LEARNING AgriCultures
Insights from sustainable small-scale farming
Module 3 (interim version)
Cropping systems
module 3 cropping systems - interim version
Published by ileia,
This publication forms part of the Learning
Amersfoort, the
AgriCultures series for educators, providing
Netherlands
insights on sustainable small-scale agriculture. Ileia uses the Attribution-NoncommercialShareAlike 3.0 Unported Creative Commons Licence. In brief, users are free to copy, distribute and transmit the contents of this module but the source must be acknowledged. The contents of this module may however not be used for commercial purposes. If you alter or translate any sections, the resulting work must only be distributed under the same or a similar license to this one. For details, please see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by-nc-sa/3.0. One exception is video R4.6 which falls under copyright. Authors: Mundie Salm, ileia Illustrator: Fred Geven, ‘s-Hertogenbosch, the
Netherlands Language and Copy-editor: Nick Parrott,
TextualHealing.nl, Wageningen Design & Layout: Frivista, Amersfoort, the
Netherlands Funding: SIDA and DGIS Cover photo: Flemming Nielsen, mixed sorghum
field in Central Mozambique Acknowledgements The author would like to acknowledge the contributions of the following people: Frank van Steenbergen (MetaMeta) and Willem Stoop and Edith Lammerts van Bueren, members of our ‘sounding board’ for very helpful input, comments and suggestions for improvements on
Please note: This module is an interim version. We welcome comments and suggestions for improvement.
technical details in the first two blocks. Frank van Schoubroeck for suggestions for Learning Block 3. Nick Parrott whose clean-up of the final draft went beyond language and copy-editing. Fred Geven, our patient illustrator who made much creative input. Matilda Rizopulos who compiled the photographs and references and Maud Radema who compiled the exercises and videos.
2
Learning AgriCultures
Foreword to Learning AgriCultures series
Foreword to Learning AgriCultures series Why Learning AgriCultures? Over the years, the readers of ileia’s magazines, as well as our international partner network, have asked for support material explaining the principles behind sustainable small-scale farming. With 25 years of publishing practical cases from around the world, ileia has a wealth of material for exploring this subject. The Learning AgriCultures series is our response to this request. Sustainability translates differently under specific local conditions so this series does not intend to offer solutions to all the problems. Its objective is to stimulate a culture of learning about sustainable smallscale farming. Through probing questions, and a variety of educational resources, we hope that this material helps feed into and provoke discussions and deeper reflections on the important contributions of small-scale farming, and what sustainability means in different contexts faced by students. The series is not intended as a field guide and does not focus on technical details about farming methods. It does however suggest further references for digging deeper into technical questions.
Who is it for? Learning AgriCultures is a learning resource particularly aimed at educators seeking support material for explaining about sustainable agriculture in their courses, at a university or college level, in special NGO training courses or other professional environments. Courses in which this series could be useful include agriculture, rural development, environmental studies, research & extension, agricultural policy-making. The likely target group will be students who primarily, but not exclusively, (will be) working in developing countries.
What is in it and how can it be used? The Learning AgriCultures series has seven modules. It explores small-scale (family) farming and how it can become more sustainable. Each module has three learning blocks, looking at its theme from the perspective of: 1) the farm, 2) issues in the wider context that affect farming, and lastly 3) sustainability and governance issues. These learning blocks are followed by a section giving details of educational support materials. Here educators can find and choose from practical cases (mostly drawn from 25 years of articles in ileia’s archive), exercises, games, photos, videos, checklists for farm visits as well as further references (free books and websites) that they can use to supplement their courses. A separate glossary of difficult terms, drawings and diagrams explains concepts from throughout the series. It is hoped that the suggested questions, practical examples from around the world, and different kinds of resource material, will enable educators to make their own lesson plans, drawing on what is relevant to their own regional context and student group.
Learning AgriCultures: Insights from sustainable small-scale farming Module 1 • Sustainable small-scale farming Module 2 • Soil and water systems Module 3 • Cropping systems Module 4 • Livestock systems Module 5 • Labour and energy in farming Module 6 • Markets and finance for small-scale farmers Module 7 • Knowledge for small-scale farming
Learning AgriCultures
3
module 3 cropping systems - interim version
Summary of this module This module introduces different aspects of small-scale farmers’ cropping systems, focusing on three viewpoints - the farm, wider contextual issues and governance. Small-scale cropping systems are often mixed and highly productive, making use of interactions with other elements on the farm, such as between different crops, and with livestock. Small-scale farming is the source of valuable crop diversity in terms of species as well as varieties. It supplies many crops that would not otherwise be produced, such as those that are important to local food security and markets, such as with underutilised crops. In seeking greater sustainability in cropping systems, one general theme keeps recurring: the need to make use of, conserve and integrate greater diversity into farming systems and the wider landscape. For farmers, increasing diversity provides many advantages and opportunities, although it also presents a number of practical challenges. The advantages include greater adaptability, minimising risk and making use of interactions with different organisms and sub-systems on and around the farm. The challenges of diversity management involve the need to find a good balance between many different elements and high labour and knowledge requirements. This module describes different aspects of mixed cropping practices. It also looks at how to sustainably intensify cropping systems, through better knowledge and observance of location-specific ecological interactions. It describes recent advances in the development of crop biotechnologies, such as genetic engineering and formal seed systems, which have had a tremendous impact on cropping practices around the world. More and more farmers have access to improved seed as part of a package of chemical inputs and better irrigation. This has increased production of many important crops. However, these developments have also meant that the genetic base for agricultural biodiversity in crop species, varieties, as well as ecosystems, has become narrower. Technological developments and the introduction of intellectual property rights over plant varieties also bring the danger of small-scale farmers having less control over their seed systems. The importance of engaging farmers in land-use planning, crop breeding and conservation, and in implementing policies that value and support the unique characteristics of small-scale farms is highlighted.
4
Learning AgriCultures
Table of contents
Table of Contents FOREWORD TO LEARNING AGRICULTURES SERIES
3
Summary of this module
4
Guide to educators
8
Purposes of Module 3 How to teach Module 3 What is in Module 3 Glossary for the whole series Making lesson plans from this module Example of a Lesson Plan
8 8 8 9 10 10
LEARNING BLOCK 1: CROPPING SYSTEMS ON THE FARM 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Distinguishing aspects of crops
1.2.1 Crop products 1.2.2 Scientific classification 1.2.3 Reproductive strategies and genetics
1.3.1 1.3.2 1.3.3 1.3.4
1.4.1 Farmers’ selection processes and agrobiodiversity 1.4.2 Using crop diversity as a buffer
1.3 Crops as part of a system of interactions Crop interactions with organisms in the soil Crop interactions with other plants Crop interactions with animals Crops and farmers
1.4 Farm management and cropping systems
13 14 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22
23 23 25
1.5 Sources for this learning block
29
LEARNING BLOCK 2: CROPPING ISSUES IN THE WIDER CONTEXT 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Landscape approach to cropping systems
31
2.2.1 Forest ecosystems and small-scale cropping
2.3.1 Traditional local PGR systems 2.3.2 Formal PGR systems 2.3.3 Conservation of crop genetic diversity
2.3 Access to plant genetic resources
32 32 33
35 37 38 41
Learning AgriCultures
5
module 3 cropping systems - interim version
2.4 Management of weeds, pests and diseases
2.4.1 The use of chemical pesticides 2.4.2 Integrated pest (and weed) management
45 46
LEARNING BLOCK 3: GOVERNANCE AND SUSTAINABLE CROPPING SYSTEMS 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Governance issues
49
3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3
Involving farmers in rural planning Intellectual property rights, crops and small-scale farmers Including farmers in formal research, breeding and conservation programmes
Research and development priorities Regulations on inputs: hazardous pesticides and GM organisms Protecting farmer-centred local PGR systems Pricing policies
3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4
50 51 51 52 54
55 55 55 56 57
3.4 Sources for this learning block
57
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES FOR MODULE 3 R1. Exercises and Games
59 60
Planning a field layout for mixed cropping Realising the value of underutilised crops Role play on insecticide resistance Reforestation and policy measures
60 61 62 64
R2 Articles about practical experiences
66
Learning AgriCultures
43 44
2.5 Intensification of crop management 2.6 Sources for this learning block
3.3 Policies supporting sustainable cropping systems
6
42
R1.1 R1.2 R1.3 R1.4
R2.1 R2.2 R2.3 R2.4 R2.5 R2.6 R2.7 R2.8 R2.9 R2.10 R2.11 R2.12 R2.13 R2.14 R2.15 R2.16
Are polycultures always more sustainable? Crop rotation Agroforestry (4 articles) Home gardens Underutilised crops (2 articles) Cropping systems and forest ecosystems (3 articles) Local PGR systems: Seed fairs Formal seed systems: Genetically modified organisms Local PGR systems: Community seed banks (2 articles) Pesticide use and beneficial insects Different view on weeds Integrated pest (and weed) management (3 articles) Sustainable intensification practices (2 articles) Governance issues: Protecting the sustainable of ecosystems Governance issues: Participatory plant breeding Policy support: Regulations on inputs
66 66 67 68 69 69 71 71 72 72 73 73 74 75 76 76
Table of contents
R3. Photo gallery
77
R4. Videos
80
R4.1 R4.2 R4.3 R4.4 R4.5 R4.6
Agroforesty: A sustainable tropical island land use system Dalit food systems: a new discourse in food and farming Nature Farmer Bt Cotton in Andhra Pradesh: a three year fraud Biotech pear is a singular tree The Transcontainer Project – GM crop containment in the EU
R5. Farmer visit and field exercises
R5.1 Farmer interview checklist R5.2 Field observations
R6. Further references for Module 3
R6.1 Books and field guides R6.2 Interesting websites
80 80 81 81 82 82
84 84 85
86 86 88
Appendix
95
R2 R3
96 134
Articles Photos
Learning AgriCultures
7
module 3 cropping systems - interim version
Guide to educators Purposes of Module 3
For educators: • to learn about a systems approach to teaching about sustainable crop production as part of small-scale farming systems.
For students: • to understand about crop production dynamics in small-scale farming; • to learn about how to make cropping practices in small-scale farming more sustainable - and how to support the efforts of small farmers. Figure 1: Educators, the target group of Learning AgriCultures
How to teach Module 3 About 16 contact hours will be needed to teach this entire module. This does not include time for conducting interviews with farmers, or the time that students will spend on assignments. Educators will need to decide for themselves whether to use the entire module or parts of it when making their lesson plans. At the end of this section, an example is given of how to make a lesson plan from the material included in this module. The total time required and duration of each lesson will vary depending on the level of the students, the knowledge of the educator and how many games and assignments you choose to include in the course. A very important component of the module is to visit and interview at least one farmer – so that students can better understand the practical realities of farming systems in their area.
What is in Module 3? This module is the third one in the Learning AgriCultures series. As with the other modules, it includes three learning blocks with theoretical information and a section with support material as Educational Resources. Specifically, the content of this module is as follows:
8
Learning AgriCultures
Guide to educators
Learning Block 1:
Cropping systems on the farm This block provides an overview of different kinds of interactions crops have with organisms in the soil, other plants (including trees), predatory and beneficial animals, and farmers. Farmers’ management practices are introduced, together with the concept of agrobiodiversity and different ways crop diversity can become a buffer on the farm.
Learning Block 2:
Cropping issues in the wider context Four issues are analysed that have a great impact on cropping systems around the world: activities affecting crops at a landscape or ecosystem level, access to seed and other plant genetic resources, the management of weeds, pests and disease and the sustainable intensification of cropping practices.
Learning Block 3:
Toward more sustainable cropping systems This block describes how governance influences small-scale cropping systems and focuses on three major issues: including farmers in wider land-use planning, intellectual property rights and participatory plant breeding. The module concludes with examples of policies that enable and support sustainable smallscale cropping systems.
Educational resources: Different kinds of support material are provided for educators to stimulate deeper insights and discussions in class or as assignments. Throughout the main texts, boxes suggest links to resources (see the list below) and to probing questions that are indicated by the symbols found in Figures 2 and 3. • Exercises and games: for in-class and as assignments, to help deepen understanding of cropping systems. • Cases: suggestions for further reading and assignments based on articles from ileia’s magazine archive, to expose students to different practical examples of methods farmers use and to stimulate discussion. • Photographs: for in-class, these can help start discussions with students on the practical implications of different issues raised in the module. • Videos: for in-class, to complement the teachings with visual examples from around the world. • Farmer interview(s): suggested visit with small-scale farmers, checklist and further on-farm exercises for students. • Further references: suggestions for freely available books and interesting websites.
Figure 2: Symbol to indicate link to suggested questions
Figure 3: Symbol to indicate link to educational resources
Glossary for the whole series This is separate from the module and includes definitions for difficult terms for the whole Learning AgriCultures series.
Learning AgriCultures
9
module 3 cropping systems - interim version
Making a lesson plan Three basic questions need to be asked when preparing a lesson plan: • What do you want your students to learn? • How are they going to learn it? • How will you know if they have learned it? A lesson plan therefore needs to reflect these questions by setting out the learning objectives, aims, or goals of the unit, and how it relates to the whole course. The lesson plan should also include a list of the materials needed and the learning aids and references that you will use. See the example on the next page:
Example of a Lesson Plan Lesson
The implications of mixing crops in small-scale farming
Time
3 hours
Objectives
After completion of this session participants are able to: • demonstrate an understanding of these concepts: crop agrobiodiversity, polycropping, monocropping, complementarity, synergy, multi-purpose functions and recycling • Recognise different methods of multiple cropping • Realise some of the practical benefits and limitations of mixed cropping practices in small-scale farming.
Prerequisite
Introduction to cropping systems’ ecological interactions
Time
Content
Teaching method
Teaching aid
15 min
Central question: What is agrobiodiversity and how does it relate to crops?
Introduction: agrobiodiversity and link with the last session on cropping systems and ecological interactions.
Blackboard, chalk
Plenary discussion: Ask students what they understand by agrobiodiversity
10
Learning AgriCultures
Elaborate on definition from FAO (Box 3)
Educational Resources Guide to foreducators Module 3
Time
Content
Teaching method
Teaching aid
45
Central question: How can different kinds of crops grow together and be productive?
Introduction: mixed cropping
Blackboard, chalk
Important points: • Crops’ ecological interrelationships • What do we mean by polycultures and monocultures? • Define concepts of complementarity, synergy, multi-purpose functions and recycling • Distinguish between simultaneous and sequential mixes
10
BREAK
80
Central question: What different ways are there for mixing crops? Important points: • Crop rotation • Multi-cropping • Agroforestry • Home gardens • Underutilised crops • Diversity at edges
Plenary discussion: • What are the different ways that crops can compete for and share light, space, nutrients and water? • Compare interactions in monocultures and polycultures (build on previous lesson about ecological interactions)
Brainstorm: • What could be potential benefits and limitations of mixing crops when thinking of interactions? • What about for social or economic factors e.g. labour demands, marketing, food security, nutrition? Watch a video e.g. on agroforestry in Guam. Discuss the questions it raises and how they relate to your region
10
Concluding remarks about small-scale farming and multiple cropping practices
Wrap up and explain group exercise. Respond to questions.
20
Central question: Based on the lesson, can students make a mixed cropping design?
Exercise in small groups: Design a farm’s cropping system based on 10-15 crops (start the exercise in class, but complete as homework)
Use Figure 7 (Crops as part of wider system)
Option: Article R2.1 In defence of monocultures
Blackboard, chalk
Video R4.1 (21 minutes): Agroforestry in Guam Computer, beamer
Exercise R1.1
Learning AgriCultures
11
12
Learning AgriCultures
learning block Cropping systems on the farm
1
Mohanty Adivasi woman harvesting millet in India, photo from ORRISSAA
How do small-scale farmers around the world manage crops (including trees) in order to get productive livelihoods? In what ways do crops interact with different systems on the farm? What are the different roles that crops play in the farm and how do they contribute to livelihoods? What do we mean by agrobiodiversity? What do we need to consider in order to increase the agrobiodiversity of cropping systems? What different practices do farmers use to maintain diversity in their farms?
Learning AgriCultures
13
module 3 cropping systems - interim version
1.1 Introduction The cultivation of crops on arable land is the very foundation of agriculture. How crops are cultivated varies in countless ways around the world, depending on many factors such as the climate and weather patterns, the resource base, soil and water constraints, and the knowledge and access rights of the farmers. Cropping systems vary from extensive and mobile systems such as shifting cultivation, to mixed systems that integrate many elements in the farm, to highly intensive industrial farming, in which large stands of single crops are grown continuously. All of these cropping systems are practised in tropical climates, although in semiarid and arid environments rainfall (and access to irrigation) limits the timing and extent of agriculture. In (sub) tropical climates mixed cropping, which includes perennial crops and agroforestry (crops together with trees), predominate. In more temperate parts of the world, arable farming is more often based on highly productive and modern input-intensive annual crops, such as cereals. Regardless of where they are, farmers aim to balance the different ecological needs of the crops that grow in their environment, so as to develop strategies to make their farms more productive. This learning block sets the stage by first describing distinguishing aspects of crops, followed by a look at different ecological interactions between crops and other organisms and processes at the level of the farm. It then focuses on small-scale farmers’ crop management practices, and how a diversity-based approach based on multiple cropping can enhance the sustainable productivity of their systems.
1.2 Distinguishing aspects of crops It is very difficult to make generalisations about crops because of their extreme diversity. They not only look different, offering hugely diverse products from different parts (leaves, roots, tubers, stems, flowers, etc.), with different properties: from foods, medicines, fodder, fibres, fuels, wood, and so on. They also provide a variety of services: the release of oxygen, habitats for beneficial predators, root networks that give stability and structure to the soil and help water permeation. Some crops fix nitrogen or draw nutrients from deep in the soil. Trees and bushes can provide wind breaks, protection from grazing cattle and shelter from the sun. Plants add vitality to even the most barren places, and farmers’ cropping systems play a role in shaping landscapes around the world. This section provides an overview of the importance of crops from different vantage points - classification in terms of main products, scientific classes, and according to reproductive strategies and genetics.
14
Learning AgriCultures
Learning Block 1 : Cropping SYSTEMS ON THE FARM
1.2.1 Crop products The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has developed a simple classification system for crops according to the main product type and whether they are a “temporary” or “permanent” (i.e. perennial) crop (see Sub-section 1.2.3). FAO (2010) now classifies all crops according to nine types, as follows: • Cereals: The main cereal crops are (in order of hectares planted globally) wheat, rice, maize, barley, oats, rye and sorghum. Cereal crops or grains are used for food, feed for livestock and in industrial processes producing items such as alcohols and oils. Cereal grains are considered to be “staple crops;” they are grown in greater quantities and provide more calorific energy than any other type of crop. Over half of the global requirement for proteins and calories is met by just three cereals: maize, wheat and rice. There are also many other cereals that are locally extremely important for food security, such as fonio in West and Central Africa, quinoa (technically a “pseudo cereal”) in Latin America and teff in Ethiopia (all from Bioversity, 2010). • Vegetables and melons: These are further subdivided into leafy or stem vegetables (e.g. cabbages and artichokes); fruit-bearing vegetables (e.g. cucumbers and pumpkins), root, bulb or tuberous vegetables (e.g. carrots and onions); and mushrooms. • Fruit and nuts: These are further subdivided into (sub) tropical fruits (e.g. bananas, mangoes and avocadoes) and citrus fruits; grapes; berries; pome and stone fruits (e.g. apples, apricots); nuts and “others”. Plantain is included here, although it is an important staple crop in some African and Caribbean countries. • Oilseed crops: soyabeans; groundnuts; other temporary oilseed crops (e.g. castor bean, sesame); permanent oilseed crops (coconuts, oil palms). • Root/tuber crops with high starch or inulin content: These differ from those classified as vegetables because of their starch/inulin content. These are also considered to be staple crops. This category includes potatoes; sweet potatoes; cassava; yams and others. • Beverage and spice crops: beverage crops are permanent crops such as coffee, cocoa and maté; spice crops include temporary (e.g. chillies and peppers) and permanent crops (e.g. cinnamon, vanilla and ginger). • Leguminous crops: these include beans, peas and lentils etc. Legumes provide the important service of enhancing the availability of nitrogen in the soil. This is elaborated upon in the next section. • Sugar crops: examples include sugar beet, sugar cane and sweet sorghum. • Other crops: including grasses and fodder crops; fibre crops, medicinal, aromatic, pesticidal crops; rubber; flower crops; tobacco; and others. It is important to remember that many crops have multiple purposes, which are not reflected in this classification, as they are classified according to their main commercial use. For example, soyabeans are categorised under oilseeds because this is the principle product; although they are also leguminous and as such can provide an important service to soil fertility. Another example is cotton, which is categorised as a fibre crop, but which also produces oil as well as contributing to fodder.
What is (are) the staple crop(s) in your area? Do these crops fullfill other functions as well? What other types of products do small-scale farmers grow there?
Learning AgriCultures
15
module 3 cropping systems - interim version
1.2.2 Scientific classification While FAO bases its system on crop-product types, scientists and farmers around the world have long found different ways to classify plants according to common ecological characteristics and appearance. As more is learnt about genetic variability (see next section), scientific classification systems of all organisms will change because they show more clearly whether organisms are (closely) related or not, according to how similar their gene sequences are. Four different classes are introduced here, as they will be referred to the most in this module: “family”, “genus”, “species” and “variety”.
What are examples of legumes in your area? Do farmers plant them in combination with other crops to benefit crop interactions?
• Family: this is a group of plants that has many common botanical features that are often easy to recognise. The characteristics of different families can be important for sustainability and can be used as the basis for farmers’ strategies in combining crops through inter-cropping (planting different types of crops in the same bed or field) or crop rotation (rotating different crops in the same bed or the same field over time). A very important family of plants for farmers is the Leguminosae (or legume) family. These plants form symbiotic relationships with rhizobia, which belong to the family of bacteria called Rhizobiaceae. When legumes (e.g. beans, peas, soyabeans, groundnuts, lentils, alfalfa, clover, or trees such as Leucaena or Gliricidia, etc.) are planted in inter-crops, green manures or in crop rotation, the rhizobia make nitrogen from the air directly available to other plants.
Box 1: How does symbiosis between legumes and rhizobia work?
Approximately 16 500 species of legumes exist, though not all are able to form an association with nitrogen-fixing bacteria. Rhizobia are single-celled bacteria, approximately one thousandth of a millimetre in length. These bacteria form a mutually beneficial association, or symbiosis, with legume plants. The rhizobia enter into the roots of legume plants which respond by producing a round and visible structure called a root nodule. Taking nitrogen from the air the rhizobia then convert the nitrogen into a form that plants can use, called ammonium. This is known as “nitrogen fixation”. Most plants need specific kinds of rhizobia to form nodules. For example, the rhizobia that form nodules on soyabeans cannot form nodules on clover. For nodulation to take place the right plantrhizobia combination needs to be present. It also requires a healthy soil environment that is not too acid (i.e. has a low pH), or suffer from aluminium toxicity, nutrient deficiencies, salinity, water-logging or the presence of root parasites, such as nematodes. Sometimes it is necessary to inoculate legumes with the correct rhizobia to ensure that nitrogen-fixation will take place.
