Conversation with the counter-revolutionaries
Inspecting the toolbox
Strength through flexibility
Crunching the numbers
Farmers of the north and south - Winning together or losing out against each other?
A world population of 8.5 billion in 2025
Potential for progress in the poor countries
North-south relations
Agriculture in the north and rural land use
Emergency relief and food aid
Providing the south with the means for its self-development
Just how organic is the low-external-input movement?
When is less really more, and new actually old? The catchwords and tenets of the post-Second World War Green Revolution in farming are fast being replaced in the public mind by those of a counter-revolution, as yet unnamed, whose own vocabulary sounds properly technocratic, but which in fact harks back to traditions that may be hundreds of years old: words like "sustainability," "biodiversity," "integrated systems" and "low-input" now buttress the more familiar "organic farming." But what is everyone talking about, and just how organic is the "low-input" movement? Bradley Busetto asked the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) for its view. IFOAM members Susan Milner, Coen van Bueningen and Boudewijn van Elzakker responded.
Susan Milner and Coen van Bueningen
BB: What are the objectives of IFOAM?
CVB: The objective is to further organic production, plain and simple, and thus represent every link in the production chain. This includes the agricultural worker (through farmers' groups), trade groups, processing groups, and standards and certification boards. It's an attempt to provide unity to the growing organic movement. Over 600 groups at all levels in more than 80 countries are represented, with many thousands of individual farmers involved.
SM: We're not interested just in the organic product, but in the entire process of organic production. Looking beyond the technical level, we're trying to grasp social aspects - like fair trade - and look at them from the point of view of groups in the South who see agriculture as not just a technical solution but part of a social/economic dynamic as well.
BB: What are the advantages of turning to organic agriculture?
BVE: It's difficult to generalize, because examples of successful organic farming systems can be found in many different conditions. A major advantage of course is that it stops environmental degradation. Organic techniques are used to regenerate degraded areas. A second advantage is that, because of diversification, it offers farmers a much more secure income than when they rely on only one or two outputs. The consumption of byproducts improves the health of the farm family.
Thirdly, farmers maintain nutrient balances in the soil through locally available organic materials or recycled farm wastes. Soil nutritional status is thus better maintained in areas where access to synthetic inputs is limited or where they are too expensive.
Finally, health hazards posed by pesticides and herbicides fall by the wayside.
BB: Exactly what is low-external-input agriculture; what are its principles?
BE: Low-external-input farming reduces as much as possible the use of external inputs like pesticides, herbicides and synthetic fertilizers and replaces them with internal inputs. The basic principle is that farming is seen as both agro- and ecosystem management. The farmer is managing a farm with coherent diversity. The important concepts are diversification of both crops and animals, crop rotation, and organic matter cycles. Low-external-input agriculture does not prohibit synthetic inputs. It's just that when the principles are applied, the need for synthetics disappears. Techniques vary from the use of traditional knowledge to use of modem bacterial herbicides and insecticides which replace their synthetic equivalents. Mixed cropping, green manuring, composting, use of local organic materials, reduced tillage and biodynamic preparations are also included. These things are little more than common sense. Developing these skills with the farmer is the biggest problem.
Low-external-input agriculture does not prohibit synthetic inputs
BB: What does the au courant word of the day, "biodiversity," imply?
BE: Simply that biodiversity sustains the genetic resource base of both crops and animals, while improving the chances for natural control of pests and diseases. Also, it improves the system's productivity and the agrosystem's sustainability.
BB: How accepted is organic agriculture today?
CB: Organic farming isn't exactly new. Many so-called traditional systems have worked for a long* time without external inputs and chemicals - and are still working. The best proof that organic farming can work is that it has worked for a long time. This doesn't mean it can't be improved. It certainly has to be. But to improve it, it's not necessary to use external inputs. There are other ways. Here I feel FAO is weak. The Organization feels that agricultural improvement means putting in chemicals. That's a one-sided view. In some cases, that approach is viable, but in others it's not. And I feel we have a role to play in developing traditional systems that are still low-external-input without chemicals. The means to do this involves the concept of nutrient balances including organic matter. Science today has a lot more information about what is happening with soil resources, and with these data many traditional systems can be improved without chemicals. There are other ways.
BB: What about regions, like parts of Asia, with high population densities and ever more degraded soil conditions, that have to keep pumping in more nitrogen to keep up their rice production? How can low-external-input agriculture work in places like these?
BE: The fact is that very often systems are being degraded because the external inputs are not properly used. The Green Revolution technology is only accepted marginally. It's amazing that in the Philippines rice is fertilized with urea only. Does the crop not extract other nutrients? The right use of external inputs is a matter of education and improving farmer knowledge. In organic farming, the need for external inputs is reduced through nutrient cycling and an input like labor. When other external inputs are necessary, they are organic materials. You can make biologically intensive production systems with above average yields, employing more people, using renewable, organic resources.
SM: Admittedly, you have to balance population pressures to some degree as well. If you have degraded soils, you need to build up soil fertility, and when the fertility is there you have to try to maintain it. The problem at the moment is that people have tried for too long to use the soil as something to extract from, without trying to recycle things back into it.
The intensification of an agricultural system need not mean automatically putting in more chemicals. There are different ways - intercropping, green manuring, recycling of manure, planting things at different times, so as to maximize the potential of a piece of land. You can use cropping systems so that you have a diversity of crop species that complement each other. You can plant crop combinations that are less susceptible to pest attacks, so that you don't have to keep relying on the pesticides used with monocultures. This is a wholistic farming system which is much more complex and thus both knowledge-intensive and management-intensive.
BB: How do low-input systems compare with high-synthetic-input agriculture in terms of yields, especially in the developing countries?
BE: Here's a good example: The International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in the Philippines is breeding varieties which produce up to eight tons per hectare twice a year, with high technology and high chemical inputs. This is the maximum yield at the moment in high-external-synthetic-input agriculture. However, the average Filipino fermer does not have sufficient access to these inputs, or finds them too expensive, and instead produces 2.5 tons per hectare, twice a year. In China you can still find traditional, intensive organic systems where even human excreta are recycled to the fields; It has been documented by Dr. Li Zhengfang, a Chinese government scientist, that in such intensive systems up to five tons are produced, twice a year. So here you can see the optimum yield with high-external-synthetic inputs, compared to the reality for the average farmer, and somewhere in between that, what is being achieved today with internal organic inputs in China.
BB: Do nutrition problems arise when farmers, especially in the developing world, stick to only one crop in hope of high yields?
BE: Yes. For instance, some Filipino farmers are producing large quantities of rice, and are still malnourished because they cannot purchase other foods. In the past, farmers were not just growing rice, but had more diversified systems. There were, for example, fish, snails and edible frogs in their paddy fields, providing food and manure. The monocropping of today, coupled with increased use of pesticides in the fields, means that no other substantial animal life exists in the paddy fields any more. The farmer has to live completely on his rice, and the sales of his rice, where in the past part of his protein intake was covered from the fish in his paddy field. In low-external-input agriculture we are striving to return to these traditional, diversified farming systems.
BB: Where have you seen successful applications of modern low-input agriculture?
BE: I was recently in the Philippines, as a consultant for UNCTAD - an agency which has gotten the message about organic agriculture - and I saw very successful examples of rice farms which had diversified into vegetables, fruits, fish and some small farm animals. The farmers had a much better income than from rice alone, and the nutritional and health status of their families was much better too. In Nicaragua, we've seen an alley cropping system introduced that was sustainable, increasing crop yields and feeding some animals, so that farmers actually stopped using their former method of shifting cultivation. The only inputs were seeds of leguminous trees and knowledge. Very often training of farmers is the only main input required. Not all of the techniques used are truly "modem," but are very often traditionally based, so that farmers pick up on them easily. The main idea is diversification, meaning both crop diversification and rotation, and a diversity of animals, if possible. The concept of a mixed farm with crops and animals subsisting together is important. Secondly, one must focus on the optimum management of organic matter and nutrient cycles.
BB: How can people in a country with degraded soils and high population growth survive during a conversion to modern low-input systems?
BE: What is important in the conversion period is to introduce strict organic matter management, to improve the organic content of the soil, while at the same time continuing to feed the local population. In lowland rice-growing areas, planting a leguminous crop like lablab beans (Dolichos lablab) restores depleted nitrogen, improves soil structure, provides a fodder for animals and even humans, who can eat the leaves as a vegetable and the beans as a source of protein. This crop can be grown instead of rice, but also in between rice crops, during the conversion period. In upland areas with high population density you often see a distorted kind of shifting cultivation. Here you can introduce an agroforestry system like alley cropping, which stops erosion and is more productive and sustainable. It certainly isn't always true that yields fall when you convert to organic. When you change from rice monocropping to rice/fish, the system'' s productivity (including rice and fish output) is higher. Given proper crop rotation, high population communities should be able to eat during the conversion period.
