an assets-based approach to sustainable use of land and water contribution to “presentation on...
TRANSCRIPT
An Assets-Based Approach to Sustainable Use of Land and Water
Contribution to “Presentation on Sustainable Use of Land and Water for
Food Security”, FAO Committee for Food Security, Rome, 1st June 2001
Professor Jules Pretty, Centre for Environment and Society, University of Essex, Colchester CO4
3SQ, [email protected]
Three agricultural options• expand the area of agriculture, by converting new
lands to agriculture, but losing forests, grasslands and other areas of important biodiversity
• increase per hectare production in agricultural exporting countries, mostly industrialised, so that food can be transferred or sold to those who need it
• increase total farm productivity in developing countries which are going most to need the food
• by purchasing inputs/technologies?
• by using locally-available assets and resources?
Best options for the poorest?• Which work best for the poorest
• great success in past… but still 790 million people food poor
• Key questions:– to what extent can farmers improve food
production with low-cost and locally-available technologies and inputs?
– What impacts do these methods have on environmental goods and services, and the livelihoods of people relying on them?
Five Assets of Rural Systems(livelihoods, communities, economies)
Financial Capital:money, savings
Natural Capital:nature’s goods and services
(waste assimilation, pollination, storm protection, water supply, leisure, wildlife)
Social Capital: cohesiveness of people
and societies - trust, reciprocity, rules and norms,
networks and institutions
Physical Capital:infrastructure
Human Capital:the status of individuals - health, skills, knowledge
Natural Capital• food, wood and fibre; • water regulation and supply; • waste assimilation and treatment; nutrient cycling and fixation; • soil formation; • biological control of pests; • climate regulation and carbon sequestration; • wildlife habitats; • storm protection and flood control; • pollination; • recreation and leisure
• Value of world’s natural capital - $33 trillion (equivalent to twice the size of the world’s formal economy)
Social Capital• Fundamental basis for sustainable
development• lowers the costs of working together• facilitates co-operation between people
• Relations of trust that lubricate co-operation• Common rules, norms and
sanctions for behaviour • Reciprocity and exchanges• Connectedness and social institutions
Assets - inputs and outputs• Agriculture transforms:
• natural capital (functional biodiversity, soil health)
• social capital (connectedness, cooperation, trust)• human capital (knowledge, skills) • together with physical and financial capital
• But it also indirectly affects all three renewable assets
• some forms of agriculture increase the asset base• other forms decrease assets, and leave less for
future generations
Farm,Livelihood orCommunity
System
With access toand stocks of:
Natural capitalHuman capitalSocial capital
Physical capitalFinancial capital
Renewablenaturalcapital
Contextualfactors:
agro-ecologicalclimaticcultural
economiclegal
politicalsocial
Shaped by:external
institutionsand policies
Depletion of:Natural capitalHuman capitalSocial capital
Social capital:vertical andhorizontal
participatoryprocesses
New skillsand
technologies
Non-renewableinputs
Food and othermarketed produce
Finance:income, credit,
grants
Accumulation of:Natural capitalHuman capitalSocial capital
Assets-based model of agricultural systems
PositiveFunctions
NegativeFunctions
Farm,Livelihood orCommunity
System
With access toand stocks of:
Natural capitalHuman capitalSocial capital
Physical capitalFinancial capital
Renewablenaturalcapital
Contextualfactors:
agro-ecologicalclimaticcultural
economiclegal
politicalsocial
Shaped by:external
institutionsand policies
Depletion of:Natural capitalHuman capitalSocial capital
Social capital:vertical andhorizontal
participatoryprocesses
New skillsand
technologies
Non-renewableinputs
Food and othermarketed produce
Finance:income, credit,
grants
Accumulation of:Natural capitalHuman capitalSocial capital
Assets-based model of agricultural systems – flows and outcomesin sustainable systems
PositiveFunctions
NegativeFunctions
Farm,Livelihood orCommunity
System
With access toand stocks of:
Natural capitalHuman capitalSocial capital
Physical capitalFinancial capital
Renewablenaturalcapital
Contextualfactors:
agro-ecologicalclimaticcultural
economiclegal
