ISBN–92–9066–441–X CPE 136 527–2001

ICRISAT

International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid TropicsPatancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India

http://www.icrisat.org

CGIARConsultative Group on International Agricultural Research

Science for Food, the Environment, and the Worldís Poor

Future of Agriculturein the Semi-Arid Tropics

Food Security Livelihoods Crop-LivestockPartnerships Strategies

International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics

Fu

ture

of A

gricu

lture

in th

e S

em

i-Arid

Tro

pics

Citation: Bantilan, M.C.S., Parthasarathy Rao, P., and Padmaja, R. (eds.) 2001.Future of agriculture in the semi-arid tropics: proceedings of an InternationalSymposium on Future of Agriculture in Semi-Arid Tropics, 14 Nov 2000,ICRISAT, Patancheru, India. (In En. Abstracts in En, Fr.) Patancheru 502 324,Andhra Pradesh, India: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-AridTropics. 98 pp. ISBN 92-9066-441-X. Order code CPE 136.

RÈsumÈ

Líavenir de líagriculture dans les zones tropicales semi-arides. A líheureactuelles, les zones tropicales semi-arides font face ‡ de nombreux problËmestels que la pauvretÈ, líinsÈcuritÈ alimentaire, líexplosion dÈmographique et ladÈgradation environnementale. Une stratÈgie ‡ long terme est nÈcessaire afin decerner ces problËmes intransigeants dans ces zones ‡ ÈcosystËme fragile. Cettepublication est le compte rendu díune confÈrence sur líidentification desstratÈgies futures et des domaines prioritaires de recherche et de dÈveloppementpour líICRISAT et ses partenaires.

Abstract

Poverty, food insecurity, rapid population growth, and environmental degrada-tion are problems hounding the semi-arid tropics (SAT) today. A long-termstrategy is needed to overcome these intractable problems in the fragile SATecosystems. This publication reports on a symposium that was devoted toidentifying and prioritizing agricultural R&D strategies relevant to ICRISAT andits stakeholders in the future.

Future of Agriculture in the Semi-Arid Tropics

Proceedings of an International Symposium on

Future of Agriculture in Semi-Arid Tropics

14 November 2000

ICRISAT, Patancheru, India

Edited by

M C S Bantilan, P Parthasarathy Rao, and R Padmaja

ICRISAT

International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics

2001

The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and notnecessarily those of ICRISAT. The designations employed and the presenta-tion of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opin-ion whatsoever concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city, orarea, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers orboundaries. Where trade names are used, this does not constitute endorse-ment of or discrimination against any product.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful for the constructive comments offered by M C SBantilan, A Hall, P Parthasarathy Rao, J Rusike, and G L Monaco. Theywould also like to express their thanks to D D Rohrbach, and K AnandKumar, who were the rapporteurs during the symposium; members of theOrganizing Committee; and SEPP staff, especially N V N Chari, G SheshiKala, Padmini Haridas, G V Anupama, E Jagdeesh, M V Rama Lakshmi,and Aditi Deb Roy.

Thanks are due to Language Editor Smitha Sitaraman, and all ICRISATscientists and other staff.

Contents

Preface v

Welcome Address 1W D Dar

Some Challenges, Trends, and Opportunities Shaping the Futureof the Semi-Arid Tropics 4J G Ryan and D C Spencer

Risk, Resources, and Research in the Semi-Arid Tropics 12J R Anderson

Poverty Reduction and Food Security in Sub-Saharan Africa:A Challenge to World Agriculture 51V Sekitoleko

Breaking the Unholy Alliance of Food Insecurity, Poverty,and Environmental Degradation in the Asia-Pacific Region 63R B Singh

Value-based Crop-livestock Production Systems for theFuture in the Semi-Arid Tropics 73V Kurien

Role of Global and Regional Fora in SAT Agriculture:Future Scenario 83R S Paroda

Closing Remarks 87J M LennÈ

Acronyms and Abbreviations 90

Panelists 92

Preface

Poverty, food insecurity, rapidpopulation growth, and environ-mental degradation are problemsseriously hounding the developingworld today. These are most felt inthe Semi-Arid Tropics (SAT), hometo one-sixth of the worldís popula-tion. The SAT, which includes 48developing countries in Asia andAfrica, is characterized by extremepoverty, lingering drought, infertilesoils, growing desertification, andenvironmental degradation.

The challenges in the SAT areindeed formidable. According to arecent report by the Washington-based Worldwatch Institute, thepopulation of Ethiopia (currently62 million) will balloon three timesto 213 million in 2050. Moreover,Pakistan's population too will growfrom 148 to 357 million, and that ofNigeria from 122 to 339 million.This means that in 2050, there willbe more people in these threecountries alone than there were inthe whole of Africa in 1950!However, the biggest increase willbe in India, ICRISATís hostcountry. In 2050, Indiaís populationwill be 1.6 billion, overtakingChina as the worldís most populousnation.

Adding to this bleak scenario areadverse climatic changes, unem-ployment, changing food habits,etc. Due to these, the delicate

balance between natural resourcesand agricultural production isprecariously threatened. Hence,poverty, food security, and nutritionare still the major challenges theworld has to face. These challengesare our lifeline to the future.Although increasing agriculturalproduction in the SAT was a keyissue in the past, ICRISAT hasbroadened its vision to encompassthe spectrum of issues to includewater, soils, pests, crop-livestockintegration, health and nutrition,postharvest technology, and others.

Since its inception, ICRISAT hasbeen helping SAT farmers applyscience to increase crop productiv-ity in order to ensure food security,reduce poverty, and protect theenvironment. However, a long-termstrategy is needed to overcome theserious problems in the fragile SATecosystems.

Towards this end, ICRISAT isdeveloping a document that willserve as a critical input to theInstituteís strategic plan, a 2020vision for SAT agriculture. Thisdocument integrates the results ofa symposium on SAT futuresorganized by the Socioeconomicsand Policy Program of ICRISAT.It serves as a foundation foridentifying agricultural researchand development (R&D) prioritiesrelevant to ICRISAT and its

v

stakeholders. It will also pave theway for identifying the roles of theInstitute, other InternationalAgricultural Research Centers(IARCs), the national agriculturalresearch system (NARS), Non-Governmental Organizations(NGOs), and the private sector in

implementing research and devel-opment programs in the SAT.

The symposium was a culmina-tion of several rounds of consulta-tions and brainstorming held at theregional level across Asia andAfrica.

vi

William D Dar

1

Welcome Address

W D Dar1

Let me extend to you all a warmand hearty welcome this morning tothis very important internationalsymposium on SAT Futures. We areindeed fortunate to have with ustoday a panel of internationallyrenowned scientists, leaders, policymakers, and experts from a widespectrum of national, regional, andinternational organizations. I wouldlike to make particular reference tothe presence of Dr Kurien, a WorldFood Prize winner, who, as we allknow, has pioneered the WhiteRevolution in this part of the worldwith a replicable model ofdevelopment that has become ahousehold word and beacon to therural farmers in developingcountries.

The International CropsResearch Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) has theglobal responsibility for agri-cultural research in the Semi-AridTropics, known as the SAT. Hometo one-sixth of the worldíspopulation, of which half lackaccess to even basic health and

nutrition, SAT includes parts of 48developing countries in Africa andAsia and is characterized by stubbornpoverty, persistent drought, infertilesoils, growing desertification, andoverall environmental degradation.Agricultural production struggles tokeep pace with alarming populationgrowth. Farming is mostly sub-sistence-level. It is against thisbackdrop that ICRISAT began itswork 27 years ago.

Since then, ICRISATís team ofhighly committed scientists hasbeen tirelessly pursuing the missionof helping the SAT farmers applyscience to increase crop productivityand bring about food security,reduce poverty, and protect theenvironment. Significant strideshave been made in enhancingagricultural productivity throughgenetic enhancement, andpreserving crop diversity the worldover, particularly in the SATregions. Over 113 000 germplasmaccessions from 130 countries areheld in trust by ICRISAT for theinternational community. We have

Dar, W. D. 2001. Welcome address. Pages 1ñ3 in Future of agriculture in the semi-arid tropics:proceedings of an International Symposium on Future of Agriculture in Semi-Arid Tropics, 14 Nov2000, ICRISAT, Patancheru, India (Bantilan, M.C.S., Parthasarathy Rao, P., and Padmaja, R., eds.).Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics.

1. Director General, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Patancheru502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India.

Pg1_3.pmd 8/8/02, 9:11 AM1

2

played a very important role instrengthening the national researchprograms and grassroot-levelinstitutions. Our natural resourcemanagement research has achieveda great deal of success in managingscarce water resources, augmentingsoil fertility, and attacking growingdesertification in the fragile SATecosystems.

Much remains to be done tobring about any significant impacton the problems of food insecurity,poverty, and environmental degra-dation in the SAT. Without a long-term strategy to attack theseemingly intractable problems andchallenges ahead, we realize thatthe journey towards fulfilling ourmission is going to be extremelydifficult. Studies are underway byour policy research team to developbase documents and framework foranalysis for charting the future ofagriculture in the SAT, andanalyzing critical issues ó trendsin SAT agriculture, emergingconstraints limiting growth, foodsecurity, and environmentalsustainability over a long term of20 years.

This initiative is expected toprovide a foundation for identifyingagricultural research anddevelopment priorities relevant toICRISAT and its stakeholders inthe future. The studies will alsopave the way for an analysis of thepossible roles of ICRISAT, otherinternational centers, NARS,NGOs, and the private sector in

implementing R&D activities in theSAT; priorities for institutionaldevelopment; and the requirementsfor strengthened partnerships.

ICRISAT commissioned twoexperts of international repute óD C Spencer from Sierra Leone andJ G Ryan from Australia ó todevelop a white paper onìChallenges and OpportunitiesShaping the Future of Agriculturein the Semi-Arid Tropics and theirImplicationsî, dwelling on, amongothers:ï trends, projections, and

implications of key agriculturaland socioeconomic statistics/issues in the SAT;

ï dimensions of poverty and theirimplications; and

ï key challenges and opportunitiesin SAT regions.This extremely important

initiative is part of a three-phasedaction plan.

Several rounds of brainstormingsessions have already been held atthe regional level, across Asia andAfrica. Todayís symposium wherewe have an assemblage of eminentinternational panelists signifies anappropriate finale to this highlysuccessful and rewardingconsultative phase.

The emerging white paper willbe a critical input into theInstituteís Long-term StrategicPlan, a ë2020í vision of ICRISATand SAT agriculture, to be deve-loped in the final phase.

Pg1_3.pmd 8/8/02, 9:11 AM2

3

Food availability, access, andnutrition are three dimensions offood security which are beingincreasingly talked about. Whilethe focus of conventional agri-cultural research has been onagricultural production which has adirect bearing on food availability,I believe that ICRISATís vision hasto extend to encompass the entiregamut of issues ó water, soils,pests, crops-livestock integration,carbon sequestration, health andnutrition, postharvest technology,rural livelihoods, and augmentingthe income and purchasing powerof the poor. It is a formidable list ofchallenges which can be tackledonly with Science with a HumanFace.

What is heartening is that thismomentous and ambitious initiativehas been receiving a great deal ofattention all around, includingpositive notice from the TechnicalAdvisory Committee (TAC) of theConsultative Group on Inter-national Agricultural Research(CGIAR). We are fully alive to thegravity of the onerous responsi-bility that has been cast on

ICRISAT, and are constantlyreengineering ourselves to handlethe challenges. We are committedto strengthen partnerships and workhand in hand with NARS and sisterCGIAR centers, advanced researchinstitutes, universities, the privatesector, NGOs, extension depart-ments, farmersí organizations,development agencies, policymakers, and regional organizationsto realize our dream of a food-secure and environmentally stableSAT.

No one understands the harshrealities of the SAT and SATagriculture better than the eminentpanelists with us today. We cherishthe wealth of your experience,wisdom, vision, and innovativeideas. Todayís session is going tobe a very important learningexperience for us. Let us worktogether and chart the roadmap tothe future for the SAT as thisblueprint will also spell the futureand growth of ICRISAT. I hope wewill have thought provoking,stimulating, and rewardingdeliberations. Thank you all, onceagain.

Pg1_3.pmd 8/8/02, 9:11 AM3

4

Some Challenges, Trends, and OpportunitiesShaping the Future of the Semi-Arid Tropics

J G Ryan1 and D C Spencer2

IntroductionThe primary purpose of this paperis to provide backgroundinformation and analysis onpossible future trends and scenariosfor the Semi-Arid Tropics of thedeveloping world. It is intendedthese will be factored into thedeliberations that are planned fordeveloping a new vision andstrategy for ICRISAT.

The four issues addressed in thispaper are:• a review of trends in SAT

agriculture between 1960 and2000;

• a summary of major constraintslimiting income growth, foodsecurity, and environmentalsustainability now and towards2020;

• a review of priorities foragricultural research anddevelopment (R&D) activities inthe SAT towards 2020; and

• a review of possible roles for

ICRISAT, NARS, NGOs, andthe private sector inimplementing these R&Dactivities in the SAT.An extensive review of the

literature provided the major inputto the study, along with acompilation of relevant databases.Unfortunately, except for countriessuch as India, it was not possible todelineate statistics pertaining onlyto the SAT regions within countriesfrom readily available nationaldata. Particular emphasis has beenplaced on the SAT of sub-SaharanAfrica and South Asia, as these areof primary concern to ICRISAT andto the CGIAR in their currentvisioning and strategic planningexercises.

The Nature and Extent ofPoverty

Going by the TAC/Food andAgriculture Organization (FAO)

Ryan, J. G., and Spencer, D.C. 2001. Some challenges, trends, and opportunities shaping thefuture of the semi-arid tropics. Pages 4–11 in Future of agriculture in the semi-arid tropics: proceed-ings of an International Symposium on Future of Agriculture in Semi-Arid Tropics, 14 Nov 2000,ICRISAT, Patancheru, India (Bantilan, M.C.S., Parthasarathy Rao, P., and Padmaja, R. eds.).Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics.

1. Visiting Fellow, Economics Division, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, AustralianNational University, Canberra, Australia.

2. Managing Director, Dunstan Spencer and Associates, Freetown, Sierra Leone.

5

definition of the Semi-AridTropics, there are 55 developingcountries that had some area ofSAT within their borders. The SATregions of these countries areestimated to have a total populationof more than 1.4 billion people, ofwhich 560 million are classified aspoor. Of the total poor, nearly 70%live in rural areas, representing380 million people.

The SAT of sub-Saharan Africa(SSA) and South Asia (SA) containmore than 80% (442 million) ofthe total SAT poor. This represents33% of the total poor in thedeveloping world. In these tworegions, 315 million of the poorlive in rural areas. South Asia hasthree times the number of poor ofSSA (Table 1).

Evidence on the relationshipbetween the numbers in povertyand the agroecological potential ofthe environments on which theydepend is mixed. Some studiesindicate there are more poor inlower potential areas than in higherpotential or irrigated areas. Otherstudies indicate the reverse. Also,evidence on the incidence of

poverty, measured as the proportionof the population in a region that ispoor, suggests that it does not seemto differ between low- and high-potential areas. Therefore, theremay not be a strong case to differ-entiate regional R&D priorities onthe basis of agroecologicalpotential on the grounds of a focuson poverty. Is there a basis to do soon the grounds of the expectedproductivity gains to be had in low-versus high-potential areas? Whatis the effect of productivity growthon poverty?

In the Indian SAT, growth inproductivity has been higher in themore favorable districts from theearly 70s to the early 90s. Also,recent cross-country researchindicates that the greater theagricultural and general economicgrowth, the larger is the reductionin the number of poor. Morespecifically in India, investments inroads and R&D in low-potentialrainfed areas (i.e., with less than25% irrigation) showed lowerproductivity gains and reduction inthe number of poor than in higher-potential areas. However, all

Table 1. Rural and urban poor (in millions) in the semi-arid tropics.

Rural Rural Total TotalRegions rainfed irrigated rural urban Total

South Asia 89 147 236 95 331

Sub-SaharanAfrica 76 3 79 32 111

Total 165 150 315 127 442

6

rainfed areas showed betterproductivity dividends and povertyreduction to investments in roadsand R&D than did irrigated areas.Hence, investments in rainfedagriculture in India have a higherpayoff than in irrigated agriculturebut within this sector, the higherpotential areas seem to offer betterdividends than the lower potentialones.

The extent of urbanization indeveloping countries will increaserapidly in the next 25 years.Around 90% of the 1.9 billionincrease in the population ofdeveloping countries by 2025 willbe in urban areas, mostly in thetropics. Interestingly, projectionsare that more than 50% of thepopulations of Asia and Africa willlive in urban areas by 2025. Thisimplies that a much higherproportion of food supplies will bepurchased than is the case today.Though it is also projected thaturban poverty will grow faster thanrural poverty, poverty will continueto remain a rural phenomenon forthe next 25 years.

A decline is projected in thepopulation growth rate indeveloping countries in the coming

decades. During 1987-97, thegrowth was 1.8% per annum. From1995/97 to 2015, it is projected todecline to 1.4%. The decline willbe rapid in SA but more modest inSSA (Table 2).

Food and NutritionSecurityThere has been an overall declinein both the number and proportionof undernourished people indeveloping countries in recentdecades. In 1969/71, there were960 million undernourished whocomprised 37% of the totalpopulation of developing countries.Currently, it is estimated that theirnumber has fallen to 800 million,which though still unacceptablylarge, is only 18% of the totalpopulation. The important featureof the current picture is that 17 ofthe 36 countries with an averageper capita consumption of less than2200 kilocalories per day are in theSAT.

Although the per capita foodconsumption in developingcountries is projected to continue torise towards 2030, 12 of the 17countries still projected to consume

Table 2. Population growth rates (% per year).

Region 1987-97 1995/97-2015

South Asia 1.3 0.9

Sub-Saharan Africa 2.7 2.4

Developing countries 1.8 1.4

7

less than an average of 2200kilocalories per capita per day willbe in SSA. In 2020, SSA and SAwill still have about 80% (104million) of the world’sundernourished children. The totalnumber of food insecure peoplewill be greater in SSA than in SAtowards 2020. However, childmalnutrition will be greater in thelatter region than the former, bothin terms of incidence (37 versus29%) and numbers (65 versus 48million). Thus SSA and SA willremain the food insecurity andchild malnutrition hot spots overthe next two decades. Of specialsignificance is the fact thatapparently the incidence andnumber of malnourished children isgreatest in the SAT compared toother agroecologies, and especiallyso in the higher altitude SATregions.

Energy, iron, and vitamin Aremain the major nutrientdeficiencies in the SAT. TheICRISAT mandate crops are notmicronutrient dense and theirconsumption by the poor seems lessresponsive to income growth inSouth Asia than other commodities.Hence it would seem doubtful ifbreeding for improved micronutrientcontent would be an effectivestrategy to reduce micronutrientdeficiencies in the diets of the poorin the SAT. On the other hand, theconsumption of animal products(milk, meat, and eggs) is growingin importance in diets, even of the

poor, and this will lead to a rapidincrease in the demand for coarsegrains as feed grain, as opposed totheir use as foodgrains. However,sorghum and millets will remainstaple foodgrains of the poor inSSA and in pockets like Rajasthanand Maharashtra in India, wherethere are few cropping systemalternatives in their SAT regions.

Consumption Patterns ofthe PoorIn India, the shares of sorghum andmillet in the household expenditurebudgets of the poor fell by 68% inrural areas and by 51% in urbanareas between the early 70s and theearly 90s. The share of the pulses,although small, remained stable.However, the share of oilseedsrose. This shows that the ability ofagricultural R&D in relation tothese crops to impact on poorconsumers through the effects ofproductivity gains in lowering theirrelative prices has declinedmarkedly. The prospects foroilseeds to impact on the poor haveon the other hand improved.

The expenditure elasticities ofdemand for all the ICRISATmandate crops except chickpea bythe poor in India, are less than unityand lower than that for other foods.This means that a future increase indemand for these (as foodgrains)derived from income growth by thepoor will be relatively subdued. Onthe contrary, the expenditure

8

elasticities of demand for meat,milk, and eggs are high for thepoor; this translates into a rapidlygrowing derived demand for thesecrops as feed grains. This raises theissue of the value and desirabilityof a shift in breeding emphasis tofeed grain versus foodgrain traits ofsorghum and millet. This issuedeserves a bioeconomic study ofthe relative benefits of such a shiftin emphasis to poor consumers andproducers of these two crops.

Income Sources of thePoorSignificant changes are occurringin the income patterns of the poorin the SAT, just as is the case withconsumption patterns. Documentingand understanding these will helpin redesigning R&D strategies andpriorities.

In South Asia, the poor have lessland; rely heavily on labor incomeon and off the farm; are lesseducated; belong to the lower caste;have larger families and morechildren; and have higherdependency ratios.

In this region, labor-usingtechnological change and increaseddemand for nonfarm labor fromrural industries with high labor/capital ratios would seem to befavorable to the poor. Labor-savingtechnological change will ingeneral be better for the moreaffluent in SA.

In sub-Saharan Africa on the

other hand, income from crops is amore significant source of incomefor the poor than the more affluent,as is income from livestock andremittances from emigrants. Cropproduction is viewed primarily as asubsistence activity and not asource of cash income. Commercialcrops and livestock are seen as keysto income growth and investmentstrategies of SSA farmers.

Nonfarm income seems to bemore important to the nonpoor inSSA. Increased opportunities toearn nonfarm income and labor-saving technological change maybe more conducive to the poor inSSA. This will become even moreapparent as the HIV/AIDSepidemic increasingly reaps itsharvest of the young and middle-aged. This will be exacerbated bythe increasing feminization ofagriculture, especially in SSA, as aresult of the migration of men tourban areas. This will imply thatparticular attention is given to theneeds of women in agriculturalR&D strategies and the addedopportunities provided by theirextra cash incomes fromremittances.

Dynamics of SATAgricultureThe share of agriculture inmerchandise exports and importshas declined in all SAT regions,except in southern and easternAfrica, where it has been relatively

9

steady. It would appear from thesetrends that agriculture in the SATwould largely be an importsubstituting rather than an export-led industry. This is reflected in thedecline in the share of ICRISAT’smandate crops in the agriculturalGross Domestic Product (GDP) inall SAT regions except West andCentral Africa. On the other hand,commodities like commercialcrops, livestock, and fish haveincreasing GDP shares.

The Indian SAT has seen amarked shift away from coarsegrains in cropping patterns, in favorof wheat, paddy, and oilseeds from1970 to 1994. The share of pulsesin the gross cropped area has beensteady during the same period,whereas the share of oilseeds hasbeen rising. Vegetables, fruits, andspices have also been growingrapidly in relative importance. Allthese reflect changes in consump-tion patterns.

Some 76% of the projectedgrowth in cereal production indeveloping countries is estimated tocome from yield growth in the next20 years (Table 3). Yield growthwill be a far more significant

contributor in SA than in SSA.These projected rates of growth arefar less than historical rates; almosthalf in the case of yield growth, andare comparable to cereal demandgrowth projections of 1.8% perannum.

The demand for meat indeveloping countries is projected torise by 2.8% per annum by 2020,which is about half the rate indemand growth between 1982 and1994. The demand for milk willgrow at 3.3% per annum, which isslightly lower than in the recentpast (3.7% between 1982 and1994). Feed grain demand willgrow at a rate of 2.4% per annum.The predominance of smallholdercrop-livestock systems in the SATand the environmental difficultiesof sourcing the required increase inmeat production from intensiveperi-urban livestock systems,provide good scope for the formerto capitalize on the projecteddynamic growth in the demand foranimal products in developingcountries in the coming decades.

A further liberalization ofinternational trade and therationalization of subsidies in

Table 3. Sources of growth in cereal production (% per year).