• Genus: This is the “generic” or common name given to a specific group of plants within a family – e.g. Brassica is one of the genera within the family of Brassicaceae or Cruciferae. (The members of this genus are collectively known as cabbages). • Species: This is the more “specific” name of a group of plants within a genus. Together, the genus and species name define one particular plant (with the whole name italicised, the genus capitalised, and the species in lower case – e.g. Leucaena leucocephala). For example, the family of Brassicaceae contains
16
Learning AgriCultures
Learning Block 1 : Cropping SYSTEMS ON THE FARM
well-known species such as Brassica oleracea (cabbage, cauliflower, etc.), Brassica rapa (turnip, Chinese cabbage, etc.), Brassica napus (rapeseed, etc.), Raphanus sativus (common radish), etc. • Variety: Within species, there can further be different varieties or “cultivars” (i.e., cultivated varieties) containing different traits in terms of adaptation to different conditions such as dryness, soil acidity, pest and disease resistance, but also in plant height, maturity cycle, etc.
Learning AgriCultures
17
module 3 cropping systems - interim version
more likely to have a combination of desired traits. In recent times, the study of genetics has led to a greater understanding of genes and how specific traits are passed from generation to generation of all living organisms. For example, children usually look like their parents because they have inherited their parents’ genes. Genes are units of heredity in a living organism and consist of a long molecule called DNA, which is copied and inherited across generations. DNA is made of simple units that line up in a particular sequence within this large molecule. The order of these units carries genetic information, a set of “instructions” for how each living organism develops and operates. “Plant genetic resources” (PGR) is a term used to refer to seeds and planting material of all varieties – traditional, modern cultivars, wild relatives of crops and other wild plant species (PGR systems will be discussed further in Section 2.3). The term “genetic variability” describes how different plant characteristics are represented in different varieties within one species, or even within one variety. Genetic variability in a population is important for biodiversity, to enable a Figure 6: A DNA molecule is composed of simple units lined population to adapt to varying environmental conditions (e.g. soil, climate, etc.). up in a sequence that looks like a The diversity within crop species is at least as important as diversity between long coil. species. We will discuss biodiversity further in Section 1.4.
1.3 Crops as part of a system of interactions To understand issues of sustainability and small-scale farming it is helpful to look at crops as being part of a wider system of interactions with different kinds of organisms. Crops interact with other plants and organisms in several ways that critically determine how they grow. In a balanced cropping system, the positive interactions (i.e. those that help the crop grow well) are strengthened, and the negative interactions are minimised through management practices. Understanding these different kinds of interactions is important in understanding the sustainability of crop production. Figure 7 presents a model of some of the major interactions between crops and their wider environment. Two crops, maize and beans are used as an example, but the different kinds of elements that interact with crops form a general pattern. This model provides a simplified view and does not show for example, the negative interactions of trees, other crops, weeds and (soil-borne) pathogens. The rest of this section reflects on ways in which crops interact with different elements and sub-systems that can promote or detract from their growth.
18
Learning AgriCultures
Learning Block 1 : Cropping SYSTEMS ON THE FARM
1.3.1 C rop interactions with organisms in the soil
Figure 7: Crops as part of a wider system of ecological interactions that need to be kept in balance through farmers’ practices.
Module 2 focused on the importance of the soil and water system; this section examines interactions between crops and the soil system. Several factors drive interactions within the soil: soil structure, the availability of nutrients and moisture, space and interactions with the root system of the crop and the activities of the soil’s micro-organisms. These all have an important influence on crop growth. Soil systems include nutrient cycling through plants. Nutrients come from a variety of sources and their availability depends on a number of favourable conditions. Even if desired nutrients exist in the soil, they may not be accessible to the crops, for example they may be physically out of reach of the roots. Moreover, they need to be chemically available: nutrients need to be mineralised (oxidised) and be in solution (i.e. mixed with water) in order for plant roots to be able to take them up. Also, the soil’s pH must be neither too alkaline nor too acid.
Learning AgriCultures
19
module 3 cropping systems - interim version
Root systems are composed of long thick roots, that provide structural support, and shorter, fine roots that are important in the uptake of nutrients and water. A good soil structure allows roots to penetrate and spread in the soil. Plant roots provide a special, highly energised habitat for micro-organisms living in the area around them, called the “rhizosphere”. The activities of different organisms in the soil greatly aid the process of nutrient uptake by plants, as explained below.
Figure 8: Micro-organisms form part of a “soil food web” which influences plant growth in both positive and negative ways.
The soil is home to a tremendous number of micro-organisms that make up a special system, known as the “soil food web”. The vast majority of organisms living in the rhizosphere are “decomposers” that feed on root-derived compounds and organic matter in the soil. In most cases, their presence is highly beneficial to plant growth, particularly when their activities release mineral nutrients that plants can subsequently take up. Also, some organisms, such as nitrogenfixing rhizobial bacteria (see Box 1) and mycorrhizal fungi (see Box 2), form associations with plants that allow them to get access to more nutrients. Both the micro-organisms and the plants benefit from this association (microbes get energy and carbon from the plant while plants get greater access to nutrients and increase their water uptake). These are known as mutualistic or symbiotic associations. But the soil food web also includes pests that can harm the productivity of plants, including below-ground herbivores, plant-parasitic nematodes and pathogenic fungi that feed directly on living root tissues. In a “normal” situation, the micro-organisms are in delicate balance with one another. If the equilibrium is disturbed, a specific organism may multiply excessively and become a pest problem.
Box 2: Mycorrhizal fungi and crops (modified from Habte, 2006)
One of the most common mutualistic associations that plants form with soil microbes is with mycorrhizal fungi. These improve access to limited nutrients, improve soil properties and the plant’s capacity to absorb water. The most important of the seven known types of mycorrhizal fungi is arbuscular mycorrhiza (AM) which influences over 80 percent of known plant species. How does it work? The AM penetrates roots, forms arbuscules, coils or vesicles in the roots that allow for hyphae (hair-like structures) to form. These hyphae have a smaller diameter than roots, can reach a greater surface area and are able to reach into the soil, transferring nutrients and water to the plant roots very efficiently. In this way, the hyphae access nutrients that the plant normally cannot, including less mobile pools of phosphorus, the lack of which is often a very important constraint on plant growth. Furthermore, greater access to phosphorus (and other limited nutrients such as copper, calcium and zinc) stimulates nodulation and nitrogen fixation by other microbes such as rhizobia (see Box 1 above).
1.3.2 Crop interactions with other plants The interactions of crops with other plants, that include weeds, other crops and trees is largely based on competition for light, nutrients, water and space. However, there are also many cases in which plants complement one another’s growth, through differences in tolerance to light levels, having different root depth and, some specific cases where crop growth is enhanced by interactions with other plants. For example, in Figure 7, maize benefits from the nutrients
20
Learning AgriCultures
Learning Block 1 : Cropping SYSTEMS ON THE FARM
fixed by the root nodules in beans, a leguminous crop. Different crops have different rooting structures that can compete with, or complement, each other in accessing nutrients and moisture from the soil. The spacing of individual plants ensuring that they develop strong root systems able to withstand the invasion of weeds are a critical part of planting. Plants are either deep-rooting or shallow-rooting, which means that they access nutrients and water from different layers of the soil. Some plants produce toxic substances from their roots that inhibit growth of other plants, even to the point of making it impossible for some other plants to become established. This is known as “allelopathy”. For example, root parasite weeds such as witch wood (Striga spp) in cereals and legumes, and broomrape (Orobanche) in crops such as vegetables and sunflowers, cause great problems for farmers in areas with low soil fertility and low annual rainfall. Other examples include black walnut trees that inhibit the growth of vegetables such as tomatoes, peas and potatoes. The mechanisms behind these allelopathic associations are still not fully understood, although they do cause great harm.
Figure 9: Plants have different root depths, that access water and nutrients from different places in the soil.
Sunlight and shade In general, crops need sunlight to be productive. Plants are primary producers and are able to capture their energy needs from the sun in their leaves and send it to their roots. Competition for sunlight is an important interaction between different plants. Little sunlight means that less energy is available, limiting the growth of crops. While water can be a limiting factor to growth and survival in dry and sunny environments, energy (in the form of sunlight) is usually the limiting factor in shady environments.
Can you think of different kinds of weeds that are problematic in your area? Why have they become a problem, and what are farmers doing about it?
Some plants, such as those in a forest’s under-story, have adapted to very low light levels. They are known as “shade tolerant” and are highly efficient energyusers. Examples include cocoa and coffee. In general, these plants grow broader, thinner leaves, to catch more sunlight. Shade tolerant plants are also usually adapted to make better use of soil nutrients than shade intolerant plants. As shown in Figure 9, shade trees can also provide services such as accessing nutrients from deeper layers of the soil (and depositing them on the surface through leaf-fall). Trees can also benefit from the soil cover provided by low-lying plants which increase levels of soil moisture and organic matter.
1.3.3 Crop interactions with animals The term “animals” here includes domestic livestock as well as wild mammals, birds, and insects and other invertebrates. The browsing activities of different kinds of animals influence the growth of crops and these interactions can be beneficial or detrimental. Examples of harmful interactions are larger animals such as birds, rodents or ungulates feeding on plants – whether the leaves, stems, bark, fruit, grain or roots - as well as insects and other invertebrates that are
Figure 10: Understanding differing light needs helps farmers plan the best relative positioning of crops.
Learning AgriCultures
21
module 3 cropping systems - interim version
considered to be pests, getting to the harvest before the farmers, causing disease or killing the plant. Examples of interactions that are beneficial for crops are the activities of pollinators, the addition of nutrients to the soil through faecal deposits (or as manure) as well as the feeding habits of the predators of pests that feed on plants. What are examples of pollinators and other beneficial animals, as well as of animals that cause problems in the main crops in your area?
As indicated in Sub-section 1.2.3, pollination - which involves the transfer of pollen between plants for fertilisation - is an essential part of plant reproduction. The activities of pollinators are clearly important for most plants. Approximately 80 percent of all flowering plant species are adapted for pollination by animals and insects. Pollinators include insects such as bees (over 25 000 bee species identified), wasps, ants, beetles, moths and butterflies, as well as vertebrates such as birds, bats, squirrels and some primates. Many other plants that do not need pollinators are pollinated by the wind (e.g. grasses, coniferous, and many deciduous, trees). Animals that prey on browsers of crops are also known as “natural enemies”, and they help farmers to control pests and disease. Their role will be discussed more under Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in Learning Block 2. In some cases, animals are also important to safeguard the growth of vegetation. For example grass lands and heaths require regular grazing to stop the succession of larger woody plants.
1.3.4 Crops and farmers The activities and management practices of farmers (and in some cases other people, such as herders, hunters and gatherers) strongly influence the growth of their crops. The choices they make, and how well they manage the many interactions described above, are fundamental to the productivity of their cropping systems. They need to constantly adapt their practices to nurture the beneficial interactions while minimising problems from competition and destruction by pests. In the next section, we look more deeply at how farming practices affect the growth and development of cropping systems.
22
Learning AgriCultures
Learning Block 1 : Cropping SYSTEMS ON THE FARM
1.4 Farm management and cropping systems This section examines the management of small-scale cropping systems: cropping patterns involve polycultures (multiple crops in the same space), monocultures (large stands of single crops), agroforestry (trees integrated into cropping systems), as well as combinations of crops with livestock, with forest systems, aquaculture, rangelands, pastures and fallow lands. Farmers have developed diverse cropping patterns and thousands of different crop varieties and animal breeds during the 12 000 years that agriculture has existed (FAO, 2010). This section gives particular attention to the dynamics of multiple cropping. Small-scale farmers generally engage in mixed systems including multiple cropping to meet their food and livelihood needs. In developing their farm systems, farmers continuously adapt their practices in order to enhance the growth of their crops. They make the most of local conditions, adapting practices to maintain or enhance soil fertility and moisture and to protect crops against pests, disease and other harmful effects. Module 2 discussed farming practices that improve soil fertility and water processes, such as improving the quality (and quantity) of the soil’s organic matter. The management practices discussed in that module are essential for good crop growth and provide an essential background to the cropping practices discussed here.
Figure 11: Farmers’ practices favour the growth and development of certain crops, while seeking to minimise the effects of weeds, pests and diseases.
Two major management issues for farmers are dealing with the persistence of weeds and with pests and disease. Weeds can compete with crops for space, nutrients, water and light; and if not managed properly, can greatly interfere with the productivity of cropping systems and pasture land. Some crops have greater resistance to weed interference, especially those that are larger and faster growing. It is important to understand the growth patterns of both crops and weeds in order to time when to prepare beds, sow crops and remove weeds, to give their crops a head start before weeds establish strong root systems, grow tall and start flowering. Keeping ahead of pests and pathogens before they become a major problem for their crops is also crucial. There are many similarities between pest and weed problems and the measures used to control them - from clearing practices, to removing weeds or pests mechanically, through indirect measures, or through applying herbicides and pesticides. Learning Block 2 discusses these and other practices in greater detail in a section on integrated pest (and weed) management.
1.4.1 F armers’ selection processes and agrobiodiversity Small-scale farmers’ selection processes lead to crop (and animal) varieties that are well adapted to the location-specific conditions of their farm (see “landraces” and “heirloom” varieties in Box 5 in Learning Block 2). Farmers might, for
Learning AgriCultures
23
module 3 cropping systems - interim version
example, favour seeds from plant varieties that have proven to be tolerant to drought conditions and/or resistant to particular pests and diseases. Or they might select according to fruit size, shape or colour, plant height, early or late-maturing varieties, or because of a special taste or cooking characteristics, according to local traditions. Farmers’ selection, seed-saving and exchange activities have allowed them to develop tremendous genetic diversity in local landraces over the millennia. A key characteristic of landraces is that genetic diversity is maintained, through natural processes (e.g. open-pollination), seed selection and adaptation processes. When fields are planted close together, there is a constant gene flow between landraces. This diversity allows for natural protection against pests and diseases and buffers against environmental fluctuations. In this way, small-scale farming systems aim for harvest security and sustainability of production over time.
Is it clear in your region that men and women have different kinds of knowledge about (different) crops? How are gender roles divided regarding cropping systems on farms in your region?
These selection activities have not only produced great diversity in crop varieties, but have also built up detailed knowledge about “agrobiodiversity” (see Box 3) which goes beyond on-farm crops and includes many plants, animals and microorganisms in their farms’ specific ecological conditions, how they can be actively conserved and used sustainably. In general, women and men farmers have different priorities and knowledge about their cropping systems. Especially in traditional societies, a major priority for women is food and in particular the food security of their families. Women therefore have specific, traditional knowledge of seeds, harvesting and storage techniques for food crops. Men in these societies tend to be more concerned with cash crops, grown to meet household expenses. Their knowledge is therefore often focused on how agrobiodiversity and farming practices relate to cash crops. In many places, however, these roles are shifting and becoming less clearly defined, as family members are increasingly getting involved in off-farm and migrant employment to earn additional cash.
Box 3: What is Agrobiodiversity?
Agricultural diversity (or agrobiodiversity) is the variety and variability of animals, plants and micro-organisms that are used directly or indirectly for food and agriculture, including crops, livestock, forestry and fisheries. It comprises the diversity of genetic resources (varieties, breeds) and species used for food, fodder, fibre, fuel and pharmaceuticals. It also includes the diversity of non-harvested species that support production (soil microorganisms, predators, pollinators), and those in the wider environment that support agro-ecosystems (agricultural, pastoral, forest and aquatic) as well as the diversity of the agro-ecosystems themselves (Definition from FAO, 1999)
Despite ongoing development of crop diversity by farmers, overall crop genetic diversity has become increasingly narrower throughout the world over the last sixty years. The FAO estimates that of the 250 000 to 300 000 known edible plant varieties available to agriculture, about 7 000 (or less than 3 percent) are currently used by people. Today, 75 percent of the world’s food is generated from only twelve crop and five animal species. Three crops – rice, maize and wheat – contribute nearly 60 percent of plant-based calories and proteins obtained by people. The development of “improved” varieties (see glossary)
24
Learning AgriCultures
Learning Block 1 : Cropping SYSTEMS ON THE FARM
has led to tremendous positive benefits – in particular higher food production to meet the needs of a growing population. Yet, it has also caused losses in agrobiodiversity as multiple “traditional” or local varieties are being replaced with few, improved, varieties that are grown over large areas. Along with the losses in agrobiodiversity, farmers’ knowledge about specific local crops, and their selection and management practices disappear. Modern technological developments have had a great impact on farmers’ seed-saving practices. Learning Block 2 goes more deeply into the issue of farmers’ access to seed and other planting materials, and how agricultural diversity has been affected by this. Looking at the interrelationships between crops and other organisms (see Figure 7 above), it becomes clear that losses in crop varieties can also affect many other organisms. The importance of pollinators in plant reproduction was discussed above. Pollinators also need a variety of plants to be able to feed well. Some plant species rely on a particular set of pollinators to provide pollination services. Pollinators have suffered pressure on their habitats because of activities such as land clearing for agricultural purposes, pesticide use, tourism and the introduction of exotic species. All of these losses have had tremendous impacts on the sustainability of cropping systems. The next section discusses cropping systems that are based on building up biodiversity and improving sustainability.
1.4.2 Using crop diversity as a buffer Diversity typifies small-scale farming, where farmers depend on several crops as well as mixed systems to meet their food and livelihood needs. Through their practices, farmers seek a balance between favourable conditions of fertility, water and light, while also keeping weeds and pests under control. When managed carefully, having a mix of crops offers a number of advantages. It can offer a kind of buffer to farmers by spreading risks in case of crop failure, unpredictable weather, falling market prices, etc. It also gives farmers more room to adapt to changes. Systems based on diversity can provide more options for recycling nutrients and better regulation of soil moisture processes. However it does take great effort to learn how to manage these mixed systems. Small-scale multiple cropping systems tend to have higher productivity in terms of harvestable products per unit of land area and of energy use than large-scale intensive monoculture systems, though the productivity of each crop itself may be lower than when grown as a sole crop. When planned well, mixed systems can regulate undesirable organisms such as pests, weeds and pathogens. For example, planting cover crops and well timed inter-crops can suppress weeds; and providing nectar-producing plants and alternate “hosts” (such as specific weeds) in and around fields can lead to the build-up of predator populations and increase the biological control of pests. Nevertheless, systems with a mix of crops are more complex and require more careful management. Patience is needed for trial and error and careful observation to be able to adapt knowledge and skills about growth patterns and crop interactions, as well as constant fine-tuning of the
Do you know about crop diversity in your region? Are farmers growing improved varieties? If yes, how do they use them? Are local varieties being replaced?
Figure 12: Losses in crop species and varieties can affect the survival of many other organisms such as pollinators, particularly if they are specialists rather than generalists.
Go to R2.1 to discuss an article that asks the challenging question of whether polycultures are always more sustainable than monocultures.
Learning AgriCultures
25
module 3 cropping systems - interim version
timing and sequence of crops. Mixed cropping systems require planning, in terms of time and space. For this, a good understanding of the crops’ needs is necessary: i.e. planting date, rotation and timing of fertilisation and optimal plant densities and spatial arrangements. In managing polycultures, farmers also need to understand relationships of complementarity and synergy, multi-purpose functions and recycling within their whole farm. • Complementarity: describes how different elements in the system help others to grow better (e.g. when one crop provides protection against pests, or increases the availability of nutrients, for another crop - these can be planted close together to enhance the beneficial elements). • Synergy: when elements co-operate and build on each other, thus increasing the farm’s output, (e.g. crops with different root depths growing in the same place; combining an early maturing crop with a late maturing one, for example maize with pearl millet in West Africa). • Multi-purpose functions: describes how a single element in the system may perform several different functions (e.g. a tree providing different products such as food, fibre, nuts, medicines, etc.), shade, live fencing, leaves for fodder, etc.). • Recycling: when the end-product of one system becomes an input and resource for another (e.g. manure from livestock becoming a nutrient resource for crops; crop residues being used for mulching to replenish nutrients, or for fodder for livestock). A number of practices can be used to build up the kind of biodiversity that will help promote more sustainable ecological functioning on the farm. Some of the practices mentioned in Module 2 not only build up organic matter but also help increase the diversity in a farm’s cropping system: mixing crops and crop varieties over space and time through cover crops and green manures, intercrops and crop rotation. Besides the ecological benefits that this diversity can bring to the farm, it also brings dietary benefits – through providing multiple food sources. It can serve as a buffer against economic risks, giving more options for selling or exchanging products in the marketplace. The following paragraphs provide short descriptions of different cropping practices that farmers use to increase biodiversity and enhance the sustainability of their farms.
Crop rotation See R2.2 for an article from Zambia where farmers have modified the “Mambwe mound” shifting cultivation systems by introducing a cereallegume crop rotation together with mulching on mounds.
26
Learning AgriCultures
This practice involves growing a sequence of different crops over time on the same plot. The logic of crop rotation is to build up synergies and complementarities through cropping sequences. By rotating crops farmers avoid a build-up of pathogens, pests, and weeds, that often occurs when a single species (or crops from the same family) is continuously cropped. For this reason crops that are directly related should not be planted in the same bed for about three seasons. Another strategy is to alternate deep-rooted and shallow-rooted plants to improve the soil structure and to utilise nutrients at different levels in the soil. Rotation also improves the efficiency of nutrient use, avoiding excessive depletion of particular soil nutrients by sequentially planting crops that have different
Learning Block 1 : Cropping SYSTEMS ON THE FARM
fertility demands and contributions (e.g. replenishing nitrogen by planting leguminous crops prior to and following nitrogen-hungry crops such as cereals). For example, in Zambia, a traditional shifting cultivation system was improved and intensified through use of compost and cereal-legume rotation on mounds.
Multi-cropping This set of practices mixes two or more crops in the same space (horizontally or vertically) during a single season. In this way, large stands of single crops, or monocultures, are avoided. Multi-cropping practices include: • Inter-cropping or companion planting: planting of different crops close together at the same time and in the same bed; also the integration of trees with crops (see agroforestry below). • Double-cropping: a second crop is planted after the first has been harvested. • Relay cropping: a second crop is started amidst the first crop before it has been harvested. • Cover cropping: growing an additional low-lying crop for the purposes of keeping the ground covered to: avoid soil erosion; increase soil fertility (usually through the use of “green manures” which are in most cases legumes that fix nitrogen) and control weeds. The selection of the type of a cover crop also includes considerations of whether the crop provides food, fodder or a cash crop.
Go to R1.1 to design a farm’s cropping system based on food crops, staple crops, underutilised crops, market crops and trees. Think about examples of complementarity, synergy, multi-functionality and recycling. Go to video R4.3 to hear a small-scale farmer in Sri Lanka’s views on mixed farming.
The principles for these different types of multi-cropping are the same: integrating different crops that allow for complementary synergies in nutrient uptake, attracting natural enemies, buffering against or even repelling pests or weeds, while avoiding competition for nutrients, water and light that harms the productivity of, at least, the main crop. It takes some experimentation to find the right combinations, and to be sure that productivity is not lost due to competition.
Agroforestry This involves combining arable crops with trees. It is also sometimes referred to as agro-silviculture or multi-storey cropping. Agroforestry has long been a normal practice of small-scale farmers, particularly in the humid tropics. When managed well, trees offer many services that can be advantageous for cropping systems; however as seen in the previous section, it is important to take care that the addition of trees do not cause harm to crops because of competition for water and nutrients and that crops do not become shaded out. The following issues should be considered in relation to trees. The deep-rooting system of trees can help prevent erosion and allow trees to tap into water and nutrients that are unattainable to annual crops. Yet before combining woody perennials with crops the relationships between rooting structures need to be well understood. For example, where there is low rainfall, trees may develop horizontal roots to reach rain water and can present unwanted competition for water and nutrients in semi-arid areas. Also, care must be taken that there are no toxic elements in the trees’ foliage or roots that may inhibit growth of other crops through allelopathy.
Figure 13: Agroforestry combines both crops and trees in one system.