politicalsocial
Shaped by:external
institutionsand policies
Depletion of:Natural capitalHuman capitalSocial capital
Social capital:vertical andhorizontal
participatoryprocesses
New skillsand
technologies
Non-renewableinputs
Food and othermarketed produce
Finance:income, credit,
grants
Accumulation of:Natural capitalHuman capitalSocial capital
Assets-based model of agricultural systems – flows and outcomesin modernised systems
PositiveFunctions
NegativeFunctions
Sustainable Use of Land and Water• A more sustainable agriculture seeks to make the
best use of nature’s goods and services • Integrates natural and regenerative processes, (nutrient
cycling, nitrogen fixation, soil regeneration and natural enemies) into food production processes
• Minimises the use of non-renewable inputs that damage the environment or harm health
• Makes best use of knowledge and skills of farmers• Make productive use of social capital - people’s capacities to
work together to solve common management problems, such as pest, watershed, irrigation, and forest management
• Also contributes to public goods ~ clean water, wildlife, carbon sequestration in soils, flood protection, landscape quality, rural jobs
Sustainable Agriculture Audit and Research• Aims
• audit recent progress in developing countries towards sustainable agriculture,
• assess the extent to which such projects/initiatives have increased local food production
• Surveyed 208 projects in 52 countries using questionnaires, project reports and evaluations, and verifying experts
• purposive sampling - not random
Cases rejected where:• no obvious sustainable agriculture link• participation in projects was for direct material
incentives– as there are doubts that ensuing improvements persist
after such incentives end
• where there was heavy or sole reliance on fossil-fuel derived inputs, or on their targeted use alone
• this is not to negate these technologies, but these were simply not the focus of this research;
• where the data provided was too weak or the findings unsubstantiated
Farmers and hectares• 208 projects/initiatives• 8.98 million farmers have adopted
sustainable agriculture practices and technologies
• 28.92 million hectares • equivalent to 3.01% of the 960 million hectares of
arable and permanent crops in Africa, Asia and Latin America
• 8.44 m ha if discount large farms adopting zero-tillage in South America
Food production increases• intensification of a single component of farm system
• with little change to the rest of the farm ~ home garden intensification, vegetables on rice bunds, introduction of fish ponds or a dairy cow;
• addition of new productive element to a farm system• such as fish in paddy rice, or agroforestry, which provides a boost to
total farm food production;
• better use of natural capital to increase crop intensity• water ~ water harvesting and irrigation scheduling• land ~ reclamation of formerly unproductive land
• improvements in per hectare yields of staples • through introduction of new regenerative elements into farm systems
(eg legumes)
• improvements in yields through introduction of new and locally-appropriate crops and animals
Sustainable agriculture projects/initiatives - crop yield changes (89 projects)
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
yields before/without project (kg/ha)
rela
tive
yie
ld c
han
ge
afte
r/w
ith
pro
ject
maize
sorghum/millet
beans/soya/peas/groundnut
rice
wheat
potato/sweet pot/cassava
cotton
vegetables
no change
SAFE-World Change in yield grouped by crop type(mean and s.e.m)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
maize
wheat
rice
sorg
hum/m
illet
vege
table
s
bean
s etc
pota
to e
tc
cere
als
grand
tota
l
rela
tive
yie
ld c
han
ge
wit
h/a
fter
pro
ject
Mucuna (velvetbean) cover cropping in Benin• For suppression of weed Imperata
cylindrica and intercropping with maize• Local adaptation of technology by
farmers• Area of poor soils; low access to
fertilizers, declining fallow periods • 14,000 farmers adopted• Maize yields to 3-4 t/ha • Benefit-cost 1.24 (cf 0.62 without mucuna); up to 3.56 if
seeds sold
Zero-Tillage in Brazil and Argentina• Zero-tillage
• No ploughing of soil• Brazil - 11 million hectares• Argentina - 9.2 million hectares
• Benefits• better input use, water retention, diverse
rotations, increased organic matter in soils (thus more carbon sequestration)
• reduced erosion and water pollution• yields: maize up from 3 to 5 t/ha (Brazil); wheat
up from 2 to 3.5 t/ha (Argentina)
