been sequestered from the carbon cycle for millions of years, and injecting that carbon into the current account of the carbon cycle. This injection of carbon is taken as an artificial and unnatural perturbation of the carbon cycle and therefore of the climate system by way of the GHG effect of atmospheric CO2. This extension of AGW theory from the impact of the “industrial economy” on climate to all human activities, even those that predate the Industrial Revolution, is arbitrary and capricious. The perturbation of the current account of the carbon cycle with “external carbon” can only be assessed in terms of non-surface carbon that is peculiar to the industrial economy][LINK]
9. IPCC: Risk management of food systems can enhance resilience to extreme events, which has an impact on food systems. This can be the result of dietary changes or ensuring a variety of crops to prevent further land degradation and increase resilience to extreme or varying weather. Reducing inequalities, improving incomes, and ensuring equitable access to food so that regions where land cannot provide adequate food are not disadvantaged, are other ways to adapt to the negative effects of climate change. There are also methods to manage and share risks, some of which are already available, such as early warning systems. Comment: [What are these negative effects of climate change and how were they causally linked to fossil fuel emissions? That “reducing inequalities, improving incomes, and ensuring equitable access to food” are not something we do and should aspire to anyway but that are something imposed on us by climate change adaptation is ignorant and narrow minded and likely derived from and obsession with climate change.]
10. IPCC: An overall focus on sustainability coupled with early action offers the best chances to tackle climate change. This would entail low population growth and reduced inequalities, improved nutrition and lower food waste. This could enable a more resilient food system and make more land available for bioenergy, while still protecting forests and natural ecosystems. However, without early action in these areas, more land would be required for bioenergy, leading to challenging decisions about future land-use and food security. Policies that support sustainable land management, ensure the supply of food for vulnerable populations, and keep carbon in the ground while reducing greenhouse gas emissions are important. Comment: [Here we come full circle back to biofuels. The obscene logic for sustainable land management is that (1) it will reduce net carbon emissions from soils and (2) it will increase efficiency of land use to make way once again for the biofuel push that the IPCC had once preached, then retreated, the apologized, and now is once again promoting with no mention of the phosphorous fertilizer issue. When the IPCC preaches sustainable land management it is a form of climate action that they are after, not land management and the welfare of farmers. 
11. IPCC: Policies that are outside the land and energy domains, such as on transport and environment, can also make a critical difference to tackling climate change. Acting early is more cost-effective as it avoids losses. We are using technologies and good practices, but they need to be scaled up and used in other suitable places that they are not being used in now. More sustainable land use and reduction in over-consumption and food-waste, eliminating the clearing and burning of forests, preventing over-harvesting of fuelwood, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, thus helping to address land related climate change issues. Comment: [Now they return to to the core of the issue and that is climate action with all their apparent concerns about human welfare being derived from the need for climate action. And yet, no evidence has yet been presented by climate science that climate action will reduce the rate of warming except with things like the carbon budget that contain serious statistical flaws as described in a related post [LINK] . 

SUSTAINABLE LAND MANAGEMENT BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Smyth, A. J., and Julian Dumanski. “A framework for evaluating sustainable land management.” Canadian Journal of Soil Science 75.4 (1995): 401-406.  Concerns for the effects of global environmental change, caused primarily by the interrelated issues of environmental degradation and population growth, have prompted a consortium of international and national agencies to develop a Framework for Evaluation of Sustainable Land Management (FESLM). The FESLM, based on logical pathway analyses, provides a systematic procedure for identification and development of indicators and thresholds of sustainability. An assessment of sustainability is achieved by comparing the performance of a given land use with the objectives of the five pillars of sustainable land management: productivity, security, protection, viability and acceptability. A classification for sustainability is proposed, and plans for future development of the FESLM are described.
2. Droogers, P., and J. Bouma. “Soil survey input in exploratory modeling of sustainable soil management practices.” Soil Science Society of America Journal 61.6 (1997): 1704-1710.  Soil survey information combined with exploratory simulation modeling was used to define indicators for sustainable land management. In one soil series in the Netherlands (the genoform), three different phenoforms were formed as a result of different management practices. Locations were identified using a soil map and interviews with farmers. Organic matter, bulk densities, and porosities were significantly different for the three phenoforms: biodynamic management (Bio), conventional management (Conv), and permanent grassland (Perm). By applying a dynamic simulation model for water movement, crop growth and N dynamics, the three phenoforms were analyzed in terms of sustainability indicators by defining four scenarios based on productivity and N leaching to the groundwater: (i) potential production, (ii) water-limited production, (iii) current management, and (iv) the environmental scenario. The latter was divided into EnvA: never exceeding the N-leaching threshold of 11.3 mg L^-1; EnvB: exceedance occurring in one out of 30 yr; and EnvC: exceedance occurring in three out of 30 yr. Biodynamic management obtained the lowest yield under current management, while yields for Perm were highest. EnvA could not be reached for Perm as a result of high mineralization rates. Obtainable yields for scenarios EnvA, EnvB, and EnvC differed substantially, illustrating the importance of selecting “acceptable” risks in environmental regulation. The presented methodology demonstrates the importance of pedological input in sustainability studies.