BB: What about the issue of costs? Isn't low-external-input agriculture quite labor-intensive, and thus costly?
CB: This is an argument that is often used - wrongly. In many places, yes, low-input agriculture is more labor-intensive. But in countries in the developing world, this is not such a problem. Labor there is relatively inexpensive, while chemicals and mechanization are correspondingly expensive. If all of the subsidies are taken off farming with chemicals, the chemicals become yet more expensive. If chemicals aren't used, the savings can outweigh the added cost of extra labor.
SM: The purchasing power of people who buy food is very limited in the developing world. If you apply a high-synthetic-input system which is quite costly in the production stage, you inevitably end up passing this cost on to the consumer. If the agricultural market were consumer-driven, and not distorted by subsidies, perhaps the consumer would not pay the high prices. Therefore the production system would be forced not to be costly, and the farmer would stop using purchased chemicals. I'm told this has actually taken place in certain areas of Nigeria.
BB: Can low-input farming produce higher net incomes for farmers in marginal areas?
BE: Yes, sometimes. In a diversified system there are a lot of by-products, which the farmer might use for his own nutrition or sell on the market. When a farmer has animals for traction, for instance, he grows fodder for his animals, while the animals produce manure, draft power and perhaps also mill. When the farmer feeds waste products to a pig, the pig produces meat or cash, as well as manure which the farmer can use to fertilize his fields. A closed nutrient cycle results, and higher system-wide incomes may result.
BB: So the crucial economic factor isn't just the elimination of expensive chemical inputs, but rather the importance of diversification?
BE: Yes, absolutely. When the farm is diversified, the result is that the farmer needs less chemicals and synthetic fertilizers, and in general has fewer external costs.
BB: Do you think subsidies would be helpful in future wide-scale conversions to organic agriculture in developing countries?
BE: I have my doubts as to whether subsidies on organic products will work well. In all countries - developing and developed - there is a lot of administrative misuse of subsidies. And it also costs governments lots of money (to fund subsidy programs), which is not really attractive, especially in developing countries. It would be more attractive to tax the less environmentally friendly inputs, such as herbicides or fertilizers - call it an ecotax, if you like. This would mean income for the government, and it would also be easier to regulate.
BB: Have you seen any serious change in attitude from traditionally agribusiness- influenced governments toward organic farming?
SM: I think there has been a realization that certainly in Western agriculture the system in place has not achieved its objective.
BB: What was its objective?
SM: In Europe, at least, it was food security. Now there is an overload of food. There is overproduction because the whole market has been distorted by different incentive schemes, to make sure farmers were given a guaranteed price. This has led to more intensification to get higher yields, and that has driven soil degeneration. This intensification has been through increased inputs, increased mechanization, use of high-yield varieties - all the things people associate with the Green Revolution. As a consequence of seeing the need to change policy in order to stop the surplus, and the problems of pollution and soil degradation, there is now an increasing tendency to look at what low-external-input systems have to offer. And, at least from the donor side, people believe now that low-input systems should be developed in the developing countries as well.
BB: Are the attitudes of developing country governments changing?
BE: Unfortunately, they are not changing too quickly. Since the Green Revolution, government policies especially in the developing world have -been centred on high-input agriculture, and there is very little tendency to look for other technologies. In developing countries, organic agriculture is so far entirely the business of NGOs. There is usually a big gap between the ministry of the environment and the ministry of agriculture. Also, development aid and credit programs like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank are still really based on this Green Revolution concept of supplying farmers with inputs and everything will be OK. But this is obviously not the case. A change of mentality is required within the international organizations, especially with the funders, and perhaps then local changes will follow.
BB: What are some of your observations, good or bad, of FAO?
SM: There seems to be a shift toward lower-input agricultural systems, at least at the policy level, which is good. Also, integrated pest management and integrated nutrient systems are currently being talked about at FAO. However, FAO has not provided clear definitions of these new integrated, wholistic concepts.
"Research on organic farming does not reach the users - the farmers"
CB: These integrated, more wholistic pest and nutrient systems suppose a system completely different from FAO's structure, and FAO has still not adapted.
BB: What are the major obstacles preventing the wider dissemination of organic agriculture worldwide?
SM: I think access to information is a major problem. People who want to know about low-input systems - not just stop using fertilizers or chemicals, or whatever, but to actually know how to farm in a sustainable way - don't necessarily have access to the proper information. I think there must be some additional research on this issue. There is a need for training programs which directly instruct farmers, and train extension people in low-input systems, so that a critical mass forms of people involved, and the information can be passed on. At the moment, there isn't the information available, and the extension services are not trained in low-input agriculture.
BB: Are you working on this problem?
SM: A lot of research has been done on organic agriculture, but the information does not reach the users, the farmers. Right now we are creating a useful network of organic agriculture information that can be used particularly in the developing world. A lot of this information is in isolated areas. We should focus on farmer-based research on low-input systems, to get the information available to those who need it, to develop training materials on low-input systems. There is a need to build on what is happening and to communicate between the different actors - research institutes, NGOs and farmers - so that they are all actually reinforcing each other rather than working in isolation. We would hope also to create a mutual forum where the different actors can come together to exchange ideas. What we hope is that there will be a shift from ecological agriculture, low-input agriculture being somewhat marginal to being somewhat mainstream. For this, the people making policy decisions must be aware of the potential.
Edouard Saouma Director-General of FAO
The geopolitical situation has recently changed on a scale without parallel since the Second World War. The East-West confrontation now belongs to the past but the hopes awakened by this unexpected turn of events have rapidly changed to concern of a different nature while, at the world level, the crises in Africa again highlight the issue of-North-South relations which has always been one of my key preoccupations.
Farmers in the North are worried about their future as they lack remunerative outlets that are compatible with their production capacity. Poverty persists in the South, forcing insecurity and hardship on hundreds of millions of people. But this is really nothing new; on the contrary, I see it as a continuation of problems that have remained unresolved for decades and that have never ceased to multiply, now reaching explosive proportions. I would mention population growth in the South and how this is perceived in the rich world; migration from the poor to the rich countries and its impact on the host communities; persisting poverty and the depletion of natural resources; commodity markets and the constant deterioration of terms of trade; financial flows and developing country indebtedness.
But, as we examine these issues, we need to go against the flow and interpret the changes taking place in the world as a tremendous impetus for progress in which, 1 believe, the farmers of both the North and the South have an important role to play.
"...immigration from the poor countries is a case in point"
In 1960 there were three billion people in the world, against 5.3 billion today and a projected 8.5 billion by the year 2025. The bulk of this growth will take place in the developing countries which will have to feed, house, attend, educate and employ an additional three billion people - the total world population in 1960!
The richer regions of the world have been worried about this population increase for more than 20 years. But they have perhaps failed to gauge the level of solidarity needed if the human race is to multiply under conditions that can vouchsafe the basic right of people to live as human beings.
The current attitude of the industrialized world toward immigration from the poor countries is a case in point. The strain is beginning to tell throughout Europe, which forgets that it was itself moulded by peoples from the North, the East and the Mediterranean, whose cultural heritage it now claims as its own, and which also forgets that it, too, emigrated to other continents, sometimes with a brutality that now appals us.
Perhaps the panic of the richer nations in the face of the developing countries' poverty, which they see as a threat to their borders, will hasten the awareness - which in my view is borne out by history - that the prosperous world cannot defend its values by creating barriers against the outside world it so desperately needs. On the contrary, these values should encourage it to share the planet's wealth more equitably and, in so doing, provide the South with the means for self-sustained development. Economic forces left to themselves will always work to the advantage of the strongest, but these will have to be handled with care if they are not to be choked.
Perhaps the developed countries should also consider that their own problems - unemployment, pockets of poverty, violence, drugs, the weakening of social solidarity - have the same root cause as poverty in the developing world, which is that the whole process of production and upward consumption has gradually inverted the roles and is now the master of humanity.
We can get an idea of the level of poverty in the world by comparing per caput income in different countries, for example US$13000 in France against US$130 in Ethiopia, but the most striking indicator is the number of undernourished. In 1990, there were 780 million chronically undernourished people, suffering the attendant consequences on health, work ability and mental development.