The velvetbean in Central America• Velvet bean (Mucuna pruriens)
• Multiple cropped with maize• Fixes 150 kg N/ha per year• Produces 30-50 tonnes biomass per ha/year• Improves and regenerates soils
• 45,000 families in Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua growing mucuna
• Crop yields up from 400-600kg/ha to 2000-2500 kg/ha
• social capital critical - farmers’ groups, experimentation, and extension
Soil and Water Conservation in Niger and Burkina Faso
• 100,000 ha of abandoned and degraded land improved with tassas/zaï
• 20-30 cm holes with residues/manures; harvest water and aid infiltration
• Yields up 50-100% ~ highest in dry years• Household food security ~ from 153 kg deficit to 644 kg
surplus• Reverse migration
• Key elements: action-research approach, openness to farmer initiatives, immediate results, ability to be integrated into existing cropping systems, technological package can be adjust to changing local context
Better land husbandry, Kenya• ABLH using double-dug beds with composting, green
and animal manures ~ last 4-6 seasons• Better water holding capacity and higher organic
matter ~ beds more productive, more diverse and are able to sustain vegetable growth into the dry season
• Benefits for women and children • 75% of households free from hunger during the year (up
from 43%);• Households buying vegetables during year has fallen from
85% to 11%; • Proportion selling vegetables up from 20% to 77%;• 48% of households maize self-sufficient (up from 22%).
Sri Lanka: Water Users’ Groups
• 33,000 water users’ associations• 500,000 farmers on 0.5-1.0 million hectares• irrigated rice main crop
• Benefits• increased water use efficiency• increased cropping intensity• greater total production• reduction in complaints and conflicts
• 1998• water available for only 14% of area• farmers’ associations persuaded government to release
water - successfully produced whole rice crop and earned country $20 million foreign exchange
Positive effects on livelihoods • natural capital:
• increased soil water retention; improvements in water table (with more drinking water in the dry season); reduced soil erosion & improved organic matter in soils; better carbon sequestration; increased agro-biodiversity
• social capital:• more and stronger social organisations; new rules and norms for
managing collective natural resources; and better connectedness to external policy institutions
• human capital: • more local capacity to experiment and solve own problems;
increased self-esteem in formerly marginalised groups; increased status of women; better child health and nutrition, especially from more food in dry seasons; reversed migration
Confounding Factors
• Critical trade-offs between assets• roads for markets and loss of forests• land closed for rehabilitation - poor sell livestock• more work for women• additional incomes go to men
• Increasing assets• may tempt the powerful to take over?
• Aspirations• rural people may want to get away from rural parochialism
• Backlash• strong social capital (groups and networks) become new
power bases - and tempt backlash?• Changing markets for inputs
• reduced demand for agro-chemicals?
Summary of recent progress• Technologies and social processes for local
level sustainable agriculture are well-established
• Social and institutional conditions for spread are less well-known, but have been established in several contexts;
• Political conditions for the emergence of supportive policies are least well established, with only a very few examples of real progress
Policies out of step?• Much evidence of transformed thinking
• everyone in favour of “sustainability”• some willing to change words alone• some willing to change practices
• Most policy structures still encouraging `old’ modernist agriculture
• Need to go beyond `greening the edge’ to `greening the middle’ of farming
• Supportive policies• Core challenge for next decade
What is a good policy for sustainable land and water?• Integrated across sectors• Promotes multifunctionality
• enhances positive externalities and reduces negative externalities
• Knowledge-based and nature-based• builds renewable assets
• Participatory• links up different stakeholders• bottom-up
• Mixture of instruments• economic, advisory, regulatory
Marcus Cato (200 BC)author of Di Agri Cultura
“And when our ancestors would praise a worthy
person, their praise took this form: good
husbandman, good farmer (bonum agricolam
bonumque colonum);
one so praised was thought to have received
the greatest commendation”