Area YieldRegion expansion improvement Total

Sub-Saharan Africa 1.2 1.7 2.9

South Asia 0.2 1.3 1.5

Developing countries 0.4 1.3 1.7

10

agriculture will potentially changeSAT’s comparative advantage.Studies in India, for example,suggest that such trends may favorrice, wheat, and cotton but notpulses and oilseeds. If fertilizer andpower subsidies are removed in theprocess, ICRISAT’s mandate cropscould gain an advantage as they uselittle fertilizer and irrigation waterat present, relative to rice andwheat. The implications foragricultural R&D priorities arehowever unclear.

In SSA and SA, the number ofagricultural scientists has grownsubstantially in the last 20 years.Expenditure per scientist, on theother hand, has fallen in SSA andmarginally risen in SA. Thishighlights the need to enhancepartnerships among the NARSs andthe IARCs to better exploitsynergies and improve costeffectiveness.

The role of the private sector inagricultural research in SA is smallbut growing, There is little involve-ment in SSA. Biotechnology andgenetic improvement seem to bethe private sector growth areas. Itseems that Intellectual PropertyRights (IPR), not only on genes butalso on transformation processesand the like, is and will continue toconstrain access by the IARCs andNARSs to proprietary technology.While there are opportunities forpublic-private partnerships, thecommercial, biosafety, andassociated public liabilities may

prevent these from being fullyconsummated, even where the so-called orphan crops of the CGIARare involved.

Natural ResourcesIn SA, the rates of growth ofirrigation have been declining from2.1% per annum from 1961-1971 to1.24% from 1981-1990. Theprojections from 1995/97 up to 2030are for a growth rate of only 0.6%per annum. Projections are that SATcountries will be among the worst interms of water scarcity in thecoming decades. There will beincreasing competition for water fornonagricultural uses and this willensure that the real economic valueof water rises relative to otheragricultural inputs, regardless ofwhether governments choose toprice water at its real value. Thiswill create an imperative to improvewater use efficiencies (WUE) in theSAT at all levels. This has clearimplications for agricultural R&Dstrategies. It will open up newopportunities in genetic engineeringof drought tolerance and water useefficiency genes, including thepossibility of transgenic approachesinvolving both ICRISAT’s mandateand nonmandate crops. In thiscontext, it is relevant to ask whethera species mandate is tooconstraining in the age of functionalgenomics, transgenics, and marker-assisted breeding? Indeed, with thegrowing IPR imperatives on both

11

public and private sectors, the scopefor the former may be furthercircumscribed anyway.

Nutrient depletion in the SAT ofSSA exceeds replenishment by afactor of more than three times.Combined with the substantialdecline in the growth of fertilizeruse in the 90s in all SAT regions,this implies added priority for R&Daimed at improving nutrient useefficiency, especially in SSA. Thisshould involve an integrated soil,water, and nutrient managementapproach. As it appears that mostnatural resource managementresearch can be location-specific, itis important to clearly specify anagenda which justifies internationalR&D.

ConclusionThere are inherent differences inthe characteristics of the SATcountries of SSA and SA. In SSA,nonfarm income seems to be moreimportant to the nonpoor. There aregreater opportunities to earn suchincome. Also, labor-savingtechnological change may be moreconducive to the poor. This is an

area that can be explored whiledevising R&D strategies for theregion. Attention also needs to bepaid to the needs of women giventhe added opportunities providedby their extra cash incomes.Another vital area is that ofexpenditure on scientists. While thenumber of agricultural scientist inthis region has grown, expenditureon them has fallen. There is a needto enhance partnerships amongNARS and IARCs to better exploitsynergies and improve costeffectiveness. Nutrient depletioncombined with a decline in thegrowth of fertilizer use impliesadded R&D priority aimed atimproving nutrient use efficiency inthis region.

South Asia, on the other hand, isplagued by water scarcity. The rateof growth of irrigation hasdeclined. R&D stategies for thisregion must focus on improvingwater use efficiencies, which will inturn open up new opportunities ingenetic engineering of droughttolerance and WUE genes.These suggest the need for separateagricultural R&D strategies forthese two major SAT regions.

12

Risk, Resources, and Researchin the Semi-Arid Tropics

J R Anderson1

IntroductionDuring a visit to Patancheru inOctober, when the proposal toshare a few thoughts with you wasput to me, I had just learned of therecent work of Ryan and Spencer,on which I will express a fewthoughts. I thought back to somework on future sub-SaharanAfrican (SSA) agriculturalprospects that I had done a fewyears back with Pierre Crossonwhich had never really seen thelight of day, and it occurred to methat this could be an occasion togive it some exposure and get thefeedback on it that we had neverhad. I will draw some comments onthe land resource later.

RiskOne small four-letter word in atitle, one giant concept for researchstrategists. Risk gets only

peripheral treatment by Ryan andSpencer. In fact, the only threesubstantive mentions of risk thatthey make are as, and to give fullcontext and recognition, let mequote:

(a) “The Brainstorming Workshopwith NARS partners atICRISAT Patancheru regarded[diversification] as animportant opportunity forsmallholders in the rainfedSAT for a number of reasons:

• risk diffusion leading tohigher and more stableincomes;

• response to changingcommodity demand patternsaway from cereals towardsanimal products, fruits andvegetables;

• a means of arrestingresource degradation bycreative changes inlivestock-horticulture-crop

Anderson, J.R. 2001. Risk, resources, and research in the semi-arid tropics. Pages 12–50 in Futureof agriculture in the semi-arid tropics: proceedings of an International Symposium on Future ofAgriculture in Semi-Arid Tropics, 14 Nov 2000, ICRISAT, Patancheru, India (Bantilan, M.C.S.,Parthasarathy Rao, P., and Padmaja, R., eds.). Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India: Interna-tional Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics.

1. Advisor, Rural Development Department, World Bank, Washington DC, USA.

13

systems to exploit synergismand economize onincreasingly scarce water;

• reduction of the incidenceand damage caused by pestsand diseases.”

(b) “…the absolute increases inpopulation are such as to placeever increasing demands onland and water resources.Increasing urbanization willserve to exacerbate this. Off-farm income sources will growas a consequence, which offersnew opportunities for the poorin terms of risk diffusion andincome enhancement, alongwith investment funds foragriculture.”

(c) “Water-use efficiency could alsobe the primary focus of theICRISAT natural resourcemanagement research. Thiswould include crop andsimulation modeling, andwatershed management in aholistic systems approach, againbuilding on an accumulatedcomparative advantage. Theheterogeneity of rainfedagriculture in the SAT and itsinherent riskiness make the useof crop and systems simulationmodels particularly relevant as acomplement to other R&Dapproaches. Models offer threecost-effective advantages:• a means of extrapolation of

location-specific research toachieve technologicalspillovers;

• an ability to assess the risksof alternative technologyoptions;

• ability to assess the likelysustainability of alternativetechnology options that arebeyond the experience offarmers.”

In brief, (a) points to the risk-spreading advantages of on-farmdiversification, (b) to the sameimportant notion relative to thevitally significant phenomenon ofrural dwellers diversifying into thenonfarm economy, and only (c)directly raises issues of researchmethod (modeling) and researchstrategy (technological riskassessment). While agreeing that allthese three are important, I amforced to conclude that, with suchminimal mention and in contrast toWalker and Ryan (1990), Ryan andSpencer have possibly seriouslyunderplayed the significance of riskin SAT research needs andopportunities. In making such anallegation, I think I amdemonstrating that leopards do noteasily change their spots (Anderson1980).

Risk is such a pervasive featureof life in the SAT that it is mycontention that it has to receiveprimary recognition as thephenomenon that most sets both thepossibilities and priorities for SATresearch. I am using the term “risk”to describe compactly thoseuncertain and unpredictable eventsand outcomes that have

14

consequences for the concernedeconomic agents, and as suchinclude events as different intemporal and spatial scales asdroughts and short intense storms,and as diverse in origin as theclimate, the biota, the bureaucrats,and the commodity markets. I amnot alone in adducing such anoverarching if not overwhelmingrole for risk. Of recent works cogentto the SAT, Mortimore and Adams(1999), generalizing from study sitesin northern Nigeria, make the casefor risk centricity most persuasively,and strategically too in terms ofcomprehending phenomena such asthe “Sahel crisis”.

For broaching questions ofresearch strategy, I quote some oftheir lines: “For farmers, risk takingis a way of life. …Poor familieshave to manage their constraints—of labour, time and energy, of soilfertility, of livestock, of biodiversity,of livelihood options, and above all,of rainfall—if they are to survive.”Mortimore and Adams go on todevelop a model of constraints andresponses in which diversity,flexibility, and adaptability arecharted as the key elements ofsuccessful Sahelian systems ofresource management. It is theseelements that I feel must beconstantly revisited in contemplatingICRISAT’s strategy. Not thatICRISAT is a stranger to any ofthese, but it is my impression that itis only in recent years that diversityclimbed higher in the research

strategy. I know that aspects ofadaptability are being addressed inpast and present work on responsefarming approaches, but perhapsthese deserve greater attention.More generally, I suspect thatflexibility has yet to be sufficientlymainstreamed into the researchportfolio of ICRISAT, but I seeencouraging signs that things aremoving in the right direction, at leastin Natural Resource ManagementProgram (NRMP), although it issurely intrinsically difficult tostructure a research program aroundfarmers’ overtly opportunisticfarming and their shifts to possiblydistant off-farm activities. Dealingmore comprehensively withlivestock in SAT farming systemscuts across these elements, and willsurely be important in progress; so itis pleasing to note that it is one ofthe themes in today’s program aswell as being appropriatelyhighlighted by Ryan and Spencer.

Mortimore and Adams conclude,and I concur, that more work isneeded on integrating risk andvariability into development planningfor poor households; so perhaps aCenter Project may be warranted,probably led by the Socioeconomicand Policy Program (SEPP), butinvolving all the Center Programs.

Constraining ResourcesThe literature pertaining to SATdevelopment abounds with claimsabout the constraining nature of the

15

various resources on whichagriculture depends. Surely mostcommon is the rainfall regime,which is usually of limitedabundance. Ryan and Spencer referto this as a water scarcity problem,which is probably a better term,given the use of irrigation in manySAT niches, aided and abetted bycatchment storages of variousdimension. But even just rainfall,three-quarters of a meter or so of itis not to be sneered at, agricul-turally speaking, if it can beharnessed to good effect. Where Icome from, it looks promisingindeed. But as we all know so well,it is not just the annual averagerainfall that counts. Distributionover time is the key, as is inter-yearvariation in amount. But evenmicro-time-scale aspects areimportant, as intensive falls overshort periods can have majoreffects on erosion impacts and lossof water that may have been usedagriculturally (Anderson andThampapillai 1990).

In the frequency of claimedmajor constraints stakes, the secondplace probably goes to soilphosphorus (P). Aspects of this soilresearch feature, along with others,are taken up later. In the manyseverely weathered soils of theSAT, especially those with low pHand high Al, Fe, and fixingpotential, available P is surely inshort supply, and crops in theirearly stages of growth mostdefinitely need some significant P

to prosper. Herewith are surelymany continuing researchopportunities, including those longunder review by ICRISAT. As Ryanand Spencer note in theirstatements about the use ofsimulation models, there aredefinitely good uses of carefullycrafted models for exploring arange of tactical options for use ofP in the face of rainfall uncertainty.

Other soil characteristics alsoget regular mention by SATcommentators and researchstrategists. Low soil organic matteris a popular contender for majorconstraint status, implicated sostrongly as it is in aspects such asinfiltration rates, soil evaporation,and fixing potential. Similarly, soilnitrogen gets much attention, rangingfrom concerns to incorporatelegumes more productively intocropping systems, to improving theefficiency of rhizobial fixation, toenhancing the efficiency of use ofwhatever nitrogen is in the soil at agiven time, and so on.

The “fertile” imagination of oursoil-science colleagues leads to along list of additional soil chemical(other macro and many micro-nutrients and their availability forplant growth), and physicalcandidate problems, and they aresurely correct in many instances,depending on parent material,weathering history, past exploita-tion, and so on, but local specificityis surely critical in such work, andone has to ask, as do Ryan and

16

Spencer, about the internationalpublic good nature of suchinvestigations.

However, we need to move tothe issue of economic advance inthe SAT, if indeed we want toaddress the broader issue of povertyalleviation in this challenging zone.There are other forms of capital toconsider: financial, manufactured,and human and social, which areprobably even more important inthe rural nonfarm economy thanthey are in the farming domain.

Then, we come to aspects oflabor, which in many instances arehighly constraining to growthopportunities, especially in SSA.The critical timing of fieldoperations in the SAT followingrainfall events means that thecapacity to achieve timelyagricultural activities is crucial tosuccess. When mechanizedoperations are possible, throughownership or rental, labor per semay be less of a constraint, and thisis certainly a major differentiatingfeature of the SATs around theworld. Exploitation of nicheopportunities in all of them iscritical to survival (Anderson andJodha 1994). For example, in manyparts of the machinery-scarce SSASAT, male labor is decreasinglyavailable for farm tasks when malesare absent at jobs in geographicallydistant points, such as in mines orin commercial activities incountries with more vigorousemployment opportunities.

Other Ryan and SpencerConclusions andImplicationsRyan and Spencer conclude that itis in the SAT that the challenges ofpoverty, food, and nutrition securitywill remain in spite of the generallyoptimistic outlook for thedeveloping world as a whole. Theyargue that the particularities of theSAT require a special focus if thesescourges are to be eradicated. Thesespecial focus themes include: thevagaries of the climate; the breadth,depth, and nature of poverty; thedegrading natural resource base;poor infrastructure; neglect innational R&D priorities; and thedynamics of change in bothdemand and production patterns.

They go on to argue that waterwill “likely be the primary limitingresource in the SAT in themillennium”, which may beoverstating things a little, but by thenature of SAT life this is bound tobe true most of the time. They thenraise important questions about thepriorities that should be accorded tothe mandate crops—sorghum andpearl millet—by ICRISAT in thefuture, if the primary aim is tobenefit the poor rather thanpossibly improve livestock feeders.

The authors’ predictions andconcerns about agriculturalbiotechnology and IntellectualProperty Rights closely match myown (Anderson 2000), so I will notbelabor the points, beyond noting

17

their criticality for the IARCs andeven more so for the public NARIswith which they work. They alsomake a strong call for “integratedcrop-livestock (and a little latersilviculture-horticulture)management systems research”,which sounds remarkably like aplea for broad Farming SystemsResearch (FSR), which has a happynostalgic ring, even if this twist toit may stretch research planning inICRISAT beyond traditionalboundaries, such as is indeed beingdone in collaborative workunderway between NRMP and theInternational Livestock ResearchInstitute (ILRI). The use of the term“integrated” by them is surely notaccidental, being forcefully invogue in NRMP, the CGIAR, andinterestingly, also Mortimore andAdams 1999.

Further on in their futuristicsummary, Ryan and Spencermention that “… previouswatershed management R&D hasnot realised its promise.Widespread and demonstrableimpact has not been evident.” Theysave the day for IARC engagementby finessing an increasing-water-scarcity, growing-modeling-capability, poverty-oriented-marginal areas argument, but manyreaders will interpret this as awarning bell.

They pose an interestingquestion about the nature of

international public goods (IPGs) inmuch NRM work, concluding(somewhat tentatively) that IARCsprobably have a comparativeadvantage in such work to theextent that it involves “newscience”, such as stochasticsimulation models,2 GIS, GPS, andmultilevel analysis. The issue is animportant one for ICRISAT NRMP,and accordingly it would be great ifwe were all comfortable with thisconclusion. But I think it is still agood question, which I do notregard as having yet beenconvincingly put to bed. Certainly,there is no reason why manyNARSs, including all the big,strong ones, and an increasingnumber of medium-sized NARIscannot make good use of thesesame tools, and beyond their ownborders.

ConclusionI have no particular difference withmost of the other Ryan and Spencerconclusions, such as calling forstronger commitment ofgovernments to their under-resourced NARIs (also taken up inAnderson 2000), and betterconnectivity/complementarity ofNARSs through stronger regionalcollaborative arrangements; fordiverse ICRISAT strategies forNRM research around the globalSAT; for a deeper understanding of

2. My skepticism at the use of the term “new science” comes from a feeling that some of themethods implied are not all that new, such as crop models (Dent and Anderson 1971).

18

poverty on and off farms in theSAT, including through a renewalof Village-level-Studies (VLS) andthrough a renewed focus on landpolicy issues; and, last but not least,for more research on the nature,extent, consequences, and trends inland degradation in the SAT, withwhich I agree (Anderson 1999, inconcert with others such as Leachand Mearns 1996 and Mortimoreand Adams 1999). But this is alarge agenda for a time of slenderresources; so I do wish ICRISATsucceeds in assembling the needfulto address it in an effectiveprioritized manner.

The Land Resource inSSA: Earlier Reflectionswith Pierre CrossonI return to extracts of some workdone but not formally published asCrosson and Anderson. Use of theplural “we” here refers to our jointeffort, which was part of the WorldBank’s Africa Region response toUNCED. This modified extractrefers primarily to the land resourcein SSA. Pierre is with RFF,Washington, DC.

Some notion of the scale of thefuture demands on SSA’s agricul-tural system is needed to understandthe threat to the sustainability of theSSA agricultural system (Boserup1981; Binswanger and Pingali1988; Lele and Stone 1989) and theconditions for avoiding the threat.Crosson and Anderson considered

3.3% the minimum acceptable ratein annual production increasebecause it implies no decline in theshare of imports, and a substantialincrease in their absolute amount,in satisfying SSA’s food demand. Ifone believes that agricultural policyin SSA over the next severaldecades will seek at least to reducethe share of food imports indomestic demand, then a 3.3%increase would be judgedunacceptably low. Compared tolikely aspirations for futureagricultural production in SSA,these demand and relatedproduction scenarios should beregarded as presenting a relativelyweak challenge to the sustainabilityof the region’s agriculturalproduction system. Compared toproduction performance over thepast couple of decades, however,the challenge looks more formi-dable (Rosegrant and Agcaoili1994). All production increasesnaturally reflect increases in thequantity of resources employed, orincreases in the productivity of theresources employed, or somecombination of both.

Increasing the supply of land.The supplies of land and waterhave both quantitative andqualitative dimensions. Withrespect to land, the quantitativedimension refers to the area of landof given quality with respect to thesoil characteristics bearing on itsproductivity. The principalcharacteristics are naturally-

19

occurring plant-available nutrients,topsoil depth and soil water-holding capacity, acidity, anddensity. The supply of land can beincreased along the quantitativedimension by increasing the numberof hectares of a given quality.Supply along the qualitativedimension can be increased byenhancing the productivity-relevantcharacteristics of the soil, e.g.,building soil organic matter toimprove soil structure, nutrientsupply, and water-holding capacity.In the agriculturally important casesof many inland valleys (fadamas,bas fonds, etc.), the agronomicallyfavorable soil characteristics havecome at the expense of erosionfrom the surrounding uplands.

Of course, the supply ofcropland is not solely a function ofthe soil, terrain, and climaticcharacteristics of the land. Theeconomic costs of transportationlinking the farm with both inputand output markets are of majorimportance in determining whichland can be brought into productioneconomically.

Much of the discussion on thepest-and-disease constraintsfocuses on the tsetse fly, the majorcarrier of trypanosomiasis, aserious disease affecting bothanimals and people. In 1963, theFAO published a study of tsetse flyinfestation in Africa in which it wasestimated that some 1 billion ha ofland in the central part of thecontinent were affected (Crosson

and Anderson 1992). Subsequentwork suggests a figure closer to 0.7billion ha (Jahnke 1982). Althoughthe threat of the tsetse fly isprimarily to cattle, it nonethelesscould inhibit conversion of land tocrop production because much ofAfrican agriculture is built on anintimate relationship of animals tocrops (McIntire et al. 1992), withanimals in some situationsproviding the mode of tilling theland, in others providing meat andmilk, and in still others providingmanure for soil enrichment.Consequently, where cattle raisingis inhibited by the threat of thetsetse fly, crop production is alsolikely to be inhibited (Ruthenberg1980).

Although the view is widely heldthat tsetse fly infestation effectivelyputs large areas of SSA off limitsfor crop and animal production,increasing evidence suggests thatthis view needs modification. First,increasing population pressureleads to the destruction of thesavannah-shrub vegetation, thehabitat of the most widespreadtsetse subgroup (Glossinamorsitans). Experience suggeststhat flies of this subgroup virtuallydisappear when population exceeds40 inhabitants per km2 (Jordan1988). Second, simple nonpollutingtechnologies are becomingavailable to control the fly. Flytraps and screens impregnated withnonpolluting insecticides, and flyrepellents applied directly to the

20

animals have been shown to protectherds in high tsetse-challengedenvironments (Cuissance 1991).Third, the combination of increasedavailability of trypanocidalpharmaceuticals and acquiredresistance allows animals oftrypano-sensitive breeds to survivein a tsetse environment. At least 40million cattle of such breeds cannow be found in tsetse-infestedzones (Winrock International1992). Fourth, increased attentionto the development of trypano-tolerant breeds has increased theavailability of genetically-resistantanimals for the highly infectedareas. Thus population growth andthe spread of the new tsetse controltechnologies may make the fly lessof an obstacle to developingpotentially cultivable land for cropand animal production in SSA thanhas been commonly believed.

Urban growth was rapid in SSAover the past several decades, andby 1988/90 urban areas occupiedroughly 3% (24 million ha) of the797 million ha in the region withpotential for crop production (FAO1994). FAO (1994) anticipates thatby 2010, continued urban growthwill take another 12 million ha ofSSA’s stock of potential cropland.A continuation of that rate ofencroachment to 2025 would takeabout another 9 million ha of thestock. Over the period from 1988/90 to 2025, therefore, urban growthwould take 21 million ha (less than3%) of SSA’s current stock of land

with potential for crop production.Even if the FAO’s expectationsabout future urban growth in SSA,and our extrapolation of thoseexpectations are wildly off target, itappears most unlikely thaturbanization would significantlylimit the supply of cropland in theregion over the next severaldecades.

FAO (1993) notes that throughoutthe Less Developed Countries(LDCs), considerable amounts ofland are set aside as protected areasin which agriculture and othereconomic activities are prohibitedby law. Typically these areas arenational parks, conservationforests, and wildlife preserves.According to FAO, about half ofthe protected land in the LDCs island that has potential for cropproduction. In SSA, this is the casewith 78 million ha, about 10% ofthe area’s stock of potentialcropland (FAO 1994). FAO (1993)estimates that by 2010 thepercentage of protected land willhave risen to 10.5, or another6 million ha.

In 1988/90, some 200 million ha(25%) of SSA’s 797 million ha ofpotential cropland was in forests(FAO 1994). Some unknown butprobably significant part of the78 million ha of protected land isforested and, therefore, is includedin the 200 million ha figure. FAO(1993) expects that by 2010 anadditional 9 million ha of potentialcropland will be in forests.

21

Continuation of this trend to 2025would shift another 6 million hafrom the present stock of potentialcropland to the stock of forestedland. By 2025, therefore, theamount of potential cropland inforests would have risen from thepresent 200 million ha to 215million ha, 27% of the present landwith crop potential.

FAO (1993) does not indicatethe grounds for believing that someof the land with crop potentialwould be shifted to forests. Wethink it likely, however, that thiscould occur in an effort to augmentthe supply of wildlife and otherenvironmental values of the land byincreasing the amount of forestland protected against agriculturaland other economic activities.Conversion of forested land to cropproduction arouses much concernin tropical Africa (as it doeselsewhere) because of potentialloses of valuable wildlife habitatand biodiversity, and disruption ofhydrological cycles, with conse-quent increases in erosion anddownstream deliveries of sedimentthat damages irrigation systems,accelerates the sedimentation ofreservoirs, increases the risk offlooding, and imposes higher costsof cleaning up water for municipaland industrial uses (NationalResearch Council 1993).