The situation was even worse before as there were an estimated 940 million undernourished in 1970. This figure now represents 20 per cent of the population of the poor countries against 36 per cent in 1970, but such progress is outrageously inadequate and unequal. Asia still has the largest number of undernourished, although their number has fallen from 750 million to 530 million. The figures for Latin America and the Near East are more or less what they were 20 years ago, as the advances made around 1980 have since been lost. One-third of Africa's population is still chronically undernourished, their number having risen from 100 million to 170 million. This is where our most determined efforts should focus.
Although poverty is still mainly rural, it is becoming increasingly common in urban areas. Soaring population growth in cities and their peripheries - themselves a source of problems - adds to the new demands being made on agriculture in the South, which is required to feed 100 million extra mouths each year and adjust its structures so as to "export" more and more from the countryside to the towns. But past increases in production have often seriously compromised the future.
The degradation of natural resources is not a threat but a reality. Each year 5 to 7 million ha of arable land are lost; soil erosion will cause a serious drop in productivity on one-third of cultivated land area between now and the year 2000; more than 300 million ha are affected by salinity; fuelwood is consumed by one billion people at a faster pace than nature can handle; overgrazing and the degradation of plant cover are accelerating the desertification of huge tracts of vulnerable land.
It is therefore essential to intensify agriculture and to use the limited resources available to better effect. It is disheartening to observe, for example, how poorly we use water and fertilizers. The same goes for animal feed, pesticides and techniques to control post-harvest losses.
But this also means that considerable improvement is possible. Intensification is necessary, but it needs to be implemented in a different way if it is to be sustainable and capable of ensuring that the soil regains its nutrients, and it needs to be coupled with diversification if agriculture is to be in a position to cope with the vagaries of weather and markets that threaten it at all times.
"Asia still has the largest number of undernourished"
Yet, instead of being able to concentrate their efforts on this enormous challenge, the poor countries are having to expend all their energy on trying to shake off the impossible debts they contracted in the 1970s. The international finance system has imposed Draconian stabilization programs but what was intended to be a brief course of austerity has become an interminable purgatory. Does the priority of financial obligations really have to be at the expense of action for the future?
"...the collapse of the Berlin Wall opened up new horizons",
Barely three years ago, the collapse of the Berlin Wall opened up new horizons for humanity. The resources spent on arms - US$900 billion each year with 80 per cent being spent by the industrialized countries - would, it seemed, be partly released to improve people's well-being. The major military powers envisaged an annual reduction in defence budget of 3 to 8 per cent and, once again, we began to entertain the old dream of turning resources of destruction over to construction.
However, we were very soon brought back to earth. Although the prospects of global appeasement have fortunately held, local conflicts have broken out in the very heart of Europe with agonizing implications for the future. 1 (We now realize the staggering cost of destroying chemical and nuclear arsenals and are amazed the economic and social cost of readjustment In the United States, 340 000 jobs in industry and services could be lost through a 10 per cent reduction in military expenditure over five years. In the former USSR, all the savings from the manufacture of weapons have been absorbed by the cost of conversion, while the political breakdown has brought about a collapse in production and trade that has produced a new, and very hungry, client for economic assistance and capital investment. In brief, the so-called peace dividend was very short-lived.
In the meantime, the developing countries are having to shoulder an external debt that is not getting any smaller. They spend, on average, one-fifth of their export earnings on debt servicing; one-quarter in the case of the least-developed countries. In constant terms, their net financial income for 1991 was one-third lower than it was in 1980 and bank loans were ten times less. Admittedly, official development assistance (ODA) was 25 per cent higher but still very much below (0.33 per cent on average) the mythical target of 0.7 per cent of donor country GNP which only the Scandinavian countries and France have honored.
Commodity prices have continued to fall, which is even more worrying as it affects the workings of the international economic partnership. Over the last 20 years, only a few developing countries have managed to diversify their economies and thus avoid this stranglehold. For many, the principal trading currency remains their exports of raw or barely processed mineral or agricultural products. During the 1980s, however, these exports lost 40 per cant of their value compared with the cost of imported manufactured goods.
This draining of developing country resources is very serious. What developed country could offer its trading partners two years of cost-free exports without plunging its economy into crisis? And yet this is what African countries have had to do as a result of the price falls for their agricultural exports in the last decade. A 60 kg sack of coffee was worth $310 in 1977, $206 in 1980, $143 in 1989, $112 in 1991 and only $79 in March 1993!
Is it any wonder that these countries are unable to find the (devalued) means to invest and to train their populations which is the only possible way of diversifying their income and enhancing the well-being of their people?
Yet we have the GATT negotiations; the extensive international bargaining that was initiated in late 1986 in Punta del Este, Uruguay, and that has been postponing its conclusion date for two years to no effect. The fact that its agenda now includes agricultural issues is a welcome development as is the fact that, for the first time, several developing countries have joined in. In this connection, FAO has provided technical assistance, when requested, to help these countries examine the highly specialized issues involved. However, the objectives of the negotiations, which included other new and complex items such as services and intellectual property, were too ambitious for the tight schedule.
A positive conclusion to these negotiations, however modest, would certainly be preferable to failure which would undoubtedly raise greater trade barriers between regional blocs.
The discussions have centred on differences among the rich nations, however, so the outcome will in all likelihood be disappointing.
On the subject of agriculture, the wholesale dismantling of protection and dumping practices is out of the question. The trend is more toward a 20 per cent reduction in the developed countries' support for their agriculture by the end of the century, and toward greater transparency in non-tariff barriers.
The consequences for developing countries could nevertheless be significant: a 20 per cent reduction in support for cereals, soybean, beef and sugar could provide them with a gain of $320 million per year. Other important commodities such as milk, other oilseeds, fruit and vegetables could also benefit. In the case of vegetables, the elimination of tariffs would provide the developing countries with a gain of $600 million to $800 million and the elimination of non-tariff barriers a further gain of $2 to $3 billion. Therefore, although we can only anticipate a limited liberalization of trade, the impact could still be appreciable.
"...the currency remains exports of raw agricultural products"
The consequences will be spread unevenly, however. For example, the reduction in cereal support will raise world prices to the benefit of exporters, such as Argentina, and to the detriment of the 100 or so net importing countries. On the other hand, the pressure of low cereal import prices on the domestic production of traditional grains should ease. As always, higher food prices will benefit the producers and penalize the consumers.
The countries in the South will generally gain from easier access of tropical commodities to the major markets of the North but the preferential access already enjoyed by some, such as the African, Caribbean and Pacific States (ACP) to the European Economic Community (EEC), will be challenged. The banana trade is a topical example, with Latin America contesting the privileges enjoyed by the ACP.
In overall terms, the GATT negotiations concerning "temperate" products should produce gains for half the Latin American and Caribbean countries and losses for almost all the African countries and 80 per cent of the Asian and Pacific countries. With regard to tropical products, there should be gains for 60 per cent of the African countries, 70 per cent of the Latin American countries and half the Asian countries.
The final draft resolution prepared by the GATT secretariat includes two clauses that are intended to mitigate any negative impact on the poor countries, either by exempting them from all or part of the obligations in the agreement or by introducing compensatory measures to cushion the blow of more expensive imports.
Of course, the industrialized countries also have their farmers who can count on an enormous asset, this being the strong political leverage they are able to exert, despite their declining numbers, when they feel their interests to be at stake. Would that their counterparts in the South had the same influence! European, North American and Japanese farmers can ask a lot of their governments and, in fact, 5 per cent of the population (the farmers) are receiving budgetary assistance which is paid for by the rest of the population and by a food surcharge that now only weighs minimally on the household budget. This is out of the question in the poor countries where farmers often constitute the majority of the population and where the bulk of consumer expenditure is on food.
"Thousands of tons of fruit have been destroyed..."
Farmers in the North are uncertain about their future. Their decline in numbers has continued unabated since the Second World War, from six million to 1.3 million in France and from eight million to 2.8 million in the United States. This trend is expected to continue, with a concentration of holdings in increasingly larger units, as in all the other sectors. There is therefore an urgent need to focus on rural land use, with today's greater awareness of the environment and its protection adding a further dimension.
The EEC's new Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), defined in May 1992, fits into this context. Its aim is to halt the exclusively productivity-oriented process that supports farm incomes with high prices, only serving to encourage surplus production. The original objective of the CAP - European self-sufficiency - had already been achieved in the early 1970s, with subsequent surpluses being left to pile up unchecked. Dried milk supplies have reached up to four times the demand. The Community has found itself with stockpiles of 20 to 30 million tons of grains, 1 million tons of beef and 1 million hi of alcohol. Thousands of tons of fruit have been destroyed and hundreds of thousands of animals have been slaughtered. Surplus production has been offloaded outside Europe, weighing heavily on saturated world markets.