Learning AgriCultures
27
module 3 cropping systems - interim version
Go to R2.3 and discuss several articles describing different experiences with introducing agroforestry in Brazil (analog agroforestry and cocoa), Central America (shade trees and coffee), Sri Lanka (living fences) and Ghana (introducing leguminous varieties into farms). Go to R4.1 and watch a video about agroforestry in Guam.
Adding leguminous trees and bushes is advantageous as they can fix nitrogen that annual crops can benefit from. Trees improve the micro-climate by moderating ground temperatures, moisture levels, providing shade and windbreaks. Nevertheless, it is important to understand the light needs of lower crops and be sure they can still grow well under a canopy. Trees offer a wide variety of products: wood for fuel and building purposes, food, fibre, natural pesticides or medicines, fruit, nuts, oils, nectar, dyes, gums, waxes, resins, as holders of hives for honey production, etc. as well as production of fodder for livestock or fish. Being perennial, trees require little labour. On the other hand, trees are a long-term investment, and most of these products cannot be harvested until a number of seasons have passed. Because of the time involved in growing woody perennials, farmers usually need to have secure access to land tenure before they are willing to make such an investment. Another constraint to consider is that trees can affect grain harvests as they attract birds that are potential pests. Agroforestry principles can help to rehabilitate land to allow for higher productivity. One way is found in “analog agroforestry” (or “succession farming”). This refers to the principle of imitating the species’ succession found in natural forests in an area, mixing annuals and perennials, in such a way that over the years, a multiple storey system can be established. Sometimes farmers are resistant to the idea of agroforestry: because of the time it takes to reap the benefits, a lack of land tenure, risks in trying something new and unknown and the new skills and knowledge required to experiment with tree growing and management.
Home gardens
Go to R2.4 to find an article from Bangladesh, where home gardens are an important source of food security.
28
Learning AgriCultures
These small-scale systems are found close to people’s homes in (sub) humid areas, in both rural and urban zones. They tend to be managed by women. In some places, home gardens are also considered to be agroforestry systems, and are sometimes known as “forest gardens” when they have multiple storeys, consisting of crops, middle and high canopy trees. However, trees are not always part of this system. Home gardens are used to supplement food, medicines and household income. They are typified by a wide diversity of species, including local varieties, and sometimes include livestock on the same piece of land.
Underutilised crops At least 7,000 cultivated species continue to be used today around the world, mostly integrated in small-scale farming systems (including home gardens). These crops are often referred to as “neglected” or “underutilised” species. These species are a potentially important resource, for biodiversity and for household food security, since they contribute to improved nutrition and can act as buffers in times of emergency or change. They also provide many medicinal plants. However, they are often less used than other more common crops because they often require more work to prepare, due to often being smaller in size, more difficult to peel, etc. A lack of attention to these crops by research and extension institutions means that they may disappear before their potentially multiple values are known. Underutilised crops can be brought into production in many ways
Learning Block 1 : Cropping SYSTEMS ON THE FARM
and can open up new possibilities for small-scale integrated farming systems as well as processing and marketing opportunities.
Diversity at the crop-field boundaries Farmers can improve biodiversity by planting woody perennials along the edges of their farms, as hedgerows, for example. If managed well, these can offer different kinds of (food and market) products as well as services, such as living fences, fodder banks, shelterbelts or windbreaks. Woody perennials can help to regulate the micro-climate, cooling it through providing shade and as a barrier against wind. Hedgerows can also encourage more biodiversity on the farm in providing habitat for insects, birds and other animals. However, they can also bring unwanted pests and weeds into the farm, if not carefully managed. Different methods to manage pests and disease are discussed in Section 2.4.
Go to R2.5 to find two articles on underutilised crops in Africa and the Pacific. Go to R1.2 to find an exercise to research about underutilised crops in your region. Go to 4.2 to watch a video on underutilised crops India.
1.5 Sources for this learning block • Almekinders, D.J.M., L.O. Fresco and P.C. Struik. 1995. The need to study and manage variation in agro-ecosystems. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 43: 127-142. • Altieri, Miguel A. 1999. The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 74: 19-31. • Ashworth, Suzanne. 2002. Seed to seed: Seed saving and growing techniques for vegetable gardeners. Seed Savers Exchange, Iowa, US. • Boddey, R. M., Runo J.R. Alves, Veronica M. Reis and Segundo Urquiaga. 2006. Biological nitrogen fixation in agroecosystems and in plant roots. In: Uphoff, Norman, Andrew S. Ball, Erick Fernandes, Hans Herren, Olivier Husson, Mark Lang, Cheryl Palm, Jules Pretty, Pedro Sanchez, Nteranya Sanginga and Janice Thies (eds). Biological approaches to sustainable soil systems. CRC Press/Taylor and Francis Group, Boca Raton, USA. pp 177189. • Bioversity International. 2010 Why biodiversity matters; Cereals. Bioversity website. Link to: www.bioversityinternational.org. • Brookfield, Harold, Helen Parsons and Muriel Brookfield (eds). 2003. Agrodiversity: Learning from farmers across the world. The United Nations University, New York.
Learning AgriCultures
29
module 3 cropping systems - interim version
• FAO. 1999. Agricultural biodiversity, multifunctional character of agriculture and land conference. Background paper 1. Maastricht, Netherlands. • FAO. 2005. Classification of crops. Appendix 3 in: A system of integrated agricultural censuses and surveys: World Programme for the Census of Agriculture 2010. Statistical Development Series no. 11. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. pp 142-146. • FAO. 2010. Core themes on crop production. Website of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. Link to: www.fao. org/agriculture/crops/core-themes/en/. • Habte, Mitiku. 2006. The roles of arbuscular mycorrhizas in plant and soil health. In: Uphoff, Norman et al. (eds). Biological approaches to sustainable soil systems. CRC Press/Taylor and Francis Group, Boca Raton, U.S.A. pp 129-147. • Ileia editorial team. 2006. Ecological processes at work. LEISA Magazine Vol. 22 (4): 4-5. • Kew Royal Botanic Gardens. 2000. Kew information sheet: Studying plant diversity – classification. Board of Trustees, Kew Gardens, London, U.K. • Pimbert, Michel. 2009. Theme overview: Women and food sovereignty. LEISA Magazine. Vol.25(3): 6-9. • Reijntjes, Coen, Bertus Haverkort and Ann Waters-Bayer. 1992. Farming for the future: An introduction to low-external-input and sustainable agriculture. MacMillan Education Ltd. London and Oxford, U.K. • Römheld, Volker and Neumann, Günter. 2006. The rhizosphere: Contributions of the soil-root interface to sustainable soil systems. In: Uphoff, Norman et al. (eds). Biological approaches to sustainable soil systems. CRC Press/Taylor and Francis Group, Boca Raton, U.S.A. pp 91-108. • Thies, Janice E. and Grossman, Julie M. 2006. The soil habitat and soil ecology. In: Uphoff, Norman et al. (eds). Biological approaches to sustainable soil systems. CRC Press/Taylor and Francis Group, Boca Raton, U.S.A. pp 59-78.
• Wikipedia. www.wikipedia.com.
30
Learning AgriCultures
learning block Cropping issues in the wider context
2
IPM exercise in a rice field in Bangladesh, Photo by Hein Bijlmakers
What influence do broader contextual issues have on the cropping practices of small-scale farmers? How can these be managed? What opportunities do they open up and what limitations do they impose? How do farmers’ cropping practices affect biodiversity outside their farms and vice versa? And why is this important? How has farmers’ access to seeds and other plant genetic resources changed in recent decades, and what does this mean for small-scale farmers? How can farmers intensify their cropping systems to improve their livelihoods through more sustainable integrated “ecosystems” approaches?
Learning AgriCultures
31
module 3 cropping systems - interim version
2.1 Introduction In the previous learning block, small-scale cropping systems were discussed at the farm level. It described a number of multiple cropping methods that are part of a strategy of diversity found in small-scale farming. A diverse approach calls for complex management practices, knowledge and skills that build up positive location-specific ecological interactions while keeping negative ones in check. Managed well, these practices can make cropping systems more productive and resilient, while providing more options for adapting the farm to meet the many changes that come up in risky, variable and marginal conditions. A sustainable approach to diversity however extends beyond farm boundaries. In this second learning block, we will look at the wider context of cropping systems so as to better understand the sustainability of small-scale farming. The important contribution of small-scale farming to building up genetic diversity in crop species and varieties is highlighted. This is followed by a description of how large-scale developments in the production of plant genetic resources have had a tremendous impact on farmers’ control over their seed systems, their access to seed as well as on the sustainability of their cropping systems.
Go to R3 to find the photo gallery to help stimulate discussion about different cropping issues.
Two context-level concepts are also introduced in this learning block, that relate to cropping systems’ sustainability: “landscapes” and “ecosystems”. The example of forests receives special focus as a natural ecosystem that is feeling the effects of the expansion of activities including farming. This replacement of complex natural systems leads to their fragmentation, losses in diversity as well as the increased release of carbon and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Cropping systems can benefit from adopting more of an “ecosystems” approach to intensification, building biodiversity so as to enhance sustainability. Integrated pest (and weed) management is a prime example of this kind of approach.
2.2 Landscape approach to cropping systems This section looks at the landscape level to show how different kinds of land uses (including small-scale farming and natural ecosystems) influence each other’s functioning and sustainability. A landscape can be described as a mosaic of local ecosystems with a particular pattern of topography, vegetation, land use and settlement, over a kilometres-wide area. Ecosystems are a dynamic complex of plants, animals and micro-organism communities and their physical environment interacting as a functional unit in a certain place. Ecosystems make up big natural systems such as grasslands, mangroves, coral reefs and tropical forests; but even farms are often referred to as “agro-ecosystems”.
Figure 14: A landscape is composed of a mosaic of different land uses that influence each other.
32
Learning AgriCultures
Landscapes constantly evolve under all sorts of pressures and these changes introduce new opportunities or impose restrictions on farms. For example, the development of infrastructure can offer new marketing opportunities. A farm will also be influenced by whether there are “wild” ecosystems close by. From there, they can access different resources for their cropping systems, such as planting material or ecological fertiliser. These can also be home to beneficial as well
Learning Block 2 : Cropping issues in the wider context
as parasitic organisms that affect farms in the vicinity. On the other hand, if there are industrial areas around the farm, including large-scale agro-ecosystems using modern technologies such as chemical pesticides or genetically modified crops (see Sub-sections 2.4.1 and 2.3.2) these can reduce the ability of neighbouring farms to maintain their (agro) biodiversity and sustainability. Agro-ecosystems currently use about 40 percent of the Earth’s total land base and they continue to expand because of pressures to meet growing demand for food, fodder and fibre. Such expansion means that agriculture is taking land from other ecosystems and the management practices of farms greatly affect the sustainability of these ecosystems. Land-use developments over the last fifty years have changed ecosystems more rapidly than in any comparable period of time in human history (MEA, 2005). Biodiversity on and around farms has declined through the use of fewer crop varieties, greater specialisation, and the use of chemical pesticides. Globally more than 100 000 areas have some degree of protection to preserve wildlife and ecosystems, yet these contain significant amounts of land used for agriculture (ileia, 2004). At the same time, many more of these conservation areas are “islands in a sea of farms, pastures and production forests” that are managed in ways that threaten the long-term survival of species and ecosystems. For example, at least half of the world’s temperate, sub-tropical and tropical forest ecosystems are dominated by crop and pasture production.
What kinds of different land uses can be found in a typical rural landscape in your area? What different kinds of ecosystems can be found there? How do small-scale farmers interact with these ecosystems to enhance their cropping systems?
A balance is needed so that farmers can gain meaningful livelihoods in ways that do not lead to a decline in biodiversity at the landscape level. Just as farmers can adapt their methods to nurture the sustainability of their cropping systems through increasing diversity in their farms, they can also make a contribution to protecting biodiversity in the wider landscape. Measures that they might adopt include ensuring that their practices do not cause widespread erosion, pollute water systems, or poison the wider environment through indiscriminate use of chemical inputs. Many people work in, and depend upon landscapes for their livelihoods, including small-scale farmers. This can create pressures and improving the sustainability of cropping systems might often involve adopting a “landscape approach.” This involves close collaboration between farmers, herders and other land users in order to agree on how to manage common resources. Section 3.2.1 will discuss these kinds of consultation processes further. The next sub-section, takes a close look at the example of interactions between agro-ecosystems and the forest ecosystem, to illustrate wider issues of sustainability.
2.2.1 F orest ecosystems and small-scale cropping Sub-section 1.4.2 describes how agroforestry systems that mix woody perennials and crops can improve the sustainable productivity of farming. These systems can vary from intercropping to using trees in hedges or woodlots. Forest ecosystems have Figure 15: Forests offer many long been important to farmers and other people living close to them: for hunting products and services to farmers and for gathering food such as fruits, berries, honey, mushrooms, leafy vegetables, and others.
Learning AgriCultures
33
module 3 cropping systems - interim version
as well as firewood, medicines, fibres and construction materials. Forests can also provide a source of various kinds of plants and other genetic resources that contribute to farmers’ cropping systems. Forests in the vicinity of farms provide other benefits to farmers’ cropping systems as well. At the local level, forest cover has different buffering effects that influence the landscape, modifying the local climate by providing shade and absorbing heat energy; during cold seasons, they can act as a windbreak, reducing wind chill. The barrier effect of forests also reduces losses from evaporation and reduces wind erosion. Forests also provide stability to sloping land through their root structure and by intercepting water, protecting the soil from the effects of sheet erosion. By regulating the flow of water, they reduce surface erosion, sedimentation and down-stream flooding and, by filtering water pollutants, forests also protect water resources.
Figure 16: Forests help to mitigate the effects of climate change.
Go to R2.6 and discuss the article about using dom palm forest products in Eritrea, and two articles about communities in Indonesia and Niger finding more sustainable ways to use and regenerate forests.
34
Learning AgriCultures
On a global level, forests help to mitigate the effects of climate change. As explained in Module 2, an increased concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is considered to be one of the principle causes of climate change. Because of plants’ important role in photosynthesis, they are a key factor in the carbon cycle. Plants absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, combining it with water, then “storing” the carbon in the form of vegetation and, in the case of trees, in wood. This is known as “carbon sequestration.” As about 20 percent of tree weight is made up of carbon, forests can sequester a great deal of it. In total, according to the FAO (2006), the world’s forests and forest soils currently store more than one trillion tonnes of carbon -- twice the amount found floating freely in the atmosphere. Clearing forests, particularly through burning, releases a great deal of carbon into the atmosphere, thereby increasing the effects of climate change. Reducing deforestation (and burning) can play an important role in reducing CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. In the same way encouraging forest growth (through agroforestry or plantations) can add to carbon sequestration. Box 4 provides some information about the state of forests in the world today and the extent to which they are currently being cleared. Logging and mining companies and large-scale agriculturists establishing ranches and plantations are the most serious threat to forests. But small-scale farmers are also part of the problem, as they continue to clear forests in search of new land, often due to population pressure. Farmers practising shifting cultivation in marginal areas of the humid tropics, such as those in Southeast Asia, are finding that they need to think of more sustainable ways to use forests as their shrinking land base can no longer maintain productivity. In semi-arid Niger and other countries in the Sahel region of Africa, millions of hectares have been reforested by small-scale farmers through a method called Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration (FMNR). It is clear that farmers need to be part of a wider approach to reduce deforestation and increase forest regrowth.
Learning Block 2 : Cropping issues in the wider context
Box 4: The state of the world’s forests: Figures from the third Global Forest Resources Assessment (FAO, 2005).
Forests now cover nearly 4 billion hectares or 30 percent of the world’s land area, with ten countries accounting for two-thirds of all forest area: Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, India, Indonesia, Peru, the Russian Federation and the United States. Seven countries or territories have no forest at all, and an additional 57 have less than 10 percent forest cover. Yet, the destruction of forests continues to take place at an alarmingly high rate, due to many activities. Deforestation (mainly resulting from the conversion of forests to agricultural land), between the years 2000 and 2005 was occurring at a rate of about 13 million hectares per year. Replanting and natural forest expansion partially offset some of this, bringing the net loss down to about 7.3 million hectares per year, an area that is equivalent to the size of Sierra Leone or Panama. During this period Africa and South America continued to have the largest net loss of forests, while Oceania and North and Central America also experienced a net loss of forests. The forest area in Europe continued to expand, although at a slower rate. Asia, which had a net loss in the 1990s, reported a net gain of forests in this period, primarily due to large-scale afforestation in China. Primary forests (i.e., forests with no visible signs of past or present human activities) account for 36 percent of total forest area, but are being lost or modified at a rate of 6 million hectares a year, through deforestation or selective logging. Eleven percent of the world’s forests are designated for the conservation of biological diversity. Plantations are increasing, but account for less than 5 percent of forest area. The FAO’s assessment is based on information from 229 countries and territories - collected in 1990, 2000 and 2005 - and covering all types of forests (including undisturbed primary forest as well as managed plantation forests) in all zones.
2.3 A ccess to plant genetic resources Access to seed and other plant genetic resources is a crucial issue for farming. This section describes different transformations that have taken place in the production and dissemination of these resources and how they affect small-scale farming sustainability. “Plant genetic resources” (PGR) refer to all the different types of planting material, such as seeds and stem cuttings, of existing plant species. These include wild plants as well as crops developed by farmers and by way of modern biotechnologies. Sub-section 1.4.1 briefly described how small-scale farmers have developed a diversity of species and varieties to thrive under specific conditions in their farming systems. Farmers have always needed to exchange seed with one another in order to bring genetic diversity into the farm. This revitalises the genetic makeup of crops and keeps cropping systems resilient. This diversity is not only necessary at the crop level, but also at the level of crop varieties and contributes to plants being adaptable and remaining “robust”. However, in the last sixty years, modern developments in plant breeding have completely transformed the issue of crop
Figure 17: Seeds form a major part of “plant genetic resources” (or PGR).
Learning AgriCultures
35
module 3 cropping systems - interim version
biodiversity and how farmers access them. Box 5 provides a brief overview of four types of crop varieties that reflect traditional and modern breeding processes. Box 5: Some basic terminology reflecting different processes for developing seed varieties
Landrace: domesticated plants (or animals), adapted to the natural and cultural environment in which they live (or originated) and have co-evolved over generations. Landrace populations are often highly variable in appearance, but they are each identifiable morphologically and have a certain genetic “integrity”. Landraces can have particular properties or characteristics, for example being early or late maturing. They might be especially well adapted to particular soil types. The terms “landrace” and “traditional variety” are sometimes used interchangeably. Heirloom/conservation variety: a cultivated variety of plant that was commonly grown during earlier periods in human history in a certain region, but which is not used in modern agriculture. Many heirloom vegetable varieties have kept their traits through open pollination, while fruit varieties, such as apples, have been multiplied over the centuries through grafts and cuttings. Hybrid seed: the first generation (“F1”) seed produced from controlled cross-pollination between two different parent lines. Hybrid varieties are bred to improve the yield of the resulting plants by combining greater uniformity with other improvements, such as disease resistance. As hybrid seeds are F1s, their characteristics will segregate in the next generations and their yield goes down if seed collected from the first year is used in the second year. For this reason, the seeds of hybrid varieties are not suitable for re-use and this means farmers should buy new seeds every year. The extra costs and dependency on commercial seed production adds an extra burden to poor farmers. Improved seed: seed that is bred in formal PGR systems for particularly desired characteristics (e.g. drought tolerance, high yielding or early maturing). Improved seed can be either hybrid or open-pollinating; the latter can be derived by selecting certain plant types from landrace populations or by crossing landraces with modern varieties. Such improved seeds are used more widely than traditional and locally adapted seeds and require some inputs to produce optimally in different environments. More farmers are using these seeds to replace the large diversity of local varieties, which means that the use of traditional landraces is decreasing, thereby increasing the chances of reducing the agrobiodiversity base.
Looking at a major crop in your country, do you know of examples of landraces, hybrid and improved seed varieties? What advantages and disadvantages do you know for each type?
36
Learning AgriCultures
Recent innovations in plant breeding have altered how seed and other planting materials are developed. The supply and conservation of plant genetic resources are moving away from many “local” farmer-managed PGR systems to a few “formal” institution-managed research and development systems. These systems vary from place to place and from crop to crop, but some general trends can be seen. Figure 18 provides a simplified model of local and formal PGR systems, to help visualise the important differences between them. The model shows two intentional points of contact between these parallel, yet separate, systems. One is where institution-based gene banks go out to collect traditional varieties and wild relatives from areas where they are available. This allows for greater genetic variability to be conserved and improved upon. The second point of contact occurs when improved seed is distributed from the formal system as an input into the farmers’ system. This is occurring more and more, as farmers seek higher yields to improve their livelihoods. These two systems are explored below.
Learning Block 2 : Cropping issues in the wider context
Figure 18: The differences and interactions between two kinds of plant genetic resources (PGR) management systems, representing “local” farmer-centred systems and “formal” institution-based systems (adapted from Almekinders and de Boef, 1999).
2.3.1 Traditional local PGR systems In local PGR systems, seed breeding, selection, production and conservation are all part of one integrated management cycle in which farmers play the central role. Farmers’ crop selection, combined with processes such as crossing between varieties and wild relatives and exchanges with other farmers, form a system of continuous crop evolution. Every year, farmers decide which crops to use for home consumption, for market, for next season’s seed and for exchanging with other farmers. Over time, farmers have developed local varieties and breeds which are most suited to their specific context and preferences. As a result, there are thousands of rice varieties in South East Asia alone. Similarly, it is still common for a farmer in the Andes in South America to know more than a hundred different varieties of potatoes and other tubers by name.
Figure 19: Farmers play a central role in local PGR systems.
In developing countries, seed produced on-farm or obtained from relatives, friends or other informal channels is still by far the most important seed source for small-scale farmers. In areas where subsistence farming dominates almost all seed is produced on-farm. This proportion varies strongly from crop to crop and from region to region. On-farm seed production tends to be high for crops such as barley (which is self-pollinating and whose seed stores relatively well)
Learning AgriCultures
37
module 3 cropping systems - interim version
and lower for crops such as beans (for which diseases and local storage are more problematic). For other crops that are cross-pollinating, such as maize, that have both improved open-pollinating and hybrid varieties, the use made of traditional varieties from local PGRs may depend on how accessible the commercial varieties are to small-scale farmers. Farmers specialising in horticulture crops for the market, for example, tend to buy improved seed.
Go to R2.7 to discuss the article about seed fairs in Mozambique.
Farmers need mechanisms to feed the local gene pool with new materials and characteristics in order to keep their genetic resources robust and adaptable to changing conditions. Seed exchanges between farmers and spontaneous crossings between varieties and wild and cultivated relatives are the most important mechanisms for this. In some areas, seed fairs have been established to facilitate seed exchange between farmers and communities and improve access to a diversity of genetic material. These kinds of exchanges create new opportunities for reducing risk and increasing productivity on farms. Seed fairs have become one way of ensuring that local varieties (and knowledge about them) continue to be valued, improved upon and exchanged. For many small-scale farmers, it is however not always possible to save enough seed for the next season. They may face food shortages caused by weather variability including droughts or floods, problems from pests and disease, lack of access to land, low soil fertility or labour shortages. All these kinds of problems can have a negative effect on local mechanisms such as seed exchanges. Institution-based PGR systems, which are analysed in the next section, present different kinds of options to farmers.
2.3.2 Formal PGR systems
Figure 20: In formal PGR systems, different processes in seed development have been taken over by institutions.
The institutions involved in crop improvement (breeding programmes), seed supply (institutional production, quality control and distribution) and conservation (e.g. gene banks) form a PGR system that functions alongside farmers’ systems (see Figure 18). This “formal” PGR system started developing when plant breeding became a science, accelerating after genes were discovered and knowledge about the possibility of improving plant characteristics through crossings increased. Breeding became a specialised activity with breederresearchers working at research institutes and stations. Gene banks were set up in order to conserve and provide access to valuable collections of local varieties and landraces, some of which have been in danger of disappearing completely.