We believe it likely that themarginal costs of these variousenvironmental and economicconsequences of deforestation in

SSA will rise, both becausedemand for the environmental andeconomic services of forests isrising and because deforestationdiminishes the supply of theservices. With respect to envi-ronmental consequences, it will bedifficult, and in most casesprobably impossible, to quantifythe cost increases. The experienceof the past several decadesindicates, however, that quantifica-tion of environmental costs is notnecessary for societies to developand implement policies designed tocontrol the costs. Societies in SSAhave not been and will not beexempt from this experience. Wethink it likely, therefore, that overthe next several decades, thesesocieties will not only strengthenmeasures to curb encroachments byfarmers on the 78 million ha ofprotected land but will also makeefforts to increase the amount ofsuch land. Some of the newlyprotected land would surely be landwith potential for crop production.(That is one reason why it wouldneed protection.) Though we haveno way of estimating how muchpotential cropland might be addedto the stock of protected land, anincrease in the region of 100million ha seems plausible. In thiscase the effective amount ofpotential SSA cropland would benot 797 million ha but about 700million ha.

Even if FAO should prove to bevery conservative in estimating the

22

future supply of cropland in SSA—supposing that the effectivesupply could be increased by two-thirds instead of FAO’s 37%—theexpansion of land along thequantitative dimension would stillleave the increase in production farbehind the 3.1 times increaserequired by the demand scenario.Other sources of increasedproduction would have to be found.

Supply of land: the qualitativedimension. The qualitativedimension of land supply refers tosoil characteristics such as organicmatter content, nutrient content,topsoil depth, water-holdingcapacity, acidity, and bulk density.The more favorable thesecharacteristics are for plant growth,the greater the effective supply ofagricultural land. It follows that thesupply of land can be increasedalong the qualitative dimension intwo ways: (a) by reducing presentrates of land degradation, thusavoiding future losses of producti-vity; and (b) by improving the soilcharacteristics of land, includingpresently degraded land, thusincreasing present and futureproductivity.

There are varying definitions ofland degradation (briefly reviewedin Crosson and Anderson 1992),but they all have in common thenotion of changes in characteristicsof the soil that reduce its perhectare productivity in plantproduction, whether for crops orforage for animals. That is the

meaning of the term as used here.The present and prospective datasituation on land degradation forSSA is rather bleak (Stocking1992). Estimates presented bySombroek (1993) indicate thaterosion by water and wind accountfor almost 85% of the 494 millionha of degraded land in Africa (notjust SSA). This is consistent withthe literature on land degradation,which focuses mainly on these twoforms of erosion. The Sombroekestimates also indicate that nutrientdepletion under agricultural uses ofthe land account for about 10% ofthe degraded land area of Africa.

References to nutrient depletionas a factor limiting achievement ofsustainable agriculture in SSA arescattered throughout the literaturedealing with agricultural uses of theland in the region (World Bank1992a). Most African soils arederived from rocks that from thebeginning had low nutrient content.Moreover, most of these soils arevery old, so they have been subjectto leaching of nutrients for a longtime. Typically, therefore, they arenutrient poor, even in anundisturbed state. Most of them areseriously deficient in phosphorus inparticular (Yates and Kiss 1992).

Traditionally, SSA farmers dealtwith the problem of soil nutrientdepletion through the practice ofshifting cultivation, which leftnutrient-depleted land in fallowlong enough to restore nutrients forsubsequent use in cropping.Serviceable though this systemmight have been, Yates and Kiss

23

(1992) assert that “... most Africansoils have suffered nutrient miningfor centuries.” Whatever thehistorical experience might havebeen, a survey by Stoorvogel andSmaling (1990) cited by Yates andKiss indicates that in 1983,agricultural uses of the land in 38SSA countries resulted in mean netnutrient removals from the soil of22 kg nitrogen, 6 kg phosphorus,and 23 kg potassium ha-1 year-1.Yates and Kiss do not indicate howmuch of this nutrient mining isattributable to erosion and howmuch is carried away in crops.However, the National ResearchCouncil (NRC 1993) asserts thatabout 40% of soil carbon, 60% ofthe nitrogen, and two-thirds of thephosphorus is removed with thecrop. Most of the potassium,calcium, and magnesium remain inthe crop residues, according to theNRC. Neither Yates and Kiss(1992) nor the NRC (1993) giveestimates of the effects of nutrientmining on crop yields or theproductivity of pasture; but that theeffects are negative is a commontheme in the literature (e.g., FAO1986; Carr 1989; Miller and Larson1990; Winrock International 1992).

The literature on agriculturaldevelopment in SSA is replete withassertions that land degradation,especially from wind and watererosion, is a major threat to presentand future agricultural production inthe region. FAO (1986), for example,states that accelerated land

degradation has been a major factorcontributing to the poor performanceof African agriculture over the pastcouple of decades, and that “urgentaction” is needed to halt furtherdegradation. Brown and Thomas(1990) assert that tropical Africa hasone of the worst erosion problems onarable land in the world, often “. . .attended by irreversible reductions incrop yield.”

Brown and Thomas (1990)present no evidence in support oftheir assertion, and FAO (1986)notes that “little reliable data isavailable on the extent of landdegradation in Africa.” This themeof little information about landdegradation in Africa (andelsewhere) is found side by side inthe literature with assertions suchas those above about the severity ofthe problem. Nelson (1988)systematically reviewed thisliterature (not limited to butprominently including that relatedto SSA) and concluded that littlereliable information is availableabout either present rates of landdegradation or its consequences onproductivity. Other students of thesubject agree (El-Swaify et al.1982; Dregne 1988).

This thinness of evidencereflects the fact that few empiricalstudies of the problem have beendone. In 1995, we were aware ofonly two for SSA that purported todeal with areas as large ascountries. One is by Stocking(1986) which concludes that the

24

annual cost of soil erosion inZimbabwe, just in terms of thevalue of losses of soil nitrogen,phosphorus, and potassium, is$1.5 billion (presumably in pricesof the early 1980s when the studywas done). Crosson (1994),although disclaiming detailedanalysis of the Stocking study,found the $1.5 billion cost estimateto be implausible. Using WorldBank figures for Zimbabwe,Crosson notes that the $1.5 billionwould be 28% of the country’sGDP and 2.2 times its GrossAgricultural Product (GAP). Whileacknowledging that such highfigures are possible, Crossonconsiders them unlikely, andconcludes that Stocking’s estimatemust be substantially too high.

The other study is by Bishop andAllen (1989), and deals witherosion-induced losses of soilproductivity in Mali. These authorsused the Universal Soil LossEquation (developed in the UnitedStates but modified by Bishop andAllen to represent West Africanconditions) to estimate croplanderosion in an area of Malicomprising about one-third of thenation’s most productive cultivatedland. They then used regressionmodels of erosion-yield lossrelationships to estimate thecumulative costs of erosion interms of lost production over a10-year period. They extrapolatedthis result to the country as a wholeand concluded that the cumulative

10-year cost was about 1.5% ofMali’s GDP and about 4% of itsGAP. According to the World Bank(1992b), Mali’s GDP in 1990 was$2.45 billion. The Bishop andAllen estimate, therefore, impliesthat the cumulative 10-yearerosion-induced loss of producti-vity in Mali was about $37 million.

Since present rates of landdegradation in SSA, and thecorresponding effects onagricultural productivity areunknown, it is impossible toestimate how much halting presentdegradation would contribute to theregion’s supply of agricultural land.However, whatever the currentrates of degradation may be, wesuspect that their productivityeffects are much closer to the 4% ofGAP found by Bishop and Allen(1989) for Mali than to the 2.2times GAP found by Stocking(1986) for Zimbabwe. If we areright about this, then the contribu-tion to future land supply in SSA ofreducing land degradation would besmall relative to the minimum 3.3%annual production growth rate wetake here as a target.

The other way in which landsupply may be increased along thequalitative dimension is byrestoring the productivity ofpresently degraded land. At thetime that Nelson (1988) wrote, aslittle was known about the extentand productivity effects ofpresently degraded land as wasknown about current rates of

25

degradation. Post-Nelson, twostudies have been done that addconsiderable information aboutpresently degraded land, globallyand by region, including SSA. Oneof the studies is by Dregne andChou (1992), who estimated theamount of degraded land in the“dry” areas of the world, by whichthey meant arid, semi-arid, and drysubhumid climatic zones. Theyused a map prepared by UNESCOto identify these areas. Within theseareas they estimated the amount ofland under irrigation, in rainfedcrop production, in range, andhyper-arid land. They thenestimated the degree of degradationof land under irrigation, in rainfedcrop production, and in range.(Hyper-arid land was assumed tohave no economic agriculturalvalue except under irrigation.Degradation of such land,therefore, is captured in theestimate for irrigated land.) All ofthe land in each use was assumedto suffer some degree ofdegradation from slight to moderateto severe to very severe. Forirrigated and rainfed cropland,slightly degraded land has lost 0-10%of its potential productivity, givencurrently used technologies andmanagement practices on the land.Moderately degraded land has lost10-25%, of its potentialproductivity, severely degradedland has lost 25-50%, and veryseverely degraded land has lostmore than 50%. For rangeland, the

percentage productivity losses inthe four categories are slight 0-25;moderate 25-50; severe 50-75; andvery severe more than 75. Therangeland percentages are higherbecause range scientists usuallyjudge rangeland to be in good toexcellent condition if it has lost nomore than 25% of its potentialproductivity.

For each land-use category,Crosson and Anderson took themidpoint of productivity loss foreach degree of degradation severityand weighted those numbers by thepercentage of land in eachdegradation class, in order to derivea weighted average estimate of thepercentages of productivity loss foreach land use. For example, slightlydegraded irrigated and rainfedcropland was assumed to have lost5% of its potential productivity,(midpoint between 0 and 10%loss), moderately degraded landwas assumed to have lost 18%,severely degraded land 38%, andvery severely degraded land 75%.The procedure for rangeland wascomparable. The averageproductivity losses for each land useare irrigated land 6.8%; rainfedcropland 14.1%; and rangeland44.5%. The interpretation of thesepercentages is straightforward: ifdegradation of irrigated land wereeliminated, the productivity of theland would increase by 6.8%.Similarly, the productivity of rainfedcropland would increase by 14.1%and that of rangeland by 44.5%.

26

For what they are worth [andDregne and Chou (1992) stress thepoor quality of the data they had towork with], the results suggest thatcomplete restoration of degradedirrigated and rainfed dry land inSSA would add little towardachievement of the target 3.3%annual production increase for theregion. Restoration of degradedrangeland, however, seems to havemore promise; but this may bemore apparent than real. Thequestion is whether dry rangelandin SSA is, in fact, as degraded asthe Dregne and Chou estimatesindicate. We raise it because thereis an increasing literature thatquestions whether rangelanddegradation in Africa is as severeas is commonly believed. Biot et al.(1994) assert that the scientificcommunity now questions whetherserious rangeland degradation isoccurring at all on a global scale, ifso at what rate, and what theeconomic significance of suchdegradation might be. With respectto grazing land in Africa, WinrockInternational (1992) states thatalthough overgrazing has beenaccused of leading to desertifica-tion of much of this land, “Thepreponderance of scientificevidence has failed to show thatwidespread desertification hasoccurred, although areas aroundhuman habitations and water pointshave been severely damaged.Heavy grazing has changedvegetative cover, but has not

seriously decreased the productivityof the rangelands. . .” As part of awide-ranging research program atthe Overseas Development Institute(London) on the use of naturalresources and agriculturaldevelopment in the Machakosregion of Kenya, Farah (1991)concluded that, on grazing land inthe region, “. . . There was noevidence of irreversible grazing-induced degradation.” Thedifference between these assertionsand the Dregne and Chou estimatesand suggests the need for moreresearch to determine what the factsare on this issue (Kangasniemi andReardon 1994).

The other post-Nelson study onland degradation around the worldwas done by Oldeman et al. (1991).They (with the help of numerouscollaborators) prepared a map, andan accompanying explanatory test,showing the state of human-induced degradation of the world’ssoils. Sombroek (1993) presents theresults for Africa (not just SSA) interms of area of degraded land(million ha) as: light 174; moderate192; strong 124; and extreme 5. Wehave used Sombroek’s data to get atthe loss of productivity on Africa’spotentially cultivable landattributable to degradation. First,we assumed that the losses ofproductivity in Sombroek’sdegradation categories are the sameas in the corresponding categoriesof Dregne and Chou, that is, lightlydegraded land has lost 0-10% of its

27

potential productivity, moderatelydegraded land has lost 10-25%, andso on. As with our calculationswith the Dregne and Chou data, weassumed that the actual percentageof productivity loss can berepresented by the mid-points ineach degradation category. Second,we subtracted the sum of thedegraded land, 495 million ha, fromthe 820 million ha of potentiallycultivable land in Africa (FAO1986), giving 325 million ha ofundegraded land. We assumed thatthe productivity loss on this land iszero. Third, we weighted thepercentage of productivity loss ineach degradation category by theamount of land in the category tocalculate the weighted average loss.The result is a loss of 11.5%. Notethat this estimate is for allpotentially cultivable land inAfrica, not just “dry” land, as in theDregne and Chou study.

This estimate is, of course, nobetter than the data andassumptions on which it is based.As far as it goes, it is consistentwith the results using the Dregneand Chou data for irrigated andrainfed cropland in Africa insuggesting that restoring thecontinent’s presently degraded landto its full productivity would addlittle to the production that will beneeded in the scenario to 2025.

The estimates of the percentagelosses of potential productivity ondegraded land set upper limits tothe increases in production that

could be achieved by restoring thedegraded land. This is because therestoration of degraded land costssomething, a point made by Bishopand Allen (1989). Indeed, workdone on the costs of controllingerosion in the United Statessuggests that as restoration ofproductivity proceeds, the marginalcosts of achieving it rise(Strohbehn 1986). One implicationis that, whatever the degradation-induced loss of potentialproductivity may be, it most likelywould not be economical to restoreall of it.

Note that the upper limits of thecontribution of land restoration toincreased land supply would holdeven if significant advances weremade in knowledge of ways toaccomplish restoration withinacceptable economic andenvironmental costs. The upperlimits are set by the amount ofcurrent productivity loss on accountof land degradation. Advances inknowledge of lower cost techniquesfor restoration would reduce thedifference between the upper limitand actually achievable restoration,but it would not raise the limit.

As noted earlier, estimates of thelosses of soil productivity becauseof nutrient mining are not availablefor SSA. Whatever these lossesmay be, the literature suggests thattraditional ways of dealing with theproblem will not suffice undercurrent conditions in SSA to haltthe mining or restore soil nutrients

28

to levels needed to achieve steadyincreases in crop and animalproduction (Larson 1993). Inshifting cultivation systems,population growth and resultingpressure on land are making itincreasingly difficult to leave landin fallow long enough to adequatelyrestore soil nutrient supplies. Andthe productivity of so-called “low-input” or “organic” systems,involving mixed crop rotations andlivestock to return nutrients to thesoil, also falls short. In describingthe shortcomings of these systemsYates and Kiss (1992) assert that“In most soils of Africa, currentlevels of nutrients provided by ‘lowexternal input sustainableagriculture’ can support no morethan low-productivity subsistencetype agriculture; doing no morethan recycling existing levels ofnutrients by biological means canonly condemn most of Africa tocontinuing poverty levels ofproductivity.”

If Yates and Kiss are rightabout this (and their view reflectsnot only our own but also aconsensus among participants in aWorld Bank seminar devoted to adiscussion of the soil-nutrientproblem in SSA), efforts toextend the supply of agriculturalland in SSA through low-inputtechniques to restore soilnutrients are not likely tocontribute much toward meetingour target 3.3% annual increase inagricultural production.

Increasing the supply of landalong the quantitative dimension bysome 0.9% per year from 1990 to2025 would increase production inSSA over that period by roughly37%. Expansion along thequalitative dimension by restoringpresently degraded land might addanother 15%—but maybe more ifthe extent of degraded rangeland isas great as Dregne and Chousuggest. How much land supplymight be increased by controllingerosion to avoid future losses ofproductivity is highly uncertain. Ourguess, however, is that it would beon the order of the increase thatmight be achieved by restoringpresently degraded land. Putting thepotential quantitative and qualitativeincreases together suggests that thesupply of land in SSA might beincreased some 60-70% between1990 and 2025 at what are heredeemed to be acceptable economicand environmental costs. In ourdemand scenario, the minimumacceptable increase in foodproduction over that period isa little over 200% (3.3% annuallyfor 35 years). The increase in landsupply would contributesignificantly to achieving this, butother sources of production increasewould have to be found. Needless tosay, our broad-canvas approach tellsnothing of the local pressures onland that may have severeresettlement consequences foraffected peoples (Russell et al.1990; Cook 1994).

29

Water-land substitution issues.Postel (1992) asserts that the highstart-up cost of large surfaceirrigation systems is stimulatinginterest in smaller scale alternativesin SSA. One such system is called“garden irrigation” in “dambos.”Dambos are productionundertakings in wet lands orswampy areas that dry out enoughin the dry season to permit thetaking of a crop drawing on theresidual soil moisture. Individually,the dambos are quite small, but inthe aggregate they can besignificant, e.g., in Zimbabwedambos account for some 20 000ha, almost 10% of the country’sirrigated area. Much of the appealof dambos is that the capital cost ofinstalling them is $100-$2500 perha, much less than the cost of large,traditional systems (Postel 1992).

Postel (1992) argues that simple,low-cost wells and pumps to tapshallow aquifers as well as rivers andstreams offer considerable potentialfor increasing irrigated foodproduction and income for farmfamilies in SSA, and are stimulatingincreasing interest there as aconsequence. More than 100 000 hain Niger as well as smaller areas inChad, Mali, northern Nigeria, andseveral other Sahelian countries areunderlain by these shallow aquifers.According to Postel, more than 100million people in Africa couldbenefit from greater use of thesesmall-scale irrigation projects. Infact, farmers in northern Nigeria

are already doing this. More than8600 wells had been established inthat region by the late 1980s, eachcapable of irrigating up to 2 ha.The cost to these farmers was$1000-$2000 per ha. Yields onthese plots rose by 25-40% in thewet season relative to preirrigationyields, and these farmers have alsoadded a dry-season crop. In theKanem area of Chad, a combina-tion of shallow wells and portablepumps has permitted an expansionof the irrigated area and led to a130% increase in farmers’ cashincome (Postel 1992).

This productive exploitation ofshallow aquifers would beindefinitely sustainable only if theannual drawdown of the aquifersis not greater than annualreplenishment. The relationshipof drawdown to replenishmenthas been little researched (SandraPostel, personal communication).Judgments about the long-termpotential of the aquifers must waitfor information about the relation-ship. It does not necessarilyfollow, however, that current useof the aquifers should be curtaileduntil then. Even if the aquiferswere ultimately exhausted, theincome they would yield might bebetter used to provide for thesustenance of the peopleinvolved, with perhaps a surplusthat could be invested in newopportunities that wouldsubstitute for the aquifers whenthey were depleted.

30

Brown and Thomas (1990)evidently agree with Postel that thegreatest economic potential forexpanded irrigation in Africa isthrough small-scale projects. In thesame vein, Okigbo (1990) writesthat small-scale irrigation insubhumid and savanna areas ofSSA has been sustainable “whengood soil management andadequate drainage have prevailed”.Lal (1987) shares some of thisenthusiasm for small-scaleirrigation in Africa, but notes thatits potential “awaits realization”.

The argument that the irrigationpotential of SSA could mosteconomically be realized by way ofsmall-scale projects seems to haveconsiderable support fromknowledgeable people in that field.The evidence supporting thisposition seems to be mostlyanecdotal, but where it exists, theevidence seems reasonably firm. Byour definition, costs of salinizationand waterlogging associated withirrigation are not environmentalbecause they are reflected in pricesof marketed farm output. But in theliterature, these costs are treated asenvironmental consequences ofirrigation, and to avoid confusion,we treat them here so. In the work ofDregne and Chou (1992),salinization and waterlogging arethe principal causes of degradationof irrigated land. Our calculationsusing the Dregne and Chou datashowed that salinization andwaterlogging have reduced potential

productivity on SSA’s irrigated landby about 7%. A question notaddressed here is the extent to whichthese forms of degradation mightconstrain the realization of SSA’spotential irrigation.

Water harvesting is not, strictlyspeaking, an alternative toirrigation, at least not to large-scaleirrigation, because such irrigation isnot generally feasible where waterharvesting is. Water harvesting isthe taking of measures to slowrunoff of precipitation fromfarmers’ fields, thus increasinginfiltration of water to the crop rootzone where it is available tosupport more robust plant growthas well as reduce soil erosion. Afrequently used physical frameworkof water harvesting systems is a setof ridges and bunds on farmers’fields designed to channel and holdrunoff in places where it cancontribute most to crop growth(Critchley et al. 1992). Theadvantages of water harvesting as atechnique for increasing watersupply in dry areas are widelynoted (Brown and Thomas 1990;Seckler et al. 1991; Tiffin andMortimore 1992; English et al.1994). The most fully developeddiscussion, however, is in Critchleyet al. (1992), where the authorscaution that, although theproductivity advantages of waterharvesting in dry areas have beenwidely recorded, the technique isno panacea for crop production indrought-prone areas. Nor,

31

according to them should waterharvesting be regarded as afreestanding technique but rather“... as one element of village landuse management”. They alsoemphasize that water-harvestingdevelopment should always beaccompanied by improvements inplant husbandry to capture thebenefits of the increased moisture.These improvements include weedcontrol, fertility management, and“opportunism” with respect to thetiming of planting. Fertilitymanagement is most importantbecause fertility is often the mostlimiting factor to crop growth aftermoisture. With respect to fertilitymanagement, the authors mentionuse of manure and composting.

As a technique for increasingwater supply, water harvestingwould seem to have specialrelevance to SSA because so muchof the region is arid, semi-arid orsubhumid. Critchley et al. (1992)claim, however, that little is knownabout traditional water harvestingpractices in the region. Experiencein the Machakos district of Kenyaover the past two or three decadesmay be an exception. Tiffin andMortimore (1992) report in detailhow the district underwent atransformation of its agriculturalsector in that period, based in goodmeasure on substantial improve-ments in management of theregion’s land and water resources.An important component of theimprovement was the building of

terraces to control soil erosion andto slow runoff, thus increasing thesupply of water in the crop rootzone. Perhaps the most significantfeature of this achievement was thatit resulted almost entirely fromfarmers’ decisions to invest theirown resources in improvement ofthe natural resource base and otheraspects of the farm enterprise. Thegovernment contribution—by nomeans trivial—was to improvefarm-to-market roads, both withinthe region and between the regionand Nairobi.

There seems to be little doubtthat water harvesting has potentialfor increasing the water supply toagriculture in SSA. And the smallscale of water harvesting isconsistent with the view that theeconomics of future growth inirrigation is likely to favor small-scale projects. Moreover, theMachakos experience suggeststhat the small-scale of waterharvesting puts the practice withinthe resource capacity of small-scale farmers, and that they willadopt it if market and othereconomic conditions are favorable.How much all this may induce thespread of water harvesting in SSAover the next several decades,however, we are quite unable tosay with any precision. Our guessis that water harvesting has thepotential to make a significant butstill small contribution to theincreased supply of water to SSAcrops.

32

We concluded earlier that thesupply of land in SSA might beincreased by 60-70% over theperiod to 2025 at sociallyacceptable economic andenvironmental costs. Given thepresent productivity of the land, theincrease in supply, of course, wouldincrease production too by 60-70%.How much the increase in watersupply from better catchmentmanagement, the spread ofirrigation, and water harvestingmight add to production is difficultto say. However, we think that thecombination of economic andenvironmental costs will keepirrigation expansion well short ofthe potential increase estimated bythe World Bank/UNDP, and thatthe potential of water harvesting istoo little to make a major contribu-tion to increased productionthrough increased water supply. Ifthe minimum acceptable increase infood production for SSA depictedin our demand scenario is to beachieved, sources of productiongrowth other than increasedsupplies of land and water willhave to carry the major burden.