In financial terms, the burden had become intolerable. What with the budgetary costs and the consumer surcharge, countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) spent $320 million in 1991 to support and protect their 16 million farmers. This is five times the ODA grand total of $70 billion. This support accounted for 38 per cent of the value of agricultural production in Europe, equivalent to $500 per hectare or $8 000 per year for each full-time farmer, and an even higher $8 700 per hectare in Japan and $20 000 per farmer in the United States!
However, European farmers feel that they are being sacrificed and that their days are numbered. They feel alienated because their way of life is disappearing. The consumption models and images television bombards them with are those of an urban society with which the traditional farmer can no longer relate.
We should not, however, ignore the innovatory potential of agriculture and rural society in general. On the one hand, there are the specialty, ornamental, medicinal and biological products, with an emphasis on quality and "brand," each amounting to little by itself but important if taken together. On the other hand, there is the hitherto untapped field of biofuels and all those para-agricultural activities, such as agritourism and landscape management, that are mushrooming with the growing concern for the environment and that broaden the variety and range of openings for farmers.
I am not trying to paint a pretty picture. I know that the majority of European farmers have to live with the drama of feeling expendable while they carry out a hard, demanding job they know to be essential. It must indeed be frustrating to see their efforts support and enrich the chemical industries, credit agencies, retail chains and agroprocessing industries, with their lavish spending and takeover bids to attain supremacy, while they - the true producers - must struggle to provide their families with living conditions equal to those of their contemporaries.
So, in the North the farmers are frustrated in their values and social status and unsure about their future, while their governments are at loggerheads over external markets that are too limited because of the inadequate purchasing power of the many people in the South.
In the South, on the other hand, there are insufficient resources to promote sustainable agricultural production in step with population growth, and depressed markets, partly because of the North's barriers and surpluses to protect its farmers. Surely it is high time we changed this absurdity?
It takes optimism to expect the developing world to have today's volume of natural resources in one generation's time when it will have an additional three billion people to feed. Excess land is practically restricted to South America and Africa - 3 million hectares in each case - but the land in question is either sloped, fragile, depleted, arid or remote.!
At the same time, some 50 million ha will have to be set aside to accommodate the increase in population while cropland will continue to lose fertility. This will result in a fall from the present 0.3 ha of arable land per caput to 0.2 ha in 2025 and 0.15 ha in 2050 - a patch of land 40 metres square. The increased productivity needed to compensate for this reduction has never been achieved on such a scale.
The present pattern of unsold surpluses, on the one hand, and insolvent needs, on the other, is no solution. Food aid, which is an indirect consequence of this situation - 12 million tons of cereals plus 1 million tons of other commodities (milk and edible oils) - is a form; of assistance that cuts both ways.
"Consumption models and images of television bombard them,.."
We need to make a clear distinction between emergency relief and "chronic" food aid, which provides the industrial countries with an artificial outlet for their farmers, Emergency relief is vital and I am deeply grateful to the response of the rich countries' governments. However, emergency relief accounts for less than 10 per cent of food aid, the most difficult and costly part being to ensure delivery and distribution to the needy, as witnessed in Somalia.
"Chronic" food aid plays quite a different role and, in all honesty, creates genuine problems for development. For the donor countries, it kills two birds with one stone: it enables them to assist countries they wish to help and it entails relatively little cost, since it involves shifting surplus production that has no takers anyway. For this reason they prefer it to other forms of aid that might call for difficult economic or political decisions. In a way, it functions as a sort of accessory to their agricultural support policy. The recipient countries are in such dire need that this form of aid is also welcome although it includes products that are alien to traditional eating habits and introduces new preferences which subsequently can only be satisfied with imports. This is a real problem.
Furthermore, the domestic producers of comparable products - traditional cereals, dairy foods and livestock products - sometimes find themselves in direct competition and become discouraged when the food given to the government is released on the market, depending on the timing and price. It is very difficult to get the right balance and very easy to make lasting mistakes.
The Chinese proverb of giving someone a fish and feeding him for a day, but teaching him to fish and feeding him for life, is very apt for it is precisely the means of production that need to be given to the farmers of the South, not the product itself. As dignified people, this is what they want, and I have taken great pains at FAO to persuade the donor countries to introduce input aid for Africa, but regrettably without success,
I should like to come back to the facts: the South must develop its Own production capacity, under sustainable conditions, to feed itself and be in a position to acquire the food it lacks. Apart from technical and financial assistance, which remain vital for many countries as they have got so far behind, what is needed is equitable market access for the South's products. For many, this is the key to a genuine economic partnership in which they can find the means for self-development. How can the markets be equitable when most transactions are controlled by a handful of operators?
As the countries of the South are fir (ally given the possibility of allowing their populations a decent standard of living, the conditions will be set for the increase in effective world demand that is so strongly advocated by European farmers. I see no other alternative.
Of course, I am not saying this will be easy. Nor am I saying that upward consumption, which has become a canon of wealthy societies eclipsing all other values, is compatible with the global advance of humanity. I think that what really shapes our society are the values we choose to adopt rather than the price of the products we consume. I hope that our contemporaries, so many of whom now find refuge in antisocial behavior with their self-centred, criminal or self-destructive actions, will once again take up an ideal that can be shared by the overwhelming majority, which is to advance together and build confidence in the future.
Edouard Saouma
The views expressed In this article are those of Edouard Saouma in his private capacity and do not necessarily reflect those of FAO.
Reprinted from the spring 1993 issue of the review GEOPOLITIQUE, No. 41
"...allowing their populations a decent standard of living..."
Three alternatives
But is it sustainable?
Example: the virtues of velvet bean
Example: water buffalo health care
Example: crop-livestock-fish farming
A look the means for achieving sustainable agriculture
By Coen Reijntjes, Bertus Haverkort and Ann Waters-Bayer
Thirty years after the launching of the Green Revolution - and despite its outward successes - delegates to the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) were forced to admit that crop yields are stagnating or even declining in many countries, rural poverty is increasing and the natural resource base in far too much of the world is being seriously degraded. Concluded the conference: "Major adjustments are needed in agricultural, environmental and macro-economic policy, at both national and international levels...to create the conditions for sustainable agriculture and rural development."
Before starting to make those adjustments, however, it might be a good idea to look through our technological tool box and see what kind of equipment there is to work with. If we pick the wrong tools, the process of adjustment could be reduced to mere cosmetic tinkering - and the pressure of earth's growing populations and deteriorating environment won't leave time for that.
Essentially, there are three alternatives available: 1) Integrated Green Revolution Agriculture, 2) Organic Agriculture, and 3) Low-External-Input Agriculture. The differences between the alternatives are not always apparent, and in many cases they overlap. What each can contribute to "feeding the world" depends on specific situations, including the existence of external factors, such as subsidies that make inputs more or less expensive and the capacity of farmers, development workers, researchers and policy-makers to adapt to new conditions.
Integrated Green Revolution Agriculture - Under this alternative, the basic tools of the Green Revolution - intensive use of external inputs (synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides), increased irrigation, development of high-yielding hybrids and the mechanization of labor - are retained. But much greater efficiency is imposed so as to limit damage to the environment and human health. Some organic techniques are also selected and combined with the high-input techniques to create integrated systems (Integrated Plant Nutrient Supply, Integrated Pest Management) that reduce the need for toxic chemicals. Sophisticated biotechnology is employed to produce higher-yielding or pest-resistant plant varieties.
This option may be a possibility for regions with very favorable production conditions - including good soils and climate, the availability of large amounts of investment capital and the existence of the necessary infrastructure (research facilities, extension networks, road and transport grids, etc.).
Organic Agriculture - This option excludes the use of inorganic chemicals altogether, relying entirely on mechanical and organic/biological techniques to maintain soil fertility and sustain yields. Many of its proponents agree, however, that a transition period is sometimes necessary, in which use of synthetics can be scaled down gradually. Organic farming tends to work best where sufficient organic material is naturally present or where chemical fertilizers are not available.