Formal breeding programmes Breeding is a lengthy and labour-intensive process. Formal breeding programmes are highly dependent on modern technologies. While farmers have traditionally bred crops by selecting plant types originating from crosses that occur through natural pollination, formal breeding programmes develop new, “improved” varieties through planned and controlled crosses. One important aspect of the Green Revolution was the creation of hybrid varieties, resulting from crossing two genetically different lines or varieties. These hybrid varieties gave farmers higher
38
Learning AgriCultures
Learning Block 2 : Cropping issues in the wider context
yields but they are not useful for seed saving as the seed does not stay true to the improved characteristics. In this way, farmers are obliged to buy new seed every season. However, not all improved seed is hybrid and many farmers use improved open-pollinating varieties among their crops. A general issue with improved varieties is that they only reach their productive potential if applied as part of a package - together with chemical fertilisers, pesticides and sufficient irrigation. The private sector and governments have actively promoted these packages as a way of achieving national food security. Originally, many farmers saw high-yielding varieties with options for dealing with pest outbreaks or drought tolerance, for example, as the way out of chronic food shortage and poverty. As a result, an organised production chain emerged in many developing countries based on the blueprint of agricultural development from Europe and North America. There is no doubt that formal PGR packages have helped substantially increase food production and food security in several countries, especially in Asia and Latin America. However, they raise a number of other issues for small-scale farmers, which are discussed below and in Section 3.2. One major issue is that formal PGR packages mean that farmers lose control over selection and breeding processes. Their location-specific breeding priorities are often not reflected in formal breeding programmes, which are often more focused on agriculture under “optimal” general conditions. Another major issue is the narrowing of genetic diversity as many local varieties become replaced by few improved varieties.
In your country, what percentage of PGR systems are formal or local systems? Do small farmers get access to formal PGR? Discuss the opportunities in, and barriers to, their buying improved seed.
Genetic engineering In recent decades, modern breeding programmes have come to include plant tissue culture and processes coming from genetic “engineering”. Although scientists have known about the existence of genes and DNA for some time, it was not until the 1970s that gene sequences were discovered, together with the possibility of splitting genes into segments. These discoveries suddenly made it possible to break through natural reproductive barriers, by moving genes from one species to another. Scientists can now transfer DNA molecules from different sources into one organism, thereby creating modified or new genes in a “genetically modified organism” (or GMO). The major GM crops in use at present are maize, soyabean, rapeseed and cotton (for more, see Box 6). Formal breeding programmes would like to use these modern lab-based techniques to address problems in agricultural production, such as improving plants’ resistance to pests and diseases, as well as to stresses such as drought and cold; and to enhance the nutritional content of foods. The ability to change the hereditary material of living organisms in such a fundamentally different way than traditional breeding has opened up many opportunities - but has also created unpredictable risks and affected farmers in terms of social and political factors.
Figure 21: Genetic engineering modifies plant traits by moving genes from one species to another.
Learning AgriCultures
39
module 3 cropping systems - interim version
Box 6: Where are we at with genetically modified organisms (GMOs)?
According to the report of the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Application (ISAAA) released on February 23rd 2010, the number of countries growing GM crops increased from six in 1996 when they were first commercialised, to 25 in 2009. Around 134 million hectares worldwide are now planted with GM crops. The United States tops the list of countries growing GM crops, followed by Brazil, Argentina, India, Canada, China, Paraguay and South Africa. Almost half of global GM crops are now planted in 16 developing countries, involving 13 million farmers. This indicates that more farmers are accepting GM crops although, according to Friends of the Earth International (FOEI), GM crops still occupy less than three percent of global agricultural land, It is often argued that GM crops will help increase food security, yet 99 percent of GM crops are grown for animal feed and biofuels - rather than food. Of all agriculture using GM crops, 99 percent consists of only four crops (soyabean, maize, canola or rapeseed and cotton) which have been modified for two traits: herbicide-tolerance (soyabean, maize, canola) and/or insect-resistance (Bt cotton, Bt maize). These last two varieties contain a gene from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) which makes crops resistant to the shoot borer pest. After fourteen years since GM crops were commercialised, there is still a good deal of opposition to them.
There is a great deal of controversy about GMOs which has led to a number of countries imposing a moratorium on their use, until the risks become clearer. These controversies mainly centre around three issues:
Have a debate about the positive and negative aspects of farmers using GMOs and other biotechnologies. o to R2.8 to read an article G on GMOs Go to R4.4, R4.5 and R4.6 to select a video about different GM crop issues ad viewpoints from India, U.S.A. and Europe.
40
Learning AgriCultures
• E nvironmental and health risks: there is concern about risks of unforeseen local and global effects as a result of GMOs spreading into the wider environment. Pollen from open-pollinating GM varieties can be dispersed over large areas by wind, animals and insects and there is concern over the possible consequences of a herbicide-resistance trait crossing into a wild relative of a crop plant, for example. The possibility of GM crops contaminating other crops also raises questions about biodiversity conservation, although this is a general issue for all formal programmes that mass produce seed. Many consumers are concerned about the potential health effects of eating GMOs (such as those containing natural pesticides like Bt). In a recent development (on the 9th February 2010), India placed a moratorium on plans to plant its first GM food crop (Bt brinjal – otherwise known as eggplant or aubergine). At the same time, seed companies are resisting pressure for food and other products to be labelled as containing GM ingredients, which increases consumers’ unease. • W ho benefits from and who controls GMOs: The global food, seed and agrochemical markets are becoming increasingly dominated by a few largescale and vertically and horizontally integrated companies. There is much concern about these large-scale, virtual monopolies having so much control over the development of these genetic resources and the socio-economic effects of this. Developing countries have limited influence in setting priorities on breeding programmes, because of the high costs of modern equipment and unfair conditions on intellectual property rights (or IPR - see Sub-section 3.2.2). In addition, investments and research priorities set by large PGR companies and rich countries mean that crops that are important to some parts of the developing world (e.g. teff, millet, cow peas) receive little investment.
Learning Block 2 : Cropping issues in the wider context
GM technology is also criticised because (as with hybrid seeds) it needs to be used as part of a package of inputs, and therefore creates dependence on inputs provided by the large seed/agrochemical companies. Farmers cannot save the seed themselves, and many poor farmers cannot afford the seed without going into debt. Besides this, the use of patents on seeds creates a situation in which farmers have problems because of legalities surrounding intellectual property rights and ownership of the materials. • Conflicting values: Some people find the generation and use of GM technologies as an intolerable interference with natural biological processes and a violation of the integrity of life. Proponents of GM crops do not agree and do not accept that this provides sufficient grounds for restricting GM developments.
2.3.3 Conservation of crop genetic diversity The two types of PGR systems in Figure 17 not only show different ways to breed and supply seed. Although it is not explicitly shown in the model, these two systems also reflect different approaches to the conservation of plant genetic diversity. Conservation is a natural part of the selection and production process of the local farmer-centred system, in which genetic resources are conserved on farms. This is known as “in situ” conservation. In the institution-based formal system, plant genetic resources are conserved in gene banks, which is referred to as “ex situ” conservation. The crucial difference between the two types of conservation is that in situ conservation allows the evolutionary process to continue, whereas ex situ conservation represents a frozen and static situation. There are advantages and disadvantages to both types of conservation.
Figure 22: Gene banks maintain plant genetic resources through “ex situ” conservation (ie, away from their natural environment).
In situ conservation of plants in a dynamic system, ideally, allows ongoing host-parasite co-evolution. This is likely to provide materials that are resistant to diseases and pests. However, in situ conservation is not wholly adequate for maintaining planting materials or genes. First, farmers may discontinue planting particular varieties or crops if better varieties become available and these varieties will then become lost. Second, the genetic makeup of materials can change when farmers change their production practices. In addition, it is more difficult for breeders, who like to use specific materials for their breeding programmes, to access in situ diversity. At the global level, off-farm ex situ gene banks have been established to counter genetic erosion and conserve plant genetic resources (both seeds -see Box 7and living plants). Gene banks cannot conserve all plant materials as they are limited in what they can store and have limited resources. In addition they are at risk from power cuts and delayed regeneration. Also, only a fraction of the existing genetic diversity has been collected with the size of the sample collected depending on the crop type. International agricultural research centres around the world (CGIARs) have relatively large collections of the major food crops,
Are there gene banks in your country? If yes, what kinds of crops do they store there? If possible, go and visit one.
Learning AgriCultures
41
module 3 cropping systems - interim version
such as rice, wheat, barley, maize and potato. In contrast, minor food crops have hardly been collected for ex situ conservation, even though the genetic diversity in these crops is more at threat due to their replacement by the principal crops.
Go to R2.9 to read articles about farmer-run community seed banks in Honduras and India.
Material in gene banks, located far from farmers’ communities is not very accessible to farmers. Such material also goes into deep-freeze and stops naturally evolving. However, small-scale initiatives (around the world) are establishing community-based gene banks to counter these problems and allow small-scale farmers greater access to locally important planting materials. Farmers can become members of the seed bank and help maintain quality by replenishing seeds at the end of each season.
Box 7: Svaldbard Global Seed Vault: 100 million seeds from around the world
An ambitious global ex situ conservation system has recently been dug deep into the rock of a frozen Arctic mountain on the island of Svalbard, in Norway, near the North Pole. This global initiative, coordinated by the Global Crop Diversity Trust and Nordic Genetic Resource Centre (NordGen), aims to safeguard the biodiversity of plant genetic materials from around the world. The seed vault will provide a safe storage space for centuries, or even longer, for hundreds of millions of seeds, representing every available crop variety conserved in the world’s gene banks today. In the event of a global environmental disaster, the diversity conserved in this vault could be used to restart agriculture. Twenty-one institutes, including the international agricultural research centres of the CGIAR, national gene banks and non-governmental organisations started by shipping samples of more than 268 000 varieties for the opening in February, 2008.
2.4 Management of weeds, pests and disease All farmers face the critical challenge of how to deal with weeds, pests and diseases, which can greatly harm the productivity of their cropping systems. This section describes the impact of using chemical pesticides to deal with these problems, contrasted with the “ecosystems” approach of integrated pest (and weed) management practices. Pests include rodents, insects or birds, fungi and also micro-organisms such as bacteria and viruses. Weeds are unwanted plants that invade cropping systems. Until the technological advances of modern agriculture in the last century, farmers used various, simple methods to restrict the damage caused by pests and weeds. These included mechanical controls such as weeding, burning and trapping, and the application of natural pesticides. However, when chemical measures to control pests and weeds started to be developed, more and more farmers chose them as a quick and easy way to rid themselves of these nuisances.
Figure 23: Pests can keep destroying crops if not kept in check through good management practices.
42
Learning AgriCultures
The term “pesticides” is often used to include all chemically based insecticides, fungicides, microbiocides, rodenticides, herbicides and other substances used to control pests and weeds. Applying pesticides to cropping systems has very quick and effective results and in many cases leads to higher yields. Use of herbicides also offers a way to save labour, as they eliminate the need for weeding. However, some time after chemical pesticides were first introduced, a range of problems
Learning Block 2 : Cropping issues in the wider context
emerged, reflecting the harmful effects of these chemicals on human health and on the wider ecological environment. This situation is analysed further below.
2.4.1 The use of chemical pesticides Chemical pesticides were introduced as part of the package of modern agricultural inputs that also include high-yielding improved seed and chemical fertilisers. This “package” approach led to two substantial changes in farming practices. Firstly it resulted in a reliance on a much narrower genetic base. For example, when rice farmers in Southeast Asia witnessed greater yields from the Green Revolution varieties, the uptake of these varieties increased and many rice-producing areas effectively became monocropped. Secondly, at least in the early years, it led to an indiscriminate use of chemical inputs. By 1985, more than 90 percent of farmers of irrigated rice in Southeast Asia were using (subsidised) insecticides (Kenmore, 1997). However, use of these pesticides was not without problems: they not only affect the targeted pests but also beneficial organisms, such as pollinators and the natural enemies that feed on crop pests. The combination of losing these organisms, together with widespread reliance on single varieties, made crops much more vulnerable to pest attacks and led to serious insect, viral and fungal attacks on many crops. This was dramatically illustrated in the Philippines, where rice harvests were devastated by the brown planthopper in the 1970s and 1980s. At the same time, experience of using chemical pesticides led to long-term increases in insect populations because the targeted pests quickly became resistant to the insecticides. In response to these problems, farmers were urged to apply pesticides more frequently and at higher dosages. This is often referred to as being caught on a “pesticide treadmill” with farmers forced to keep responding to stronger and stronger pest outbreaks.
Go to R2.10 and discuss the article about the decline in native honeybees in the Himalayas due to pesticides and other problems. Go to R1.3 and follow the role play on the risk of pests building up resistance against chemical pesticides.
Pesticides can also have significant impacts on human health, on the farmers who use them directly, their families and communities and, sometimes, on those who eat the crops if the residue levels are too high. These effects have long been recognised, although they are not immediately obvious. As well as causing poisoning pesticides can also attack the nervous system and create mental health problems. A range of protective measures have been introduced to address these issues. The most toxic chemicals have often been banned or can only be used in prescribed situations. Labelling requirements, detailing frequency and concentration of application and the need to wear protective clothing, including gloves and face masks, have been increased. However for many illiterate farmers such instructions are of limited value. It is still common to see small-scale farmers ignoring warnings to protect themselves from harmful effects of pesticides since protective clothing is both expensive and extremely uncomfortable to wear in hot climates. The storage and disposal of pesticides (and their packaging) represents another potential hazard. The chemicals need to be stored in sealed containers, out of the reach of children and their packaging needs to be disposed of rather than used for other purposes.
Learning AgriCultures
43
module 3 cropping systems - interim version
Such experiences led scientists and policy makers to become aware of unexpected consequences of unrestrained or poorly controlled pesticide use and since the 1970s scientists and farmers have been experimenting with alternatives to chemicals. Various practices for dealing with weeds, pests and disease have been brought together as an integrated approach to the management (rather than the control) of these problems.
2.4.2 I ntegrated pest (and weed) management
Go to R2.11 and discuss the article that provides a different view from Kenya of the value of weeds.
What do farmers in your region do to manage pests and weeds? How do these methods match with the categories for IPM methods? Can you think of other examples for each category? Thinking of labour, costs, accessibility and knowledge involved, come up with advantages and disadvantages of each method.
44
Learning AgriCultures
Integrated pest management (or IPM) involves a collection of different options that are based on a number of principles. An integrated approach to weed management largely follows the same principles, and so these two issues are brought together here. IPM was developed in response to the increasing problems stemming from pesticide use. It was first applied to rice systems in Southeast Asia, but IPM principles can be applied to protect any kind of crop in any country. The principles of IPM became the core of more participatory approaches to extension developed in Farmer Field Schools, through which farmers learn about more sustainable ways of managing their cropping systems. We will go in-depth into the development of Farmer Field Schools in Module 7 (Knowledge for small-scale farming). IPM involves developing a better understanding of the crop ecosystem, which includes crops, their pests and their natural enemies, weeds and the surrounding environment. This ecosystems approach does not seek to eradicate pests, but rather to manage them. It involves designing and developing cropping systems using a number of the methods discussed in Sub-section 1.4.2 so as to suppress harmful organisms and prevent them from becoming a nuisance. A major principle of IPM is the regular monitoring of cropping systems in order to observe changes and to learn from them. It involves gaining an understanding of life cycles of crops, of pests, beneficial natural enemies and weeds. The strategies used to respond to pests and weeds differ according to the crop (and varieties used), the pest, the location (country, region, or even the specific location), the climate and local farming practices. IPM can never be used as an off-the-shelf package, but needs to be developed and adapted to fit local requirements. It is based on farmers making observations and continuously monitoring the growth of their crops and changes around them. This allows them to make informed decisions on how to respond to any issues needing attention. The search for appropriate responses to pest problems means that pesticides are usually only ever applied as a last resort, when there are no adequate non-chemical alternatives.
Learning Block 2 : Cropping issues in the wider context
IPM uses a mixture of methods which can be categorised into four main types, each of which have advantages and disadvantages: • Mechanical methods: examples include tillage, weeding or hoeing, and removing pests by hand. • Cultural methods: examples include crop rotation, use of cover crops, mulching, intercropping, manipulation of the sowing or planting date and use of resistant crop varieties. • Biological methods: examples include enhancing conditions so as to attract natural enemies, introducing natural enemies and using natural pesticides to suppress the growth of weeds or harmful pests. • Chemical methods: these should only be used if other methods do not work – and with safety precautions. A very interesting example of combining cultural methods to manage both pests and parasitic weeds is the Push-Pull method developed in East Africa. Push-Pull uses a combination of leguminous “repellent” plants to deter, or “push”, stemborer pests (these plants also have the benefit of deterring the parasitic weed Striga hermonthica) together with trap crops to attract or “pull” these pests out of their maize and sorghum systems.
See R2.12 to discuss experiences with Push-Pull in Kenya, as well as two articles describing other IPM methods to manage different kinds of pests - in Southwest U.S.A. and Tanzania.
2.5 Intensification of crop management The use of chemical pesticides and plant genetic resources originating from formal institutions and commercial companies are examples of the technological approach of modern agriculture. These methods were developed to increase production in more intensive farming systems and have been successful in this aim in high potential areas, often creating new opportunities that farmers did not previously have. Yet, these advances have also had unintended negative effects. Small-scale (and particularly cash-strapped) farmers have benefitted less from these changes than large-scale farmers, becoming dependent on external agents for their resources and in some cases falling into deep debt. The abandonment of traditional varieties and their replacement by a few improved varieties also diminishes biodiversity – as well as knowledge about these varieties. As discussed above, a narrow genetic base planted over a large area leads to cropping systems that are more vulnerable to pests and disease. Nevertheless, it is possible to learn from and combine different aspects of modern and traditional crop management in order to achieve more sustainable intensification of small-scale cropping systems. For example, many farmers use both improved and local varieties, thereby getting different kinds of benefits from their cropping systems and spreading risks. This requires different kinds of knowledge about and access to both formal and local resources and practices. The previous section looked at an integrated “ecosystems” approach to pest and weed management. IPM programmes are widely considered to be a successful example of sustainable intensification of agro-ecosystems. They allow for a considerable reduction in the use of pesticides without affecting yields or farmers’ profits.
Figure 24: Different aspects of technological intensification within modern agriculture.
Go to R2.13 to see an article about intensification practices combining local and improved legume soyabean varieties in Zimbabwe.
Learning AgriCultures
45
module 3 cropping systems - interim version
This module has described a number of methods that intensify cropping practices through increasing diversity. Sub-section 1.4.2 discussed crop diversity buffers and farm-level approaches that involved multiple cropping in order to improve the efficient use and uptake of nutrients. All of these approaches require building up relevant knowledge about ecological interactions and processes, timing and management and how different elements on the farms interact. For example, finding the best crops (including trees) to enhance biological nitrogen fixation, and how and when to incorporate them (e.g. rotation, inter-cropping, cover cropping) can be the cheapest and most effective way for a small-scale farmer to maintain sustainable yields. In dryland soils, legumes can also improve access to phosphorus, which is the second most limiting nutrient after nitrogen. Mycorrhizal fungi which enhance lateral root development can play a decisive role in increasing access to water and nutrients.
See the article in R2.13 to learn more about SRI. See Module 2 for more on CA and discuss the article about it.
Other examples of sustainable intensification that have improved productivity in small-scale cropping systems around the world include two approaches mentioned in Module 2: Conservation Agriculture (CA) and the System of Rice Intensification (SRI). These are based on the optimisation of soil, water and other ecological processes. The integration of animals to enhance nutrient efficiencies is yet another way of building up diversity while simultaneously intensifying farming. This approach will be discussed more in Module 4, on livestock systems.
2.6 Sources for this learning block • Almekinders, Conny and de Boef, Walter. 1999. The challenge of collaboration in the management of crop genetic diversity. ileia Newsletter. Vol 15 (3/4): 5-7. • Altieri, Miguel A. and Nicholls, Clara I. 2004. Biodiversity and pest management in agroecosystems. Haworth Press, New York, U.S.A. • Bioversity International. 2010. www.bioversity.org. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI) and the International Network for Improvement of Banana and Plantain (INIBAP). Rome, Italy. • Boland, Jeroen, Irene Koomen, Joep van Lidth de Jeude and Jan Oudejans. 2004. Pesticides: compounds, use and hazards. Agrodok 29. Agromisa, Wageningen, Netherlands. • FAO. 2010. Pests and pesticide management. FAO website. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome, Italy. • FAO. 2008. Progress on farmer training in parasitic weed management. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
46
Learning AgriCultures
Learning Block 2 : Cropping issues in the wider context
• FAO. 2006. Forests and climate change: Better forest management has key role to play in dealing with climate change. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. • FAO. 2005. Global forest resources assessment 2005: 15 key findings. GFRA, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. • Friends of the Earth International (FOEI). 2010. Who benefits from GM crops?. FOE International, Amsterdam, Netherlands. • Greenfacts. 2007. Scientific facts on forests. www.greenfacts.org. GreenFacts, Belgium. • Greenfacts. 2005. Scientific facts on genetically modified crops. www.greenfacts. org. GreenFacts, Belgium. • ileia editorial team. 2007. Editorial: securing seed supply. LEISA Magazine 23(2): 4-5. • ileia editorial team, with Sarah Scherr. 2004. Editorial: farming with nature. LEISA Magazine 20(4): 4-6. • ileia editorial team. 2001. Genetic engineering: not the only option. LEISA Magazine 17(4): 4-5. • ISAAA. 2010. Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: The first fourteen years, 1996 to 2009. ISAAA Brief 41-2009 (Executive Summary). International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), Manila, the Philippines. • Kenmore, Peter. 1997. A perspective on IPM. LEISA Newsletter 13(4): 8-9. • MEA. 2005. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (International assessment managed by the) United Nations Environment Programme. Washington D.C., U.S.A. • Singh, Harminder Pal, Daizy Rani Batish and Ravinder Kumar Kohli (eds). 2006. Handbook of sustainable weed management. Haworth Press, New York, U.S.A. • Thomas, Richard J., Hanadi El-Dessougi and Ashraf Tubeileh. 2006. Soil system management under arid and semi-arid conditions. In: Uphoff, Norman et al, editors. Biological approaches to sustainable soil systems. Tailor and Francis Group, LLC, Boca Raton, USA. pp 41-55.
Learning AgriCultures
47
48
Learning AgriCultures
3
learning block Governance and sustainable cropping systems
Small-scale farmers demonstrating about the need to protect the right to use traditional seeds (“seeds of passion”) in Paraíba, Brazil – photo by Adriana Galvão Freire
What governance issues influence the sustainability of small-scale cropping systems? How can small-scale farmers benefit from, and get more control over where and how they access seeds and other agricultural inputs? What kinds of policies could promote and support more sustainable approaches to cropping?