One finds in the literature theargument that absent improvementsin soil management, and even largeincreases in fertilizer will notsustain continuous high-yield cropproduction on low natural fertilitytropical soils (Pieri 1992). Indeed,Seckler et al. (1991) cite expertswho assert that to get the high-yieldpayoff promised by increased use

of inorganic fertilizers on thesesoils, it may be necessary in manysituations to combine the fertilizerswith increased use of composts,animal manures, and greenmanures. Lal (1987) describes astudy in Burkina Faso showingthat, relative to the traditionalsystem of ridge-furrow cultivation,a system of tied ridges greatlyincreased the yield payoff tofertilizer because tied ridges slowrunoff and increase infiltration ofwater to the crop root zone. FAO(1993) notes that some LDCs (notjust in SSA) are having increasingdifficulty getting satisfactory yieldresponses to increases in fertilizer,and refers to evidence suggestingthat “...fertilizer alone may beinsufficient in the long term andthat measures to enhance organicmatter in the soil are essential.”Work in Burkina Faso (Barbier1993) highlights the difficulty ofmaintaining productivity undergrowing population pressure evenin the relatively high-potentialareas. A more positive experiencein Benin involving use of the greenmanure crop Mucuna isdocumented by Versteeg andKoudokpon (1993).

The essence of these argumentsis that, on many of the SSA soils,inorganic fertilizer and other soilamendments, such as lime, andimprovements in soil managementare to some extent complements,meaning that the yield payoff toincreased use of one is small unless

33

the other too is increased. But thefertilizer-soil-managementrelationship is not likely to besolely one of complementarity. Atthe margin, it must often be thecase that more of one can besubstituted in production for less ofthe other. In this case, the price offertilizer and the costs of soil-management improvements comeinto play in determining the optimalcombination of the two inputs. Thusin dealing with the nutrient problem,SSA farmers—and those who wouldadvise them—confront a complexmanagement problem. Not onlymust the farmers have a satisfactoryunderstanding of the technicalrelationships of complementarityand substitutability betweenadditional fertilizer and improvedsoil management, but they mustalso know how to manipulate theserelationships in accordance with theeconomic conditions of supply ofthe two inputs. It is well establishedthat farmers in SSA (as elsewhere)are very knowledgeable about thenatural conditions under which theyoperate. Most of them, however,have little if any experience withthe use of fertilizers. To learn howto optimally combine largeincreases in these materials withimprovements in soil managementis likely to present a difficultlearning experience to thesefarmers (Izac 1994). In view of allthis, it appears safe to say that, overmuch if not most of SSA, simplyincreasing applications of inorganic

fertilizer will not be enough tosolve the soil-nutrient supplyproblem.

The literature describing theproduction potential of presentlyknown but not widely adoptedtechnologies and managementpractices is vague about theirenvironmental consequences—positive and negative. That they arenot widely adopted is sufficientevidence that, under existingconditions for most SSA farmersthey are not economicallycompetitive with prevailingtechniques (Anderson 1991). Thereferences in FAO (1986) and inSeckler et al. (1991) to increaseduse of agricultural chemicalssuggests that wide adoption of thepresently known, more productivetechnologies and practices(henceforth MPTP) could imposesignificantly higher environmentalcosts in terms of damage toecosystems and water quality.However, because MPTP increaseyields of crops and animals per unitof land relative to prevailingpractices, their wide adoptionshould reduce farmer incentives tobring more erodible land intoproduction (Jha and Hojjati 1993describe some conflicting effects)and to clear forests and drainwetlands. But it would also reduceincentives for migration and thusmay increase local population-pressure effects (Hoddinott 1994).Relative to current practices, itseems on balance, wide adoption of

34

MPTP may reduce downstreamdamage of sediment from erodedland, strengthen protection of thebiological diversity and otherenvironmental services provided byforests, and enhance the value ofwildlife habitat and other servicesof wetlands. What the net effect ofthese varying tendencies inenvironmental costs of MPTPmight be we (along with others) arequite unable to say. A judgmentabout the social acceptability of theenvironmental costs of wideadoption of MPTP thus must bewithheld.

With this caveat about envi-ronmental costs and notwithstandingthe needs for and difficulties in local“tuning” in what are often highlyheterogeneous systems (Smith andWeber 1994), the evidence is strongthat known technologies andmanagement practices suitable to theclimate and soil conditions of muchof SSA have the potential tosubstantially raise crop and animaloutput per hectare of agriculturalland in the region (Wallis 1994).Indeed, they have already done so inthe 1980s, as work by Block (1994);Craig et al. (1994); Thirtle et al.(1994) has recently demonstrated.

Though the potential of MPTPmay be substantial, we are satisfiedthat even if the potential is realized,the resulting increase in foodproduction would fall short of ourstipulated 3.3% annual increase indemand. That is, after allowing forthe potential increases in supplies

of land and water discussed earlier,and full realization of the potentialof MPTP, the resulting increase infood production from the early1990s to 2025 almost surely wouldbe less than 3 times (3.3% annually).Thus we are led to address thequestion: what kinds and volume ofnew knowledge would be requiredto close the likely demand-supplygap at acceptable economic andenvironmental costs?

Need for new knowledge. Thedistinction between “new”knowledge and “existingknowledge” is somewhatambiguous. For instance, modernagronomists “know” how to growsoybeans, and how the crop can beused to provide a worthyagricultural harvest, as well asmake a valuable contribution offixed nitrogen to the soil that canbe exploited by subsequent crops(Mulongoy et al. 1992). It is quite adifferent thing, however, to getsoybeans to effectively providethese functions in the croppingsystems of eastern Africa, forinstance. The knowledge in such acase then turns on a variety ofspecialized aspects of theagricultural knowledge system,such as having cultivars ofsoybeans that can deal with thecompetition for light and nutrientsin such farming systems,particularly if intercropped; themicrobiology of having rhizobia inplace that can effectively inoculate

35

the crop, whether these be“promiscuous” or more selectivelyidentified materials to associatewith designated cultivars inparticular circumstances, and thento get to farmers all the materialsand information they will need touse such a technique. Growingsoybeans on this scale and underthese conditions requires “new”knowledge beyond what localagronomists typically now “know”.

Kinds of new knowledge. Some ofthe technological issues are alsorather generic in nature (Morris andByerlee 1992; Greenland et al.1994). The issue of soil plant-nutrient management is one thatcan be tackled at a rather generallevel, although surely much localspecificity is involved, especiallywhen it comes to dealing with theparticularities of micronutrientdeficiencies and the subtleties ofclimatic uncertainties (McGowanand Jones 1992). For the macro-nutrients, however, the problems ofinadequate supply of N and P arewidespread and similar (Tshibakaand Baanante 1990). The landedcosts of such nutrients in SSA, ifsupplied in conventional inorganicforms (that increase in pricerelative to organic forms understructural adjustment), is high byany standards—by internationalcomparisons (Larson 1993) orrelative to the returns from crops towhich such nutrients may beapplied (Carr 1989; 1993).

In the near-to-medium term, theadditional nutrient supplies for highproductivity agriculture in SSA willhave to be provided by inorganicfertilizers (Larson 1993) probably,as noted above, in combinationwith improved management of soilnutrients and water. Over the longerterm stretching to 2025, however,a more vigorous exploitation of thepotential for biological N fixationhas promise as an answer to theproblem of N deficiency. Within adecade or so, advances in geneticengineering may provide part of theanswer. But in the meanwhile,progress in biological nitrogenfixation can be achieved fairlycheaply and reasonably effectivelythrough symbiotic associations witha variety of legume species,including some trees (notablyFaidherbia albida) and manyleguminous crops. There is muchunexploited opportunity fortraditional and nontraditionalleguminous crops to be used withinAfrican cropping systems,including Phaseolus, Stylosanthes,Vigna and Vicia species, that can begrown as crops, and a variety ofspecies more suitable for grazingand that could be used innoncultivated lands as well(Tarawali 1991; Kaufmann 1992).A difficult problem with theexploitation of such leguminousspecies is that to be productive andeffective, they need greater suppliesof P than are usually found in SSAsoils.

36

This takes us to the secondmajor nutrient that is in chronicshort supply in many African soilassociations, namely, P. (Fortu-nately, potassium is less of a“problem” nutrient in many Africanfarming systems—Carr 1989.) Theanomaly of soils deficient in P, andthe prevalence of high-gradesupplies of rock phosphate inAfrica, has been noted by manypeople, but the reality of exploitingsuch P resources within theagricultural sector seems as faraway as ever. Clearly, manytechnical difficulties have to beovercome before socially profitableuse of these resources can be made.Some of the technical matters relateto processing techniques toimprove the handling andeffectiveness of the appliedmaterial. Others relate to handlingcosts which, in turn, dependdirectly on the state ofinfrastructural development,particularly rail and road networks,and to retailers’ selling margins(Larson 1993).

Crop improvement—using newmethods (Thottappilly et al. 1992)and old ones—is a traditional fieldof agricultural research that must bepursued in a sustained and vigorousway in the many agroecologies ofSSA in order to generate the gainsneeded to close the demand-supplygap likely to emerge over the nextseveral decades. All of the majorfoodcrops are in need of furtherimprovements that can be exploited

in local circumstances, includingthose that contribute to the value ofcrop residues as livestock feed.This means that crop improvementprograms must be spread over therange of ecologies, but it is in somesuch activities that there isconsiderable scope for effectivecooperation among neighboringcountries. The economies of sizeassociated with individual cropimprovement programs are suchthat the target area must besufficiently large to justify theexpenditure (Brennan 1992; Bohnand Byerlee 1993). The breedingobjectives must also beappropriate and, while theproblems are many, and thepotential list of objectives long,attention must be focused onrelatively few specific priorities togive programs focus and costefficiency. In many areas, theemphasis will be on abioticstresses, such as drought andclimatic variation (Hassan et al.1993), and deal with problemsoils, including those with highaluminium levels. In many moreinstances, the emphasis willcontinue to be on dealing withbiotic stresses and, because of theevolution of the pests andpathogens involved, such workneeds to be on a continuing basis.

Experience (Oemke 1992;USAID 1993; Sanders 1995)suggests that several plant breedinginitiatives of the past few decadeshave, indeed, been quite successful.

37

Researchers concerned withsustainable agriculture in SSA haveprobably paid more attention toland tenure systems and theireffects on incentives of SSAfarmers to invest in MPTP than onany other institution or set ofinstitutions. The literatureconcerning land tenure in SSA isnow vast, and no attempt is madehere to review it in detail.

The literature on land tenuresystems in SSA (especially Migot-Adholla et al. 1991; Place andHazell 1993; Bruce et al. 1994)does suggest that local people inthe region are finding ways tomodify existing land tenure systemsto increase the security of propertyrights where the existing systemsimpede seizure of profitableopportunities to invest in MPTP.This is happening even in areaswhere laws and public policiesforbid it. Without denying thatexisting tenure systems may stillimpede innovation in some parts ofSSA (Clay and Reardon 1994), thecapacity of people to change thesystems in a direction favorable toinnovation now seems to be anestablished fact. An importantpolicy implication follows: wherethese processes of change areunderway, the best policy may befor governments to back off, notabandoning the field, but adoptinga posture of surveillance rather thanone of heavy-handed regulation.Where private initiative appears tobe taking agricultural development

in the right direction, let theprocess work its way out.

Incentives to adopt MPTP. Despitethe considerable potential of MPTPits realization its will not be easy.The declining trend of worldagricultural commodity prices,should it continue, would tend toweaken farmer incentives to investin MPTP, despite the potential. Evenif commodity prices do not decline, awider adoption of MPTP will requirechanges in government price,taxation, and foreign exchangepolicies that discriminate againstagriculture, and large additionalinvestments in the transport andcommunication infrastructure and inother services provided to farmers.Although spontaneous processes ofchange seem to be moving landtenure systems in the direction ofstrengthening property rights in land,with favorable effects on farmerinvestment incentives, neededincreases in education of farmerslagged badly after the early 1980s.

Whether SSA governments willmake the changes in policies andinstitutions required to providefarmers incentives to tap thesubstantial potential of MPTP isdifficult to say. But, even if thechanges were made andwidespread adoption of MPTPwere to occur, new technologiesand practices will be needed tosustainably satisfy the stipulated3.3% annual increase in demand.Providing governments the

38

capacity and incentives to developthese new technologies andpractices will be criticallyimportant.

Incentives and Capacity toDevelop New Technologies

Importance of human capital. Atthe most generic level, the key needfor the agricultural knowledgesystem that will underpin the nextseveral decades of Africanagriculture is that part embodied inthe human capital servicing thesector. This takes us immediatelyinto the issue of: (a) the agriculturalhigher education subsector and, tosome extent, the more generaleducation sector on which itdepends (Zymelman 1990); (b) theagricultural research subsector,whether this be the public struc-tures of the national agriculturalresearch program, or thoseelements of the private sector thathave an important role to play, suchas through the seed industry,fertilizer industry etc.; and (c) thethird subsectoral component,namely, the extension system, againincluding both the public extensionservice and those private initiativesthat can substitute for, or comple-ment (in some instances) suchpublic-good provision. In spite ofstrong investment in the early1980s (Pardey et al. 1991;Anderson et al. 1994), SSA isdemonstrably short of the keyhuman resources—not to mention

financial resources for supportingfield and laboratory research—thatmake these interrelated subsectorswork productively and efficiently.In spite of many attempts to investappropriately, either from nationalsources or from the donorcommunity and internationallending agencies, there have beensufficient frustrations experiencedto sound alarm for the continuedsuccessful evolution of suchsystems over the next severaldecades. The problems range fromresource scarcity, particularly in anera of structural adjustment (Bonte-Friedheim et al. 1993), to themanagement of public-sectorenterprises in ways that aregenuinely sustainable. Thesustainability issue, in turn, hingeson several key factors, such as thecompetitiveness of the terms andconditions of public-sectoremployment, as well as other socialand environmental factors,including even the HIV epidemic asit impacts upon subpopulationscritical to these subsectors.

There is no substitute forsustained social investment in theseeducational, research, andextension structures that will beabsolutely critical to the expansionand even the preservation of theknowledge base servicingagriculture (Lynam and Blackie1994). The payoff period to someof these investments is measured indecades, and thus commitments offunds must not only be significant,

39

but must be done on an enduringbasis so that the returns can be dulyharvested. The experience withinstitution building in SSA has notalways engendered muchconfidence that such outlays ofscarce public resources will indeedalways be worthy and will provesustainable (Tshibaka 1993).

Fortunately, there are manyinitiatives presently in train thatprovide the preconditions for amore successful experience in thefuture in these subsectors. Donorshave especially come to the rescueof strapped national governments intrying to revive and refurbishagricultural education systems that,in many cases, had essentiallyvanished. This work will requiremany more resources and certainlyresource commitments over longperiods to achieve the neededgains. In SSA, educational systemsare severely overstretched by largestudent numbers relative to ateaching staff that is in short supplybecause of national human-capitalscarcities. There have beenanalogous positive developments inthe field of national agriculturalresearch system planning, andseveral initiatives underway shouldsee considerable advantage beingachieved through more successfulcross-country collaboration andmore efficient use of scarce nationalresearch resources (Weijenberg etal. 1993). Extension too has beenthe subject of ongoing attention,with regrettable proliferation of

variants of the Training and Visitsystem (Bindlish and Evenson1993; Bindlish et al. 1993), andwhile there may have been someworthy accomplishments inmanagerial control, they do notmake it good enough (Gautam andAnderson 1998; Gautam 2000).The sustainability of such extensionsystems in the absence of donorresources is, however, a matter ofgrave concern (Picciotto andAnderson 1997; Purcell andAnderson 1997), as is the ratherstifled development of the privatesector in this area, notwithstandingthe valuable NGO engagements inmany places in SSA.

A broad area that may be subjectto analysis (by policy analystsdealing with agriculture and theenvironment) is that concerningpolicies related to the naturalresources of a nation, theirexploitation, the environmentalconsequences of different policieson their sustenance, and so on(Anderson 1992). There are manytechnological aspects of these issuesthat will naturally be the subject ofconcern within national researchsystems, such as interactionsbetween forest areas and arableareas, between commercial livestockand wildlife, management of soilresources and water harvestingtechnologies under diverse landtenurial arrangements and propertyrights, emphasis on marginal relativeto more favored environments(Byerlee and Morris 1993) or, as

40

Kesseba (1993) mentions, high-versus low-potential areas, with theirintrinsic links to international SSAmigration, and so on. Most of theseareas have been subject to littleformal analysis in most of SSA.

In all these initiatives, it shouldnot be necessary for several dozenSSA countries to “rediscover thesame wheels” in what are oftencomplex and delicate policy matters.Clearly, there is scope for regionaland other collaboration throughAfrican institutional networks, andthere will also be a role for reliablesources of external assistance, bothin the donor community (Carter1993), and in internationalorganizations ranging frominternational agricultural researchcenters for much of the technol-ogical work across at least the majorfoodcrops, and to other internationalorganizations, such as developmentbanks, for more wide-ranginginstitutional assistance. Institutionalcollaboration in developing andeffectively using knowledge of howto manage the natural resource andenvironmental consequences ofemerging new technologies couldhave high payoffs (Crosson andAnderson 1993).

Conclusion

Many conceptual and empiricalissues arise while addressing thesustainability of the agriculturalsystem of SSA and a cleardiscussion of these is bedeviled by

data situations that are seldomsatisfactory, often virtuallynonexistent, and at best perhapsdescribable as fragile. Notwith-standing the leaps and boundsbeing made in GIS capabilities, thequantification of each element wehave addressed will require muchinvestment of intellectualresources, whether it be population,income generation, soil-water-vegetation-fauna resources,infrastructure, or knowledgegeneration and custody itself.Uncertainty abounds. A proper“monitoring and evaluation” of thesituation is an important imperativefor moving forward. There is nodoubt that a sustainable agriculturalsystem in SSA—diverse over spaceand variable over time as it is—canbe achieved. Only the timing isuncertain; but the timing is critical,given the rapidly rising pressure onand increasing intensification of theagricultural system. The challengesare great, indeed, because of thepopulation-driven demand scenariothat is in prospect, and because ofthe unsatisfactory state of agricul-tural and resource management—including agricultural researchitself—that presently prevails inmany pockets of the continent.

While we do not wish tounderplay the great challenge facedin seeking to achieve such asustainable agriculture, we believethat the challenge can be met.Where the physical andinstitutional infrastructure and

41

policy conditions necessary forwider adoption of MPTP have beenmet, as they appear to have been inthe Machakos and other regions ofKenya (Wallis 1994), farmers haveresponded and achieved significantincreases in production andincome. Such examples are all toorare in SSA, but they support theargument that human ingenuity,accompanied by political will, canmove agricultural systems in theregion to sustainable paths(Kesseba 1993). This is not to say,however, that we should stand backfrom SSA situations that are not yetat a crisis point in unsustainablepractice. Indeed, attention to manyof these systems must also beurgent before the social costsassociated with resource damagereach levels that prove even moredifficult, and costly for anysubsequent recovery andrestoration.

Among a diversity of capitalinvestment possibilities, we haveargued strongly for human-capitalenhancement, so that Africanproblems can be solved by Africananalysts and African interventions.This process of human-capitalformation is a long and uncertainone, and one that thus requirespatience, understanding, and sometolerance of misadventure. Giventhe urgency of the need forintervention, resources must bequickly forthcoming—mostly fromthe more-developed world—tomake the long-run investments that

are needed to undergird a systemthat is indeed sustainable.

ReferencesAnderson, J.R. 1980. Nature andsignificance of risk in theexploitation of new technology.Pages 297-302 in Socioeconomicconstraints to development ofSemi-Arid Tropical agriculture(Ryan, J.G., and Thomson, H.L.,eds.). ICRISAT, Hyderabad, India.

Anderson, J.R. 1991. Aframework for understanding themixed impact of ‘improved’agricultural technologies in Africa.Pages 105-142 in Agriculturaltechnology in Sub-Saharan Africa:A workshop on research issues(Gnaegy, S., and Anderson, J. R.,eds.). World Bank DiscussionPaper No. 26. Washington, D.C.:World Bank.

Anderson, J.R. 1992. Difficultiesin African agricultural systemsenhancement: Ten hypotheses.Agricultural Systems 38(4):387-409.

Anderson, J.R. 1999. Poverty, landdegradation, and rural research.Paper prepared at the CIATInternational Workshop onAssessing the Impact of AgriculturalResearch on Poverty Alleviation,14-16 Sep 1999, Costa Rica.

Anderson, J.R. 2000.Technological modernity,environmental correctitude, rural

42

R&D policy, and imperative Asianrural development paths. Keynotepaper at the Third AsianConference of AgriculturalEconomists, 18-20 Oct.

Anderson, J.R., and Jodha, N.S.1994. Agricultural research strategyfor more enduring productivity infragile areas. Pages 432-544 inAgricultural technology: Policyissues for the internationalcommunity (Anderson, J.R., ed.).Wallingford, UK: CABInternational.

Anderson, J.R., Pardey, P.G., andRoseboom, J. 1994. Sustaininggrowth in agriculture: A quanti-tative review of national andinternational agricultural researchinvestments. AgriculturalEconomics 10(2):107-23.

Anderson, J.R., and Thampa-pillai, J. 1990. Soil conservation indeveloping countries: Project andpolicy intervention. PRS No. 8,World Bank, Washington DC.

Barbier, B. 1993. Modelisationagronomique et économique d’unsystème agraire: Le cos de Bala auBurkina Faso. Ph.D thesis,ENSAM, Montpellier.

Bindlish, V., and Evenson, R. 1993.Evaluation of the performance ofT&V extension in Kenya. Agricul-ture and Rural Development SeriesNo. 7. Technical Department, AfricaRegion. Washington, D.C.: WorldBank.

Bindlish, V., Evenson, R., andGhetibouo, M. 1993. Evaluation ofT&V-based extension in BurkinaFaso. World Bank Technical PaperNo. 226. Washington, D.C.: WorldBank.

Binswanger, H., and Pingali, P.1988. Technological priorities forfarming in Sub-Saharan Africa.World Bank Research Observer3(1):81-98.

Biot, Y., Blaikie, P.M., Jackson,C., and Palmer-Jones, R. 1994.Rethinking research on landdegradation in developingcountries. World Bank DiscussionPaper No. 289. Washington, D.C.:World Bank.

Bishop, J., and Allen, J. 1989. Theon-site costs of soil erosion in Mali.Environment Working Paper No.21. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

Block, S. A. 1994. A new view ofagricultural productivity in Sub-Saharan Africa. American Journalof Agricultural Economics 76 (3).

Bohn, A., and Byerlee, D. 1993.The wheat breeding industry indeveloping countries: An analysisof investments and impacts. Pages1-25 in CIMMYT, 1992/93CIMMYT World Wheat Facts andTrends. Mexico, D.F.: CIMMYT.

Bonte-Friedham, C., Brush, E.G.,and Tabor, S. 1993. Humanresources in African nationalagricultural research systems:Management issues for the 1990s.

43

Pages 31-39 in Sustainable foodproduction in Sub-Saharan Africa:constraints and opportunities.Ibadan: IITA.

Boserup, E. 1981. Population andtechnological change. Chicago,USA : University of Chicago Press.

Brennan, J. P. 1992. Economiccriteria for establishing plantbreeding programs. EconomicsWorking paper No. 92-01. Mexico,D.F.: CIMMYT.

Brown, H., and Thomas, V. 1990.Ecological considerations for thefuture of food security in Africa.Pages 353-377 in Sustainableagricultural systems (Edwards, C.,Lal, R., Madden, P., Miller, R., andHouse, G., eds.). Ankeny, Iowa :Soil and Water ConservationSociety.

Bruce, J.W., Migot-Adholla, S.,and Atherton, J. 1994. The findingsand their policy implications:Institutional adaptation orreplacement? In Searching for landtenure security in Africa (Bruce,J.W., and Migot-Adholla, S., eds.).AGRAP, World Bank.

Byerlee, D., and Morris, M.L.1993. Research for marginalenvironments: Are we under-invested? Food Policy 18(5):381-393.

Carr, S.J. 1989. Technology forsmall-scale farmers in Sub-SaharanAfrica. World Bank TechnicalPaper No. 109. Washington, D.C.:

World Bank.