Low-External-Input Agriculture - An increasing number of farmers, development workers and scientists are coming to the conclusion that capital-intensive Green Revolution techniques are simply not a feasible alternative for the poorest of the 1.4 billion farmers who live in tropical regions with ecologically, geographically and developmentally less favorable production conditions. In these relatively diverse, complex, risk-prone areas, far away from markets, external inputs are either too expensive or simply not available. To optimize productivity, farmers must depend on local resources and ecological processes, recycling and site-specific genetic material. External inputs can't be excluded but should be used strategically so as to complement internal inputs or deal with emergencies, such as unexpected pest attacks. Social factors must also be taken into consideration, using resources such as indigenous knowledge and institutions to foster social cohesion, self-reliance, stronger local economies and human dignity.
These, in fact, are some of the basic ideas behind low-external-input agriculture.
Unfortunately, just like Green Revolution agriculture, low-external-input agriculture is not always sustainable. Farmers are obtaining a significant part of their income from nutrient-mining, and degradation of agricultural land is widespread. Considerable human and financial investment will be needed to regenerate it.
The technology needed to make low-external-input agriculture sustainable can come from various sources: agro-ecological science; empirically developed ecological farming systems (organic farming, permaculture, regenerative agriculture, natural farming, biodynamic farming etc.); traditional and indigenous knowledge, and new directions in conventional agricultural sciences. Frequently, the same techniques can be used both to make low-external-input agriculture more sustainable and to make Green Revolution agriculture less chemical-dependent. Indigenous knowledge, based on farmers' own experiences with their local agro-ecosystems, provides a basis for technology development. Where innovation and experimentation by farmers have been stimulated through participatory technology development, rehabilitation of site-specific systems has succeeded.
Scientific understanding of truly sustainable low-external-input agriculture is still in its infancy, but some basic principles have emerged to guide the process of system development:
1) Improve conditions for plant growth by managing organic matter and enhancing soil life. Soil life and soil organic matter play a key role in enhancing soil structure, the availability of nutrients and water, and in preventing nutrient and soil losses in tropical agriculture. But this has been generally acknowledged only recently. A soil cover of dead or living plant biomass provides a favorable microclimate for soil life, protects the soil from erosion by sun, wind and water and adds important nutrient reserves.
2) Make better use of nutrients and balance nutrient flow. Nutrient deficiencies and imbalances are the main constraints to crop production and health. A negative nutrient balance means the natural capital of the farm is being mined, yield and protective plant biomass cover will gradually decrease and the system will degrade. Where sufficient external inputs of organic or chemical fertilizers or purchased fodder or concentrates are not available, other technologies can be used. Prevention of erosion, nutrient harvesting, recycling of organic matter, nutrient pumping by deep-rooting plants, fixing nitrogen and mobilizing phosphates, using animals to collect nutrient and organic matter and careful handling of fertilizers can help to prevent and compensate for losses and exports of nutrients and organic matter. If compensation cannot keep the nutrient flow in balance, integration into a wider market economy should be limited.
Farmers in small villages on the northern coast of Honduras are planting velvet bean (Mucuna pruriens) along with maize to obtain high yields, control erosion and lower weeding and land preparation costs.
In this humid tropical region the mean temperature is 28°C, precipitation averages more than 3 000 millimetres a year, and altitudes vary from sea level to high mountains. Cropping seasons are January to June and July to December, but most farmers grow only one maize crop a year during the first season. Farmers using velvet bean for the first time sow it one to two months after sowing maize. When they harvest the maize, they leave the belt-over stalks on the fields. Velvet bean starts covering the stalks and soon takes over the field. By December, large quantities of legume foliage (50 to 70 tons per hectare) begin to dry out and cover the soil with a layer up to 20 centimetres thick. The next maize crop is planted through this layer, which suppresses weeds and allows adequate establishment of the maize. In the second year, velvet bean seeds volunteer from the year before, and the cycle continues with the sowing of new maize. The farmers obtain maize yields of 2 700 to 3 250 kilograms per hectare - more than double the national average - without using chemical fertilizer.
The continuing use of legumes is bringing about changes in the entire farming system. Plowing is being replaced by no-tillage, and migratory farming is slowly disappearing because farmers have found a cheap and simple way to make their land more productive.
Farmers adopted velvet bean without promotion by private or government agencies. Because they are familiar with growing maize, they quickly recognized the benefits of the innovation. Most of their income comes from maize. Low yields mean low income, which was the situation before velvet bean was introduced. Moreover, using velvet bean costs next to nothing - the seed is passed on from farmer to farmer. Because cultivation of velvet bean fits into the normal farming practices for maize, farmers can make more effective use of labor and resources. For more information contact: CIDICCO, Apdo. 278-c, Tegucigalpa DC, Honduras.
3) Manage flows of solar radiation, air and water to improve production and minimize damage. Flows of solar radiation, air and water can be manipulated with plant canopies and soil cover or by technical means to create micro-environments for the best possible growth and to prevent damage. Multi-storey cropping to make best use of light, shading, mulching, solar radiation for drying crops, irrigation, water harvesting and the many techniques that can be used for water and soil conservation all fit this agro-ecological principle.
4) Use prevention and safe treatment to cut damage by plant and animal pests and diseases. Farmers who use integrated systems and techniques that minimize the need for cures won't get caught on the pesticide treadmill. Researchers are developing integrated pest management, but so far it is aimed at decreasing the need for chemical pesticides for specific commodity crops. Food and other crops used in small-scale farming are still largely neglected by everyone - except farmers themselves.
Over centuries of experimenting, traditional farmers have developed many site-specific techniques - multiple cropping, trap crops, flooding, rotation, mechanical traps, plant-derived pesticides and medicines and locally adapted plants and animals with high resistance to prevailing diseases - to reduce damage from pests and disease. And their indigenous crops, trees and animals have additional advantages. Along with high resistance, they provide useful products and nutritious foods. Smallholders also exploit wild plants and animals. Although information on these indigenous, unconventional or underexploited genetic resources is sketchy, enough is known to indicate that they play a critical role in meeting the needs of people living under diverse, complex and risk-prone conditions.
The water buffalo is highly appreciated by subsistence farmers because it provides traction, food and manure, as well as assurance for bad times. The animals are well worth extra care, and two farmer-innovators in the Philippines have come up with their own methods.
Ramón Pelisco, a tenant farmer in Pamahawan, Leyte, who has one water buffalo with a calf, some chickens and pigs, makes his own herbal medicine to treat buffalo for severe diarrhea. He uses the herbaceous plant albahaka (Hyptis suaveolens), which grows abundantly in marginal areas. His procedure is to:
· take three fresh rootstocks of albahaka;
· wash them thoroughly with water;
· boil them in one litre of water until only about 375 millilitres of liquid is left;
· allow it to cool;
· put it into a 375-ml bottle, and give it to the animal;
· give a fresh solution every morning and afternoon for four consecutive days.
Albahaka also has other uses. It can treat diarrhea in humans and, when placed in chickens' nests, it minimizes lice infestation.
Tito Pael owns and farms seven hectares of sloping land in Altavista, Leyte. He grows coconut, coffee and maize and raises water buffaloes, goats, pigs and chickens. To deworm his buffalo calves, he extracts about 40 ml of pure coconut milk from finely ground coconut meat without adding water and mixes it with one egg from his chickens. He pours the mixture to the calf in the afternoon and then allows the calf to wallow the next day. If he sees no sign of internal parasites coming out he repeats the medicine, which is usually effective after two treatments.
5) Exploit complementarity and synergy in genetic resources. Agro-ecosystems with a high degree of diversity are likely to be more stable than those with only one species, and give the farmer more security - but only when the components are chosen well. It is important to recognize that simple diversity does not necessarily lead to stability and can even cause instability.
Functional diversity can be achieved by combining plant and animal species that have complementary characteristics and are involved in positive, synergistic interactions. The complementary characteristics may be different requirements in terms of light, nutrients, rooting depth, growing time or labor. The effects of synergy may be to improve growth through intercropping, to provide protection against damaging flows of water or wind or to produce waste products that serve as feed for other plants and animals. The result is improved stability and greater productivity.
When crops, trees, animals and humans are not complementary they may compete for land, solar energy, water nutrients, food or labor and influence each other for the worse by creating an unfavorable microclimate or transferring pests. Although competition cannot be entirely eliminated, it is minimal in good combinations of genetic resources. The farmer has to find the best possible balance between positive and negative aspects of the components - weighing loss of space, for instance, against creating a better microclimate or fixing nitrogen.
Integrating crops, livestock and fish - a highly nutritious and valuable traditional food - in small-holder farming systems has ecological and economic advantages. By making full use of on-farm and adjacent resources, the systems work to conserve rather than to destroy the habitat. They are productive and profitable because they utilize wastes from one enterprise as inputs in another. And they exploit micro-environments within the farm system that add to farm productivity and security.