Learning AgriCultures
49
module 3 cropping systems - interim version
3.1 Introduction Small-scale farming provides many examples of productive agro-ecosystems based on integrating diverse elements, including multiple cropping. It is the legacy of small-scale farming that tremendous agrobiodiversity exists in crop species and varieties today. Making use of, integrating and building up of diversity within and beyond farming systems is a fundamental aspect of cropping systems’ sustainability. Yet many factors work against the continuing efforts of maintaining this diversity, as well as undermining the sustainability of small-scale cropping systems. For instance, the wider policy environment plays a large part in determining whether small-scale farmers’ cropping systems remain dynamic and profitable. Examples of policies affecting agriculture include a country’s research and development (R&D) system, pricing policies and value chain development, policies on the use of biotechnological inputs and pesticides, as well as policies that determine how well local PGR systems are protected or nurtured. What happens on the ground –whether such policies exist and are implemented or whether small-scale farming systems are left in isolation– requires a good look at the role of government, market enterprises and other institutions. What these powerful forces choose to support has a great impact on the sustainability of small-scale farming. For example, the government line on particular approaches –such as modern input packages or integrated approaches such as IPM– affects priorities and advice of research and extension. Likewise, the priorities of formal PGR systems as well as agrochemical companies determine their investments in research and development. Another example is how the perception of governing bodies on the right of farmers to freely exchange local seed can determine whether these activities are encouraged or instead frustrated. The sustainability of small-scale cropping systems therefore hinges on governance mechanisms and the policy environment recognising their value and potential. Supportive governance and policy concerns are discussed respectively in Sections 3.2 and 3.3. In the former section, three governance issues discuss the extent to which small-scale farmers have leverage in political processes but also in intellectual property rights. Section 3.3 provides examples of policies that can support small-scale farmers’ cropping systems and promote their diversity and sustainability.
50
Learning AgriCultures
Learning Block 3 : GOVERNANCE AND SUSTAINABLE CROPPING SYSTEMS
3.2 Governance issues While farmers can make many efforts to enhance the sustainability of their cropping systems, their ability and capacity to do so are also strongly influenced by the governance conditions and the policies pursued by national and regional governments and other institutions. Governance refers to all levels of decisionmaking, including who is involved in making and implementing decisions. “Good” governance mechanisms are generally considered to allow, or encourage, people affected by decisions to be involved in the process of making them. This also includes small-scale farmers, who should be able to organise themselves so that they can voice their needs and have their rights respected. When governance mechanisms are weak, people with little power, such as small-scale farmers will most likely lose out to more powerful players. Often such situations can lead to poorer or marginalised groups losing access to valuable resources. A lack of consultation can also often lead to short-term financial benefits taking precedence over longer term sustainability concerns, such as protecting (agro-) biodiversity, the health of those using hazardous pesticides, or the control that farming communities have over genetic materials.
Figure 28: Governance mechanisms determine whether farmers can participate in decision-making processes that affect their crop management.
In the rest of this section, three governance issues that influence the sustainability of small-scale farmers’ cropping systems are briefly described. The first of these is the importance of consulting farmers and coming to agreements over issues that affect sustainability at the landscape or ecosystem level. The second is the need to respect farmers’ rights to control their own seeds and other plant genetic resources and be able to exchange them within the existing intellectual property right (IPR) regimes. The third issue introduces participatory plant breeding, an approach in which small-scale farmers are involved in plant breeding, research and extension processes.
3.2.1 I nvolving farmers in rural planning In Sub-section 2.2, we discussed the need for a landscape-level approach for enhancing sustainability beyond the farm gate. Such an approach might involve getting people living in an area to agree to follow particular rules on using, sharing and conserving resources in a forest, waterway or park in the vicinity. In terms of biodiversity issues this might involve getting agreements on using communal land, reforesting an area, protecting certain species, reducing the use of particular pesticides, or for example creating a landscape-level network of corridors of vegetation (e.g. hedgerows, live fences or windbreaks) between crop fields, along riverbanks, irrigation canals, natural waterways and on roadsides.
Figure 29: Landscape-level agreements on land use can, for example, maintain or create corridors of natural vegetation, such as hedgerows and trees, between farms.
Different organisations around the world (e.g. IUCN and Ecoagriculture - see Further References) concentrate on finding ways to conserve nature while
Learning AgriCultures
51
module 3 cropping systems - interim version
Go to R1.4 for an exercise for students in developing a landscape approach to reforestation in your region. Go to R2.14 to read the article about a community-based and managed protected area in Ethiopia. Compare this initiative with one in Indonesia (R2.6.2).
Figure 30: IPR regimes need to safeguard small-scale farmers’ rights to re-use and exchange plant genetic resources, as part of the “farmers’ privilege”.
improving rural livelihoods. Their experience shows that good planning which is widely acceptable to the local population, needs to involve (representatives of) all of the many different people living in, and using the resources of, an area, (i.e. local “stakeholders”). However, it is not always to arrive at binding agreements as there are often competing interests and much time may need to be invested to get different stakeholders to agree to their changing behaviour. In many cases, differences in power and influence as well as market forces make it almost impossible to predict what decisions will be arrived at. In countries where institutions and governance mechanisms are weaker, landscape-level negotiations can be more difficult and often necessitate embarking on a process of “building constituencies, negotiating deals and muddling through” (Sayer and Dudley 2008). Landscape scale interventions in such situations particularly need to be flexible and locally adapted.
3.2.2 I ntellectual property rights, crops and small-scale farmers In farmer-centred PGR systems, exchanges of seed between farmers have always been based on free and unrestricted access. Because seed varieties have evolved through the efforts of generations of farmers, seed exchanges are seen as a way of mutually sharing the benefits. Until formal institutions started developing new crops and varieties, the idea of owning seed was not even something to consider. All this changed in 1961 when, for the first time, patent protection was introduced to living organisms with the international convention from the Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV). Until then, the extension of “intellectual property rights” (or IPRs – see Box 8) had only been applied to new, industrial products. IPRs, such as patents, are intended to stimulate (and reward) innovation. In what was called the “farmers’ privilege”, seed and other plant genetic resources were consciously excluded from patent protection, so that seed re-use and exchange could go on unrestricted. However, the scientific breakthroughs in genetic engineering and related techniques have changed this situation. The crop varieties produced by modern techniques are considered to be so “new”, time-consuming and costly, that the UPOV convention considered patent protection on these varieties to be justifiable. Holding IPRs over genetic resources allows plant breeders to prohibit others from using them, or to ask for payment for their use over a certain period of time. It can take 7-10 years to get from the first cross to the marketable variety (Almekinders and Hardon, 2006). Through IPRs, breeders can take time to research and experiment to develop new genetic resources, knowing that they will be rewarded through exclusive rights to sell them. In recent years a number of international treaties have been signed, with mixed results for small-scale farmers (see Box 9). Patents on plant varieties
Box 8: What is an “intellectual property right” (IPR)?
Intellectual property is the term used to refer to a group of legal regimes, such as patents, trademarks and copyright, that provide legal protection to creators and inventors (and in the case of agriculture, breeders), from others copying or using their work or invention (or genetic resources) without permission.
52
Learning AgriCultures
Learning Block 3 : GOVERNANCE AND SUSTAINABLE CROPPING SYSTEMS
(and even on genes) now provide much stronger protection to the breeder and do not take into account the customary rights of farmers. Although there continue to be many efforts to safeguard the farmers’ privilege (see CBD and ITPGRFA in Box 9), breeders’ rights have gradually been strengthened in recent decades, to the detriment of farmers. For this reason, many developing countries refused to sign the 1991 revision of the UPOV. There is now a very confusing situation as IPRs are based on national laws and so protection granted in one country may not be valid in other countries. The extension of intellectual property rights on plant materials is a major governance issue for the sustainability of cropping systems. Farmers were not involved in the decision to extend the patent system to plant breeding. IPRs on plant varieties conflict with the values of farming communities which have always relied on the free exchange of materials. Such protection should not be granted to new varieties that make use of farmers’ varieties without the consent of the community that developed them. And such communities should be rewarded for the contribution that their work has made to making a new variety possible. Also, if IPRs must be extended, ways need to be found for the people of these regions, who are in effect custodians of local agrobiodiversity, to share in the benefits. By excluding farmers from the debates about IPRs for plant varieties, it will be problematic to enforce these rights.
Find out whether your country has signed any of the treaties in Box 9. Do you know whether they have affected small-scale farmers’ access to seed? Are there examples in your area of farmers benefiting from breeders using their seeds?
Box 9: Main international agreements, treaties and conventions regarding IPR
• UPOV (Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants): started with a convention in 1961, in which signatories agreed to introduce patent protection on plants and other living material. Basically, UPOV requires member states to provide for the registration and protection of plant breeders’ rights over new varieties in their national jurisdictions. It was revised in 1978 and 1991. The first revision allowed farmers to save, use and exchange farm-saved seed since this was not considered to be commercial exploitation (referred to as the farmers’ privilege). “Breeders’ rights” became the priority in the 1991 revision, negating the farmers’ privilege. For this reason, many developing countries have only signed the 1978 version. • WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organisation): specialised agency of the United Nations, and the leading organisation in increasing IP norm-setting since 1970. It has a controversial history, and many call for its reform as it does not adequately consider development concerns such as biodiversity and food security. • TRIPS (Trade-Related Intellectual Property): this agreement was part of the Uruguay Round that established the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in 1986. It obliges all WTO members to set certain minimum requirements for protection of intellectual property (IP); however, developing countries are given some flexibility to adapt their IP regimes to their own specific circumstances. • CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity) is the principle multilateral framework to address the issue of agrobiodiversity. Signed by 192 countries in 1993, it supports “farmers’ privilege” and sustainable small-scale farming. CBD sets out certain basic principles but leaves it up to individual states to implement them in the way they choose. It has no binding standards of behaviour. • ITPGRFA (International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food & Agriculture) was initiated by the FAO in 2001 and provides a general framework for conservation and sustainable use of PGRFA. It aims to establish a common pool of resources, and for breeders to be transparent about and share benefits farmers. It has similar objectives as the CBD, recognising “farmers’ rights” but applied to a narrower scope of plant genetic resources for a limited number of crop and forage species. It introduces binding rules and institutional mechanisms to facilitate access to, and show benefits from research and plant breeding.
Learning AgriCultures
53
module 3 cropping systems - interim version
3.2.3 I ncluding farmers in formal research, breeding and conservation programmes
Figure 31: Farmer breeders often have different priorities when selecting crops and varieties, than formal PGR breeding programmes.
Do you know of any PPB programmes in your area? How successful are they in including farmers and in coming up with materials they like to use? If there are no programmes, why do you think that is the case?
Go to R2.15 to discuss the article about a PPB programme with bean farmers in Nicaragua.
54
Learning AgriCultures
Formal plant breeding institutions develop improved seed for a particular range of crops and for environments whose productive conditions justify investments. These seeds are mostly bred for high yields but also for other general improvements such as drought tolerance. By being able to control the ecological environment through irrigation and applications of fertiliser and pesticides, farmers often enjoy success with these genetic materials. However, modern varieties do not always fit with the priorities, needs or preferences of small-scale farmers. For example, farmers may prefer varieties that grow well under the specific conditions on their farm. They may select varieties that are early maturing, for the amount of by-products they yield for feeding livestock, or because of their taste, cooking or storage properties. In formal breeding programmes, selections are generally on the basis of the conditions (i.e. soil fertility, water and climate) that prevail on-station, which may differ from those found on farms. In response to these issues, experiments were initiated in the 1990s by formal breeding research institutions and NGOs to involve farmers more in the process of developing improved varieties. Small-scale and especially low-capital farmers were the main target group for Participatory Plant Breeding (PPB) programmes. Such farmers were seen as benefiting the least from conventional breeding programmes and also were recognised as having more knowledge about adapting varieties in marginal and complex environments. It was hoped these programmes could not only improve productivity for major food crops, but also for minor crops that play an important role in local food security. NGOs had a further interest in giving farmers more control over the process and emphasised the value of local landraces. A study that looked at eleven pilot projects from around the world shows that PPB has indeed led to better materials being developed in a relatively short time and being rapidly distributed through farmer seed systems (see Almekinders & Hardon, 2006). However, while formal PPB programmes often involved farmers in the process of selecting varieties, the breeders often retained control over decisions about selection and breeding. The study concluded that PPB leads to successful development of crops that are not included in formal PGR systems, but has not moved beyond that. Successful programmes have led to farmers taking charge of breeding and production activities. PPB is not easy to initiate and requires the flexibility and willingness of professionals in governmental and non-government organisations to cooperate with farmers and other institutional actors.
Learning Block 3 : GOVERNANCE AND SUSTAINABLE CROPPING SYSTEMS
3.3 Policies supporting sustainable cropping Throughout this module, many examples have been given of how small-scale farmers can improve the sustainability of their (diversity-based) cropping systems, as well as how important it is they participate in decision-making. This section gives examples of policies that support the sustainability of cropping systems.
3.3.1 Research & Development priorities Investment and research priorities are often determined by a few large formal PGR and agrochemical companies – basically because they have enough resources and ability to turn research outcomes into marketable products. This has resulted in little investment in crops that are important in different parts of the developing world, such as underutilised crops, but also “minor” staple crops like millet and teff. Even when research is done by large agrochemical and seed companies it is often not made available to farming systems in developed countries. Policies that support the development of infrastructure (e.g. research, processing and marketing) of certain minor crops important to local/regional food security, or for example of organic or other “niche” markets for crops, can open up new possibilities for small-scale farming. At the same time, pressure is needed on companies to make improved plant genetic resources available to areas that are the least developed.
Figure 32: Policies that support sustainable cropping practices should also consider the needs of small-scale farming.
3.3.2 R egulations on inputs: hazardous pesticides and GM organisms Many efforts have been made to limit the use of chemical pesticides, especially those that are hazardous to the health of farmers and their families, as well as those that contaminate the environment. Policies that relate to pesticide use include: all-out bans on particularly dangerous pesticides; and restrictions on the use of pesticides that have potentially harmful impacts on public resources such as water quality. The FAO has written a Code of conduct on the distribution and use of pesticides, which suggests minimum standards (see Section 3.4 for reference). As shown Sub-section 2.4.2, there are alternatives to the use of pesticides that involve more integrated approaches to pest and weed management. Some possible policies that can be introduced include supporting training on IPM practices and the safe use of chemicals (e.g. through Farmer Field Schools). A special type of programme concerns the safe disposal of unused stocks of obsolete pesticides (e.g. the FAO’s Africa Stockpiles programme).
Go to R2.16 for the article to help start a discussion about banning highly hazardous pesticides.
A related issue is the restriction by several countries on the development and use of genetically modified organisms. The European Union (EU) for instance held
Learning AgriCultures
55
module 3 cropping systems - interim version
a ban on the import of GM products but had to withdraw it under pressure of the World Trade Organization. The preliminary ruling found that the ban unfairly protected the EU’s internal agricultural market against competition from outside. Other countries have also banned the practice of GM in seed improvement. However the bans sometimes only exist on paper and agrochemical companies often violate them to be able to maintain their competitive position.
Do these kinds of policies exist in your country? In general, do your country’s agricultural policies support or undermine the sustainability of diversitybased small-scale cropping systems? In what ways?
There needs to be more open debate about the costs and benefits of different aspects of GMOs. In particular the use of “terminator” and “traitor” seeds has been very controversial. These technologies modify seeds so as to lose their reproductive capacities, and in the second case to require the application of a particular chemical in order to activate a desired engineered trait. Public commotion when they were first introduced by large biotech companies caused them to shelve the development of this technologies. More extensive research and public debate on the repercussions of these technologies on human health and on the ecological environment is required before they can be considered safe enough to enter into the market. The Cartagena Biosafety Protocol (see Box 10) is an example of an international agreement that gives signatory countries more control over the movement of GM organisms within their borders.
Box 10: What is the Cartagena Biosafety Protocol?
This Protocol is an international agreement on biosafety, that supplements the Convention on Biological Diversity (see Box 9). It seeks to protect biodiversity from the potential risks posed by the release of living modified organisms resulting from modern biotechnology. The Biosafety Protocol requires products from new technologies to be based on the “precautionary principle” and allows developing nations to balance public health against economic benefits. It will for example let countries ban imports of a living modified organism if they feel there is not enough scientific evidence that the product is safe and requires exporters to label shipments containing genetically altered commodities such as maize or cotton. The UN Protocol has been signed by 150 countries thus far and came into force in 2003.
3.3.3 P rotecting farmer-centred local PGR systems Governments of countries in which farmer-centred seed systems dominate must take care to find ways for the people of these regions, who are in effect custodians of local agrobiodiversity, to share in the benefits of IP. Their policies need therefore protect the “farmers’ privilege” and ensure a transparent system in which communities are rewarded for the genetic diversity they contribute to breeding programmes. In addition policies should support the safeguarding of local agrobiodiversity through seed banks (formal and local); support for knowledge-intensive approaches to cropping systems such as Farmer Field Schools; more farmer-centred breeding programmes, and the stimulation of seed exchange and seed fairs to keep local knowledge and genetic resources from disappearing.
56
Learning AgriCultures
Learning Block 3 : GOVERNANCE AND SUSTAINABLE CROPPING SYSTEMS
3.3.4 Pricing policies Pricing policies influence the viability of small-scale farmers’ cropping systems. The general pattern has been for pricing support to be extended to a limited number of major crops in the shape of guaranteed minimum prices. These could include rice, wheat, oil seeds, sugarcane or cotton, for example. The objective behind this kind of pricing support has been to improve national food security or to reduce the import of major crops. Such general pricing support has meant that large-scale monoculture systems were encouraged, while by-passing the more diverse small-scale cropping systems. In recent years, however, a movement towards supporting small-scale farmers’ crops has emerged, through the development of “value chains”. By connecting different actors in the supply chain this support aims to regulate the transactions and guarantee the procurement of a range of crops – including small-scale farmers’ “niche” crops at secure prices. In this way, farmers get more certainty that the crops they include in more mixed, sustainable systems will find a way to the market. These issues will be discussed more in Module 6 (Markets and finance for small-scale farmers).
3.4 Sources for this learning block • Almekinders, Conny and Hardon, Jaap (eds). 2006. Bringing farmers back into breeding: Experiences with participatory plant breeding and challenges for institutionalisation. AgroSpecial 5. Agromisa Foundation, Wageningen, Netherlands. • Convention on Biological Diversity. 2010. CBD Fact Sheets. www.cbd.int. • FAO. 2010. Code of conduct on the distribution and use of pesticides. Go to http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y4544e/y4544e00.htm.
• Hardon, Jaap J. 2004. Plant patents beyond control: Biotechnology, farmer seed systems and Intellectual Property Rights. Agrospecial 2. Agromisa Foundation, Wageningen, Netherlands. • Ileia. 2003. Editorial: Access to and control over resources. LEISA Magazine Vol.19(3): pp 4-5. • Lockie, Stewart and Carpenter, David. 2010. Agriculture, biodiversity and markets. Livelihoods and agroecology in comparative perspective. Earthscan, London, U.K. • Louwaars, Niels, Rob Tripp and Derek Eaton. 2006. Intellectual property rights in the breeding industry: farmers’ interests. Agriculture & Rural Development Notes 14 (June). World Bank, Washington, D.C.
Learning AgriCultures
57
• Sayer, Jeff and Dudley, Nigel. 2008. What is a landscape approach?. Arborvitae special: Learning from Landscapes. International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and Ecoagriculture Partners/Cornell University, Geneva, Switzerland, p.3. • Tansey, Geoff and Rajotte, Tasmin (eds). 2008. The future control of food. A guide to international negotiations and rules on intellectual property, biodiversity and food security. Earthscan, U.K. and U.S.A.
58
Learning AgriCultures
Educational Resources for Module 3
How can students develop a deeper understanding about small-scale farming and sustainable cropping practices? Throughout the three learning blocks, different educational resources have been highlighted that can be used to stimulate discussions and as material for assignments. These include exercises, games, articles, photos, videos, a farmer interview checklist and field exercises, as well as references for further reading. They are brought together in this section.
Learning AgriCultures
59
module 3 cropping systems - interim version
R1. Exercises and Games This section includes three exercises and one role play to support different lessons from the three learning blocks.
R1.1 Planning a field layout for mixed cropping
Figure 33: Exercises and games can help students understand issues better.
Objective of the exercise: to better understand about positive and negative interactions between crops in a mixed cropping system. Time involved: half a day (the field visit will require additional time) Suggested use: Learning Block 1 (1.4.2: Using crop diversity as a buffer) Number of participants: divide the students into groups of 5-6 Materials: large sheets of paper and coloured markers
Methodology: • Think of a typical selection of about 10-15 crops in small farms in your area. Consider staple crops, fruit, vegetables, legumes and crops with high market value. Be sure to also include trees and underutilised crops. • Use the information in Sub-section 1.4.2 to discuss different relationships of complementarity, synergy, multi-purpose functions and recycling. Also discuss different ways to grow multiple crops together simultaneously or sequentially over time. • Reflecting on the selection of crops you have made, consider their characteristics and the different kinds of relationships between them. List the characteristics on poster paper. Examples of characteristics include: 1. Nutrients: are there any legumes or crops that need more nutrients? 2. Timing: which crops are fast-growing and which slow-growing? 3. Roots: which crops have shallow root systems and which are deep-rooted? 4. Natural repellents: are there crops (e.g. onion family) that can natural repel insects? 5. Length and light: how tall do the crops get? Which crops can and cannot tolerate shade? 6. Which crops could form a favourable rotation (e.g. five-year cycle) • Present a design indicating intercropping over one season, as well as a fiveyear cycle. Discuss the logic behind the design, and present the kinds of relationships (i.e. complementarity, synergy, multi-purpose functions and recycling) you are exploiting.
Discussion: • Compare different presentations. Which systems would give the most benefit to farmers and why? Which fit the best with typical soil and water conditions?
60
Learning AgriCultures
Educational Resources for Module 3
• Think about the benefits and drawbacks of such a complex system, in terms of the labour needed, productivity and timing of production throughout the year.
Extra follow-up activity (see R5 Farmer visit and field exercises): Arrange a field visit to farmers and take time to ask them whether they intercrop and use rotations.
R1.2 Realising the value of underutilised crops Objective of the exercise: to become aware of the many locally available but under-used crops that can be used to supplement cropping systems. Time involved: about 3 hours Suggested use: Learning Block 1 (to support lesson on Underutilised crops in Sub-section 1.4.2) Number of participants: divide the students into groups of 4-6 people Materials: Internet or library access, large sheets of paper, pens and pencils
Methodology: • Use the information in Sub-section 1.4.2 on Underutilised crops and ask students to read at least one of the two articles on this subject – see R2.5, to discuss how crops that used to be used by farmers are becoming forgotten and are now only marginally used. Identify ones from your area. These plants (including trees) can provide important products, including nutritious food, fodder, medicines, soap, fibre, timber, as well as being useful in other ways (soil amendments, etc). • Form groups of 4-6 students. Ask each group to pick one underutilised crop or tree that is found locally and one from elsewhere. Get ideas from farmers, elders, books or the internet (see some relevant websites in the box below). Become a specialist in the possibilities that the plant holds. Make a poster with drawings, sketches and text. Each group can then present its findings in class. • Draw up some research suggestions – for example: 1. What are the potentials of this plant? Try to find out what potential it has ecologically, economically and socially (for example, how much labour does it need for preparation?). 2. What characteristics does this plant have? Think of negative aspects such as invasiveness, toxicity and production problems, as well as beneficial characteristics such as acting as a repellent or increasing nutrient availability. 3. Where would you place such a crop within a field? Are there possibilities for intercropping, agroforestry, crop rotation? Be aware of light, nutrient, moisture needs, etc. 4. Why do you think this plant is underutilised? How could this be changed? Think of possible policies or market regulations.