Carr, S.J. 1993. Improving cashcrops in Africa: Factors influencingthe productivity of cotton, coffee,and tea grown by smallholders.World Bank Technical Paper No.216. Washington, D.C.: WorldBank.

Carter, M. 1993. How does Africaget there and how does AID help?Pages 177-187 in Agriculturaltransformation in Africa (Seckler,D., ed.). Arlington, V.A.: WinrockInternational Institute forAgricultural Development.

Clay, D.C., and Reardon, T. 1994.Determinants of farm-levelconservation investments inRwanda. Harare ConferenceProceedings, IAAE OccasionalPaper No. 7, Gower, Aldershot.

Cook, C.C. 1994. Involuntaryresettlement in Africa: Selectedpapers from a conference onEnvironment and settlement issuesin Africa. World Bank TechnicalPaper No. 227, Africa TechnicalDepartment Series. Washington,D.C.: World Bank.

Craig, B.J., Pardey, P.G., andRoseboom, J. 1994. Internationalagricultural productivity patterns.Discussion Paper No. 94-03.Netherlands, The Hague: ISNAR.

Critchley, W., Reij, C., and Seznec,A. 1992. Water harvesting for plantproduction: Vol. II, Case studies andconclusions for Sub-Saharan Africa.

44

Technical Paper No. 157, AfricaTechnical Department Series.Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

Crosson, P. 1994. Future suppliesof land and water for agriculture.Paper prepared for the InternationalFood Policy Research InstituteRoundtable on Population andFood in the Early 21st Century:Meeting Future Food Needs of anIncreasing World Population, 14-16Feb, Washington, D.C.

Crosson, P., and Anderson, J.R.1992. Resources and global foodprospects: Supply and demand forcereals to 2030. World BankTechnical Paper. No. 184.Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

Crosson, P., and Anderson, J.R.1993. Concerns forsustainability:Integration of natural resource andenvironmental issues for theresearch agendas of NARS.Research Report 4. Netherlands,The Hague: ISNAR.

Cuissance, D. 1991. Le piegeagedes tetse: Études et synthèses deL’IEMVT 32. Maison Alfort :France.

Dent, J.B., and Anderson, J.R.1971. Systems analysis inagricultural management (Dent,J.B., and Anderson, J.R., eds.).Wiley: Sydney.

Dregne, H. 1988. Desertification ofdrylands”, Pages 610–612 inChallenges in Dryland Agriculture:Proceedings of the International

Conference on Dryland Farming,Texas Agricultural ExperimentStation Amarillo/Bushland, (Unger,P., Sneed, T., Jordan, W., andJensen, R., eds.). Texas, 610-12.

Dregne, H., and Chou, Nan Ting1992. Global desertificatondimensions and costs. Pages 249–282 in Degradation and restorationof arid lands. Lubbock, Texas :TexasTech University.

El-Swaify, S., Dangler, E., andArmstrong, C. 1982. Soil erosionby water in the tropics. Honolulu :University of Hawaii.

English, J., Tiffen, M., andMortimore, M. 1994. Landresource management in MachakosDistrict, Kenya 1930-1990. WorldBank Environment Paper No. 5.Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

FAO (Food and AgricultureOrganization of the UnitedNations). 1986. African agriculture:The next 25 Years. ARC/8613.Rome: FAO.

FAO (Food and AgricultureOrganization of the UnitedNations).1993. Agriculture:Towards 2010. Rome: FAO.

FAO (Food and AgricultureOrganization of the UnitedNations).1994. Agriculture:Towards 2010. Rome: FAO.

Farah, K. 1991. Natural vegeta-tion. In Environmental change anddryland management in MachakosDistrict, Kenya 1930-1990:

45

Environmental profile (Mortimore,M., ed.). ODI Working Paper 53.London: Overseas DevelopmentInstitute.

Gautam, M. 2000. Agriculturalextension: The Kenya experience—An impact evaluation. OED.Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

Gautam, M., and Anderson, J.R.1998. Reconsidering the evidenceon the returns to T&V extension inKenya. Working Paper Series 2098.Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

Greenland, D., Bowen, G.,Eswaran, H., Rhoades, R., andValentin, C. 1994. Soil, water andnutrient management research—Anew agenda. IBSRAM PositionPaper. Bangkok: IBSRAM.

Hassan, R.M., Mwangi, W., andKaranja, D. 1993. Wheat supply inKenya: Production technologies,sources of inefficiency, andpotential for productivity growth.Economics Working Paper 93-02.Mexico, D.F.: CIMMYT.

Hoddinott, J. 1994.A model ofmigration and remittances appliedto Western Kenya. OxfordEconomic Papers 46(3):459-76.

Izac, A.M.N. 1994. Ecological-economic assessment of soilmanagement practices forsustainable land use in tropicalcountries. Pages 77-96 in Soilresilience and sustainable land use(Greenland, D.J., and Szabolcs, I.,eds.). Wallingford, UK: CABInternational.

Jahnke, H.E. 1982. Livestockproduction systems and livestockdevelopment in tropical Africa.Kieler Wissenschaftsvertag Vauk,Kiel.

Jha, D., and Hojjati, B. 1993.Fertilizer use on smallholder farmsin Eastern Province, Zambia.Research Report No. 94.Washington, D.C.: IFPRI.

Jordan, A. 1988. Trypanosomiasiscontrol and African ruraldevelopment. London, UK :Longman.

Kangasniemi, J., and Reardon, T.1994. Demographic pressure andthe sustainability of land use inRwanda. In the Harare ConferenceProceedings, IAAE OccasionalPaper No. 7, Gower, Aldershot.

Kaufmann, R. R. von. 1992.African feed resources andruminant production from theecological and socio-economicviewpoint. Pages 109-117 inProceedings of the 25thInternational Symposium onTropical Agriculture Research.Tropical Agriculture ResearchSeries No. 25, Tsukuba.

Kesseba, A.M. 1993. Strategies fordeveloping a viable and sustainableagricultural sector in sub-SaharanAfrica: Some issues and options.Pages 211-243 in Technologies forsustainable agriculture in thetropics. Madison: AmericanSociety of Agronomy.

46

Lal, R. 1987. Managing the soils ofsub-Saharan Africa. Science 236:1069-76.

Larson, B.A. 1993. Fertilizers tosupport agricultural development insub-Saharan Africa: What isneeded and why? Center forEconomic Policy Studies Discus-sion Paper No. 13. Arlington, V.A.:Winrock International Institute forAgricultural Development.

Leach, M., and Mearns, R. 1996.Challenging received wisdom inAfrica. Pages 1-33 in The lie of theland: Challenging received wisdomon the African environment (Leach,M., and Mearns R., eds.). Inter-national African Institute andJames Currey: Oxford.

Lele, U., and Stone, S.W. 1989.Population pressure, theenvironment and agriculturalintensification: Variations on theBoserup hypothesis. MADIADiscussion Paper 4. Washington,D.C.: World Bank.

Lynam, J.K., and Blackie, M.J.1994. Building effectiveagricultural research capacity: TheAfrican challenge. Pages 106-134in Agricultural technology: Policyissues for the internationalcommunity (Anderson, J.R., ed.).Wallingford, UK: CAB Inter-national.

McGowan, R.L., and Jones, R.K.1992. Agriculture of semi-arideastern Kenya: Problems andpossibilities. Pages 8-15 in A

search for a strategy for sustainabledryland cropping in semi-aridEastern Kenya (Probert, M., ed.).Canberra, Australia: ACIAR.

McIntire, J., Bourzat, D., andPingali, P. 1992. Crop-livestockinteraction in sub-Saharan Africa.Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

Migot-Adholla, S., Hazell, P.,Blarel, B., and Place, F. 1991.Indigenous land rights systems insub-Saharan Africa: A constrainton productivity? World BankEconomic Review 1(1): 155-75.

Miller, F., and Larson, W. 1990.Lower input effects on soilproductivity and nutrient cycling.Pages 549-568 in Sustainableagricultural systems (Edwards, C.,Lal, R., Madden, P., Miller, R., andHouse, G., eds.). Ankeny, Iowa : Soiland Water Conservation Society.

Morris, M.L., and Byerlee, D.1992. Narrowing the wheat gap insub-Saharan Africa: A review ofconsumption and production issues.Economic Development andCultural Change 41(4):737-61.

Mortimore, M. and Adams, W.M.1999. Working the Sahel: Environ-ment and society in NorthernNigeria. Routledge, London.

Mulongoy, K., Gueye, M., andSpencer, D.S.C. 1992. Biologicalnitrogen fixation and sustainabilityof tropical agriculture : proceedingsof the Fourth InternationalConference of the African

47

Association for Biological NitrogenFixation, 24-28 Sep 1990, IITA,Ibadan, Nigeria (Mulongoy, K.,Gueye, M., and Spencer, D.S.C.,eds.). Chichester: Wiley.

NRC (National Research Council).1993. Sustainable agriculture andthe environment in the humidtropics. Washington, D.C.: NationalAcademy Press.

Nelson, R. 1988. Drylandmanagement: The land degradationproblem. Environment DepartmentWorking Paper No. 8. Washington,D.C.: World Bank.

Oemke, J. 1992. The impact ofagricultural technology in sub-Saharan Africa. Office of Analysis,Research, and Technical SupportTechnical Paper No. 3, Bureau forAfrica. Washington, D.C.: USAID.

Okigbo, B. 1990. Sustainableagricultural systems in tropicalAfrica. Pages 323-352 inSustainable agricultural systems(Edwards, C., Lal, R., Madden, P.,Miller, R., and House, G., eds.).Ankeny, Iowa: Soil and WaterConservation Society.

Oldeman, L., Hakkeling, R., andSombroek, W. 1991. World map ofthe status of human-induced soildegradation: An explanatory note,2nd edn. International SoilReference and Information Center,Wageningen and United NationsEnvironment Programme, Nairobi.

Pardey, P. G., Roseboom, J., andAnderson, J. R. 1991. Regionalperspectives on nationalagricultural research. Pages 197-264 in Agricultural research policy:International quantitativeperspectives (Pardey, P.G.,Roseboom, J., and Anderson, J.R.,eds.). Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Pieri, C. 1992. Fertility of soils: Afuture for farming in the WestAfrica Savanna. Berlin: SpringerVerlag.

Picciotto, R., and Anderson, J.R.1997. Reconsidering agriculturalextension. World Bank ResearchObserver 12(2): 249-59.

Place, F., and Hazell, P. 1993.Productivity effects of indigenousland tenure systems in sub-SaharanAfrica. American Journal of Agri-cultural Economics 75(1):10-19.

Postel, S. 1992. Last oasis: Facingwater scarcity. WorldwatchEnvironmental Alert Series. NewYork: Norton.

Purcell, D.L., and Anderson, J.R.1997. Agricultural extension andresearch: Achievements andproblems in national systems. AWorld Bank Operations EvaluationStudy. Washington, D.C.: WorldBank.

Rosegrant, M., and Agcaoili, M.1994. Global and regional fooddemand, supply and trade prospectsto 2010. Paper presented at the

48

International Food Policy ResearchInstitute Round Table on Populationand Food in the Early 21st Century:Meeting Future Food Needs of anIncreasing World Population, 14-16Feb, Washington, D.C.

Russell, S.S., Jacobsen, K., andStanley, W.D. 1990. Internationalmigration and development in sub-Saharan Africa, Vol. I. World BankDiscussion Paper No. 101, AfricaTechnical Department Series.Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

Ruthenberg, H. 1980. Farmingsystems in the tropics.Oxford :Clarendon Press.

Ryan, J.G., and Spencer, D. 2000.Challenges and opportunitiesshaping the future of the Semi-AridTropics and their implications.Draft of the paper presented at theInternational symposium on Futureof agriculture in the Semi-AridTropics, 14 Nov 2000, ICRISAT,Patancheru.

Sanders, J.H. 1995. Successstories: New crop and inputtechnologies in the Sudano-Guinean Zones of Burkina Fasoand Mali. In The economics ofagricultural technology in semi-aridsub-Saharan Africa (Sanders, J.H.,Ramaswamy, S., and Shapiro, B. I.,eds.). Baltimore: Johns HopkinsUniversity Press.

Seckler, D., Gollin, D., andAntoine, P. 1991. Agriculturalpotential of Mid-Africa: A

technological assessment. Pages61-103 in Agricultural technologyin sub-Saharan Africa: A workshopon research issues (Gnaegy, S., andAnderson, J.R., eds.). World BankDiscussion Paper No. 126.Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

Smith, J., and Weber, G.K. 1994.Strategic research in heterogeneousmandate areas: An example from theWest African Savanna. Pages 545-564 in Agricultural technology:Policy issues for the internationalcommunity (Anderson, J. R., ed.).Wallingford, UK: CAB Inter-national.

Sombroek, W. 1993. Agriculturaluse of the physical resources ofAfrica: Achievements, constraintsand future needs. Pages 12-30 inSustainable food production in sub-Saharan Africa 2. Constraints andOpportunities. Ibadan: IITA.

Stocking, M. 1986. The cost of soilerosion in Zimbabwe in terms ofthe loss of three major nutrients.Consultant’s Working Paper No. 3,Soil Conservation Program, Landand Water Division. Rome: FAO.

Stocking, M. 1992. Landdegradation and rehabilitation:Research in Africa 1980-1990:Retrospect and Prospect. DrylandNetworks Programme Paper No.34. London: IIED.

Stoorvogel, J.J., and Smaling,E.M.A. 1990. Assessment of soilnutrient depletion in sub-SaharanAfrica: 1983-2000 Report 28,

49

Winand Staring Centre forIntegrated Land, Soil and WaterResearch, Wageningen.

Strohbehn, R. 1986. An economicanalysis of USDA erosion controlprograms: A new perspective.Agricultural Economics Report No.560, Economic Research Service.Washington, D.C.: United StatesDepartment of Agriculture.

Tarawali, G. 1991. The residualeffect of Stylosanthes fodder bankson maize yield at several locationsin Nigeria. Tropical Grasslands25(1):26-31.

Thirtle, C., Craviollati, P.,Hadley, D., and Townsend, R.1994. A multilateral Malmquisttotal factor productivity indexapproach to explaining agriculturalgrowth in Sub-Saharan Africa.Paper for the ESRC DevelopmentEconomics Study Group AnnualConference, University ofLeicester, Mar 1994, Mimeo,University of Reading.

Tiffin, M., and Mortimore, M.1992. Environment, populationgrowth and productivity in Kenya:a case study of Machakos District.Development Policy Review 10:359-87.

Thottappilly, G., Monti, L.M.,Mohan, D.R., and Moore, A.W.1992. Biotechnology: Enhancingresearch on tropical crops in Africa(Thottappilly, G., Monti, L.M.,Mohan, D.R., and Moore, A.W.,eds.). Ibadan: CTA/IITA.

Tshibaka, T.B. 1993. Policyimperatives for agriculturaldevelopment in Africa. Pages 65-76 in Sustainable food productionin sub-Saharan Africa 2.Constraints and opportunities.Ibadan: IITA.

Tshibaka, T.B., and Baanante,C.A. 1990. Fertilizer policy intropical Africa. Workshopproceedings, Lomé, Togo, Apr1988. IFDC and IFPRI, MuscleShoals.

USAID (United States Agency forInternational Development).1993. Africa: Growth renewed,hope rekindled: A report on theperformance of the DevelopmentFund for Africa 1988-1992.Washington, D.C.: USAID.

Versteeg, M., and Koudokpon, V.1993. Participative farmer testing offour low external input technologiesto address soil fertility decline inMono Province (Benin). Agri-cultural Systems 42(3): 265-76.

Walker, T.S., and Ryan, J.G.1990. Village and householdeconomies in India’s Semi-AridTropics. Baltimore, USA: JohnsHopkins University Press.

Wallis, J.A. 1994. Some intensifiedsystems of farming in the tropicsand sub-tropics. World BankTechnical Paper. Washington, D.C.:World Bank.

Weijenberg, J., Dioné, J., Fuchs-Carsch, M., Kéré, A., and Lefort, J.

50

1993. Revitalizing agriculturalresearch in the Sahel. World BankDiscussion Paper No. 211, AfricaTechnical Department Series.Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

Winrock International. 1992.Animal agriculture in sub-SaharanAfrica. Morrilton, Arkansas:Winrock International Institute forAgricultural Development.

World Bank. 1992a. Worlddevelopment report 1992: Develop-ment and the environment. New

York : Oxford University Press.

World Bank. 1992b. Envi-ronmental status report of Sub-Saharan Africa. EnvironmentDivision, Technical Department,Africa region. Washington, D.C.:World Bank.

Yates, R.A., and Kiss, A. 1992.Using and sustaining Africa’s soils.Agriculture and Rural DevelopmentSeries No. 6, Technical Department,Africa region. Washington, D.C.:World Bank.

51

Poverty Reduction and Food Securityin Sub-Saharan Africa: A Challenge to

World Agriculture

V Sekitoleko1

addition in most African countriesis based on agricultural rawmaterials. In addition, the sector isthe main buyer of farm implementsand services such as transport, andfarmers are the main consumers ofboth imported and locally producedconsumer goods.

Agricultural commodities. Mostcountries in the region continue torely on one or two traditionalcommodities for the bulk of exportearnings, although the productionand market shares of thesecommodities have been fallingsince the 1960s. The decliningperformance and contribution ofthe agricultural sector in mostAfrican countries is symptomatic ofinadequate capital formation andheavy decapitalization, which raisecosts and lower productivity. Thiscompels most farmers and othereconomic agents to engage inpractices that degrade land

Agriculture in AfricaAfrica is the only region in thedeveloping world where theregional average of food productionper person has been declining overthe last 40 years, putting largesegments of the population at riskin terms of food insecurity andmalnutrition. While the percentageof undernourished in Sub-SaharanAfrica (SSA) has declined since theearly 1980s, the FAO’s estimatesfor 1995-97 indicate that 33%remain chronically food insecure.

Importance of agriculture.Agriculture continues to dominatethe economies and produces thebulk of food consumed in SSA, andaccounts for about 70% of totalemployment, 40% of totalmerchandise exports, and 34% ofAfrican GDP. The sector is themain source of raw material forindustry. In fact, as much as two-thirds of manufacturing value-

Sekitoleko, V. 2001. Poverty reduction and food security in sub-Saharan Africa: A challenge toworld agriculture. Pages 51–62 in Future of agriculture in the semi-arid tropics: proceedings of anInternational Symposium on Future of Agriculture in Semi-Arid Tropics, 14 Nov 2000, ICRISAT,Patancheru, India (Bantilan, M.C.S., Parthasarathy Rao, P., and Padmaja, R., eds.). Patancheru502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics.

1. Subregional representative for southern and eastern Africa, Food and Agriculture Organizationof the United Nations, P O Box 3730, Harare, Zimbabwe.

52

resources, deplete forest and othernatural vegetation, and harmmarine and other aquatic resources,including water. Nevertheless,agriculture will remain, in thefuture, the most important sectorfor addressing food security andpoverty in Africa. In view ofagriculture’s central roles in thesupply of food as well as ingenerating employment andincome, policies aimed atincreasing agricultural productionand productivity are essential inorder to improve household foodsecurity as well as to reverse thecurrent economic situation inAfrica.

Supply IssuesRate of agricultural production.Agricultural production in Africahas declined in per capita terms andas a share of global productionthrough most of the period sincethe 1960s. Recent data indicate aslowing and perhaps a modestreversal of this downward trend fora few commodities. A comparisonof the data for the first three yearsof the last decade with that of thelast three years shows that Africa’sshare of global cereals productionincreased from 4.9% to just over5.6%, and per capita productiongrew from 152 kg to 160 kg.However, this remains far belowthe global average per capitaproduction of 358 kg, and far toolittle to make up the ground lost

during the previous three decades.In the case of cocoa, one of themain export commodities, Africa’sshare of global production fell from72% in the 1960s to 55% in theearly 1990s, before recovering to64% in the late 1990s. For manyother commodities, however, the1990s have brought no reversal ofthe long-term decline.

Success of agriculture industry.Africa being a diverse continent,reference to all countries in it inaggregate terms is not fair as somehave achieved notable agriculturalsuccess in some areas. The fiveAfrican subregions haveexperienced sharply divergentproduction trends in the 1990s.West Africa and North Africa haveseen a fairly solid growth in annualoutput (about 3 to 5%) for most ofthe basic agricultural commodities,while production in SouthernAfrica has declined or stagnated formost commodities. In east Africa,production figures are more vaguebecause of the horn of Africa.Central Africa has also seen solidgrowth in some commodities(cereals 4.9% and cocoa 2.6%) anddeclining or flat output in others(coffee 5.4% and oilcrops 0.8%).

Levels of production. Variation inproduction is a major issue in manyAfrican countries, as most crops arerainfed and thus highly vulnerableto weather-related shocks. Theannual per capita production ofcereals, for example, fluctuated

53

between 140 kg and 175 kg for thecontinent as a whole during the1990s. Regional and nationalproduction figures reveal an evenhigher degree of variation.

Underdeveloped agriculture. Avariety of factors contribute to theunderdevelopment of theagricultural sector in Africa likeperpetual conflicts. The smallfragmented markets do not helpmatters.

Use of inputs and services.Agriculture in Africa remains leastproductive and is one of the lowestusers of modern inputs in theworld, partly because of lack of apolicy environment that wouldencourage farmers to increaseproduction through the adoption ofmodern technologies and achievehigher yields. Indigenouscustomary land tenure systems arestill prevalent in countries south ofthe Sahara. Although they aregenerally based on various forms ofgroup control, which may allow abalanced management ofcommunal property, they representin many cases an obstacle to theadoption of more advancedtechniques, requiring long-terminvestments.

Agricultural land. Most of theincrease in agricultural productionin Africa over the past severaldecades has been achieved bybringing more land undercultivation. Today, only 7% ofAfrica’s total land area (about 150

million hectares) is devoted to cropproduction. But given the difficultclimatic conditions, poor soils, andvery uneven distribution of waterresources, only another 30 millionhectares of unused land can bebrought under cultivation withoutfurther jeopardizing theenvironment.

Increasing output. Therefore, anysignificant increase in Africa’soutput of food and other crops willhave to come from intensifiedproduction. This will require muchgreater use of irrigation, fertilizer,and other inputs as well as thedevelopment and application ofnew and appropriate technologies.However, accelerated degradationof the natural resources upon whichagriculture depends remains asignificant constraint to production.Human-induced land degradation—linked to rapid population growthand slow introduction of adequatetechnologies—is a significantproblem in most countries.Overexploitation of crop land ,overgrazing of grasslands,deforestation, and poor watermanagement have led to seriousenvironmental degradation. Annualdeforestation in Africa increasedbecause of population growth,overgrazing, inappropriate croppingpractices, fuel wood collection, andarmed conflicts with their trail ofrefugees.

These factors, either individuallyor in combination, are leading toencroachment on the desert fringes

54

and degradation of moisture areaswell away from the deserts.Increasing drought may also bepartly due to environmentaldegradation.

Land development. Currently,only about 2% of sub-SaharanAfrica’s arable land is underirrigation compared to a third inSouth Asia. Unlike other regions ofthe world, fertilizer use is very lowin Africa. With fallow periodsgetting shorter in many Africancountries, the absence of fertilizermeans that soils are being leachedof essential minerals. Few farmerscan afford fertilizers, especiallyafter the removal (partially in somecases) of subsidies that promotedfertilizer use in the 1960s and1970s. Efforts to increase producerprices have brought about mixedresults. In cases where producershave gained, the effects have beenfelt unequally. Poor farmers, whoare usually subsistence farmerswith a small marketed surplus, havetended to benefit much less thanlarge-scale producers, while at thesame time facing prohibitively highprices for fertilizer and otherinputs. Women farmers, whoaccount for a majority of foodproducers and usually farm on avery small scale, are at a particulardisadvantage.

Education. In agriculture, humancapital is the best investmentanybody in leadership can make.