" Diversity does not necessarily lead to stability, and can even cause instability"
Farmers in Vietnam developed an effective system that combines rice, vegetables, chickens, cattle, fish and shrimp. They cultivate rice and raise shrimp in trenches, which also provide water to irrigate the vegetables grown in a mulch of rice straw on dikes made from trench mud. Immediately after trenching, they put chicken and cattle manure into the rice field trenches to promote phytoplankton blooms for the fish and shrimp to feed on. Although the shrimps' diet is primarily natural, they are also fed during their first two months with farm-grown by-products such as germinated rice grain, cassava flour, rice bran, coconut and groundnut oilcake and trash fish from the irrigation canals. Mango and eucalyptus branches are put in the trenches to keep out cattle and poachers and to provide the undisturbed habitat shrimp need.
The integration raises the system's overall productivity and lowers costs. The shrimp and fish eat rice weeds, thus cutting weeding expenses by a third. And chemical fertilizer input can be reduced by 30 per cent with no detrimental effect on rice production because animal manure and fish faeces fertilize the paddy. For more information contact: Clive Lightfood, ICLARM, MC P.O. Box 1501, Makati Metro Manila 1299, the Philippines.
The challenge is to discover which combination of plants, animals and inputs will improve security and productivity and conserve resources given the constraints of land, labor and capital. Multiple cropping, agroforestry and crop-livestock integration all help to exploit functional diversity. When exploited to its fullest degree, functional diversity provides complex, integrated farm systems that make the best possible use of available resources and inputs and thus limits the need for external inputs - to the benefit of farmer and field alike.
Coen Reijntjes, Bertus Haverkort and Ann Waters-Bayer are co-authors of "Farming for the future: an introduction to low-external-input and sustainable agriculture," from which this article is adapted.
Diversity and flexibility
Diversification via new crops
A cure for sub-Saharan Africa
Integrating crops and livestock
Farmers' own experiments may lead the way to eventual food security
By William Grisley
No one disputes the need to find ways of farming that can meet rising demands for food without wreaking havoc on our natural resource base. But there's plenty of argument about what such high-output, yet sustainable production systems should look like. At one end of the spectrum is purely organic farming, at the other, the highly specialized, agrochemical-intensive monocrop and monolivestock systems of industrial agriculture.
Somewhere in between are alternative food producing schemes which emphasize intensification through both crop and livestock diversification and integration. These systems may well hold the best promise for the future, and today farmers across the developing world are continually experimenting with variations on the alternative theme. Their results can provide guidance - not only for the farmers themselves, but for researchers, development workers and government planners as well.
Before looking at some actual examples, it should be noted that the advantage of alternative production systems is that they are not set systems. Because of their diversity and flexibility, they offer vast opportunity for farmers in many agro-ecological environments - especially in countries where Green Revolution technologies are too expensive or inappropriate: The marginal production areas of Asia, Latin America and most of Africa fall into this category.
Diversified, integrated systems do require some inputs, and farmers must decide how much and what kind of internal and external inputs to use. If low levels of mineral fertilizers and crop and livestock protection chemicals are used, will production meet growing consumer demand? Will the systems meet farmers' objectives and be economically sustainable? High levels of external inputs will increase productivity, but will the systems still be economically and ecologically sustainable?
The type and operation of production system really depends on whether a farmer plans to produce or buy inputs. Deciding whether to produce or buy involves the economics of on-farm input production, and trade-offs between internal and external input use. On-farm production of organic fertilizer requires an abundant and reliable source of biomass and ample labor and/or mechanical power. If land fallowing and green manure crops are used to produce biomass, scarce cropland must be sacrificed and additional labor be used to harvest and incorporate the material. If livestock manure is available it requires more labor and management for collection, transport and incorporation.
Most farms in developing countries produce organic fertilizers, and farmers use complex cultural practices developed by long trial and error to control pests and diseases and guard against uncertain weather. They mix crop varieties and intercrop in the same field, relay crop, control crop residues and select disease-free seeds and plant cutting materials. They must accept the costs of foregoing crop production and increased labor and management, but most have few if any alternatives.
The economics of internal input production and use at farm level aren't favorable in some areas, and will become still less so as farm size continues to shrink and soil fertility decline. Internal inputs are expensive to produce and distribute, supplies are limited, and quality is uneven. There just isn't enough biomass material and labor in most areas to produce the organic fertilizer needed for high yields. Farmers' indigenous cultural control methods are also limited in supply and effectiveness, especially today when crops and crop varieties, livestock types and production methods are changing fast.
But these changes can also work to the farmers' advantage. New crops and varieties that increase yields or reduce risks can help by allowing for greater diversification of cropping and fanning systems, while increasing overall sustainability. They can be incorporated directly into an existing system with minimal change and sometimes require few, if any, additional external inputs. For example:
· In Zambia, the introduction of soybeans is leading toward sustainability on small farms that traditionally used shifting cultivation methods to maintain soil fertility. More than 60 000 small-scale farmers are producing soybeans as a partial replacement for traditional food grain legumes, which are more susceptible to diseases and pests. Their risks are reduced, and their returns rise. Soybeans are now an important cash crop and are increasingly being used in the preparation of protein-rich foods for human consumption. Nitrogen fixation by soybeans also benefits maize, the basic food staple. Yields increase 20 to 30 per cent when maize is sown in a rotation with soybeans.
· In Brazil, the release of new bean varieties has enabled both large- and small-scale farmers to increase productivity and returns. With the new varieties, bean yields rose by 26 per cent and gross returns by 16 per cent, and the cropping and farming system became more sustainable. Overall, the new varieties increased the value of bean production by over US$20 million annually.· In Rwanda, a densely populated country desperately in need of increased food supplies, introducing climbing beans into areas where they were not traditionally grown made a big difference. Farmers realized a threefold increase in yield and a 500 per cent increase in gross margins by planting climbing beans instead of traditional varieties. By 1992, more than 160 000 farmers were using the new climbing bean production system. But the outlook is not entirely good. It took not only new varieties but also farmyard manure to produce the dramatic results, and fertilizer is a problem in Rwanda. The country lacks supplies of mineral fertilizer and manures are expensive and scarce. Constraints in the production of organic fertilizers and high import costs of mineral fertilizers could threaten the long-term sustainability and spread of the new climbing bean production system.
· In Vietnam, new maize varieties and technology that shortens the production cycle have enabled farmers to intensify their cropping system in the traditional rice-producing areas of the Red River Valley. During the cool, dry winter season large areas of unused paddy land are being sown to maize using an ingenious transplanting technology. By 1990, more than 250 000.hectares of winter crop maize were sown using the new technology. Yields were in the two-ton range, 30 per cent higher than the countrywide average. Here too, more mineral fertilizer was needed, but proved worth the expense. Excess maize supplies went into the production of pigs, which now provide large quantities of much-needed manure for intensive paddy rice production. With increased use of mineral fertilizer allowing for an increase in the production of organic fertilizers, the system as a whole is now more highly productive and perhaps more sustainable.
Are high-yielding varieties and the use of mineral fertilizers a cure for the endemic low yields and increasing unsustainability of cereal production in sub-Saharan Africa? The Sasakawa-Global 2000 Project seems to think so, at least for selected areas. Results from farmers' fields are encouraging.
In Tanzania, high-yielding maize and sorghum varieties combined with applications of mineral fertilizer increased yields and gross returns by more than 200 per cent. The results with maize were similar in Zambia and only slightly less spectacular with maize and sorghum in Ghana, where yields rose by 100 to 200 per cent and gross returns by 60 to 900 per cent. Farmers in Togo and Benin, reported increases in maize yields of 50 to 100 per cent. High-yielding sorghum varieties and mineral fertilizers outdid traditional practices in the Sudan by more than 130 per cent.
"The path for action is to build on what farmers are already doing"
These results are dramatic and encouraging. But can resource-poor farmers afford the costs and bear the risks of using low-to-medium levels of mineral fertilizers? The project provided the credit and assured availability of seeds and fertilizer on a timely basis. Without direct project support of this kind there is concern that the high-yielding cropping systems introduced will not be viable. Yet, few alternatives for increasing cereal yields in Africa are readily available. Farmers in the project areas are unable to produce levels of organic fertilizer that can significantly increase crop yields. Land areas for production of biomass materials and labor are both critically in short supply.
Many believe the key to development of a high-output, sustainable agriculture production system is integrating crop and livestock production on the same farm. Crops provide the feed for livestock, which, in turn, provide manure to maintain soil fertility. Simple in concept, but does this synergetic relationship actually work in practice?