Learning AgriCultures
61
module 3 cropping systems - interim version
Box 11: Relevant websites on underutilised crops:
• The International Centre for Underutilised Crops (ICUC): www.icuc-iwmi.org/ • Crops for the future: www.cropsforthefuture.org/ • The Global Facilitation Unit for Underutilized Species (GFU): http://www.underutilized-species.org/ • Plants for a future: edible, medicintal and useful plants: www.pfaf.org/index.php • Biodiversity international: www.bioversityinternational.org/scientific_information/themes/neglected_and_ underutilized_species/overview.html • International Symposium on Underutilized Plants for Food Security, Nutrition, Income and Sustainable Development. Online articles: www.actahort.org/books/806/ • Wikipedia: Neglected and underutilized crops: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underutilized_crops • Marketing Underutilized Plant Species for the Benefit of the Poor: A Conceptual Framework. See especially page 22, table 1: http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/eptdp154.pdf • Pamphlets on cultivation techniques and recipes for select indigenous vegetables: http://www.indigenoveg.org/
Discussion: • Compare findings from the different presentations. If crops from other regions were chosen, do the students think that any of the underutilised crops studied could benefit their region and are they ecologically applicable? • Are there any crops that might be able to be processed into a high-value and marketable product? • Discuss why the markets are dominated by so few plants and crops and why many other useful ones are “minor” and ignored by research and extension services.
R1.3 Role play on insecticide resistance Objective of the game: to understand how pesticides lose their effectiveness due to a build-up of pest resistance, and how this puts farmers on the “pesticide treadmill”. Time involved: 1-2 hours Suggested use: Learning Block 2 (Sub-section 2.4.1: lesson on IPM) Number of participants: 13 players plus audience as follows: 1 storyteller 1 farmer (holding the sprayer) 7 participants, to be “ordinary worms” (who do not wear caps) 4 participants, to be “super worms” (who do wear caps) A group of observers, they will take notes of what happens Materials: 1 hand sprayer filled with water (“pesticide sprayer”); and 14 caps (or some other identifiable accessory)
62
Learning AgriCultures
Educational Resources for Module 3
Methodology: • Organise the group into the characters for the role play. • Ask the “ordinary worms” to stand on one side of the room and the “super worms” on the opposite side. • The middle of the room is the farmer’s field. • The storyteller starts reading the play and gives instructions to the groups (see below - instructions are in italics). • When the game is finished, the observers tell what they have seen and the whole group can discuss what mechanisms where at play. Box 12: The role play (adapted from Vegetable IPM Exercise Manual. 2000. CABI Bioscience and FAO, Rome, p.12)
a In the first week of the season, the farmer goes to her field and finds 5 pests (“worms”). Although she does not know it, 1 of these, a “super worm” has become resistant to the pesticide that she usually uses. All the other worms were ‘ordinary worms’. [1 super worm and 4 ordinary worms go into the field. After that, the farmer comes in the field and acts as if she is observing her crops] a The farmer becomes very worried that her crop is being eaten by worms, and she decides to spray poison immediately. One lucky “ordinary worm” managed to escape the pesticide by hiding under the leaves of a plant. [The farmer brings the sprayer into the field and sprays all the worms except 1 ordinary worm] a All but one of the “ordinary worms” dies and the “super worm” happily survives because of the resistance it has against the pesticide. [3 ordinary worms in the field die and sit on the ground. The super worm shows his cap to the public as his protection and smiles] a Now the farmer is happy, so she goes away for a week. In that week, the remaining worms pupate, become adults and then start mating. Each adult in the field could produce 3 young ones. In the next generation of worms, there are now 3 “ordinary worms” and 3 “super worms”. After producing babies, the adult insects die. [The 2 surviving worms in the field rest, as if they are pupating, then stand up, and produce young by inviting 3 ordinary worms and 3 super worms into the field, then fly away and die] a The next week the farmer comes into the field and finds 6 worms. Of course she does not know that among the worms, there are 3 “super worms” that are resistant to the pesticide. Again she worries and decides to spray. This time she makes the pesticide mix a bit stronger and takes care to cover all areas of plants where the worms could be hiding. [The farmer comes into the field, looks around carefully and sprays all the living worms in her field, not missing any] a All the ‘ordinary worms’ die of the pesticide spray, but the “super worms” survive. [Ordinary worms die and sit on the ground. The super worms again show their caps and smile] aAgain the remaining worms (3 “super worms”) pupate and emerge as adults, mate and produce young. As before, each adult produces 3 babies, flies away and dies. Because all the parents are “super worms”, all the 9 new worms are “super worms”. [The surviving super worms rest, as if they are pupating, then stand up, and produce young by inviting 9 more super worms into the field, then fly away and die]
Learning AgriCultures
63
module 3 cropping systems - interim version
aThe next week, the farmer visits the field again. Now she finds 9 worms. She again sprays with an even stronger concentration of pesticide, but now, none of the worms dies! [Farmer takes her pesticide sprayer, looks around carefully and sprays all the worms, not missing any. The super worms again show their caps and smile] a The farmer is surprised and doesn’t know what to do anymore. What should she do? [End of the role play: all the players get up]
Discussion: Discuss the play in the group. Reflect on what happened: • How many worms died out of how many generations? • How and why did this change occur between generations? • What would happen if the farmer continued spraying pesticide? • What else could the farmer try to do? • How can farmers get off of the pesticide treadmill?
R1.4 Reforestation and policy measures Objective of the exercise: to learn about the ecological, social, economic and policy implications of reforestation projects. Time involved: half a day Suggested use: Learning Block 3 (Sub-section 3.4.1 Involving farmers in consultation processes) Number of participants: does not matter Materials: paper and pencils
Methodology: • I n this exercise, participants become government officials who need to think about how to establish a reforestation project. • Form small groups of 4-6 people. • Take a map of the region in which you live or that you know well. • Is there an area that could benefit from tree planting? How do you think it would benefit? • Discuss the points below and come up with a plan: - Look at the ecological characteristics of the area: think about soil type, rainfall, slope, current vegetation, etc. - Think about the social and economic implications of reforestation. What is the current land use? Who is currently using the land? Who owns the land? What would have to change in the use of the land and its resources? What kind of economic gains and losses would occur as a result of a change in land use and its resource base? (e.g. what are the differences between the
64
Learning AgriCultures
Educational Resources for Module 3
current land use and its products versus the products of forests?) What kind of products can be used by local people in the area, for domestic use or for selling in the marketplace? Would there be any other social consequences? Think about social organisation, cultural symbols, status and issues like infrastructure. • If you were a regional government official responsible for this area would you start a reforestation project? What do you need to take into account? How are land rights organised? How would you deal with the land owners and users? How can you get local stakeholders, such as small-scale farmers involved in a consultative process and interested in the scheme? What would they want in return? How do you create awareness? • Read the article from Niger (see R2.6) about “Farmer-managed natural regeneration”. This is one idea about how to reforest. Would this work in your area? Can you think of other ways to realise your plans for this area? The article highlights the importance of farmers taking responsibility for trees, as well as access and user rights. How would you organise all this? What problems do you think you would encounter? • If possible, include practical issues in your plan: - What kinds of tree species would you want to include? - What do you need to include in a budget, to start the project and then keep it going?
Discussion: • Each group presents their plans in class. Compare the plans and discuss if they are comprehensive and realistic. • If different groups design a plan for the same area, discuss which group has taken the best account of the local situation.
Learning AgriCultures
65
module 3 cropping systems - interim version
R2. Articles about practical experiences
Figure 34: Using ileia’s article archive can stimulate discussion on practical implications of small-scale cropping systems’ sustainability.
Objective: to use articles about small-scale farming experiences from around the world to deepen the lessons from the three learning blocks. Materials: all articles can be retrieved from the LEARNING pages on ileia’s A ) website (www.ileia.org), while a selection of articles (indicated by a green is included in the Appendix that follows the Educational Resources section. Methodology: these articles can be used as additional reading material, as part of classroom discussions, or as part of student assignments. One suggestion is to have students prepare presentations on the basis of the articles, addressing specific questions related to the information contained in the learning blocks. Some questions are suggested.
R2.1 Are polycultures always more sustainable? Where to use this article: Learning Block 1 – Sub-section 1.4.2 In defence of monocultures (Global, 2000) What it is about: this article challenges the assumption that monocultures can never be sustainable by observing the sustainability of natural stands of wild relatives of annual cereals. Suggested questions: • What examples does the author site as being natural monocultures? • Under what conditions does the author propose that natural monocultures can survive well? • How do the natural monocultures described by the author differ from monocultures found in modern agricultural cropping systems? • Does the article answer the question it poses: i.e. is there something that can be learned from natural monocultures that could be of value to sustainable cereal cropping? • Comparing the three methods, how is labour affected?
R2.2 Crop rotation Where to use this article: Learning Block 1 – Sub-section 1.4.2 (under Crop rotation) The mambwe mound cultivation system (Zambia, 2006) What it is about: by introducing different practices, including a longer crop rotation based on more crops and planting on mounds, a shifting cultivation system has been sustainably intensified.
66
Learning AgriCultures
Educational Resources for Module 3
Suggested questions: • Why was it necessary to find ways to intensify the Chitemene shifting cultivation system in Northern Zambia? • How does the author propose to intensify it? • What is the logic behind the crops proposed in the rotation? • What are the advantages of the mambwe mounds?
R2.3 Agroforestry Where to use these articles: Learning Block 1 – Sub-section 1.4.2 (under Agroforestry)
R2.3.1 Regenerative Analog agroforestry in Brazil (2000) What it is about: the conversion of an unproductive cocoa plantation on poor soil through the introduction of Analog agroforestry practices led to above average yields of cacao and improved biodiversity within five years. A
Suggested questions: • What is natural succession and how does Analog agroforestry mimic it? • How do the farmers deal with suppression of young crops by mature ones? • What would be examples of pioneer species and of crops that produce in the short, medium and long-term in your region? • How could the farmers improve soil fertility without using chemical fertilisers? • Could Analog agroforestry work in your region? Why or why not?
R2.3.2 Ecological processes and farmer livelihoods in shaded coffee production (Nicaragua and El Salvador, 2006) What it is about: As farmers developed greater understanding of the ecological processes and improving practices in shade coffee, it became possible to get better productivity from local, shaded, varieties rather than having to rely on new fulllight varieties. A
Suggested questions: • Why would farmers choose shaded coffee varieties over full-sun varieties if the latter kind have a higher productivity? • What are some of the advantages of the different kinds of shade trees used by farmers? • What obstacles did the coffee farmers in Nicaragua and El Salvador face in establishing agro-ecotourism and organic certification to improve their livelihoods? • What examples of useful shade trees in your region can you think of?
Learning AgriCultures
67
module 3 cropping systems - interim version
R2.3.3 Cultivating resilience: Lessons from the 2004 tsunami in Sri Lanka (2008) What it is about: home gardens in the coastal areas of Sri Lanka could withstand the effects of the 2004 tsunami because they were well-protected by trees. Suggested questions: • How did trees protect some home gardens so well from the effects of the tsunami? • What are the other benefits that trees gave the farmers? • What other economic and social factors helped people recover from the tsunami?
R2.3.4 Experiences with Agroforestry (Ghana, 1990) What it is about: an NGO’s experiences in getting farmers to integrate multipurpose leguminous trees into their degraded farms and the insights gained about small-scale farmers’ attitudes to adopting new agroforestry practices. Suggested questions: • Why did the Ghana Rural Reconstruction Movement decide to start the agroforestry project with small-scale farmers? • What was the organisation’s strategy in introducing new practices to farmers? • What were the problems encountered in getting this initiative to spread? What were the achievements? • Can you relate to the obstacles mentioned in this article? How would the farmers in your region react? How would you go about introducing agroforestry in your region?
R2.4 Home gardens Where to use this article: Learning Block 1 – Sub-section 1.4.2 (under Home gardens) Home gardens: A cultural responsibility (Bangladesh, 2004) What it is about: based on a wide diversity of local crop varieties and managed by women, home gardens are an important source of food security and local agrobiodiversity in Bangladesh. Suggested questions: • What are the advantages of home gardens for families around the world? • Why do women in Bangladesh prefer local varieties for their home gardens? • How many crops on average are included in the gardens? What kinds of crops?
68
Learning AgriCultures
Educational Resources for Module 3
• Do people have home gardens in your region? What are they like? How do they differ and how are they similar to those described in the article?
R2.5 Underutilised crops Where to use these articles: Learning Block 1 – Sub-section 1.4.2 (under Underutilised crops)
2.5.1 Making the most of underutilised crops (Africa and the Pacific, 2009) What it is about: Spreading risk is a crucial way of reducing vulnerability, especially for people who are already vulnerable. Increasing the use of underutilised crops is one way to help farmers diversify and achieve nutritional, environmental and financial security. A
2.5.2 Women reintroducing neglected crops (South Africa, 2004) What it is about: A survey in South Africa shows that women continue to use and maintain many underutilised crops and that they show considerable interest and initiative in their crop diversification activities in home and community gardens. Suggested questions: • Why do women around the world continue to use “underutilised” crops? • The first article suggests three main strategies for selecting underutilised crops – can you think of examples from your region for each of the strategies? • Why do you think that it is women who make the most use of local underutilised crops (as well as home gardens) rather than men? Is this also the case in your country?
R2.6 Cropping systems and forest ecosystems. Where to use these articles: Learning Block 2 – Sub-section 2.2.1
R2.6. 1 Trees for semi-nomadic farmers: a key to resilience (Eritrea, 2001) A
What it is about: forest products, and in particular the dom palm (Hyphaene thebaica), provide a key to the survival of semi-nomadic agro-pastoralists in Eritrea during times of drought and war. Suggested questions: • What are the different strategies included in the agricultural systems of the different tribes living in the western lowlands of Eritrea? • Why is the dom palm such a useful tree? What are its many functions?
Learning AgriCultures
69
module 3 cropping systems - interim version
• How is it that, although so many people use dom products, they are not over-harvested? • Why does the government’s extension service not recognise the value of the trees? How could the conflict between different priorities be resolved? • Do you know of a similar situation in your country? How is it being (or could it be) resolved?
R2.6.2 Pangalengan farmers: friends of the forest (Indonesia, 2004): What it is about: in 2003, a ban on vegetable growing on forest land in the highlands of Pangalengan, Indonesia, affected more than 5,000 local inhabitants. In response, farmers in the villages surrounding the forest found different ways to conserve the forest while continuing to gain their livelihoods from it. Suggested questions: • Why did small-scale farmers start growing vegetables in the Mount Tilu reserve, a protected area of primary forest? • What did the farmers do to get attention from the Forest Department? • How did they come to work together to preserve the forest while also gaining their livelihoods from it? • Could such a collaboration between forest officials and farmers work in your country?
R2.6.3 The development of farmer-managed natural regeneration (Niger, 2007) What it is about: using a method called “farmer-managed natural regeneration” (FMNR), more than 3 million hectares has been revegetated in one of the world’s poorest nations. Needing only little investment, FMNR involves selecting and pruning stems naturally regenerating from the stumps of previously felled, but still living trees. A
Suggested questions: • What are some of the signs that farmers in Niger and their cropping systems were suffering from a lack of trees and shrubs? • What are advantages of FMNR compared with conventional methods of reforestation? • What made the farmers change their practices and attitudes towards the trees in their fields? • How did a major change in the law affect farmers’ protection of the trees? • Do people in your area value forests? Could FMNR work in your area?
70
Learning AgriCultures
Educational Resources for Module 3
R2.7 Local PGR systems: Seed fairs Where to use this article: Learning Block 2 – Sub-section 2.3.1
If you don’t save seed, you are not a real farmer (Mozambique, 2009) What it is about: In parts of Mozambique, seed fairs have become an important tool for improving small-scale farmer access to a diversity of plant genetic materials. The concept is simple: create a space for farmers from different regions to come together to exchange seeds. A
Suggested questions: • Why do you think that Mozambican small-scale farmers needed a boost to their seed exchange mechanisms through organised seed fairs? • What are the different reasons given by farmers for appreciating the seed fairs? • Why do you think these farmers say that “if you don’t save seed, you are not a real farmer”? Do you agree with this? • How do the seed fairs also help farmers organise themselves and to strengthen their knowledge and local culture? • Do you think farmers in your country would benefit from seed fairs? Considering the box on how to organise a seed fair, would it be possible to organise one there as well?
R2.8 Formal seed systems: Genetically modified organisms Where to use this article: Learning Block 2 – Sub-section 2.3.2 (under Genetic engineering)
Stimulating GMO-free breeding for organic agriculture: a view from Europe (2001) What it is about: The International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) took the decision in the mid-1990s to not allow the use of GMOs in organic farming. This article explains that decision. It also presents a number of definitions of different biotechnological techniques applied in plant breeding. A
Suggested questions: • What is the main reason behind IFOAM’s decision to ban the use of GMOs? • Look at the box describing different biotechnological techniques on the third page: the author finds some acceptable and others not. Why is there particular opposition to the biotechnological process of “cytoplasmic male sterility”? • Find out about “terminator” or “traitor” seeds, other GM technologies (not mentioned in the article) for making the second generation of seeds sterile. Who do you think benefits from these kinds of technologies? Do you think
Learning AgriCultures
71
module 3 cropping systems - interim version
they meet the needs of small-scale farmers? • How do the organic standards help when collaborating with conventional seed companies to produce seeds to meet organic farmers’ needs?
R2.9 Local PGR systems: Community seed banks Where to use these articles: Learning Block 2 – Sub-section 2.3.3
R2.9.1 Community seed banks for maintaining genetic diversity (India, 2007) What it is about: creating community seed banks has been an important part of supporting farmer communities in the dry areas of two states in India (Tamil Nadu and Karnataka) since the early 1990s. How these seed banks work, different challenges involved in setting them up (both within and outside the communities) and advantages are described. A
R2.9.2 Seeds, knowledge and diversity in the hands of small-scale farmers in Honduras (2009) What it is about: farmers in mountainous regions of Honduras have organised themselves into agricultural research teams to improve the diversity and resilience of their farms. They are now successfully producing improved varieties of maize and beans that meet their local needs, as well as running community seed and gene banks. Suggested questions: • How have the projects in India and Honduras worked to get farmer communities organised? • What is “seed mapping” and why did they make these surveys in India? • Why is there such a split in the two types of farming practised in Honduras? Is this similar to your country? • What kinds of characteristics do small-scale Honduran farmer researchers select for in varieties? • How did Hurricane Mitch affect farmers’ maize selection strategies? • How do community seed banks work? Why was there so much opposition to setting them up in India? • What are the advantages of community seed banks? • Could these kinds of initiatives work in rural areas in your country?
R2.10 Pesticide use and beneficial insects Where to use this article: Learning Block 2 – Sub-section 2.4.1
Indigenous honeybees: allies for mountain farmers (Himalayas, 2004) What it is about: The population and diversity of native bees (which are A
72
Learning AgriCultures
Educational Resources for Module 3
important to pollination) is declining in the Himalayas because of habitat loss, land use changes, increasing monoculture, the negative impacts of pesticides and herbicides and the introduction of the European honeybee, Apis mellifera, to the Himalayas. The article discusses how this affects biodiversity in the region. Suggested questions: • What are some differences (advantages and disadvantages) between indigenous and introduced “improved” honeybees? • What are effects of the decline in indigenous honeybees on small-scale farming?
R2.11 Different view on weeds Where to use this article: Learning Block 2 – Sub-section 2.4.2 Weeds and trees (Kenya, 1995) What it is about: From his experience in agroforestry development in Kenya, the author looks at the benefits that farmers can get from weeds and the effects of trees on minimising weed growth. Suggested questions: • What are the useful qualities of certain weeds described by the author? • In what different ways do trees help control the growth of weeds? • What do you think farmers in your area would think of these ideas?
R2.12 Integrated pest (and weed) management Where to use these articles: Learning Block 2 – Sub-section 2.4.2
R2.12.1 Enhancing the push-pull system (Kenya, 2007) What it is about: Push-Pull uses a combination of leguminous “repellent” plants to deter pests from the main crop (“push”) and trap crops to attract the repelled pest (“pull”). Farmers in East Africa successfully use Push-Pull to deal with stemborer pests and the parasitic weed Striga hermonthica in their maize and sorghum cultivation. A
Suggested questions: • Describe how different crops and repel unwanted pests and others attract them away from crops. • What different aspects of this method do farmers find attractive? • What are the other benefits of this method? • What are the constraints in promoting this method among farmers?
Learning AgriCultures
73
module 3 cropping systems - interim version
R2.12.2 Managing pests through plant diversification (California, 2006) A
What it is about: using examples from vineyards in California, the author shows how different diversification strategies can help regulate pests. Suggested questions: • Describe the different ways suggested by the author for modifying cropping systems so as to regulate pests. • What is the difference between “planned” and “associated” biodiversity and how do these concepts fit into pest regulation mechanisms? • Could these methods work in your region?
R2.12.3 Avoiding bruchid infestation in stored beans (Tanzania, 2004) What it is about: this article describes different ways of controlling small beetles called bruchids from getting into beans after harvest, that were based on farmers getting a better understanding about the bruchids’ behaviour. Suggested questions: • What different methods do farmers use to control bruchid infestations in their stored beans? • Do you know of natural pesticides from your area that can be used to protect stored seeds?
R2.13 Sustainable intensification practices Where to use this article: Learning Block 2 – Section 2.5
R2.13.1 The successful intensification of smallholder farming in Zimbabwe (2008) What it is about: small-scale farmers in Zimbabwe use a mix of local and improved soyabean varieties to meet different needs (cash and food security). A
Suggested questions: • What are the characteristics, advantages and disadvantages of the local variety of soyabean in relation to the improved varieties? • What are benefits of integrating soyabean into maize production? • Why did the improved varieties need specific rhizobia and what are the implications of having to use inoculants? • How did the combination of different soyabean varieties improve farmers’ livelihoods?
74
Learning AgriCultures
Educational Resources for Module 3
2.13.2 System of Rice Intensification gains momentum What it is about: The System of Rice Intensification (SRI) was developed by small farmers in Madagascar. It involves changing practices and following more ecological principles: optimising the use of water, nutrients and spacing. SRI has since spread to many other countries, with impressive results. Suggested questions: • What are the nine principles that farmers follow when modifying their rice cropping practices? • What are advantages and disadvantages of using SRI? • Could these principles be modified to improve the intensification of other cropping systems? • Do farmers in your country practise SRI? If yes, what are their results?
R2.14 Governance issues: protecting the sustainability of ecosystems Where to use this article: Learning Block 3 – Sub-section 3.2.1
Community management of afroalpine highlands in Ethiopia What it is about: In the central highlands of Ethiopia, a community-based natural resource management system locally known as “qero” is operating. Recently, the Ethiopian Wolf Conservation Programme started collaborating with the communities to ensure the future viability of both qero and the wolves. A
Suggested questions: • What are the many uses of “guassa” grass and how does the community regulate its use of this valuable resource? • What happened when the revolutionary government abolished the age-old qero system of community-based natural resource management? • How did a partnership with the Ethiopian Wolf Conservation Programme help revitalise the governance of the qero system? • How does the community-managed system compare to formal arrangements? Why do you think that the qero system works so well? • Compare this article to R2.6.2.
Learning AgriCultures
75
module 3 cropping systems - interim version
R2.15 Governance issues: Participatory plant breeding programme Where to use this article: Learning Block 3 – Sub-section 3.2.3
New bean seeds and the struggle for their dissemination (Nicaragua, 2007) What it is about: a “participatory plant breeding” (PPB) programme was initiated in the northern region of Nicaragua, an important bean and maize producing area. The programme involved small-scale farmers in developing new bean varieties. A
Suggested questions: • Why were scientists interested in involving farmers in the pilot PPB programme? • Describe the long process of selecting seeds. What were the farmers’ priorities in selection? • Why did the farmers encounter obstacles in registering their varieties? • Considering the time and effort that the farmers put into developing a commercially viable bean variety, do you think patents, protect breeders’ investments are justified? • Do you know of any PPB programmes in your country?