Education enables farmers to learnnew skills, and make more efficientuse of available resources includinglabor. For finally, when theeconomy starts to experiencechanges like acquiring newtechnology, the farmer is able todecode it, or if there is disequilibriain an economy, an educated farmerwill find it much easier to adjustand even take advantage of thechanges. While education makesfarmers better entrepreneurs, it alsoprepares members of the ruralpopulation for off farm employ-ment. This normally leads tomodernization in agriculture,thereby requiring less labor force.This in turn results in the surpluslabor seeking employmentelsewhere where income is better.Finally, it contributes to alleviatingrural poverty. Unfortunately, themajority of people here are barelyliterate.

Lack of information. The lack oftimely and accurate information isalso a significant constraint toincreased production. The need tosupply information to both privateand government sectors in thesubregion needs to be improved.Not all countries have functioningdomestic market informationservices. It is a well known fact thatyou are what you know. Secondly,this is the information ageoperating in a global village—sowhere does sub-Saharan Africafigure?

55

Agricultural policies. There is alsothe need for enhanced publicpolicies and development plans. Infact, many countries have neither.As we make progress on the policyand planning fronts, it is certainlyreasonable to think that traineetrainers could be trained in a fewcountries and their expertise bemade available to the entire region.Sub-Saharan Africa needs to haveits own experts, starting from thehousehold level.

Research. Growth in productionrequires significant research andimproved dissemination techniques.However, many countries in theregion suffer from a bias datingback to the colonial era, whenresources for agricultural researchlaid stress on export crops at thecost of indigenous food crops.Efforts to reverse this orientationhave been painfully slow. At thesame time, most African staples(millet, sorghum, cassava, yam,cowpea, bananas and plantains, andtraditional vegetables) havereceived little attention fromadvanced research institutionselsewhere. As a result, Africa haslagged behind most otherdeveloping regions in generatingimproved varieties and techno-logies that are locally adaptable.

Infrastructure. Another importantconstraint to increased productionis the lack of infrastructure andhigh transport and storage costs.Farmers in close proximity to

markets and roads can transportinexpensively, and those who canstore their produce can sell laterwhen prices are more favorable.Moreover, the void left by theelimination of state marketingboards has not been filled byefficient private marketingoperators. Farmers have also beendeprived of other services such asextension, research, and inputs.

Emergencies. The number, scale,and intensity of emergencies inAfrica have all been increasing dueto both natural disasters, especiallydrought and human-causedcalamities and civil strife andconflict. Wars and related factorshave become the most seriouscause of food insecurity in much ofthe region. In 1994, out of theworld’s total of 32 million disastervictims receiving relief assistancefrom the World Food Programme(WFP), 21.5 million were living inAfrica. Of these, nearly two-thirdswere victims of human-causeddisasters, distributed among Westand Central Africa (4.6 million),the Horn and East Africa (3.9million), and southern Africa (5.6million).

Effects on population. In the ruralareas of the region, those mostvulnerable to food insecurity aresmallholder farmers (73% of therural population in the countriesstudied), nomadic pastoralists(13%), and cross-cutting these twogroups, households headed by

56

women (3.1% of all ruralhouseholds).

Demand IssuesThe most recent FAO statisticsindicate that 33% of the populationof sub-Saharan Africa ischronically undernourished,compared with 37% two decadesago. A detailed look at thecontinent reveals significantprogress in some subregions anddeterioration in others. With Ghanaleading the way, eight countries inWest Africa reduced hungersignificantly between 1980 and1996. However, the picture is verydifferent in Central, east, andsouthern Africa, where theproportion and number of theundernourished generallyincreased. Burundi suffered thelargest increase, with the proportionof undernourished people risingfrom 38 to 63%. Thirteen othercountries in Central, east, andsouthern Africa also showed largeincreases.

Food consumption. The consump-tion of individual commodities overthe past decade has shown littlechange in per capita terms at thecontinent level. The per capitaconsumption of most commodities(pulses, meat, eggs, milk, fruits,and vegetables) has virtuallyremained unchanged since the early1990s, while there have been slightincreases in that of cereals (140 to

145 kg) and oilcrops (4.3 to 5 kg).The per capita consumption ofcereals in Africa as compared to theworld average is about 90% whileit is about 66% for oilcrops, 60%for eggs, 50% for milk, and 40%for meat. In contrast, consumptionof pulses and starchy roots areabout 150% and 200% respectivelyof the global average.

Food demand. The main constraintto demand in Africa is the lack ofpurchasing power. Average incomegrowth in Africa has lagged behindother regions in the world. On theother hand, rapid populationgrowth is increasing food demandand creating pressures to increasefood supplies. Average GDPgrowth in agriculture was 2.3% in1990-97, less than the rate ofpopulation increase (2.4). Duringthe same period, overall GNP grewat 2.9%. Currently, protectedmarkets impose high costs onconsumers who would be expectedto benefit under more liberalizedmarkets.

With market integration,consumers will have theopportunity to buy from thecheapest producers in the region,hence increasing their purchasingpower.

Trade PatternsAgricultural exports. Currentexport patterns in Africa arecharacterized by a small number of

57

primary (often plantation-based)commodities and a dependency onpreferential access to a few marketsin developed countries. The mainexport crops are cocoa, coffee, andcotton. However, some countriesalso export substantial quantities ofsugar and beef to the EuropeanUnion (EU) under the ACPProtocols.

Food imports. Most Africancountries are net importers of staplefoods (e.g., rice, wheat, andvegetable oils), and as per capitafood production has fallen over thelast two decades, their importdependency has increased. Forexample, imports now account forabout 25% of the total supply ofcereals in Africa. African foodimports originate outside theregion, primarily from developedcountries and often on concessionalterms and/or under exportsubsidies.

Intra-African agricultural trade.According to official tradestatistics, intra-African trade inagricultural products is less than3% of total agricultural trade.(Intra-African trade accounts forabout 10% of total merchandisetrade.) Evidence suggests, however,that actual cross-border agriculturaltrade has a long history and is muchmore substantial than what officialstatistics indicate. Artificialcolonial boundaries cut throughsome established trading patternsbut did not really interfere with

them. After the colonial powersleft, the new governmentsattempted to control cross-bordertrade, usually with little success.Creating a common market foragriculture would legitimize thistrade, enabling governments toquantify it and to take account of itin planning and policy decisions. Itwould also permit farmers toproduce more in accordance withtheir comparative advantage andmarket conditions.

Most of the constraints to intra-regional trade in Africa are policyinduced and/or are amenable topolicy reform. The constraintsinclude, inadequate physicalinfrastructure. Much of thetransportation network in Africa isgeared towards trade with theformer colonial powers than withneighboring countries. In WestAfrica, for example, most roadshead north from the ports into thecash crop producing areas. Thereare few roads heading east-west toconnect neighboring countries. Ineastern and southern Africa, thetransportation network is largelygeared towards connectingproducers of cash crops and areaswith natural resources such ascopper, to capital cities and the sea.Thus food producers in remoteareas may well have potentialmarkets in neighboring countriesbut have few roads to help themsupply those markets. Moreover,much of the infrastructure is inpoor condition, slowing down

58

transportation and increasingfreight charges. Many railways areoperating below capacity due to alack of rolling stock and the poorstate of tracks. A further constraint,which applies to several countries,is the so-called “third-party ruling”which limits transportation betweentwo countries, to trucks whichcome from one or the other of thosecountries.

Unstable market opportunities.Since traders never know when anarea is going to be in surplus or indeficit, they cannot establishongoing and reliable tradingpartners. Mozambique may be agood market for Tanzanian maizenext year, but it may be another fiveyears before such a marketopportunity arises again. Therefore,involving in maize trading is muchmore complex than exporting acash crop to a European market,where the demand is more or lessconstant and where trading firmshave been in business for 200years.

Small markets. Most maizeproduction, for example, is bysmallholders who are widelydispersed, thereby makingeconomies of scale difficult toachieve. While domestic traderscan function in this situation,exporting generally requires largerquantities. Traders face majorproblems in financing larger

transactions because banks areunwilling to lend to them andinterest rates are high.

Lack of current marketinformation and trading skills.Most small, local traders have onlybeen importing and exporting forthe last two or three years, and havelittle knowledge about standardcontracts, and bankingarrangements such as letters ofcredit, etc. Few have reliableinformation about potential buyersin other countries and about theirrequirements in terms of quantity,quality, delivery arrangements,payment, etc. There is a need for areliable subregional market priceinformation service.

Uncertain policy environment.Variable/seasonal tariffs arecommon and export/import bansoccur frequently, disrupting privatetransactions and inhibiting thedevelopment of reliable markets.Documentation procedures in tradeare unnecessarily cumbersome.Many rules, licenses, taxes, andduties are applied in an arbitraryfashion according to officialwhims. Confusion and corruptionprevail due to the repeated failureof governments to make all therules and regulations as transparentas possible and to ensure thateveryone knows about them.

Wars and civil strife. At any onetime, about one-third of the regionis either at war, civil strife, or both.

59

Macroeconomic PolicyEnvironmentDiffering monetary and economicpolicies will give rise to tradeimpediments due to nonconverti-bility of exchange rates and gapsbetween official exchange rates andmarket rates, financial risk, andother factors.

Monetary reform. ECOWASplans a common currency by 2004,with assistance from IMF, informulating accession requirementspertaining to monetary and fiscalconditions; convergence amongAnglophone countries and thenwith the Francophone zone.)

Fiscal policy reform. There is anincreasing need to address fiscalpolicies, especially taxation. Ascountries lose important revenuesthrough increased liberalization oftrade, new, efficient, and equitablesources of public revenue need tobe generated. This also brings intofocus the issue of a more equitableredistribution of public revenues tocompensate losers (both within thenational economies and within theregion) in the process of policytransition. SACU has devised anew formula for revenue sharingfrom its common external tariff.The new formula was developed ina democratic way and favors theweaker members.

Privatization and the role of thestate. The balance between publicand private sectors is crucial. While

privatization of some activities isessential to ensure competitiveness,the public sector still has animportant role in providingtransportation, power, water,communications, education, andhealth.

Funding for AgricultureWhy does ODA for agriculture andrural development continue to dropyear after year in spite of theemphasis all major donors andinternational banks lay on povertyreduction and the recognition thatpoverty is highest in rural areas?

The Joint Forum on Develop-ment Progress, convened by theUN, OECD, World Bank, and theIMF, at its meeting recently,deplored the fact that “aid has since1992 fallen from one-third to one-quarter of one per cent of donors’GNP”, and argued that “the presentlevel needs to be increased, to fundmany worthwhile projects” whichwould contribute to the ability ofdeveloping countries to meet theirpoverty alleviation goals.

The drop in ODA for agricultureand rural development has beenparticularly marked, falling fromaround 25 to 30% of total ODA inthe 1980s, to less than 15% in the90s. And as with much of the aid, itis not necessarily targeted at thosecountries which most need it.

OECD transfers. OECD transfersto the rural people living indeveloping countries amounts to

60

around US$ 10 billion per annum,compared to over US$ 350 billionto farmers in member countries.

OECD transfers to Africa. Thesituation in Africa is particularlydismaying. For instance, over thepast three years, total World Bank/IDA funding for agricultural andrural development for sub-SaharanAfrica has amounted to less thanUS$ 250 million per year, or lessthan US$ 1.40 per malnourishedperson in the region — a mere dropin the ocean of needs.

What is at the heart of this? Is ita lack of viable investmentopportunities; the poor track recordof agricultural projects in the past,or a lack of confidence ininstitutional capacities and nationalpolicies for rural development? Ormaybe an urban bias in resourceallocations or perhaps it is mucheasier to invest in other sectors,where the results do not depend onthe decisions of a vast number ofwidely dispersed small farmersexposed to the vagaries of nature?

If we accept that many of thepoorest countries — such as those inthe Horn of Africa — will continueto be heavily dependent on externalfinancing if they are to make progressin reducing poverty and improvingfood security, what can be done toreverse recent trends and therebyensure that adequate funding isavailable for well designed programsfor achieving the goals to which bothdeveloping and developed countrieshave subscribed?

What steps can we take to raisethe level of the world’s scarceproductive resources and enhancetheir productive potential for futuregenerations? Can the rural peoplehave a greater say in their destiny?Can the Africans have a greater sayin their own affairs? Most of theseare African problems; maybe it istime we found African solutions.

Free Trade ZonesRecently, while at the launch of thefree trade area of COMESA, I keptwondering how certain we could bethat trading policies, as now applied,would contribute positively topoverty reduction and improved foodsecurity, especially in the LIFDCS?

Agriculture TradeLiberalizationFew people doubt the long-termbenefits of more open andcompetitive markets, but is therenot a serious danger that, at leastduring a transition period, manypoor people — especially in ruralareas — may become worse off andby implication, more foodinsecure? The supply response of aagrarian societies in developingcountry to changing marketopportunities can only be slow,given many small farmers’ limitedaccess to capital, technologies,market knowledge, and extra land,and the general weaknesses ofsupporting institutions.

61

In the meantime, vast numbersof such farmers find themselvespitted in increasingly directcompetition with larger farmers inthe developed world, whose moreready access to modern technology,various forms of persistentprotection, and a progressivegrowth in farm scale have enabledthem to withstand a secular declinein world cereal prices. Under smallfarm conditions in developingcountries, failing cereal pricesequate with a spiraling drop in ruralincomes, reduced capacity to buyinputs, and ultimately to a fall inproduction incentives, precisely thescenario that we all wish to avoid.

Any options? We must askourselves what options exist formanaging global and nationalliberalization processes, nationallyand internationally, in ways whichwe are confident will contribute toimproved food security for both theurban and the rural poor in the longand short term.

Can agricultural developmentalone help? It is very clear thatthough there are opportunities toimprove the performance of bothcrop- and livestock- based farmingsystems, agriculture alone cannotprovide the basis for a significantimprovement in the livelihoods ofthe people in Africa. And yet, theopportunities for diversification ofemployment are severelyconstrained by the natural resourceswith which the region is endowed.

Better nutrition, health, andeducation minus conflict and warsin an environment of democraticleadership and awareness, will leadto greater equilibrium between thepeople and their environment.Urgent though the needs are, suchprocesses must be locally drivenand managed if they are to takehold. Therefore, the challenge forthe international community will beto provide assistance on an amplescale in ways which successfullyencourage local initiative.

Debt relief. Given the progressbeing made in debt reductionthrough the HIPC initiative, can’twe focus national PovertyReduction Programmes on foodsecurity projects as well as onhealth and education activities?

Leadership. The time has come totake a serious look at developing aleadership right from the householdand village levels, to the head ofstate, especially since the majorfinanciers of government, led by theWorld Bank, put democracy anddecentralization as prerequisites forfunding. I believe this would generatesufficient human capital to tacklepoverty reduction and improve foodsecurity in the world’s poorestcountries. Can't the amazing coalitionof public support which hascontributed to bolstering internationalresolve to reduce debt also notmobilize political support for an endto the further incapacitation ofAfrican governments and its peoples?

62

The potential. The achievement ofthe abundant African potentialrequires the following conditions:• more certain tenure to farm land;• markets with adequate supplies

of fertilizer and improved seeds;• tools and technical options as

well as a coordinated and clearly-focused program towardsachievement of peace;

• research, access to credit andextension, and other social andhealth services;

• land and irrigation development;• increasing land and labor

productivity;• improved infrastructure services;• developing additional

technologies to overcomeproduction constraints thatcurrently have no technicalsolutions;

• prevention of animal disease for

increased livestock productionand trade;

• mitigation of natural disasterssuch as drought; and

• better information services andsetting up of commodityexchanges.The resulting configuration of

the agricultural sector is one thatwill be more diversified, productive,private-sector led, and interna-tionally competitive. In time, thegoals of higher and more evenlydistributed farm incomes and foodsecurity will be attained. Both areessential to improve the quality oflife and attain human development.

Finally, I believe that until wehave stable, responsible, andrespected governments in thecountries covering the region, allthe above, including the title, willcome to naught.

63

Breaking the Unholy Alliance of FoodInsecurity, Poverty, and EnvironmentalDegradation in the Asia-Pacific Region

R B Singh1

The Current Scenario

We have entered a millennium fullof challenges and opportunities.Living standards in much of thedeveloping world continue toimprove, but in many of the leastdeveloped, low-income, food-deficit countries, livelihood securityhas deteriorated further while percapita economic assistance fromthe developed world has greatlydeclined.

Though mankind has madeunprecedented progress—frommapping the human and ricegenomes, the possibility of thetransfer of any gene from oneorganism into another, to cyber-space, and instant global communi-cation— today, nearly 800 millionpeople are denied the most basicright: the right to food. Some1.2 billion subsist on less than US$1 a day. Half of the world’s

Singh, R. B. 2001. Breaking the unholy alliance of food insecurity, poverty, and environmentaldegradation in the Asia-Pacific region. Pages 63–72 in Future of agriculture in the semi-arid tropics:proceedings of an International Symposium on Future of Agriculture in Semi-Arid Tropics, 14 Nov2000, ICRISAT, Patancheru, India (Bantilan, M.C.S., Parthasarathy Rao, P., and Padmaja, R., eds.).Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics.

1. Assistant Director General and Regional Representative, Food and Agriculture Organization ofthe United Nations, Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand.

population still survives on lessthan US$ 2 a day. In a world ofunprecedented wealth, these levelsof deprivation are disgraceful.

Drawing from technologicalbreakthroughs and the progress inproduction and productivity ofagriculture and food in the GreenRevolution era and beyond, I amoptimistic of our success in thefight against hunger and poverty.The FAO report on the State ofFood Insecurity in the Worldrevealed that between 1990–1992and 1995–1997, the total number ofmalnourished people decreased by40 million. This average annualreduction of 8 million peoplethough encouraging, is not enough.

The Asia and Pacific regionssaw the number of undernourishedfall from 32% of the population to21% in the eighties; and furtherdown to 17% by the triennium1996/98. However, the number of

64

hungry people in this regionactually increased by three millionin the last six years to 515 million(i.e., 64 % of the world’s under-nourished people). The extent ofhunger is particularly serious inBangladesh, Democratic People’sRepublic of Korea, and Mongolia(Table 1).

Are we wavering in thecommitment and promise ofreducing by half the number ofundernourished people by the year2015 made at the World FoodSummit in 1996? To meet ourpledge, the ranks of the region’s

hungry must be reduced by at least14 million per year instead of the13 million set at that time.

The hungry child can’t wait. It istoday that his bones and sinews arebeing formed. “You cannot tell himtomorrow”, a famous novelist haswritten. “His name is today”.

Experience has taught us tohedge our bets. The multiple causesof food insecurity continue toincrease the number of vulnerablehouseholds. Land degradation andwater scarcity, natural and man-made disasters, economicmismanagement, limited import

Table 1. Prevalence and extent of undernourishment, 1996-1998.

Number of Proportion of Food deficit of theRegion and undernourished undernourished undernourishedcountries (million) population (%) (kcal person -1day -1)

Developing world 792 18Asia and Pacific 515 17East Asia 155 12China 140 11 250Korea DPR 13 57 340Mongolia 1.1 45 310

Oceania (PNG) 1.3 29 260Southeast Asia 65 13Cambodia 3.4 33 270Indonesia 12.3 6 200Lao PDR 1.5 29 280Myanmar 3.1 7 200Philippines 15 21 270Thailand 12 21 260Vietnam 17 22 280

South Asia 294 23Bangladesh 47 38 340India 208 21 290Nepal 6.2 28 260Pakistan 29 20 270Sri Lanka 4.5 25 260

65

capacity, inefficient marketingsystems, poverty, and sanitation andhealth-related problems are ofteninterrelated and have worsened inmany developing countries, moreso in the last decade.

Food insecurity and poverty areclosely related for poor, small, andmarginal farmers. Lack of sufficientand reliable income lies at the coreof food insecurity and the inabilityto achieve sustainable livelihood.Inadequate or inaccessible healthservices and sanitation, food supply,and modern energy sources renderthe poor susceptible to malnourish-ment and illnesses, therebyhindering their productivity.Disasters have also caused foodinsecurity among vulnerablepopulation groups in the region.

Rising population density,migration to vulnerable areas, andassociated environmentaldegradation magnify the effects ofsuch disasters. Large anddevastating impact in terms of priceupswings and instability of foodaccess often push people fromtransitory poverty into povertytraps. Global environmentalchanges as well as climatevariability triggered by El Niño,will constitute additional stresses,and may contribute to furtherweakening the resilience oftraditional food productionsystems.

Disaggregations reveal that thedifferent subregions of the Asia-Pacific region have specific

concerns and opportunities. Forinstance, South Asia is home toone-third of the world’sundernourished and two-fifths ofthe world’s poor. The subregionaccounted for 51% of the world’smalnourished children in 1995,which is projected to decline to41% in 2020. With such a highconcentration of hungry children,the future of these nations isalready gloomy. Should thesedisaggregations and stark realitiesnot be kept in mind while settingour research and support priorities?

Poverty remains mainly a ruralphenomenon in the region. Aboutthree-fourths of the poor live inrural areas. Even urban poverty ispartly an indirect effect of ruralpoverty. Agrarian and landless ruralhouseholds have the highestconcentration of poor. With over3.44 billion people, the regionincludes several of the mostpopulous countries of the world.Although the region’s populationgrowth rate decelerated from 2.36%per year in the 1960s to 1.43%during the 1990s, some countrieshave population growth rates ofover 2% per year and highpopulation densities. Thus, in somecases the absolute number of poorpeople increased although theproportion of population under thepoverty line declined.

While fast growing economiesneed to enhance rural incomes toreduce intersectoral disparities andachieve balanced human develop-

66

ment, low-income countries have tocontend with problems like poverty,food insecurity, low levels ofhuman resources, institutional andinfrastructure bottlenecks impedingproductivity, limited access tocapital and modern technology, andmarketing constraints.

The Strategic ConcernsPopulation pressure anddemographic transition. By 2020,another 750 million, i.e., 22% morepeople will be added to the region,which is also expected to witness arapid rural-urban transformationwith the ratio of urban populationincreasing from 36 to 48% in twodecades. As people’s incomesincrease and they move from ruralto urban areas, their dietary patternsdiversify. Their demand for cerealschanges from coarse to fine grains,and they tend to consume morelivestock products, fruits,vegetables, and processed food. Ifincomes also grow at ratesresembling recent trends, countriesin the Asia-Pacific region wouldaccount for more than half theincrease in the global demand forcereals and an even larger share(57%) for meat products. While thedemand for cereals for directconsumption (rice) is beginning tolevel off, the derived demand forcereals (maize for animal feed) isgrowing substantially, mainlydriven by the rapidly growingdemand for meat.

In addition to an increase indemand for food and agriculturalraw materials, there will be asubstantial change in thecomposition of demand withgrowing incomes, urbanization,and nutritional awareness. Can theregion meet these demands? Thecase for optimism is not lost. Pastdecades have witnessed a moredaunting demand-supply situationfor food and agricultural productsthan prevailing now. PopulousAsia-Pacific countries havedemonstrated a remarkablecapacity to respond to thechallenges of rising demanddespite severe resourceconstraints. However, theseprojections have profoundimplications for the availabilityand adequacy of land, water, andlabor for agricultural purposes, aswell as for the environment andtechnologies as the agriculturalsector gradually adapts to themarket forces.

Population pressure has anadverse influence on poverty andfood security. But poverty and foodsecurity also affect demographictransition to lower fertility rates indeveloping countries. Given suchan inter-relationship with healthand fertility, poverty and foodsecurity should form an importantelement in strategies aimed atreducing population growth,minimizing environmentaldegradation, and promotingsocioeconomic development.