· In the highlands of Kenya, favorable climatic conditions, a growing demand for milk and decreasing farm size led to the emergence of the zero grazing dairy production system. The system has allowed small-scale farmers to increase their incomes and thus their overall food security even as farm size drops. The farmers harvest cultivated napier grass every day to feed the confined dairy cattle. In theory, they are supposed to collect manure and return it to the grass plots to maintain soil fertility, but recent surveys have shown that only about one-half of all manure produced is actually going to forage plots. The farmers use the remainder on cash crops, principally horticulture crops and coffee, or simply leave it unused. Mineral fertilizers are used to make up part of the soil nutrient loss on forage plots, but soil mining is clearly occurring, and the long-run sustainability of the zero grazing system may be called into question as soil fertility levels decline further. Larger quantities of mineral fertilizers or less diversion of manure to cash crop production may be required to keep the system sustainable.· In China, ammonia-treated straw technology is being used to produce cattle feed on both large- and small-scale units. Traditionally, large quantities of wheat straw were burned because of its low feeding value. Research and practice have shown that feeding of the straw once it is ammonia-treated is highly profitable. These profits can be significantly increased with supplementary feeding of cottonseed cake, a high-value protein feed that is locally produced. The manure produced by the cattle is then used on the winter wheat and summer cotton crops. This is another case where increased mineral fertilizer use contributes to an increase in organic fertilizer production.
· In Mali, livestock have been combined with cotton farming to form a profitable integrated system. The cattle make two important contributions. First, by using oxen for traction seed-bed preparation, planting and cultivation can be completed on a timely basis. Secondly, livestock manures are returned to cotton fields to supplement - but not replace - mineral fertilizer. Mineral fertilizer remains crucial because there are not enough livestock to produce the quantities of nutrients needed to keep the system at its current level of productivity and profitability.
These cases suggest the path for action is to build on what farmers are already familiar with and doing successfully. In many marginal areas, farmers are already successfully intensifying production through diversification of cropping systems and integration of crop and livestock systems. Even small-scale farmers will experiment with new technologies and readily utilize external inputs if they have the means and the returns are attractive.
But increased external input use does not by itself imply greater unsustainability. In fact, evidence suggests just the opposite when the inputs are properly used. This is an important point. Use of external inputs, especially new crops and varieties, mineral fertilizers and crop and livestock protection chemicals allows for greater flexibility in the cropping and farming system. This flexibility adds scope for higher production, profits and hence sustainability over the long term.
William Grisley is an agricultural economist and FAO consultant.
An attempt to model
The hard facts
Planting leguminous crops
The crux of the matter
A plan for action
A realistic biomass budget can't overdraw on the world's sources of soil nutrition
By A.L. Angé
Before the first decade of the coming century has ended, the combined processes of population growth and economic development will most likely have cut the ratio of land available per person for farming to half its 1990 size in the developing countries of Africa and Latin America - and the ratio in the Near East and Asia will follow suit barely 10 years later. In developing Oceania, the ratio will be divided by 1.3 by the year 2010.
Such a dramatic evolution in the amount of arable land available to support growing populations means land use is bound to intensify and crop yields will have to improve greatly. Yet the sources of plant nutrients available to support this kind of improvement are far from infinite and depend on a host of factors.
In Asia and the Near East, for example, irrigated areas play a major role in crop production. There, plant nutrient management in future should support high yields secured by irrigation and the irrigation sector can be expected to create favorable conditions for the turnover of substantial biomass. In other regions, however, the productivity of available plant nutrients and the likelihood of increasing biomass turnover must depend on unpredictable rains. Access of farmers to land can also aggravate the situation. In Africa and Asia, for instance, the biggest farms are rarely more than five times the size of small farmers' plots. But in the Near East they may be 10 times as large - and in Latin America as much as a thousand times bigger.
Management of plant nutrition in farming and cropping systems in the expected conditions of increasing land scarcity will thus depend on local conditions, and any innovations aimed at mobilizing plant nutrients must adapt to them. In some countries conditions may be quite favorable, but in others they will be harsh and unforgiving of error.
Farmers have two possible sources of crop nutrients:
Natural, local nutrients - These may be mobilized from nutrients stored in soils and biomass (crop residues and vegetation), or collected from those contained in rain, dust, irrigation water and sedimentation. Some crops supply nitrogen to the cropping system and biofix nitrogen. Animal manure is another source.
External sources - Farmers in developed countries have used mainly raw materials - rock phosphates, slag, industrial wastes and sludge - until the advent of mineral fertilizers in the 1940s. For the past 30 years, mineral fertilizers have been the major external source of nutrients in developed countries, and their use is increasing rapidly in the developing world. But external sources of plant nutrients that are not the result of recycling wastes are non-renewable resources. If the present growth of mineral fertilizer continues, some mineral deposits could be exhausted before the 22nd century.
Plant nutrients are necessary to prevent the recurrence of long periods of hunger like those that happened in Europe between the 15th and 18th centuries. But where nutrients come from and how they are handled are crucial.
In developed countries, farmers have mined their soil by the unbalanced use of mineral fertilizers so that nitrogen far outweighs phosphorus. As cropping is intensified, the increase in the turnover of plant nutrients in the soil increases the mineralization rate of organic matter. Without a supply of organic materials, the soil develops deficiencies in secondary and micro-elements (Mg, S, Bo, Zn, etc.).
In the developing world, massive transfers of plant nutrients from non-cropped to cropped areas improved crops but ruined the ecosystems of non-cropped areas in China, Vietnam and, more recently, in large areas of Sahelian Africa. At the local level, poor farmers in developing countries, who have neither the cash nor the short-term credit to buy external sources of plant nutrients, can exacerbate the loss of fertility if they do not manage the soil properly and fail to provide protection against runoff. The losses of nutrients in plant nutrient cycles increase, and nitrates and phosphates may pollute surface and groundwater.
|
Country |
Arable land | |
|
|
1990 |
2010 |
|
Africa |
|
|
|
Congo |
770 |
530 |
|
Kenya |
1030 |
620 |
|
Côte d'lvoire |
2880 |
1850 |
|
Niger |
4660 |
2240 |
|
Asia |
|
|
|
Bangladesh |
790 |
450 |
|
Vietnam |
1000 |
680 |
|
India |
1980 |
1300 |
|
Thailand |
3840 |
3330 |
|
Latin America and the Caribbean | ||
|
Haiti |
1410 |
880 |
|
Guatemala |
2080 |
1460 |
|
Brazil |
5340 |
4330 |
|
Argentina |
11400 |
9450 |
|
Near East | ||
|
Egypt |
480 |
300 |
|
Jordan |
1130 |
660 |
|
Algeria |
3010 |
1800 |
|
Turkey |
5070 |
3580 |
A review of crop production and plant nutrition conditions can help demonstrate the limits and constraints of plant nutrient sources. A model of all available land and cereal-cropped land available per capita in most developing countries from 1990 to 2010 to assess the maximum possible expansion of the cropped area shows that through slight intensification, revenues from cash crops should be maintained if the crops' value on the market is to be maintained. The model stipulates that:
· total arable land will be increased proportionally to recent expansion;· the area with industrial crops will increase by 20 per cent every 10 years;
· the cropped area with annual crops will increase in proportion to total population;
· the share of various food crops will not be modified within the food-cropped area.
The situation by 2010 should be as follows:
Disappearing fallows - Fallows will have almost disappeared in 17 Asian countries out of 20 with Indo-China, Mongolia and Afghanistan the only exceptions. In sub-Saharan Africa, there will be no fallows in 20 countries, and less than 25 per cent of the land available for annual crops will be under fallows in 29 countries. In Latin America and the Caribbean, possibilities for fallows will have disappeared in five countries and will be lower than 25 per cent in nine out of the remaining 27. Where fallows exist, they will be concentrated in big farms. In the Near East, only farmers in Algeria, Libya and Tunisia will have fallows.
This means that most farmers in developing countries will no longer be able to harvest plant nutrients from natural supplies and upwelling from the subsoil through fallows, and transfer the nutrients to the next crops. But there are other natural sources of nutrients. Supplies from rain and dust are estimated at five to 15 kilograms of plant nutrients per hectare and nitrogen fixation and upwelling of nutrients from fallows at 15 to 45 kg/ha. Leguminous cash crops and other industrial annual crops could create better conditions for crop rotation, nitrogen biofixation and use of available plant nutrients. Even if land is not available for growing green manure in a full cropping season, it can be intercropped.