3. Bindraban, P. S., et al. “Land quality indicators for sustainable land management: proposed method for yield gap and soil nutrient balance.” Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment81.2 (2000): 103-112.  The required increase in agricultural production to meet future food demand will further increase pressure on land resources. Integrative indicators of the current status of the agricultural production capacity of land and their change over time are needed for promoting land management practices to maintain or improve land productivity and a sustainable use of natural resources. It is argued that such land quality indicators should be obtained with a holistic systems-oriented approach. Two land quality indicators are elaborated that deal with (1) yield gaps, i.e. the difference of actual yield and yield obtained under optimum management practices, or yields determined by the land-based natural resources, and (2) a soil nutrient balance, i.e. the rate with which soil fertility is changing. The yield gap is based on the calculation of land-based cereal productivity at three different levels in terms of potential, water limited, and nutrient limited production, considering weather, soil and crop characteristics. These modelled production levels do not incorporate socio-economic aspects, which may impede agricultural management in its effort to release stress because of inadequate soil fertility, water availability and/or occurrence of pests and diseases. Therefore, location specific actual yield levels are also considered. Besides an evaluation of the actual status of the land, it is important to consider the rate of change. The quantification of changes in soil nutrient stocks is crucial to identify problematic land use systems. The soil nutrient balance, i.e. the net difference between gross inputs and outputs of nutrients to the system, is used as measure for the changes. The indicator for the soil nutrient balance combines this rate of soil nutrient change and the soil nutrient stock. Indicators for yield gaps and soil nutrient balances are defined, procedures for their quantification are described and their general applicability is discussed.
4. Herrick, Jeffrey E. “Soil quality: an indicator of sustainable land management?.” Applied soil ecology 15.1 (2000): 75-83.  Soil quality appears to be an ideal indicator of SLM. Soil is the foundation for nearly all land uses. Soil quality, definition: Soil Quality=capacity to sustain plant and animal productivity, maintain or enhance water and air quality, and promote plant and animal health. By reflecting the basic capacity of the soil to function, it integrates across many potential uses. Nonetheless, few land managers have adopted soil quality as an indicator of sustainable land management. There are a number of constraints to adoption. Most could be overcome through a concerted effort by the research community. Specifically, we need to address the following issues: (1) demonstrate causal relationships between soil quality and ecosystem functions, including biodiversity conservation, biomass production and conservation of soil and water resources. True calibration of soil quality requires more than merely comparing values across management systems; (2) increase the power of soil quality indicators to predict response to disturbance. Although there are many indicators that reflect the current capacity of a soil to function, there are few that can predict the capacity of the soil to continue to function under a range of disturbance regimes. Both resistance and resilience need to be considered; (3) Increase accessibility of monitoring systems to land managers. Many existing systems are too complex, too expensive, or both; (4) Integrate soil quality with other biophysical and socio-economic indicators. Effective early-warning monitoring systems will require not just the inclusion of both biophysical and socio-economic indicators, but also the development of models that incorporate feedbacks between soil quality and socio-economic conditions and trends and (5) Place soil quality in a landscape context. Most ecosystem functions depend on connections through time across different parts of the landscape. In conclusion, soil quality is a necessary but not sufficient indicator of sustainable land management. Its value will continue to increase as limitations are diminished through collaboration between scientists, land managers and policymakers.
5. Holt-Giménez, Eric. “Measuring farmers’ agroecological resistance after Hurricane Mitch in Nicaragua: a case study in participatory, sustainable land management impact monitoring.” Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 93.1-3 (2002): 87-105.A study using a participatory research approach and simple field techniques found significant differences in agro-ecological resistance between plots on “conventional” and “sustainable” farms in Nicaragua after Hurricane Mitch. On average, agro-ecological plots on sustainable farms had more topsoil, higher field moisture, more vegetation, less erosion and lower economic losses after the hurricane than control plots on conventional farms. The differences in favor of agro-ecological plots tended to increase with increasing levels of storm intensity, increasing slope and years under agro-ecological practices, though the patterns of resistance suggested complex interactions and thresholds. For some indicators agro-ecological resistance collapsed under extreme stress. With the help of 19 non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and 45 farmer–technician teams, 833 farmers measured key agroecological indicators on 880 plots paired under the same topographical conditions. These paired observations covered 181 communities of smallholders from southern to northern Nicaragua. The broad geographical coverage took into account the diversity of ecological conditions, a variety of practices common to sustainable agriculture in Nicaragua, and moderate, high and extreme levels of hurricane impact. This coverage, and the massive mobilization of farmer–technician field research teams, was made possible by the existence of the Movimiento Campesino a Campesino (MCAC) (farmer-to-farmer movement), a widespread smallholders’ network for sustainable land management. An approach for measuring agroecological resistance is introduced, and it is suggested that comparatively higher levels of agroecological resistance are an indication of lower vulnerability and higher sustainability. However, the effectiveness of practices appears to be bounded by a combination of steep slopes, maintenance and design of soil conservation structures, and extremely high storm intensity. The study concludes that the participatory research can contribute significantly to the monitoring and development of sustainable land management systems (SLM) among smallholders, and recommends a sustainable, participatory approach to agricultural reconstruction following natural disasters.