67

Resource base degradation andwater scarcity. Populationpressure as well as inappropriatepolicies and institutionalframework are taking a heavy tollon the natural resource base. Agood part of the cropped land in theregion is in fragile, rainfed, andsemi-arid areas, with steep slopesor poor soils or both. Low anddeclining soil fertility is a growingproblem. The situation calls forcontinuing efforts to improve landtenure administration andinstitution building for better accessby the poor, on the one hand, and toprotect and work with indigenousrights in natural resources on theother. Dwindling per capitaresources and the slow growth ofproductive nonfarm employmentopportunities in many parts of theregion have intensified the pressureexerted by the poor on naturalresources through nonsustainablefarming practices. Indeed, thereexist discernible links between thenatural resource base, agriculturalproductivity, health and nutritionalstatus of the population, andpoverty.

Globalization, inequality, andpoverty. Globalization has arousedthe fear that it exacerbatesinequality, helps perpetuate povertyin some segments of society, andcontributes to the inability ofdeveloping countries to defendthemselves from external shocks.Indeed, calls for a slowdown to

embrace it intensified as economiesthat openly welcomed globalizationbegan to tumble in the wake of theAsian crisis. Such calls are akin tothe regime of inappropriate controlsthat was quite popular in the 1950sand early 1960s but failed indelivering growth and povertyalleviation. In contrast,cross-country evidence indicatesthat opening up of the goodsmarkets and pursuing comparativeadvantage in line with factorendowments is advantageous forgrowth and equality in developingcountries where low-skill labor isabundant and capital is scarce.However, subtle timing andsequencing of liberalization areimportant. Appropriatecompensatory and targeted policiesmay be needed. Moreover,institutional mechanisms toenhance the transparency andefficiency of international trade andfinancial transactions and tomonitor and signal impendingdistress situations need to bepromoted.

In recent years, there has been ageneral feeling of acceptance of, ifnot resignation to, the globalizationof agriculture. The growinglinkages of small farms throughtrade may not be obvious in a smallfarming village, but theirimportance is increasingly evident.Between 1970 and 1996,agricultural trade in the Asia-Pacific region (in nominal terms)expanded by about a factor of

68

eight, almost at the same rate as thegrowth of world agricultural trade.In 1997, the total share of Asia’sagricultural trade (exports plusimports) constituted 18% of worldagricultural trade.

Many developing countries stilllack the minimum technical andlegal specialists to be able to takeadvantage of the special anddifferential treatment available tothem and to participate effectivelyin the coming negotiations toensure that their interests are takeninto account. Countries in theregion may therefore wish todevelop national expertise onvarious agriculture-relatedagreements.

The Way AheadGlobal call to break the unholyalliance. The unholy alliancebetween food insecurity, poverty,and environmental degradationmust be broken. Freeing humanityfrom hunger and malnutrition is amoral obligation. During the pastdecade, three major world summitswere held to address these issues:the Earth Summit on environmentalprotection and sustainabledevelopment (1992), the WorldSummit for Social Development onalleviation of poverty and social ills(1995), and the World FoodSummit on food security (1996).

To top these, the United NationsMillennium Summit 2000, in its

Declaration, highlighted theimportance of values andprinciples, peace and security,development and poverty eradica-tion, protecting our commonenvironment, human rights,democracy and good governance;and protecting the vulnerable.

In addition, there are severalregional and global fora, includingthe CGIAR Centers’ Weeks and theGlobal Forum on AgriculturalResearch (GFAR) whichcontinuously review the situationand evolve dynamic and responsivepriorities, strategies, and actionplans. We must keep track of thesedevelopments and internalize themin our visions, strategies, andprograms. In this context, wegreatly appreciate ICRISAT’sphilosophy of ‘Science with ahuman face’, which is akin to ourlongstanding approach.

ICRISAT faces the greatestchallenge of addressing the highlycomplex problems of the harshestagroecosystems. The Semi-AridTropics is characterized bypersistent drought, infertile soils,huge loss of top soil, and highuncertainties of climate change andscant rainfall. It has the formidabletask of breaking this unholyalliance. The promisingdevelopments in technologies andtheir diffusion in the past and thepresent, and the holistic plans forproductivity and sustainabilitygains undertaken by the Institutegive us hope.

69

Technology with a human face.Technologies cannot operate in avacuum; they must have a humanface. During the past three decades,excellent progress has been made inreducing hunger and poverty. Thiswas mostly science- and technology-led. But much still needs to beaccomplished before hunger isfinally wiped out. Someone has said,“It is humankind that is responsiblefor having imposed hunger on itselffor so long, but humankind is alsocapable of eliminating this burden.There can be no greater challengethan this”.

We must look ahead to what isnew in the century. We must traversethrough the old revolution of risinghuman expectations overlappingthose stemming from cyberspace,globalization, and new technology,especially biotechnology.

As we harness new opportunities,we must be mindful of the interestsof billions of small and subsistencefarmers, fisherfolk, and forestdwellers. We cannot afford toneglect social aspirations for amore just, equitable, andsustainable way of life. We mustalways keep in sight the hungriest,the poorest, and the water-hungry,sun-drenched vast SAT lands as wedecide our priorities, policies, andstrategies.

Enhanced and sustained foodand agricultural production.There is ample scope to improveour average yields. Generation and

effective assessment and diffusionof packages of appropriatetechnologies involving a system-and program-based approach,participatory mechanisms, greatercongruency between productivityand sustainability throughintegrated pest management andintegrated soil-, water-, irrigation-,and nutrient-management should beaggressively promoted. The foodand other agricultural products thusproduced in pockets where neededthe most, improve the entitlementsof the inhabitants. In predominantlyagrarian economies, there is nomechanism for distributingentitlements to peasants other thanthat of enabling them to developtheir food and agricultural produce.Rainfed and other noncongenialareas, where the entitlements arelow, must receive high priority.

Raising agricultural productivityrequires continuing investment inhuman resource development,agricultural R&D, improvedinformation and extension, farm-to-market roads and relatedinfrastructure, and efficient small-scale, farmer-controlled irrigationtechnologies. Such investmentswould give small farmers theoption and flexibility to adjust tomarket conditions.

Entitlement to food. Hunger oftenresults from people’s lack of accessto the plentiful food in the market.Nobel laureate Amartya Sen has thefollowing to say, which eloquently

70

summarizes the path policy makersmust follow:

“ The mere presence of foodin the economy, or in themarket, does not entitle aperson to consume it. Aperson’s entitlements dependon what she owns initiallyand what she can acquirethrough exchange.”

Building technological and humanresource capital. Research is theengine of growth. Directed researchpolicies and desired support arefundamental to the growth anddevelopment process, which mustincreasingly become science-based.Blending new, conventional, andindigenous technologies, called“ecotechnology”, is the desired path.In India, the ICAR, its institutes, andagricultural universities haveprepared their Perspective Plan –Vision 2020, an exercise which hasprovided the necessary roadmap.The NATP, AHRD, and otherinitiatives have provided targetedresearch and human resourcedevelopment support. Theseinitiatives must be judiciouslyharnessed and effectively monitoredfor their impacts.

I wish to particularly highlightthe prospects of biotechnology. It isfortuitous that as we have enteredthe new millennium and wereseeking a technologicalbreakthrough which may spearheadagricultural production in the next30 years, modern biotechnology

with its multiple and far-reachingpotential has appeared on thehorizon. It has the potential toenhance yield levels, increase input-use efficiency, reduce risk anddepress the effects of biotic andabiotic stresses, and enhancenutritional quality leading toincreased food security, nutritionaladequacy, poverty alleviation,environmental protection, andsustainable agriculture. Oftenreferred to as the ‘Gene Revolution’or ‘Bio-Revolution’, biotechnology,if judiciously harnessed, and blendedwith traditional and conventionaltechnologies and supported byappropriate policies, can lead to anEvergreen Revolution – synergizingthe accelerated pace of growth andsustainable development.

Future efforts must concentrateon reaping the benefits as well asminimizing the negative effects ofbiotechnology on a case by casebasis. Biotechnology should be keptin a balanced perspective byintegrating it within the nationalresearch and technologydevelopment framework. It shouldbe used as an adjunct to rather thana substitute for conventionaltechnologies in solving problemsidentified through national prioritysetting mechanisms. Priority settingshould also take into accountnational development policies,private sector interests, marketpossibilities, public perception, andconsumers’ views. Accordingly,various stakeholders, the public and

71

private sector, industries, NGOs,and civil societies should beinvolved in the formulation andimplementation of nationalbiotechnology policies, strategies,plans, and programs.

The technology risks must becritically and scientifically assessedin a transparent manner. Capacitiesand measures should be in place tomanage the risks, minimize thenegative effects, and promote thepositive impacts. Each countrymust have the necessaryinfrastructure, human resource,financial support, and policy tomeet the challenges and capture thenovel opportunities. Competencewill particularly be required informulating country-specific ruleson biosafety and IntellectualProperty Rights managementregimes, along with commensuratefinancial, institutional, information,and human resources for theireffective implementation.

Keeping pace with globalization.The globalization of agriculturaltrade will result in access tomarkets, new opportunities foremployment and incomegeneration, productivity gains, andincreased flow of investments intosustainable agriculture and ruraldevelopment. If managed well, theliberalization of agriculturalmarkets will be beneficial indeveloping countries in the longrun. It will force the adoption ofnew technologies, shift productionfunctions upwards, and attract new

capital into the deprived sector.Trade agreements must beaccompanied by operationallyeffective measures to ease theadjustment process for smallfarmers in developing countries.

Exploiting cyberspace. The powerof Information and CommunicationTechnology (ICT) must beharnessed to empower the poor. Itshould touch the untouched. Effortmust be made to strengtheninformatics in agriculture bydeveloping new databases, linkingthe databases to internationaldatabases, and adding value toinformation in order to facilitatedecision-making at various levels.Developing production models forvarious agroecological regimes inorder to forecast productionpotential should assume greaterimportance. Using remote sensingand GIS, natural and otheragricultural resources should bemapped at micro and macro levels.The data can be effectively used forland- and water-use planning,agricultural forecasting, marketintelligence, e-commerce,contingency planning, andprediction of disease and pestincidences. This is particularlyimportant for SAT countries whereuncertainties rule the regime.

EpilogueWays of improving productivityand diversifying agriculture and therural economy in order to create

72

employment and incomeopportunities which will ultimatelyalleviate poverty and deprivation,will continue to occupy the mindsof policy makers in the region.Broadbased sustained growth inagriculture and the rural sector isthe key strategy for addressing ruralpoverty. However, it must beremembered that the sector faces avastly changing landscape in aglobally competitive environmentand is caught in a bind withincreasing costs of capital and laborrelative to output prices. Industriali-zation draws the younger, better-educated, and more productivelabor force out of agriculture, whileglobalization and trade liberali-zation call for higher efficienciesthrough the application of modernscience and technology in agricul-ture. Finding the right formula tosustain agricultural growth in asetting of rapid and dynamicchange requires vision, forward-looking policy measures, andinnovative approaches.

Major paradigm shifts are neededto break the unholy alliance. Theproblems and solutions must bedisaggregated. For instance, theSouth Asian subregion should havethe highest regional and globalpriority while addressing the issues.Likewise, fragile agroecosystemssuch as the SAT must receive highestsupport from all stakeholders,NARS, the CG system, the UnitedNations, NGOs, and the privatesector. The subregional and regional

peculiarities must underpin globalagenda setting. Major shifts will beneeded in the structure, function,governance, and policies of thesebodies to realize the goal of a hunger-free Asia and world. The name of thegame is partnership. Appropriatemechanisms must be in place andeffectively managed for ensuringpartnership through forging verticaland horizontal linkages.

The FAO as a cosponsor of theCGIAR and the provider of theTAC and GFAR Secretariats, isone of the most formidablepartners of the CGIAR system. Inparticular with ICRISAT, theOrganization has had excellentcooperation in programformulation and execution,networking, and human resourcedevelopment. We must furtherstrengthen our cooperation in thefield of policy advocacy,information sharing, andmanagement of agrobiodiversity,and technologies. The FAORegional Office for Asia and thePacific Region, as the initiator ofAPAARI, would further bestrengthening this vibrant regionalassociation for priority setting andinformation sharing in closepartnership with NARS, ICRISAT,other CG centers, GFAR, andother regional and internationalorganizations and initiatives. Weshall welcome ICRISAT’scollaboration, particularly in ourSpecial Programme on FoodSecurity (SPFS) in the SAT region.

73

Value-based Crop-livestockProduction Systems for the

Future in the Semi-Arid Tropics

V Kurien1

IntroductionThe history of civilization is closelyassociated with domestic animals.In the early days of humancommunities, a few large animalswere domesticated, enablinghumanity to steadily rise fromprimitive conditions to a life ofhigher quality. Large domesticanimals made the transition fromhunting, gathering, and shiftingcultivation to more settled lifestylespossible. Domestic animals haveplayed a key role in thedevelopment of the humancommunity and contributed to itswell being by releasing people fromthe hard labor of field work;enabling the transportation ofnatural resources and farmproducts to other communities forbarter or sale; providing fat andprotein for improved nutrition andmilk; providing leather, wool, and

horn for clothing and shelter; fatfor lighting; dried manure forcooking and heating; power todraw water for domestic use andirrigation; and improved andintegrated farming systems oncropped land. The domestication ofanimals was the first step towardsimproving the quality of lifethrough science and technology.

The major advances incivilization leading to trade,industrialization, the application ofscience, and the development ofmarket economy capitalism weremade possible mainly becauseanimals had first freed a proportionof the population from the dailyroutine of food production.

Traditions and Values2

For thousands of years, everyonehas been in touch with domesticanimals on a day-to-day basis.

Kurien, V. 2001. Value-based crop-livestock production systems for the future in the semi-aridtropics. Pages 73–82 in Future of agriculture in the semi-arid tropics: proceedings of an Interna-tional Symposium on Future of Agriculture in Semi-Arid Tropics, 14 Nov 2000, ICRISAT,Patancheru, India (Bantilan, M.C.S., Parthasarathy Rao, P., and Padmaja, R., eds.). Patancheru502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics.

1. Chairman, Institute of Rural Management, Anand, India.2. This section is based on John Hodges’s article, “Animals and Values in Society”, Livestock

Research for Rural Development (11) 3, 1999.

74

People have held them in highesteem and even regarded them assacred. Animals are wealth and areused both for savings and ascurrency. In some parts of theworld, the status of a family isoften recorded by the number oflivestock owned. In parts ofAfrica, a bride is given away inreturn for livestock. In India,Hinduism holds the cow in highesteem and sees a link between thelife of domestic cattle and that ofhumans. In Moslem society, sheepand goats are vital to fulfill religiousobligations. In brief, domesticanimals have greatly influencedcommunity rituals and values inmost early societies.

While traditions and rituals areoften beautiful and mark for us thepattern of life, they are rarelyessential. In contrast, communityand public values enable a societyto survive and advance — or theycause its decline. Values directactivities; they allocate resources ina society and thereby shape itsnature.

The values our society holdstoday are focused upon materialprosperity, economic growth, GrossNational Product (GNP), and therights of the individual to do whathe or she prefers with the rewardsof labor and investment. In ademocracy like ours, society’svalues shape government policyand legislation. People today aredeeply concerned that our current,narrowly focused values do not

provide sufficient care for theenvironment and for animals andfurther, that they define quality oflife solely in material terms forimmediate consumption.

The new values have comeabout partly because of the lack ofday-to-day contact with animalsand the natural environment. Thefact that a person owns animalsleads to a personal commitment tocare for them. When peopleaccompany cattle, sheep or goatsinto the natural environment, theyrealize that animals and humancommunities are parts of the wholenatural order. Domestic animalsneed society for protection. Neithercan live in isolation.

Thus, the values of simplersocieties were for thousands ofyears based upon a holistic view oflife, which has been lost. Wediscovered that by focusing upon asingle component, like cropproduction, we can make it moreproductive, but in our enthusiasmwe forget the balance of the whole.This is the danger of reductionism.We need to ponder the deeperimplications of the lost relationshipof our civilization with theenvironment, with domesticanimals, and with each other.

Rural Livelihood SystemsIndian farmers have traditionallypreferred crop farming, and greatsuccess has been achieved infoodgrain production through the

75

adoption of high-yielding varietiesand associated packages ofimproved technology. But cropproduction alone is subject to ahigh degree of risk and uncertaintyand provides seasonal, irregular,and uncertain farm income andemployment to farmers. The problems are more acute insemi-arid regions than in others.Added to this is the decreasingfarm size and increasing number ofoperational holdings. On anaverage, the size of land holdingsin India is declining. Between1985-86 and 1990-91 alone,operational holdings increased from97 million to 106 million while theaverage size of operational holdingsdecreased from 1.69 ha to 1.55 ha.The small and marginal farms thataccounted for 76.2% of the totalfarms increased to 78.4% duringthe same period. Similarly, thelarge- and medium-sized farmsdecreased from 10.2 to 8.7%.Succession laws pertaining to landdivision and fragmentation areleading to uneconomic farm sizesin India. This trend is unlikely tochange in the near future.

The SAT is the largest region inIndia with 70% of the country’stotal cropped area. This regionsupports 40% of the population andcontributes about 45% to total foodsupplies. The farmers of the regionare generally poor and have a lowrisk-bearing ability. The persistenceof mass poverty in these areasshows that interventions have

failed. One of the major problemsis the suitability of GreenRevolution technologies to thediverse and risk-prone conditionsof semi-arid areas for widespreadadoption. As a result, agriculture ina large part of the semi-arid areasstill remains under low-productivity; and low outputconditions aggravate poverty.

The semi-arid areas have alsobeen prone to large-scaledegradation of natural resourcescaused by depletion of forests, soilerosion, declining common poolresources, etc. The consequence is afurther erosion of the livelihoodsupport system of the poor whodepend on them. People havevoluntarily adopted many strategies— ranging from a tendency tooverexploit the already degradedresources to diversifying the sourcesof livelihood like migrating out tobetter off areas — to overcometheir vulnerability. Evidencesuggests that such diversificationseems to have become a majorsurvival strategy of the poor. Itassumes added importance in thesemi-arid areas in terms ofaddressing the question of povertyand issues related to sustainability ofrural livelihood systems.

Deteriorating LivelihoodSystems and SecurityFrom time immemorial, Indianfarmers had been practising mixedfarming with crop and livestock

76

enterprises supplementing orcomplementing each other. Withincreasing population and decreasingfarm size, there has been increasingpressure on land, resulting in cropcultivation being extended to the lessfertile and marginal lands. In thesemi-arid areas, land undercultivation has not been able to feedthe population resulting in bothmalnutrition and undernutrition,more so among the small andmarginal landholders and thelandless. The rural livelihoodsystems are increasingly becomingunsustainable. To reduce suchproblems, there is a need to rearmilch animals along with cropproduction, ensuring regular incomeand employment throughout the year.

The combination of crop andlivestock enterprises contributes tolivelihood sustainability and alsoresults in environment-friendlymanagement systems. Livelihoodsustainability is ensured throughquick and regular returns, improvednutrition, and provision ofemployment to nonutilized familylabor (especially women andchildren). The system isenvironment-friendly becausebyproducts of crop and livestockserve as inputs in the production ofboth enterprises. The exactcomposition of crops and optimallevel of livestock enterprise will varyin different regions based onagroclimatic conditions andresource endowments in differentsocioeconomic groups.

Ensuring livelihood security—food, nutritional, social, andemotional security—is the primeconcern of farmers. Eachcomponent has its own thresholdthat varies with time, space, andindividual families. In the semi-aridareas, food security refers to theability of the farm family to meetthe food and fodder needs of thefamily and the livestock it owns,given the resources under itscontrol. Understanding rurallivelihood systems in a holisticmanner and ensuring livelihoodsecurity to rural families in semi-arid areas is critical at this juncture.

Until now, the issue of foodsecurity has been tackled at thenational level irrespective of wherethe food is produced in India.Emphasis was on the resource richregions of the country. Greenrevolution technologies helped Indiaachieve food security although theyresulted in regional disparities infoodgrain production andinequalities in income distributionamong farmers. Green revolutiontechnologies were developed withpredominantly technological andeconomic perspectives. Farmers inresource rich regions readilyadopted them since food securitywas not an issue they had tocontend with, whereas the sametechnologies did not find manyadopters in the semi-arid regions.There is growing evidence to showthat livelihood security is a keydeterminant in technology adoption.

77

To date, we have been evolvingand evaluating technologies basedpurely on our own perspective ofsuccess or failure and on economicrationale. The success or failure oftechnologies are gauged usingyardsticks developed by tech-nologists. However, farmers gaugetechnologies based on considera-tions important to them and notmerely on technical and economicparameters alone. It is often arguedthat the technologies developed forsemi-arid regions are inappropriatebased on observations that farmerswere not adopting them on a largescale. This is a misplaced fallacy. Itappears that the nonadoption ofmainstream technologies is notbased solely on farmers’ technicalconsideration (inappropriateness)of the technologies but acombination of other parametersincluding technical. The rationalein developing and disseminatingtechnologies is primarily based ontechnical considerations andjustified by economic analysis bythe scientific community whereinnontechnical and noneconomiccomponents are largely ignored.For example, several farmers inPanchamahals (a semi-arid districtof Gujarat) grow a combination ofrice (short duration) and pigeonpea(long duration)—one crop thatrequires standing water and theother well-drained soils. Whileagronomists would argue that sucha combination is inappropriatebased on technological

considerations alone, economistsmay not be able to justify it basedon economic rationality. Toagronomists and economists, amaize and pigeonpea combinationwould be near perfect. Do we thensay that farmers are irrational?

Given the erratic rainfall and itsdistribution, farmers found that ifrainfall is heavy and early in theseason, the maize crop is destroyed,rice benefits, and the pigeonpeacrop may suffer slightly. This isespecially true in low-lying areas.But they get both crops. They alsobelieve that the two crops extractnutrients and moisture from the soilat different points in time.Alternatively, wheat could begrown after the harvest of rice ifthe residual moisture facilitatessowing. However, their experiencesuggests that both being shallow-rooted crops, the wheat crop willsuffer for want of nutrients andmoisture during the later stages ofits growth when the upper layers ofthe soil become dry.

What seems inappropriate toagricultural scientists may beperfectly appropriate to farmers.The farmers, for reasons otherthan the inappropriateness of thetechnologies, may not adopt whatseems appropriate for thedevelopers of technologies. In mostcases, adopters of modernagricultural technologies wereabove the livelihood securitythreshold and nonadopters wereinvariably below it.

78

If significant gains have to bemade in the semi-arid regions,future research should beaddressed in a transdisciplinary andholistic framework without losingsight of the farmers’ perspectives.Agronomists, economists, socialscientists, livestock specialists,environmentalists, and othersconcerned must work together inmeeting the needs of a farm family.

Biodiversity in Crop andLivestock ProductionSystemsCrops. Today, much of cropdiversity is being lost. Many uniquevarieties are disappearing andbecoming extinct. The FAOestimates that since the beginningof this century, about 75 % of thegenetic diversity of agriculturalcrops has been lost. “Geneticerosion” refers to the loss ofgenetic diversity between andwithin populations of the samespecies. The primary reason forthis loss is that commercial,uniform varieties are replacingtraditional varieties. When farmersabandon their community-bredvarieties to plant new ones, the oldvarieties become extinct.

The “Green Revolution” refersto the development of high-yieldinggrains that were introduced byinternational crop breedinginstitutions in the 1950s. Thespread of new varieties wasdramatic. In the process, new and

uniform cultivars from both thepublic and private sectors replacedcommunity-bred varieties on amassive scale. Erosion of cropgenetic diversity threatens theexistence and stability of our globalfood supply.

Crop genetic diversity is the keyto food security and sustainableagriculture because it enablesfarmers to adapt crops suited totheir own ecological needs andcultural traditions. Without thisdiversity, options for long-termsustainability and agricultural self-reliance are lost. The type of seedsown to a large extent determinesthe farmer’s need for fertilizers,pesticides, and irrigation.Communities that lose community-bred varieties and indigenousknowledge about them risk losingcontrol over their farming systemsand becoming dependent onexternal sources of seeds and theinputs needed to grow and protectthem. Therefore, self reliance inagriculture is impossible without anagricultural system adapted to acommunity and its environment.