R2.16 Policy support: reducing use of pesticides Where to use this article: Learning Block 3 – Sub-section 3.3.2
It’s time to ban highly hazardous pesticides (Ecuador, 2007) What it is about: hazardous pesticides cause public health problems as well as destroying beneficial insects alongside the harmful ones. Many small-scale farmers use them in spite of the risks and this article calls for a ban. A
Suggested questions: • How did the researchers convince farmers in Ecuador about the harmful effects of pesticides? • What are the harmful effects of pesticides on health of farmers and their families? • Why do you think that “safe use” training programmes are ineffective in getting small-scale farmers to take proper precautions? • What will happen to farmers’ cropping practices if they are prevented from using pesticides through a ban? • What are some ways to build awareness about hazardous pesticides and to get them banned? • Are there any bans on hazardous pesticides in your country? What alternatives can farmers use?
76
Learning AgriCultures
Educational Resources for Module 3
R3. Photo gallery Objectives: To use as illustrations for teaching, to stimulate discussions – to help students understand the links between what is going on in the wider context and cropping systems on the farm. Total time involved: Presentation during class time (20-30 minutes) Materials: Photo gallery as powerpoint presentation with beamer, or printout (see Appendix at end of Module)
Methodology: • Present the photographs and ask a number of questions about the photo to help stimulate ideas: for example, what do they observe in the photo, and what does it mean in relation to cropping systems (reflect on more than simply ecological aspects). • Use the photographs to discuss similar initiatives in your region.
Photo Nr
Title
Explanation
1
Know the enemy, Karnataka, India
One part of IPM is to “know the enemy” and release beneficial insects at the right moment. Here, Indian farmers look for insects in a “pheromone trap” in a groundnut field. This is a type of insect trap that uses pheromones (natural or synthetic insect sex attractants) to lure insects. These traps are often used to detect the presence of exotic pests, for sampling, monitoring, or determining the first appearance of a pest in an area.
2
Farmers make their own biopesticide, Cikoneng, Indonesia
Through IPM activities farmers have developed practices that avoid using pesticides. What used to only be done in the laboratory of the agricultural department is now also done by the farmers. This farm woman is reproducing trichoderma, a fungus which is effective against soil-borne diseases such as root rot. It is particularly useful for dryland crops such as groundnut, black gram, green gram and chickpea.
3
Safe vegatables, Vietnam
There is an increasing demand by consumers in particularly the urban areas of Vietnam, for “safe” vegetables grown with fewer chemical fertilisers and pesticides. Simple pestcontrol techniques such as the sticky card are being used by some farmers instead of pesticides.
4
Bare-faced risk, Ecuador
A farm worker without a protective mask or clothing sprays a crop. Studies show that pesticides can cause health problems, including birth defects, nerve damage, cancer, and other effects that might occur over a long period of time. These problems affect not only those who prepare and apply the pesticides, but also women and children in and around rural households. Not using protection when spraying significantly increases the health risk.
5
Seeds for agrobiodiversity, Tamil Nadu/Karnataka, India
Women in south India became involved in multiplying seeds of different local varieties of rice, finger millets and other food crops that can be planted in mixed-crop systems. This led to the idea of establishing community seed banks, from which members can get seeds free of charge by agreeing to return twice the amount of seed after the harvest. This was part of a project on agrobiodiversity that focused on identifying and using traditional plant species and varieties.
6
Pest and disease management, the Netherlands
Good pest and disease management is based on a well-designed crop rotation system. This farmer grows more than eight different crops in one year, and he does not sow the same crop in the same field for at least six years. He grows potatoes, alfalfa, maize, beetroot, wheat, onions, carrots and oats. This long crop rotation helps avoid many diseases.
Learning AgriCultures
77
module 3 cropping systems - interim version
7
Participatory breeding, Honduras
Small-scale farmers are often largely ignored by government and agricultural scientists and so they have to find their own solutions to the problems they encounter. Through a participatory breeding process, farmers were able to produce two improved varieties of maize. They have experimented with indigenous varieties adapting them to suit their needs and preferences. This farmer, Simeona Perez, says that the new varieties have hardly been affected by heavy rain and hurricanes.
8
Acacia - a multipurpose crop, Niger
Certain Australian Acacia species have great, untapped potential as multipurpose tree species in agroforestry systems as they thrive under conditions in which annual plants struggle to survive. They are used for windbreaks, reclaiming degraded land, biomass production for mulch and organic matter, firewood, feed for honeybees and food for people and livestock. They also contribute to soil fertility through fixing atmospheric nitrogen. These Acacia species trials are taking place in the Maradi region of Niger, West Africa.
9
Ecological system, China
This photo shows simultaneous multi-cropping in action with several species, including maize, soyabean, melon and a Chinese relative of banana (Musella lasiocarpa). These species form a complex ecological system in which the Musella lasiocarpa reduces water erosion and provides forage to animals in winter and soyabean fixes nitrogen and provides a cash crop for farmers.
10
Tribal farmers and underutilised indigenous trees, India
People living in remote forest fringes in India plant indigenous trees on their land and “domesticate” them. These trees yield different non-timber products and help diversify farms, preserve the forests and provide opportunities for income. This woman is cultivating and harvesting lac, the resinous secretion of a tiny insect growing on these trees; lac has commercial value in India as it is used as a skin cosmetic and dye for wool and silk.
11
Medicinal plants in multiple canopy home garden, Brazil
Many families in the Tocatins, a moist forest ecoregion in eastern Amazonian Brazil include medicinal plants in their home gardens. The plants, their use and management are still part of local knowledge and culture in some areas, but in many places this knowledge has been lost. Some local associations are offering courses on herbs and in health care so this knowledge can be revived.
12
Multi-storey home garden, Central Uganda
Baddala Wasswa is an innovative farmer who developed this agroforestry mix on less than 1 hectare. The canopy is made up of shade trees (Ficus natalensis) and the nitrogen-fixing Albisia spp. The middle canopy is banana and cassava with jatropha just below. Vanilla vines grow below, thriving in light shade and needing support. The lowest level consists of food crops (seen here are sweet potato, cocoyam and beans). Besides food, Mr Wasswa gets bark cloth and stakes for live fences from the Ficus. He grows vanilla to earn an income, but the world market price is very volatile. Fertiliser is not needed in this system, and since it is the humid tropics, sufficient water is available.
13
Intercropping in tea garden, China
The tea gardens of farmers in Mengsong community, Xishuangbanna(the only tropical rainforest nature reserve in China), illustrate several good practices. To avoid water erosion, tea shrubs are planted along the terrace lines. Several species such as the camphor tree (Cinnamomum camphora) have been introduced into the tea garden. This intercropping reduces the onset of pests and disease in the tea crop and provides extra benefits of medicine, incense, spice and timber.
14
Agroforestry trial in farmer’s field in Maseno, Western Kenya
The fast-growing valuable timber tree Grevillea robusta has been introduced into farmers’ fields alongside food crops such as maize and beans, cabbage and banana. This tree gives farmers a better income, but in this part of Kenya, the population density has grown so high that the many household farms are too small to provide an adequate living. Many households have members working elsewhere to supplement family earnings.
78
Learning AgriCultures
Educational Resources for Module 3
15
GMO lab in Kawanda (government-run) research station, north of Kampala, Uganda
Researchers working on banana crops, modifying them for resistance to Black leaf streak disease, a disease caused by fungi (Mycosphaerella fijiensis Morelet) that attack the leaves and cause lower yields. This and other pests and diseases are widespread in the East African highlands where bananas are critical to food security. Seedlings of traditional plants are being conserved in gene banks in another part of the country.
16
Successful urban agriculture, Havana, Cuba
Cuba is one of the countries where urban agriculture is highly developed. Urban agriculture has many advantages which are being increasingly recognised: it can contribute to community development and local organisation, as well as to the production of a great diversity of fresh food grown in mixed cropping systems. The plots on the photo are located a few kilometres east of the capital city of Havana’s centre. Vivero Alamar is a co-operative of 170 producers working on 11 hectares, in the middle of a highly-populated neighbourhood. They all produce organic vegetables (even if most are not certified organic), which are sold either directly to consumers or through the local markets.
Learning AgriCultures
79
module 3 cropping systems - interim version
R4. Videos Objectives: to offer visual examples from around the world to complement the teachings and to deepen students’ understanding of sustainable cropping practices in small-scale farming and practical initiatives towards sustainability. Total time involved: see video durations below – add time for classroom discussion. Materials: the videos are available on CD-Rom or can be downloaded from the LEARNING pages on ileia’s website; to present the videos, a computer and beamer are needed. Methodology: • Present the videos to illustrate points from the lessons and to stimulate discussions on them. • Use the videos to discuss related issues and initiatives in your region.
R4.1 Agroforesty: A sustainable tropical island land use system Duration: 21 minutes Suggested use: Learning Block 1 – Sub-section 1.4.2, to supplement the lesson on Agroforestry What it is about: this video looks at experiences with different agroforestry methods in Guam. It starts by looking at the relation between economic returns for farmers and sustainable practices. It then goes on to discuss multi-purpose functions of trees and looks at methods such as cropping systems, alley cropping, contour hedgerows and living mulches. (Produced by the College of Micronesia and the University of Guam - Primary funding source: Western Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (WSARE) grant programme, 2000) Suggested questions: • How can agroforestry contribute to spreading risks? What different options do farmers in the video have for spreading risks in their fields? • What are the trade-offs between short-term profitability (“use”, “harvest”) and long-term productivity (“plant”, “care for”) of agroforestry systems. • What is the influence of an agroforestry system on the soil?
R4.2 Dalit food systems: a new discourse in food and farming Duration: 29 minutes Suggested use: Learning Block 1 – Sub-section 1.4.2, to supplement lesson on Underutilised crops What it is about: this video looks at the importance of underutilised crops (or “uncultivated crops”) for food security and livelihoods, focusing on the marginalised population of Dalits (people of the lowest caste) in India (produced by IIED/DDS, 2008)
80
Learning AgriCultures
Educational Resources for Module 3
Suggested questions • Can you relate the experiences of the Dalits in India to those of small-scale farmers in your region? • What role do these foods play in the livelihoods of the Dalits? (Discuss health, economic and ecological roles). • What underutilised or “uncultivated” food crops are consumed in your region? And by whom? • Do you think these crops should be promoted as a way to improve livelihoods and enhance biodiversity? If so, how would you promote them?
R4.3 Nature Farmer Duration: 13 minutes Suggested use: Learning Block 2 – Sub-section 1.4.2, on mixed cropping. What it is about: this video shows a farmer in the Kurunegala district of Sri Lanka, sharing his views on farming. He discusses the use of chemical fertilisers on his field, his soil fertility measures and the use of trees and mixed cropping. (Produced by MONLAR Sri Lanka, 2008) Suggested questions • Do you think that traditional practices are always ecologically sustainable? • Discuss the economic and ecological (dis)advantages of chemical fertilisers. Would this differ by region? • Do you think that sustainable farming practices can produce enough to feed your whole country?
R4.4 Bt Cotton in Andhra Pradesh: a three year fraud Duration: 30 minutes Suggested use: Learning Block 2 – Sub-section 2.3.2, in the lesson about genetic engineering What it is about: in India, a citizen’s assessment has been made of the promises of GM cotton. Bt cotton was introduced in 2002 in the Warangal district, in the South Indian state of Andhra Pradesh. It was backed up by an advertising blitz which promised three things to farmers: a) a decrease in pesticide use; b) a decline in cultivation costs; and c) an increase in yields and profits. The film brings alive the experiences of farmers as they try to grow Bt cotton. The women film makers of the Community Media Trust travelled month after month to Warangal to film the reactions of farmers to the promises of Bt cotton and to record the impact it has had on their lives. (IIED/DDS, 2005)
Learning AgriCultures
81
module 3 cropping systems - interim version
Suggested questions • What do you think about GMOs on the basis of this film? Do you think that it is a fair representation of different issues? • Do you think that Monsanto can be held accountable for bad yields? • What options do the small-scale cotton farmers in this film have? • What kind of steps should or could a government take to protect its farmers? • Does your country produce cotton? Do you know if GM cotton (or other GM) varieties are being planted there? How do you feel about this?
R4.5 Biotech pear is a singular tree Duration: 4 minutes Suggested use: Learning Block 2 – Sub-section 2.3.2, in the lesson about genetic engineering What is it about: This film shows how the breeding of GM pear trees allows for more trees per hectare. It shortly discusses the benefits of influencing growth habits (United States Department of Agriculture, 2007) Suggested questions • If you could genetically modify a crop from your region, what characteristics would you want? • Based on this film, what are the advantages and disadvantages of genetically modifying crops? • What forms of governance are needed to regulate these practices? • Will GM pear trees such as these contribute to more ecologically sustainable, fertiliser-saving type of farming?
R4.6 The Transcontainer Project – GM crop containment in the EU Duration: 56 minutes Suggested use: Learning Block 2 – Sub-section 2.3.2, in the lesson about genetic engineering What it is about: six short films showing stakeholders’ views on biological containment. The biological containment of GM plant materials aims to minimise GM materials crossing over to other crops, through modifying the plants’ natural reproduction system. GM crop containment in the EU, part 1 (almost 10 minutes) the organic farmer GM crop containment in the EU, part 2 the regulator (9 ¾ min) GM crop containment in the EU, part 3 the scientist (just over 8 ½ min) GM crop containment in the EU, part 4 the GM farmer (just under 8 ½ min) GM crop containment in the EU, part 5 the activist (just under 8 min)
82
Learning AgriCultures
Educational Resources for Module 3
GM crop containment in the EU, part 6 the lobbyist (almost 10 min) (Produced by AGRAPEN, 2009) ©AGRAPEN, not CC-licensed http://www.youtube.com/user/TransContainer Suggested questions • What are the motivations of the different stakeholders? What drives them? • Do you think co-existence of GMOs and non-GMOs is possible? • What is meant by “containment”, and if 100 percent containment were possible, would this change the (political) discussion about GMOs?
Learning AgriCultures
83
module 3 cropping systems - interim version
R5. Farmer visit and field exercises
Figure 35: Visits to farmers bring practical realities alive.
Objectives: To get close to practical realities of small-scale farmers and their cropping issues; to better understand the lessons in the three learning blocks by observing different aspects on 1 or more farms and talking to at least one, but preferably more, farmer(s) directly; and to allow students to get practical experience in interviewing and synthesising information. Time involved: Take time ahead of the interview to prepare questions and field exercises. The time needed for the visit will depend on how far the farmers live from the school; the interview should last at least 2 hours. Field exercises half a day. Suggested use: Visits can take place once the lessons in Learning Block 1 have been completed. Waiting until completing Learning Block 2 will allow for more insights into seed systems and IPM. Materials: For the interview: pen and paper to take notes, tape recorder, camera and/or video camera; For field exercises, see below. Methodology: • If possible, arrange interviews with different farmers, to include both men and women farmers; if possible it is interesting to compare farmers with multiple cropping systems and those with monocultures. • Prepare a list of questions to ask farmers about different aspects of their cropping practices and their reasons behind their selection processes (see R5.1 for interview checklist). • Take the opportunity to also do some simple exercises with students, based on observations in the field during the visit (see R5.2 for some ideas). • Following the visit, ask students to make presentations or a written report on their findings.
R5.1 Farmer interview checklist Before going into the field: • Choose a main crop in the region and ask students to make a list of criteria for comparing different varieties of this crop (e.g. fast-growing, tolerance to drought/heavy rainfall, productivity, taste, quality, resistance to pests/ diseases; usefulness of by-products for different purposes; ease of processing; timing of harvests; ease of harvesting; cost and availability of seed; etc. • Explain to students that it is important to get a better understanding about how farmers’ priorities influence which crop varieties they chose. Agricultural research organisations often develop new crop varieties in order to produce higher yields or that are more resistant to pests and diseases. While these
84
Learning AgriCultures
Educational Resources for Module 3
characteristics are important, farmers often use many other parameters to evaluate a crop variety.
During the field visit: • Ask farmers what variety (or different varieties) of the crop they use. Ask them to evaluate/compare the varieties using the list of criteria that was prepared. Are all the criteria on the list important? Should others be added? Ask farmers which three criteria they consider most important. • Farmers often use more than one variety of the main crop. If this is the case ask them why they grow two or three varieties of the same crop and not just the one which is the most productive. • Compare the responses of different farmers – especially men and women farmers. • How do farmers’ criteria and those of agricultural research programmes compare? Why are they different? Re-read Learning Blocks 1 and 2, and make a checklist of cropping issues you would like to discuss with farmers. Here are some examples of questions – √ Where do farmers get their seed and other plant genetic materials from? How do they feel about seed supply in the area? √ Do farmers use areas outside their fields to collect resources for their farm? What do they use the resources for? What is the situation with common areas (e.g. grazing land or forest) in the region? Is there a way to check that people do not over-harvest from these areas? What are the governance mechanisms for these? √ Do farmers practise crop rotation or fallow their fields? Ask for details and think about what this means for nutrient cycling, rooting, etc. √ Do farmers have problems with pest (including disease) incidence and weeds? What do they do to protect their crops from pests and diseases? Observe whether there are pests and natural enemies in the field. √ Do farmers mix crops? Have these practices changed from the past?
R5.2 Field observations Make some observations around the field, and think about what it means for sustainability. Discuss issues that you see with the farmer to see how s/he is dealing with them. Some ideas: √ Look at differences in heights of the same crop √ Do you think the crop is healthy? √ Is there a pest visible? Can you identify it? Can you see natural enemies or crops that work as defenders? √ What management practices are needed at the moment? √ How is the harvest being stored? √ Check how much shade/ direct sunlight the crops receive during the day √ Weed management on the farm √ Draw the lay-out of the field schematically, from above and side views.
Learning AgriCultures
85
module 3 cropping systems - interim version
R6. Further references for Module 3 This section provides a list of freely accessible resources that can help educators and students dig deeper into issues explored in this module. Resources include books and guides, as well as websites that offer further resources, photos and videos.
R6.1 Books and field guides Guide to participatory tools for forest communities by Kristen Evans et al., 2006. 37 pp. ISBN 9792446567. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), P.O. Box 6596 JKPWB, Jakarta 10065, Indonesia. E-mail:
[email protected]
Download from: http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/publications/pdf_files/Books/ BKristen0601.pdfhThis toolkit contains a collection of participatory tools for environment and development practitioners, researchers and local government leaders. Some of these tools are adaptations of existing methods; others were created specifically for work with forest-dependent communities, for promoting sustainable forest management and the empowerment of these and other natural resource dependent communities. The tools have many applications, including stakeholder identification, decision-making, planning, conflict management, and information collection.
Manage insects on your farm: A guide to ecological strategies by Miguel A. Altieri, Clara I. Nicholls and Marlene A. Fritz, 2005.128 pp. Sustainable Agriculture Network (SAN) Publications, P.O. Box 753, Waldorf, Maryland 20604-0753, U.S.A. E-mail:
[email protected]
Download from: http://www.sare.org/publications/insect/insect.pdf While every farming system is unique, the principles of ecological pest management apply universally. “Manage insects on your farm” highlights the ecological strategies that improve a farm’s natural defences and encourage beneficial insects to attack pests. This book shows how ecologically based pest management works and presents strategies used by farmers around the world to address insect problems. As part of the principles of ecologically based pest management, it describes how to manage soils to minimise the presence of pests, and describes the most common “beneficial agents” on a farm.
Small-scale seed production by Harry van den Burg, 2004. ISBN 90-77073-43-4. Agrodok no. 37. Agromisa, P.O. Box 41, 6700 AA Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Download from: http://www.agromisa.org/agrodoks/Agromisa-AD-37-E.pdf This manual presents the general principles behind seed production and the maintenance of cultivars, with special reference to cereal and legume seeds. Written for extension staff and small-scale farmers, it highlights the basic ideas behind inheritance and genetic variation, describing the differences between
86
Learning AgriCultures
Educational Resources for Module 3
self- and cross-pollinated species. The later sections describe the different aspects which determine the quality of seeds, the importance of post-harvest care and the issues to consider when setting up a small seed production business.
Agromisa documents Download from: www.agromisa.com Agromisa, the knowledge centre for small-scale sustainable agriculture has a lot of useful manuals and publications (called “Agrodoks”and “AgroSpecials”) on plant production, protection and post-harvesting. Some of these publications focus on specific crops and others provide general guidance on cropping systems such as agroforestry or home gardening. The information is downloadable in PDF format in English, French and Portuguese, but ordering hard copies involves costs or follows a system of points for members of CTA. The 50+ manuals include topics such as: Fruit growing in the tropics, Agroforestry, Identification of crop damage, Crop protection, Storage of agricultural products, Plant patenting, etc. (see also specific references at the end of the second and third learning blocks).
Seeds that give: Participatory plant breeding by Ronnie Vernooy, 2003. ISBN 1-55250-014-4. IDRC, P.O. Box 8500, Ottawa, ON K1G 3H9, Canada. E-mail:
[email protected] ;
Download from: www.idrc.ca/seeds Genetic erosion makes the world’s food supply more vulnerable to disease and sudden climatic change - this may be the price to pay for having successfully developed and widely used new high-yielding crop varieties over the last decades. This paradox, and how it is being addressed by a novel plant breeding approach that takes into account the invaluable contribution of small farmers, is the topic of this book. Complementing the book are six case studies from the developing world and a thematic website (www.idrc.ca/seeds).
Manifesto on the future of seeds by the International Commission on the Future of Food and Agriculture, 2006. ARSIA Secretariat, Regional Government of Tuscany. Via Pietrapina 30, 50121 Florence, Italy.
Download from: http://www.future-food.org Created in 2003 with the conviction that “a better world is possible” the Commission seeks to shape a new future of food in which small farmers’ livelihoods are secure, rural areas are economically and culturally vibrant, ecologically resilient, and citizens have nutritional security. Its work is guided and inspired by the principles elaborated and developed in its Manifesto on the Future of Food.
A guide for conducting Farmer Field Schools on cocoa integrated crop and pest management by Soniia David et al., 2006. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), Sustainable Tree Crops Program. P.O. Box 135, Accra, Ghana. E-mail:
[email protected] ;
Download from: http://www.treecrops.org The Farmer Field School (FFS) approach is relatively new to West Africa and
Learning AgriCultures
87
module 3 cropping systems - interim version
there are few examples of its application to tree crops and perennial crops. Since 2003, the Sustainable Tree Crop Program (STCP) has pioneered FFS on cocoa integrated crop and pest management in Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana, Nigeria and Cameroon. Although it is based on the experience gained from cocoa FFSs, many of the principles and recommendations can be applied to other tree crops. The manual is directed at FFS programme managers and other development practitioners.
Farmers, seeds and varieties: Supporting informal seed supply in Ethiopia by Marja H. Thijssen, Zewdie Bishaw, Abdurahman Beshir and Walter S. de Boef (eds.), 2008. ISBN 978-90-8585-215-5. Wageningen International, Programme for Capacity Development and Institutional Change, P.O. Box 88, 6700 AA Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Download from: http://www.cdic.wur.nl/UK/publications While this book was developed in response to issues identified within Ethiopia, the variety of topics and experiences presented in it are also relevant for other regions of the world. It will be of interest to people working in the seed sector, development agents and NGOs working to develop farmer based seed production. The papers were written by the trainers, resource persons and participants of a training programme to improve farmer-based seed production and revitalise the informal seed supply for local crops and varieties in Ethiopia. As such it is a thorough and practical reference and resource book.
IFOAM Training Manual for Seed Saving edited by K. Vijayalakshmi, Centre for Indian Knowledge Systems, 2008. ISBN 3-934055-68-0. International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), Charles-de-Gaulle-Strasse 5, DE-53113, Bonn, Germany.