Asian crops - Food crop yields should reach quite a high level in most countries with average yields of 1.5 t/ha for wheat and more than three t/ha for paddy rice in most of northern Asia. China's average cereal yields should be more than 5.4 t/ha, and the two republics of Korea should have yields approaching eight t/ha. In South Asia, the required average paddy yields will be 3.7 t/ha for countries with a medium population density like the Philippines and 6.7 t/ha for heavily populated countries like Bangladesh.
Latin American crops - The dry countries of Latin America, like Bolivia, should have maize yields close to or over 2.5 t/ha while in Mexico the average yields should be more than 3.5 t/ha. In wheat-exporting countries like Argentina, average yields should be more than, three t/ha. Among humid countries average maize yields should be more than two t/ha in Haiti and Honduras, 2.5 t/ha in Brazil and at least three t/ha, often more than 3.5 t/ha, elsewhere.
African crops - Africa will need a substantial increase in cereal and tuber yields. The driest countries, Botswana, Chad and Niger, should reach 0.8 t/ha of cereal grains while other Sahelian countries should obtain a cereal yield of at least 1.1 t/ha. On the Horn of Africa, cereal yields should reach 1.6 t/ha. Most countries of the humid savannah zone should produce at least 1.7 t/ha of cereals and some like Nigeria, Madagascar and Congo two to 2.2 t/ha. Kenya will need 2.4 t/ha, Tanzania 2.7 t/ha and Ghana three t/ha.
We can't escape the numbers. To provide the food that they will need by 2010, developing countries will have to multipy their yield by an average of 1.5 times and cropped areas by an average of 1.3 times. This will multiply the plant nutrients that crops export an average of 1.95 times - 1.6 to 2.4 per cent. The average annual growth rate of the bulk of plant nutrients within the biomass of feed crops should be 3.5 per cent - ranging from 2.2 per cent for countries with the food supply per capita and the most available land to 4.3 per cent for countries in the most difficult situation.
In theory, recycling crop residues will replace 40 to 50 per cent of the nitrogen exported by a crop, 25 to 40 per cent of the phosphorus and 70 per cent of the potash. In practice, the phosphorus is preserved when plowing the residues, but more than 20 per cent of nitrogen and 30 per cent of potash are lost through volatilization and leaching in many ecological systems. Transforming crop residues into manure sharply reduces their bulk but only cuts the plant nutrients. Animals excrete 90 per cent of the nutrients in fodder, and when they graze directly on the residues two-thirds of the excreta at most are available for manure. Only 52 to 74 per cent of the nutrients from excreta are available in the manure spread on fields. This leaves less than 70 per cent of the plant nutrients recycled from residues available for the next crops. It is estimated that a maximum of 35 per cent of the total nitrogen uptake of cereals, 30 per cent of the phosphorus uptake and 60 per cent of the potash uptake are recycled through crop residues.
"More than 20 per cent of nitrogen is lost... in many ecological systems"
Leguminous crops do fix nitrogen, but when harvested, groundnuts provide less than 20 kg/ha of nitrogen in the semi-arid tropics and soya 40 kg/ha in the humid tropics - if there is enough phosphorus to provide high yields. The residues of leguminous crops restore about as much nitrogen as do cereal residues.
In favorable conditions, leguminous crops will provide fixed nitrogen for the next three crops while in less favorable situations they will rotate with more than nine other crops. The average nitrogen supply from leguminous to other crops is 14 kg/ha/crop in intensive soya/cereal agriculture with one soya crop every four crops. It is five kg/ha when soya crops are less frequent. The supply is seven kg/ha in rather intensive groundnut/cereal agriculture with one groundnut crop every four crops.
But the proportion of leguminous crops planted every year is not large: 25 to 30 per cent in India, Burma (Myanmar) and North Korea, 15 to 18 per cent in China, Indonesia and Pakistan and less than eight per cent in other Asian countries; 20 per cent in Brazil and less than 12 per cent in other Latin American countries; 20 to 25 per cent in Burkina Faso, Niger, Senegal, Malawi and Kenya (mainly groundnuts), Burundi, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda (mainly beans with low nitrogen-fixing capacity) and less than 10 per cent in other African countries. To fit the model for 2010, the proportion of leguminous crops would have to increase by 20 per cent.
Livestock can transfer plant nutrients from non-cropped to cropped areas on farms that produce enough fodder on the non-cropped areas. In good conditions, one ton of cow dung contains eight kg N, four kg P2O5 and 16 kg K2O. The transfer of plant nutrients from non-cropped to cropped land averages 4.8 N + 2.4 P2O5 + 9.6 K2O every year on the total cropped area. The transfers should not exceed the 12 to 25 kg/ha of natural replenishment of the plant nutrient stock available in cropped areas so as not to mine the reserves. Unfortunately, farmers in most countries are going over this limit. By transferring too much of the plant nutrients stored in natural vegetation and uncultivated soil, they are ruining their non-renewable capital of nutrients.
"Producing enough manure takes more non-cropped land than most farmers have"
Producing enough manure takes more non-cropped land than most farmers in developing countries have available. An adult cow weighing 350 kg needs a minimum of four ha for fodder production in the humid tropics and seven to 10 ha in many parts of the semi-arid tropics. Because the cow cannot produce more than three tons of dung from which only two tons may be used for manuring, a farmer wanting 10 t/ha of dung for each hectare of crops must have five cows and 20 to 40 ha of non-cropped area per hectare of cropland. If the farmer wants the manure once every four years the ratio between the cropped area receiving the manure and the non-cropped area providing the fodder for the manure is 5: 1 or 10: 1. But even at this rate, few farmers can produce enough manure to meet the nutrient needs of all their cropped land. Case studies show that in the semi-arid tropics, less than six per cent of cropped land receives an average dose of 10 t/ha of manure every year. In the humid tropics, buffaloes can supply manure for up to 12 per cent of the land.
But local sources aren't enough. The numbers show that plant nutrients from fallows, crop residues, nitrogen fixation, transfer from non-cropped areas, rain and dust combined will not totally recover the uptake by food crops unless other external sources of plant nutrients, especially potash, are added. Lack of plant nutrients is one of the major limiting factors for yields in developing countries, and the situation can only get worse as existing plant nutrient reserves are slowly mined from the soil. Throughout most of Asia and Latin America, the present plant nutrients available in theory from local sources represent no more than 50 to 55 per cent of the nutrients that crops are exporting, and external sources of nutrients are used to compensate.
Even if farmers make the most careful possible use of their land - accepting minimum crop yields as a result - the land will not have enough plant nutrients to meet the yields targeted for 2010 if fertilized only with local plant nutrient sources and the small amount of mineral fertilizer presently available in most of the developing world. If crop yields are increased, the recycling processes will theoretically increase proportionally, but the transfer of plant nutrients from non-cropped areas and nitrogen fixing by leguminous crops cannot provide the additional store of plant nutrients needed for the development of the cropped area. What is worse is that all the plant nutrients supplied are not available for crops. Because volatilization, denitrification, leaching runoff and immobilization cause major losses, the supply should be quite larger than the requirements, especially when losses are not properly controlled.
Researchers studied the availability of plant nutrients from all sources and the corresponding uptake by the crops in the United States in 1978 and in China in 1987. They found that the total plant nutrient supply that produced 4.2 t/ha of cereals in the United States produced an average of 4.0 t/ha of cereals in China. Organic sources of plant nutrients were important in China because of its enormous losses of plant nutrients in the environment. In the United States, farmers have limited losses from the natural supply of plant nutrients by using fertilizers to increase the development of rooting systems of crops in the subsoil, controlling runoff and managing crop residues. The differences between the United States and China show that all plant nutrient sources are not equivalent, and that accurate balance sheets of plant nutrients should be established in the various cropping systems and plant nutrition schemes to define the efficiency of plant nutrients.
Increasing the efficiency of plant nutrient management - and not only for local cropping systems and fields - would be a major step on the way to sustainable agriculture. Planners should assess what plant nutrient sources are available within small rural regions and set up networks of representative reference farms and pilot farms. The reference farms will provide data on the present efficiency of plant nutrients while the pilot farms test alternatives to local and external sources so that planners can analyse the sustainability of the innovations regionwide. On the basis of economic interpretation of the results - and the hypothesis that the various plant nutrients will be available - governments and perhaps agricultural regions will then have the information they need to plan the vital strategies for ensuring fertile soil for the year 2010.
A.L. Angé is chief of FAO's Plant Nutrition Development and Management Service.