An estimated 60 % of theworld’s agricultural land is stillfarmed by traditional or subsistencefarmers, mostly in marginal areas.A majority of the world’s resource-poor farmers are women. AsNorwegian plant breeder TrygveBerg points out, most of thesouth’s farmers produce foodunder conditions which areconsidered marginal, making their

79

problems and needs far frommarginal. Though frequentlycharacterized as “resource poor,”many marginal farming areas tendto be extraordinarily rich in plantand animal genetic diversity andtraditional knowledge.

In spite of success in raisingyields and food production in somehigh-potential areas, the GreenRevolution’s universal approach tohigh-input, high-yielding plantbreeding has been largelyunsuccessful in less hospitable,site-specific farming environments.For the majority of the world’sfarmers, therefore, self reliance infood production depends onadapting technologies andgermplasm to a wide range of poorproduction environments.

Ultimately, farming communitieshold the key to the conservationand use of agricultural biodiversity,and to food security for millions ofthe world’s poor. They are theinnovators best suited to developnew technologies, germplasm, andmanage their diverse ecosystems.As plant collector David Woodobserves: “There are about 3 billionfarming people in the world. Theyhave almost infinite capacity,experience, and application toselect and maintain cropgermplasm”. In the long run, theconservation of plant geneticdiversity depends not so much on asmall number of institutional plantbreeders in the formal sector, buton the vast number of poor

farmers who select, improve, anduse crop diversity, especially inmarginal farming environments.But neither institutional breedersnor farmer breeders can succeedalone. Success depends onintegrated approaches that combinethe best of traditional knowledgeand institutional technologies.

Livestock. Worldwide, the greatestthreat to domestic animal diversitycomes from the highly specializednature of commercial livestockproduction. In the industrializedworld, commercial livestockfarming is based on very fewbreeds or strains that have beenselected for the intensiveproduction of meat, milk or eggs inhighly controlled and regulatedconditions. The spread of industrialagriculture in the south placesthousands of native breeds at riskfrom genetic dilution orreplacement by imported stocks.Commercial breeds imported fromNorth America and western Europeare usually unable to sustain highproduction in less hospitableenvironments. They requireintensive management and costlyinputs such as high-protein feed,medication, and climate-controlledhousing. Introduction of intensiveanimal production in most areas ofthe south creates a dependency onimported technologies andgermplasm; this is neitheraffordable nor sustainable for poorfarmers.

80

The common approach ofimporting exotic animal breeds toboost productivity of livestock inthe south is now being rethought inrecognition of the fact that nativebreeds are far more likely to beproductive under low-inputconditions. Many native breedshave great potential to increaseproduction without loss of localadaptation, which can be realizedwith appropriate selectionprograms. According to an FAOexpert on animal genetics, “In 80%of the world’s rural areas, thelocally adapted genetic resourcesare superior to common modernbreeds”.

Ironically, it is the unparalleledproductivity and success of theseindustrial stocks that is indirectlyresponsible for most of the erosionand loss of poultry geneticresources worldwide. Well-meaningforeign aid programs that donateimported animal semen to thedeveloping world, for example,have been cited as agents ofextinction for many indigenousbreeds, particularly cattle. It isimportant to note, however, thatthese same technologies, ifproperly used, can be valuable toolsfor genetic resource managementand conservation.

The gradual disappearance ofindigenous breeds that are able tosurvive in extreme environments,such as deserts or othernoncultivable lands, underminesfood and livelihood security for the

poor, and the capacity of people tosurvive in marginal areas. Anestimated 12% of the world’spopulation lives in areas wherepeople depend almost entirely onproducts obtained from ruminantlivestock — cattle, sheep, andgoats. Farmers and pastoralists inmany areas of the world not onlycontribute significantly to themaintenance of biodiversity indomesticated animals, but also helpkeep otherwise barren tracts of landavailable for human habitation. Forthese farmers, an animal’s mostessential quality is not its rate ofgrowth or yield of milk, but itsbasic ability to survive andreproduce, which in turn ensuresthe family’s self reliance andsurvival.

The challenge for the scientificcommunity is to link conservationand development by enabling farmcommunities to assume a majorrole in managing and benefitingfrom the genetic resources onwhich their livelihoods depend. Tosucceed, farmers must havegreater control over their geneticresources, access to technologies,research information, and a widerrange of genetic resources andenhanced germplasm. This requiresthe formal sector to build upon theknowledge and experience offarmers, involve farmers in settingthe research agenda, enable them toselect and assess technologies, andwork with them as partners in themaintenance and further

81

development of their own seedsand livestock breeds.

Women and LivestockManagementLivestock management was alwaysperceived as the traditionalresponsibility of women. Forwomen, livestock are essential as asource of fuel, food, andsupplementary income for thefamily. For most women, high fat inmilk is more important than thequantity of milk. Many womenprefer keeping goats due to theease of handling, low input need,inexpensive source of good qualityfood for the family, and also themanure.

Women possess soundknowledge of livestock productionmanagement, particularly of feedresources. They know eachanimal’s production characteristics,temperament, and feeding behavior.Most women are aware of the needfor good quality feed in order toachieve better production but feelthat feeding a nonproducing animalis not necessary. A properunderstanding of traditionalmethods, which have emerged outof experience, supplemented withnewer knowledge could help indeveloping effective animal feedingstrategies for more productiveanimals. Besides major feedresources like crop residues andcultivated fodder, women haveidentified locally existing grasses,

creepers, weeds, and tree speciesthat could be utilized assupplementary feeds and arebeneficial for dairy animals. Mostof these are available seasonally andare generally dried and stored foruse in the dry season. Theavailability of good quality feedsand fodder is always a constraint inrainfed and underdeveloped areas.

Feeding accounts for almost70% of the cost of livestockproduction. Farmers are usuallyblamed for keeping anunnecessarily large number ofanimals because many animals areconsidered as nonproductive andare fed without any returns. Acritical look at the practicesadopted by farmers, particularlywomen, indicates that throughexperience they have developedeffective ways of optimizingutilization of available feedresources. Such efforts arenecessary simultaneously withbreed improvement for large-scalelivestock development programs.

The milch buffalo, the maindairy animal in India till recently, isusually stall fed. Availableconcentrates and good qualityfodder are offered to them. Highproducing animals, recently calvedanimals, or those in late pregnancyare offered special supplementaryfeeds like edible oil, jaggery, grains,and oil cake. Materials likecottonseed, cotton seed cake,copra cake, and rice polishing werehistorically recognized as beneficial

82

and have been traditionally used tofeed buffaloes or high-producingcows. These practices are clearlyindicative of the farmers’ wisdomand show that their approaches areexercises in resource optimization.Scientists, based on theirspecialized training, tend to look atfarmers’ reality within the rationalframework of their disciplinesrather than the totality. Farmers, onthe other hand, look at reality as itexists before them without beingaware of the disciplinary divisions.Therefore, before criticizing themfor resistance to change or tryingto forcefully introduce systemsaccording to our own thinking, it isessential to critically study thetraditional practices. It is possibleto find solutions to manyconstraints from the farmersthemselves, particularly fromwomen.

ConclusionAs Checkland points out, “it is notnature, which divides itself up intophysics, biology, psychology,economics, sociology, etc., it is wewho impose these divisions onnature. And these divisions becomeso ingrained in our thinking that thepower of reductionist scienceaside, it is not surprising that wefind it hard to see the unity thatunderlies the divisions”. It is only

when we as scientists look at theworld in a holistic manner from afarmers’ perspective by removingthe blindfold imposed by ournarrow disciplinary training andexperiences will we be able tomake a difference to the lives offarmers living in semi-arid areas.

I hope that the distinguishedaudience gathered here todaywould consider thes followingpropositions for the prosperity ofsemi-arid areas:• incorporate farmers’ and societal

values based on our traditionsinto their research agenda;

• look at the reality of farmers’problems, constraints, andopportunities from the farmers’perspective rather than from theirown;

• look at crop-livestock (and other)systems in the context of thefarmers’ livelihood systems toassure livelihood security;

• test, standardize, and promotethe traditional (indigenous)knowledge base on the farmers’wisdom and experiences;

• develop technologies that ensureconservation of biodiversity ofboth plant and animal species;and

• develop technologies that arehumane, gender sensitive,sustainable, equitable, andenvironmentally friendly.

83

Role of Global and Regional Fora in SATAgriculture: Future Scenario

R S Paroda1

Paroda, R.S. 2001. Role of global and regional fora in SAT agriculture: Future scenario. Pages 83–86 in Future of agriculture in the semi-arid tropics: proceedings of an International Symposium onFuture of Agriculture in Semi-Arid Tropics, 14 Nov 2000, ICRISAT, Patancheru, India (Bantilan,M.C.S., Parthasarathy Rao, P., and Padmaja, R., eds.). Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India:International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics.

1. Director General, Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi110 001. The paper was presented by Mangla Rai, Deputy Director General (Crops), ICAR.

The Semi-Arid Tropics (SAT)comprise 55 countries whichtogether account for a sixth of theworld’s population. Among thebasic issues confronting the regionare rural poverty, food andnutritional insecurity, populationgrowth, urbanization, environmentalconcerns, global climatic changes,concentration and internalization ofinput supplies, and agriculturalsustainability. It has been observedthat economies that arepredominantly agriculture-basedare beset with rural poverty. In thedeveloped and industrializedcountries, barely 4-10% of thepeople are dependent onagriculture; on the contrary, in theSAT, almost 65% of the populationis dependent on agriculture and astaggering 800 million people aremalnourished.

Rapid urbanization is presentingseveral problems to the economiesof countries in the SAT. With goodland being diverted for nonagricul-

tural purposes, these countries areexperiencing water and landscarcity. In such a scenario, peri-urban agriculture has a veryimportant role to play in attainingfood security. Then there are globalclimatic changes to contend withwhich are far more pronounced inthe SAT and need to be managedeffectively.

This scenario underscores theneed for cooperation to achievefood security and for harmonizingintergovernmental conventions andagreements. This will aid theprocess of capitalizing oncomplementarities and help harnesssynergies for the benefit ofmankind. This is where global andregional fora can play a veryimportant role. It is essential thatthere be effective cooperationamong the various NARS, andbetween NARS and the CG, andNARS and regional and globalfora. In the coming years we willwitness globalization not only of

84

markets but also of insects, pests,and diseases. This calls for theharmonization of quarantine andpostquarantine regulations as well.

Global agricultural research forashould facilitate the exchange ofinformation, materials, andknowledge, and help in the processof technology transfer. They mustfoster cost-efficient collaborationamong the stakeholders; promoteintegration of NARS and enhancehuman resource developmentcapacity to help in technologygeneration and transfer; facilitatethe formulation of a truly globalframework for development-oriented agricultural research; andincrease awareness among policy-makers and donors for investmentsin agricultural research. A globalforum on agricultural research canbe successful only if there is aconsensual and efficientmechanism to set up global andregional priorities.

I believe that agriculture issimply the conversion of solarenergy by means of a biologicalsystem that is portable andmarketable into a chemical form ofenergy — you may call it food, fuelor fodder. This requires us to seeagriculture in an ecoregionalperspective in which land, labor,resources, and markets have tobring about efficient land-usemanagement. This calls for a newinstitutional mechanism for reshap-ing cooperation in agriculturalresearch and development.

Common funding principles andadequate funding mechanisms tosupport investment in this area haveto be worked out.

Coming to the Asia-PacificAssociation of AgriculturalResearch Institutions (APAARI),the road ahead must traversethrough devising strategies forregional collaboration/networks onpriority programs, development ofhuman resources, policy advocacy,resource generation, and publica-tion enhancement.

Research networks—forinformation exchange, scientificconsultation, and collaborativeresearch—have a crucial role toplay in the SAT. Regional prioritiesare addressed here and there isscope for technology spillover.Technology generated in onecountry may be useful in another.Take the case of the SAT itself. Beit pearl millet, groundnut, chickpea,pigeonpea or sorghum, varietiesreleased in one country are beingcultivated in over a dozen others inthe region. One can also capitalizeon complementarities in areas liketraining and human resourcedevelopment. Researchers can joinmainstream global research.Finally, research networks providecost-efficient coordination forsustainable agricultural researchand development.

Coming to the CGIAR-NARSpartnership, there are several issuesto be tackled. How should theregional fora be strengthened to

85

make this partnership moreeffective and constructive? Andwhen you mention effectiveness,you have to take into accountefficiency, which determines theeffectiveness of a partnership. Itseffectiveness will determine itsrelevance and the relevance will inturn determine whether thepartnership is strong or weak andwhether or not it is capable ofdelivering the desired results.

Secondly, how can the variedneeds of NARS be better addressedthrough the CGIAR system and onthe regional forum? Again, this iswhere we need to explore thepossibility of cooperative effort.

We basically need to shift to asystems approach which calls forconvergence. This would include inits ambit all the components in thechain—processing, productdevelopment, value addition,marketing, trade, and even the useof the material and its impact. Thisessentially involves placing thefarming system squarely in theambit of the production-to-consumption systems mode.

For instance, it is inherent inIntegrated Pest Management that itmust be viewed in a systemsperspective. When pearl millet isincluded in a cropping system, abasic integration is called for. Thesame principle holds good fornatural plant management systems.

I believe that farming systems isan area that needs strengthening.Take the case of India. We started

with the Indian Agricultural ResearchInstitutes, then went on to theuniversities system, then to crop-oriented institutions, and finally tonational research centers. However,the very basic systems perspectiveand integration has been lacking inour national system.

Shifting the focus to naturalresource management, agrobiodiver-sity, and conservation and utilization,it is believed that 70-75% of theagrobiodiversity lies in the develop-ing countries. However, have webeen able to evaluate its worth oreven sample the existing variability?Or have we been able to effectivelyclassify and catalog it so that it canbe used for commercial productdevelopment? These are some ofthe areas where greater effort andpartnership could be rewarding.

There is an Indian saying,‘Vasudaiva kutumbakam’, whichmeans that ‘the whole world is afamily’. In the context of bio-technology, this would mean thatthere can be no barrier to geneflow. It is estimated that there are1.7 million species in the universe.And with genomics, sequencingand functional genomics, manypossibilities would be open to us.This too is an area where com-plementarity can be capitalizedupon.

Closely related is the issue ofbiosafety. In the context of researchon transgenics, we need to joinhands to tackle the basic safetyissues, be it carcinogenicity or the

86

herbicide resistance gene which hasthe potential to get fixed or thesterility genes.

Attaining objectives in priorityareas would require South-Southcooperation, ties among countries inthe region; collaboration with CGinstitutions; and NARS linkages withinstitutions in the developed world. Ithink these fora can play a vital rolein setting regional priorities, whichcan then be effectively fitted intonational priorities.

For strengthening partnerships,creating public awareness, and

catalyzing policy-makers, interac-tion among the regional and globalfora and NARS would indeed becrucial. It is ultimately technologywhich will percolate and increaseproductivity and production, andenhance profitability for farmers.But we need to keep people in thecenter. We need to address povertyand sustainability. And for doingso, cooperation is essential.

In conclusion, cooperation,competition, and coordination arethe key words that will help usachieve a win-win situation.

87

Closing Remarks

J M Lenné1

The future of agriculture in theSAT is mainstream in ICRISAT’sresearch agenda. We have a Centersproject which will increasinglyinfluence the direction of ourresearch strategy.

Agriculture will continue todominate the economies of much ofthe SAT, as was mentioned by oneof our speakers today. And this willmost probably occur for some timeto come. Jim Ryan noted thatinvestment in agricultural researchand development has a provenrecord of contributing to povertyreduction. Thus agriculture and itsfarmers have a future in the SAT.And ICRISAT and its partners,especially through a whole range ofdifferent ways of working together,must play a continuing role inensuring that the future is as brightas possible. Poverty reduction, foodsecurity, and improved childnutrition are clearly the target ofour motto “Science with a humanface”.

Distinguished guests, colleagues,friends, ladies and gentlemen, I’vegot the impossible task of makingclosing remarks after a day when Ithink everything has already beensaid. However, I’ll try to highlightareas that are of importance toICRISAT.

As our Director General WilliamDar said this morning, today is partof a process that actually begansome time ago. We’ve had manyconsultations, we’ve haddocuments written, including awhite paper, and this hasculminated in this SAT symposiumtoday. On behalf of ICRISAT, Iwish to sincerely thank all ourdistinguished speakers for theirwords of wisdom. I’m sure we’regoing to revisit many of theseideas; we’ll be discussing themquite a lot over the next fewmonths. Some of the importantthings we need to do are to focusand set priorities; only then can webegin to make choices.

Lenné, J. M. 2001. Closing remarks. Pages 87–89 in Future of agriculture in the semi-arid tropics:proceedings of an International Symposium on Future of Agriculture in Semi-Arid Tropics, 14 Nov2000, ICRISAT, Patancheru, India (Bantilan, M.C.S., Parthasarathy Rao, P., and Padmaja, R., eds.).Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics.

1. Deputy Director General (Research), International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-AridTropics, Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India.

88

We take note of the skepticismabout biotechnological approachesto tackling malnutrition, yet thereality is that some of the donorsare investing in this area. We havegolden and iron-enriched rice beingproduced, and in India itself, wehave high betacarotene mustard andrapeseed oil being developed.Enhancing vitamin A and ironcontents of staple foods isconsidered to be one of the bestways of tackling malnutritionamong the poor. Given the 65million malnourished children inthe SAT, we must look at all theoptions available. Our sisterconcerns such as CIMMYT andIRRI are moving ahead on this.They seem to have satisfactorilyaddressed the issue of working inpartnership with the private sector.So perhaps we can learn how to goahead from them.

Many critical issues came uptoday that will affect our futureresearch strategy. I think the crucialone was made by Kurien: how weenhance the involvement of farmersin our research decision making isvery, very critical. Should webroaden our horizons to includeother crops? Then comes thequestion of choices: should they becash crops or food crops? Herepartnerships are obviously going tobe very important. There is anothercritical question posed by Jim:should we develop differentresearch and developmentstrategies for South Asia and sub-

Saharan Africa? Should we getinvolved in postharvest research?We’ve done this before, but itappears that now even more thanbefore, future utilization of some ofour crops may depend on ICRISATagain becoming active orfacilitating postharvest research.

The importance of integratedcrop-livestock systems has come upseveral times. We’re alreadyactively involved in work on cropresidues but perhaps we need toclosely examine quality issues. Andfinally, to what degree should weaddress the needs of thecommercial sector? There is plentyof demand by the alcohol, starch,and snack food groups. These maybe the most important markets forour crops in the future.

I think facts, figures and trendsare important in guiding us.However, we should not lose sightof the fact that millions of poorfarmers will continue to growsorghum, millet, groundnut,chickpea, and pigeonpea in theSAT. And whatever ICRISAT andits partners decide to do in thefuture, we have to deal with thisreality. Several of our distinguishedspeakers have highlighted theimportance of considering thewhole cropping system in ourdeliberations. In this context I’dlike to conclude with some remarksby one of our scientists at a recentworkshop. And although they relateto sorghum, I think they also applyto other ICRISAT crops.

89

He said, “Sorghum probablyrepresents half of the cerealconsumption of 60 million peoplein key sorghum-producing regionsin India. Sorghum, and certainly therainy-season crop does provide thepoor with cheap food.” However,its importance as an input in SAT

farming systems has not beenexploited. The crop’s integratednature in the Indian SAT as well asother SAT systems, is what needsattention. In other words, sorghumunderpins the system, and is thereforeimportant in allowing the poor accessto employment and food.

90

ACP Protocol African, Caribbean, and Pacific (States) Protocol

AIDS Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome

APAARI Asia-Pacific Association of Agricultural ResearchInstitutions

CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research

CIMMYT Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maïz y del Trigo

ECOWAS Economic Community of West African States

EU European Union

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FSR Farming Systems Research

GAP gross agricultural product

GDP gross domestic product

GFAR Global Forum on Agricultural Research

GIS Geographic Information System

GNP gross national product

GPS Global Positioning System

IARCs International Agricultural Research Centers

ICAR Indian Council of Agricultural Research

ICRISAT International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-AridTropics

ICT Information and Communication Technology

IDA International Development Association

ILRI International Livestock Research Institute

IMF International Monetary Fund

IPGs international public goods

IPR Intellectual Property Rights

IRRI International Rice Research Institute

LDCs less developed countries

LIFDCS Low Income Food Deficit Countries

Acronyms and Abbreviations

91

MPTP more productive technologies and practices

NARS National agricultural research systems

NATP National Agricultural Technology Project

NGO Nongovernmental organization

NRC National Research Council

NRMP Natural Resources Management Program

ODA Official Development Asssistance

OECD Organization de cooperation et de developpementeconomiques

R&D research and development

SA South Asia

SAT Semi-Arid Tropics

SEPP Socioeconomics and Policy Program

SPFS Special Programme on Food Security

SSA sub-Saharan Africa

TAC Technical Advisory Committee of the CGIAR

UNCED United Nations Conference on Environment andDevelopment

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNESCO United Nations Education, Scientific, and CulturalOrganization

USAID United States Agency for International Development

VLS Village-level Studies

WFP World Food Programme

WUE water-use efficiency

92

J R AndersonAdvisor, Rural DevelopmentStrategy and Policy

World BankWashington DC 20433USA

Phone: +202 473 0437Fax: +202 522 3308E-mail: janderson@world bank.org

V KurienChairmanInstitute of Rural ManagementAnand 388001GujaratIndia

Phone: +61655Fax: +02692-62422E-mail: PAJ@FAC.IRM.ERNET.IN

R S ParodaDirector GeneralIndian Council of AgriculturalResearch (ICAR)

Krishi BhavanNew Delhi 110 001

J G RyanVisiting FellowEconomics Division

Research School of Pacific andAsian Studies

Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia

E-mail: ryanjim@cyberone.com.au

V SekitolekoSubregional Representative forSouthern and Eastern Africa

Food and Agriculture Organizationof the United Nations

P O Box 3730Harare, Zimbabwe

Phone: ++ 263-4-791407Fax: ++ 263 4 703497E-mail: victoria.sekitoleko@fao.org

R B SinghAssistant Director Generaland Regional Representative forAsia and the Pacific

Food and Agriculture Organizationof the United Nations

Maliwan Mansion38 Phra Atit RoadBangkok 10200Thailand

Phone: ++ (622) 281-7844Fax: ++(622) 280-0445E-mail: FAO-RAP@FAO.ORG

Panelists

About ICRISAT

The semi-arid tropics (SAT) encompasses parts of 48 developing countriesincluding most of India, parts of southeast Asia, a swathe across sub-Saharan Africa, much of southern and eastern Africa, and parts of LatinAmerica. Many of these countries are among the poorest in the world.Approximately one-sixth of the world’s population lives in the SAT, whichis typified by unpredictable weather, limited and erratic rainfall, andnutrient-poor soils.

ICRISAT’s mandate crops are sorghum, pearl millet, finger millet,chickpea, pigeonpea, and groundnut; these six crops are vital to life for theever-increasing populations of the semi-arid tropics. ICRISAT’s mission isto conduct research which can lead to enhanced sustainable production ofthese crops and to improved management of the limited natural resources ofthe SAT. ICRISAT communicates information on technologies as they aredeveloped through workshops, networks, training, library services, andpublishing.

ICRISAT was established in 1972. It is one of 16 nonprofit, research andtraining centers funded through the Consultative Group on International Agri-cultural Research (CGIAR). The CGIAR is an informal association of ap-proximately 50 public and private sector donors; it is co-sponsored by theFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the UnitedNations Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations EnvironmentProgramme (UNEP), and the World Bank.

ISBN–92–9066–441–X CPE 136 527–2001

ICRISAT

International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid TropicsPatancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India

http://www.icrisat.org

CGIARConsultative Group on International Agricultural Research

Science for Food, the Environment, and the Worldís Poor

Future of Agriculturein the Semi-Arid Tropics

Food Security Livelihoods Crop-LivestockPartnerships Strategies

International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics

Fu

ture

of A

gricu

lture

in th

e S

em

i-Arid

Tro

pics