6. Bouma, Johan. “Land quality indicators of sustainable land management across scales.” Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 88.2 (2002): 129-136.  Existing definitions of “soil quality” and “sustainable land management” are analysed to derive a procedure for defining land quality (LQ) indicators of sustainable land management. Land rather than soil qualities are considered to reflect the impact of the climate on soil behaviour. LQ is different for different types of land use and attention is arbitrarily confined here to agriculture. Simulation modelling of crop growth and solute fluxes is used to define LQ as the ratio between a conditioned crop yield and potential yield×100. The actual agro-ecological condition and its potential, both expressed by LQ for a given piece of land, is considered here as independent input into broader land-use discussions which tend to be dominated by socio-economicand political considerations. Agro-ecological considerations should not be held hostage to socio-economic and political considerations which may change in the near future while the LQ has a much more permanent character. The proposed LQ reflects yields, risks of production as simulations are made for many years, and soil and water quality associated with the production process. The latter are expressed here in an exploratory manner for seven tropical soils and in more detail for Dutch conditions in terms of the probability that groundwater is polluted with nitrates, reflecting the most dominant current LQ problem. The proposed procedure requires the selection of acceptable production and pollution risks by the user before a LQ value can be obtained. Existing definitions implicitly emphasise the field and farmlevel. However, LQ is also important at the regional and higher level which, so far, has received little attention. Then, again, an agro-ecological approach is suggested when defining the LQ as input into the planning process, emphasising not only an independent assessment of the potential for agricultural production, but also of nature conservation.
7. Fakoya, E. O., M. U. Agbonlahor, and A. O. Dipeolu. “Attitude of women farmers towards sustainable land management practices in South-Western Nigeria.” World journal of agricultural sciences 3.4 (2007): 536-542.  The knowledge of the fungibility (replacable) and renewability potential of natural resources are critical determinants of the attitude and management conservation measures adopted to achieve a sustainable use. Women farmers have taken dominant roles in primary agricultural production in Nigeria over last two decades. The study was carried out among women farmers in Ondo State, South-West Nigeria, to investigate their knowledge and attitude towards sustainable land management practices in arable food crop production. Multistage sampling technique was adopted in selecting a total of 160 women farmers drawn from 18 extension blocks in the state. Data was collected on socio-demographic characteristics, knowledge/attitude towards land management practices and measures adopted by the women. The data was then analysed using both descriptive and inferential statistics. The results revealed that the mean age of the women farmers in the state was 45.3 years, most of the farmers (about 58.77 percent) were married and that majority of the farmers presently cultivated personal land. Also, it was observed that most of the farm lands were inherited or family-owned. Mixed cropping is the most dominant cropping system and the women were mainly farmers though about 12 percent of them are also involved in off-farm processing. The correlation analysis revealed that there is a strong positive (r = 0.63; p< 0.05) correlation between the attitude score and land management practices adopted by the women farmers. The study recommends increase in awareness campaigns on land use fertility and management practices, also that women farmers, through appropriate policy of land tenure and ownership be given equal assess to land resources
8. *Kassie, Menale, et al. “The economics of sustainable land management practices in the Ethiopian highlands.” Journal of agricultural economics 61.3 (2010): 605-627.  This article uses data from household‐ and plot‐level surveys conducted in the highlands of the Tigray and Amhara regions of Ethiopia. We examine the contribution of sustainable land management (SLM) practices to net value of agricultural production in areas with low vs. high agricultural potential. A combination of parametric and non‐parametric estimation techniques is used to check result robustness. Both techniques consistently predict that minimum tillage (MT) is superior to commercial fertilisers (CFs), as are farmers’ traditional practices (FTPs) without CFs, in enhancing crop productivity in the low agricultural potential areas. In the high agricultural potential areas, in contrast, use of CFs is superior to both MT and FTPs without CFs. The results are found to be insensitive to hidden bias. Our findings imply a need for careful agro‐ecological targeting when developing, promoting and scaling up SLM practices.

[HOME PAGE]