Download from: http://www.ifoam.org/ (free for IFOAM members) This training manual provides detailed information on how to save seeds according to organic practices. Topics covered include; community-based seed conservation, seed multiplication, sections on specific crops and examples from the field.
R6.2 Interesting websites Agrobiodiversity and Climate Change http://www.agrobiodiversityplatform.org/climate_change The Agrobiodiversity and Climate Change site gathers and disseminates information on the use of agrobiodiversity by communities facing climate change. Started in April 2008, this project brings together information from rural communities, indigenous peoples and research workers. The website gives you the opportunity to interact and discuss the project’s topic, to find and share information on projects concerned with climate change and agrobiodiversity and to check out related news and events.
88
Learning AgriCultures
Educational Resources for Module 3
Bioversity International http://www.bioversityinternational.org Bioversity is the world’s largest international research organisation dedicated solely to the conservation and use of agricultural biodiversity. It is non-profit and independently operated. The website provides publications about a diverse range of themes related to biodiversity. Their annual magazine Geneflow is available on the website and carries stories from all around the globe, from a wide range of sources including national, regional and international development agencies, non-governmental organisations and research workers.
Coalition to Diversify Income from Underused Crops (CoDI) http://codi-asia.net CoDI is a group of organisations in India and Vietnam led by the International Centre for Underutilised Crops. This website describes their activities, all of which aim to increase diversity on farms, link small-scale farmers to markets and improve processing, packaging and marketing skills. The coalition provides community services to help disadvantaged people in India and Vietnam generate sustainable incomes. Their activities include “Food Processing Parks”, “Village Crop Fairs” and “Knowledge Fairs”. The website also contains useful information about underutilised crops in the two countries and project descriptions and analyses.
Community-Based Natural Resource Management Network http://www.cbnrm.net This site provides a network for people working on community-based natural resource management (CBNRM), whether as practitioners, managers and researchers, and an opportunity for them to exchange experiences, manage knowledge, and support learning across countries, sectors, cultures, and languages. The site has a comprehensive resources section, with many links and a lot of references and background information.
Community IPM http://www.communityipm.org/index.htm\ This site includes many useful documents and teaching materials related to Farmer Field Schools. It was originally created as part of the FAO’s Programme for Community IPM in Asia. It is now maintained as an archive of information about the groundbreaking work carried out by government agencies, NGOs and farmer groups carried out under this Programme.
Convention on Biological Diversity http://www.cbd.int The website of the Convention on Biological Diversity is a large resource, containing information about the convention itself and the Protocol on Biosafety. It describes various programmes, including Agricultural Biodiversity, Island Biodiversity and Mountain Biodiversity, each complete with updates, background information, activities and links. From the homepage you can sign up to
Learning AgriCultures
89
module 3 cropping systems - interim version
receive various e-newsletters, and there is also a link to The Green Wave (http:// greenwave.cbd.int), a global campaign to educate children and youth about biodiversity.
Ecoagriculture Partners http://www.ecoagriculture.org/ Ecoagriculture is a strategy for both conservation and rural development. It applies an integrated ecosystem approach to agricultural landscapes that aims to enhance rural livelihoods; conserve or enhance biodiversity and ecosystem services; and develop more sustainable and productive agricultural systems. It draws on diverse elements of production and conservation management systems, through processes of collaboration or coordination between diverse stakeholders (including farmers and rural communities) who are collectively responsible for managing key components of a landscape.
FAO on plant production and protection www.fao.org The FAO website contains a wealth of information on different topics. To narrow down your search go to ‘Topics’ and then ‘Plant production and protection’. Here you can find information on different techniques and how FAO is and has been working on that particular theme.
GENET Archive www.gene.ch/archives.html This site has been established to support discussions about genetic engineering and to provide information intelligible to non-scientists. At present decisions are being taken which are influencing society and the environment worldwide. New crops are being planted and products derived from them are being sold fraudulently (without labels and risk information) on the world market. Huge areas are being invaded by newly designed organisms whose long-term effects on ecosystems are unknown and may be irreversible. This archive provides plenty of background information on these subjects.
GeneWatch www.genewatch.org/ GeneWatch UK is an independent organisation concerned with the ethics and risks of genetic engineering. It questions how, why and whether the use of genetic technologies should proceed and believes that the debate over genetic engineering is long overdue. Though GeneWatch is UK based the site is oriented to a worldwide audience and provides a lot of information.
Global Farmer Field School Network and Resource Centre (FFSnet) http://farmerfieldschool.info The objective of this FFS network is to support national and regional knowledge sharing, networking and co-ordination among FFS practitioners in order to make FFS interventions more effective. Its works as a decentralised network and resource centre focusing on strategies and mechanisms for institutionalisation
90
Learning AgriCultures
Educational Resources for Module 3
and scaling-up, quality control mechanisms and low cost implementation strategies and mechanisms. The site has a discussion forum and provides access to a broad database that facilitates the exchange of experiences and gives access to many resources and training materials relevant to the study of cropping systems.
Global Plant Clinic http://www.globalplantclinic.org The CABI Bioscience Global Plant Clinic provides a comprehensive diagnostic and advisory service for disease problems affecting all tropical crops. The website gives expert advice on the interpretation and application of diagnostic results. It draws on the extensive international experience in a wide range of crops and information from CAB International’s Crop Protection Compendium. This service is freely available for people in developing countries involved in agriculture.
INFONET-BioVision Farmer Information Platform http://www.infonet-biovision.org This large website provides a wealth of information on organic agriculture and crop husbandry, and ecological ways to prevent and control plant, human and animal pests and diseases. The site describes 44 common crops in detail, giving agronomic information for each with a description of the main pests and diseases and a list of links to other sources of information. Contributions come from farmer groups, local experts and international scientists.
IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) http://www.iucn.org/ IUCN is the world’s oldest and largest global environmental network, with more than 1 000 government and NGO member organisations and almost 11 000 volunteer scientists in more than 160 countries. It conducts scientific research and manages field projects all over the world. These projects bring together governments, NGOs, UN agencies, companies and local communities in developing and implementing policy, laws and best practice for nature conservation. Its headquarters are located in Gland, near Geneva, Switzerland.
La Vía Campesina http://viacampesina.org/main_en/ Established in 1993, this is the main global advocacy organisation for smallscale farmers. In short, La Vía Campesina calls for greater rights for small-scale farmers, based on fair access to resources such as land and water, fair economic relations, and ability to sustain their families from small-scale farming. One of their key concepts is called “Food sovereignty”, introduced in 1996. A PDF document with La Vía Campesina’s declaration of food sovereignty can be downloaded from the link: http://www.voiceoftheturtle.org/library/1996%20 Declaration%20of%20Food%20Sovereignty.pdf.
Learning AgriCultures
91
module 3 cropping systems - interim version
People and Plants online www.rbgkew.org.uk/peopleplants/ People and Plants promotes the sustainable use of plant resources and seeks to integrate the goals of conservation and development. This website is a gateway to information on practical ways of working in applied ethnobotany. Its main focus is on Africa, Asia and the Pacific. Besides newsletters and interesting links, the People and Plants Handbook series provides a source of information on applying ethnobotany to conservation and community development.
Pesticide Action Network www.pan-international.org/ The Pesticide Action Network (PAN) is a network of more than 600 nongovernmental organisations, institutions and individuals in over 90 countries, working to replace the use of hazardous pesticides with ecologically sound and socially just alternatives. Their main aims are to eliminate the use of hazardous pesticides, reduce the overall use, risk and dependence of pesticides and increase support for community-based control over a sustainably produced food supply. Specific information about different pesticides can be found in the site.
Prota (Plant resources of Tropical Africa) www.prota.org When PROTA started in 2000, it had a simple technical objective: “to improve access to interdisciplinary data on the plant resources of tropical Africa”. PROTA has so far brought together previously dispersed information on about 2 100 useful plants. This information is contained in slightly over 1 200 review articles, mostly arranged by commodity groups “cereals and pulses”, “vegetables”, “dyes and tannins”, “vegetable oils”, “timbers” and “medicinal plants”. All the information is freely accessible in a web database but is also available in a book and CD series.
Prosea – Plant resources of South-East Asia www.prosea.org Functioning since the late 1980s, this organisation has compiled information on plant resources in South East Asia, The site documents information on 6 697 plants from that region, which is available in a series of booklets as well as an electronic databank (e-PROSEA). It is aimed at people working in education, extension, research and industry as well as for end users.
SRI (System of Rice Intensification) http://ciifad.cornell.edu/sri A collaborative effort by Tefy Saina (an NGO) and Cornell University’s CIIFAD, this website reports on developments in SRI, the System of Rice Intensification. This system is rapidly spreading and being adapted by rice farmers in different parts of the world. It presents details of new techniques, which farmers are encouraged to consider and further improve upon. It provides the opportunity to join discussion groups and the SRI-UPDATE-L, an electronic mailing list about SRI. They also have a blog with global news and views on SRI.
92
Learning AgriCultures
Educational Resources for Module 3
World Agroforestry Centre http://www.worldagroforestrycentre.org/ The World Agroforestry Centre is an international research organisation supported by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). It works in more than 20 countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Farmers have practised agroforestry for years. Agroforestry focuses on the wide range of working trees grown on farms and in rural landscapes. The centre is working on these topics related to the trees, farms, landscapes and global issues. The website is based on the research of the centre and provides a lot of material, from publications to news and learning tools.
Learning AgriCultures
93
94
Learning AgriCultures
appendix for Module 3 This appendix includes a selection of articles (found in R2 in the Educational Resources section), as well as the printed version of the Photo Gallery (found in R3).
R2. Articles LEARNING BLOCK 1 R2.3: R2.5:
Agroforestry (2 articles) Underutilised crops (1 article)
LEARNING BLOCK 2 R2.6: R2.7: R2.8: R2.9:
R2.10: R2.12: R2.13:
Cropping systems and forest ecosystems (2 articles) Local PGR systems: Seed fairs (1 article) Formal seed systems: Genetically modified organisms (1 article) Local PGR systems: Community seed banks (1 article) Pesticide use and beneficial insects (1 article) Integrated pest (and weed) management (2 articles) Sustainable crop intensification practices (1 article)
LEARNING BLOCK 3 R2.14: R2.15: R2.16
Governance issues: protecting sustainability of ecosystems (1 article) Governance issues: Participatory plant breeding (1 article) Policy support: Regulations on inputs (1 article)
R3. Photo gallery Sixteen photos from around the world.
Learning AgriCultures
95
Farmers in Camamu, Bahia prefer analog agroforestry
R2.3.1
as it gives higher income and helps
Photo: Bert Lof
sustainably.
Regenerative analog agroforestry in Brazil Patricia Vaz
I
n 1985, Ernst Götsch started a cacao plantation in the south of Bahia, Northeast Brazil. The land was in very poor condition. After 40 years of slash and burn agriculture the soil was depleted and the wells had run dry. Five years later the land was covered by a young but productive agroforest and water was flowing again. This was the result of the system of ‘regenerative analog agroforestry’ developed by Götsch and known in Brazil as SAFRA. The original vegetation in the region was Atlantic rainforest, but now only a few stands remain after years of timber exploitation and slash and burn agriculture. The average rainfall is about 1400 mm with average temperature of 25ºC in January and 20ºC in July. Soils are poor acidic oxisols and ultisols and classified as being unsuitable for cacao production. However, as early as 1996, a year in which agricultural productivity in general was low, Ernst Götsch was getting yields of 5000 kg cacao per hectare on parts of his farm, 1400 kg more than average for south Bahia (Penereiro 1999). From the midnineties an incurable disease caused by Crinipellis perniciosa had been ravaging the cacao plantations in the region, and production had declined dramatically. The disease damaged the cacao trees on neighbouring farms but did not affect Ernst Götsch’s ‘analog agroforestry’ system. This article will look at the principles and practices behind ‘analog agroforestry’, a remarkable approach that has been used successfully to regenerate abandoned pas-
14
96
I L E I A N E W S L E T T E R • SEPTEMBER 2000
Learning AgriCultures
tures whose soils had become completely degraded. Within a period of 5-8 years they were supporting diverse agroforests and had become highly productive again. These results were achieved without the use of chemical fertilisers, herbicides, pesticides or heavy machinery. Basic principles Natural species succession In essence analog agroforestry attempts to imitate nature. In nature, plant and animal species live in consortiums with other species because they need these species for optimal growth and reproduction. Each consortium creates the conditions for a new consortium with a different composition. Hence, each consortium is determined by the preceding one and will determine the following one. The different consortiums succeed one another in a dynamic, ongoing process called natural species succession. Species succession is the natural process of quantitative and qualitative accumulation of soil fertility, diversity, complexity, energy and vitality that gradually trans-
forms the colonist consortium into a climax consortium. In nature, pioneer species that are capable of growing in poor soils colonise open spaces. These pioneers, mostly grasses, herbs and shrubs, improve the soil and create the conditions in which secondary herbs, shrubs and tree species can grow. The secondary forests undergo several cycles, during which the life span of the dominant species gradually increases from 3 to 15 to 30 and up to 80 years and their demands on the quality of the environment become more and more specific. The secondary forest species create soil conditions conducive to the growth of primary forest species whose life cycles can be as long as 200 years. Analog species Analog agroforestry also identifies natural species, consortiums of species and successions of consortiums. To produce optimal benefits for the farmers, some of the natural species are substituted by more beneficial ‘analog’ species that occur in similar natural conditions and succession phases. The local natural forest and traditional farming systems are analysed in order to identify situation-specific natural species, consortiums and preferred analog species. The life processes are optimalised to stimulate the greatest possible biodiversity by adapting the vegetation to all micro-environments. This may lead to many different combinations of species. Ernst Götsch, for example, planted pioneer species such as elephant grass, manioc, pineapple and coarana to improve the soil and secondary forest trees like Jangada preta, Inga, and many primary fruit-, nut-, and timber species to achieve a prosperous agroforest and secure high, medium, and long-term yields. It is difficult to design an optimal consortium of plants taking all parameters into account. Help comes from the wild annual and perennial species, often called ‘weeds’, that establish themselves spontaneously on the plots. These fill in many of the niches that have not been occupied by cultivated plants. Optimal timing and density for planting is identified so that each species can have optimal conditions to establish itself, grow and contribute to the succession process. It appears that the timing of how plants are introduced into the succession process
Succession of plant consortiums in an analog agroforestry system
Source: Vivan 1998
is a particularly critical factor in how they establish themselves and develop. Natural rejuvenation A degree of stress occurs as different vegetation phases succeed each other. Initially pioneer vegetation dominates because it develops faster than the other species. As the pioneers mature and age, the secondary vegetation is ready to take over but only after the whole system has stagnated for a while. The ageing plants suppress the development of ‘young’ vegetation. When storms, lightning or floods damage aged or diseased vegetation, the secondary vegetation reacts with accelerated growth and development. Selective weeding and pruning In analog agroforestry, the selective weeding, pruning and removal of plants replaces natural rejuvenation. Drastic pruning accelerates the growth of the system as a whole because it increases the amount of light and nutrients available to future generation of plant species. It serves as an instrument to manage species succession by making it possible to influence each plant individually as far as access to light, space and leaf area is concerned. Periodic rejuvenation by pruning, for example, prolongs the lifetime of short-lived pioneer species, and makes them better able to improve the soil. It can also encourage fruit trees to come into flower. If farmers want to produce annual food crops on a regular basis, it is possible to return to the pioneer succession phase by drastic pruning and (partially) clearing of larger fields when a higher consortium comes to the end of its life cycle.
Soil regeneration In nature, depleted soils may take many years to regenerate. However, in analog agroforestry the process is much quicker. Critical factors are: • plant community composition and density; • order in which species appear; • timing of when species appear; • interaction with micro-organisms and wild animals; • (micro-)climatic factors. Permanent soil cover In analog agroforestry leguminous and non-leguminous pioneer species are used to regenerate soils. In addition, the organic material obtained from weeding, pruning and removing plants is used as mulch to protect and fertilise the soil. To enhance soil life and maintain a constant flow of nutrients, rapid and permanent soil cover and regular applications of organic material of different composition and decomposition rates are needed. Under these conditions it is not necessary to plough the soil. It appears that the critical factors determining growth rates, the health of plants and the productivity of the system, are not the initial fertility of the soil, but rather species composition, planting density, and timing and succession management by selective weeding and pruning. Analog agroforestry in practice Preparation To design an analog agroforestry system farmers analyse the farm system and the wider environment with the help of an
Training course on Analog Agroforestry A training course on Analog Agroforestry (or Succession Farming as it is called by the organisers) in the humid tropics will be organised by Ecotop Consultants in Sapecho, Alto Beni, Bolivia on 15-29 July 2001. This course, meant for agronomists and practitioners, will combine theory and practice. Important topics are: • The principles of species succession • Management of agroforestry systems to enhance species succession • Management of pests, diseases and other system damages • Design of analog agroforestry systems • Quality control for organic products certification
experienced technician and then define their needs and objectives. Ideally the system should include species that regularly produce food in the short-, medium- and long-term and others that are capable of rapidly producing soil cover and high amounts of biomass. There should also be species that have multipurpose functions and produce mulch material, firewood, timber, fruits and medicines. Farmers must therefore select a combination of annual and perennial species that can be harvested at different phases of the succession. Pioneer vegetation has to fit the succession phase of the original vegetation and at the same time species must also be introduced that have a similar function but are adapted to the next succession phase. Between the species of the first consortium the farmer can introduce other species with longer life cycles and higher demands, although there is the risk that they may be pushed out of the system because they belong to a later phase of succession. Farmers have different needs and objectives and start work in a wide variety of conditions such as depleted grassland, bush fallow vegetation, mature forest vegetation, fertile alluvial valley soil and eroded upland soil. There are no blueprints for species selection. It is important that the system is seen as a whole; the different phases of the succession process recognised and any gaps that threaten the succession/production cycle are tackled. To do this farmers need considerable knowledge of the species concerned as well as its functions and environmental needs. Establishment First, existing vegetation has to be synchronised. This means that, in a given field, all ageing plants will either be removed completely or, if they still have vigour, coppiced. Pruning brings the vertical structure of the vegetation into equilibrium. A week is taken to plant or seed the selected species. If more time were taken the system, which has to develop as one organism, would no longer be synchronised. This means that nearly all pioneer, secondary and higher species are planted
Demonstrations and practical exercises will be organised in agroforestry systems with, among others, cacao, pineapples, banana, oranges and palm trees. Visits to farmers in the region who working the approach will be organised. The course is in Spanish. For more information:
[email protected] ;
[email protected] and www.ecotop-bolivia.de
I L E I A N E W S L E T T E R • SEPTEMBER 2000
15
Learning AgriCultures
97
at the same time. Because the same planting distances are kept for each species as in monoculture cultivation, the overall plant density will be very high.
Pruning is an art. Correct pruning requires that the farmer bears in mind particular factors including the characteristics of the plant and the environment in which it grows. There are some basic principles but the uniqueness of each situation has to be taken into account. In general the farmer must take into account: • the capacity of the species for coppicing; • its physiological age; • its place in the succession process and the vertical stratum; • whether it threatens the development of any higher plant • any damage being inflicted by predators or parasites
High densities and possible competition can easily be kept under control by pruning or by eliminating the plant completely. It is questionable to what extent there is really competition between plants. Experience shows that plants that function in different succession phases do not compete. Also species that grow at varying rates and end up in different layers of the vegetation do not compete, even if they come from the same species consortium and have similar demands.
A sustainable system There are important similarities between indigenous forest farming (see Box p13) and analog agroforestry. Both imitate nature by using analog species and species succession. In traditional shifting cultivation fire is often used for natural rejuvenation. However, where fallow periods are short, natural succession may be halted in the pioneer phase and there will be no increase in soil fertility, diversity or vitality because too much valuable organic matter, plant nutrients and soil and plant life is lost. In modern agriculture chemical fertilisers, herbicides, pesticides and machinery have replaced natural processes. Slash and burn agriculture and modern farming are evolving in ways that lead not only to depleted and degraded soil and loss of species diversity but also to simplified natural environment and decreasing productivity and sustainability. The strength of analog agroforestry and indigenous forest farming is that it is sustainable because it improves agricultural productivity and the environmental health of the production system.
Management If there is good species planning, it will be possible to harvest products at each intervention. In this way, for example, it would be possible to harvest radish, then beans and maize, and subsequently animal fodder, pineapple, banana and later timber, resin and other non-timber products. At the same time, the system is synchronised again by weeding, pruning and eliminating ageing and diseased plants. Older herbaceous plants are weeded, then fodder grasses are cut, and finally trees and shrubs are pruned and felled.
Photo: Bert Lof
Research results Penereiro (1999) compared the analog agroforestry system on Götsch’s farm with a 12-year-old, natural succession bush fallow. The vegetation in the agroforestry system was more diverse and better balanced and the succession in the system was more advanced. In the analog agroforestry system the topsoil had a high soluble phosphate content. In the top 5 cm layer there was 7 times more phosphate and between 5 and 20 cm there was 4 times as much. At the 40–60 cm level the phosphate content was about the same. These concentrations can be explained by the combined effect of nutrient pumping by deep rooting trees and the effect of soil microorganisms stimulated by pruning and the permanent organic mulch layer.
Why not change this degraded rangeland into a diverse and productive agroforestry system?
16
98
I L E I A N E W S L E T T E R • SEPTEMBER 2000
Learning AgriCultures
Spreading the approach Spreading analog agroforestry concepts requires a different approach to that used when passing on technologies via extension services. The construction and organisation of knowledge plays an important
role. Initially, there must be an intensive exchange of knowledge between farmer and technician in order to create a common understanding of how people interact with nature. The older members of rural communities and small-scale traditional farmers know a lot about the species native to their area and are well aware of the interactions that take place between the various plants. Farmers still know how these plants were used for food, medicine and other domestic purposes. This common understanding can be used to improve the system through continuous farmer experimentation. Several groups in Minas Gerais, Espírito Santo, Paraná (see Petersen et al p17), Rio Grande do Sul, São Paulo and Bolivia are experimenting with anolog forestry. Some farmers will not commit themselves to the whole system and their results are, therefore, limited. Others are wholly committed to the approach and have developed creative solutions that meet local needs and conditions. Centro Sabiá in Pernambuco, in Northeastern Brazil is one of many organisations working with analog forestry. Here there is farmer to farmer exchange, experimentation and some farmers are being trained on Ernst Götsch’s farm. Demonstrations are also held on the farms of particularly successful farmers. Several farmer promoters have been selected from this group and they distribute information on analog agroforestry. These initiatives should be intensified in order to provide an alternative to the present dominant but unsustainable production model. ■ Patricia Vaz, Av. D. Maria Elisa, 563. Piracicaba, SP. 13405-125. Brazil;
[email protected] References - Götsch E, 1995. Break-through in agriculture. Rio de Janeiro, AS-PTA, Rue de Candelária, 9-6° andar – Centro, 20091-020, Rio de Janeiro, RJ Brazil, Phone: +55 21 2538317; Fax: +55 21 2338363; Email:
[email protected] - Penereiro, FM, 1999. Sistemas agroflorestais dirigidos pela sucessão natural: um estudo de caso. São Paulo: ESALQ/USP, master thesis, 138 p. - Vivan J, 1998. Agricultura & florestas: princípios de uma interação vital. Rio de Janeiro, AS-PTA. - Milz J, 1998. Guía para el establecomiento de sistemas agroforestales en Alto Beni, Yucumo y Rurrenabaque. NOGUB COSUDE, Av. Héctor Ormachea esq. Calle 6 No 125, Obrahes, Casilla 4679, La Paz, Bolivia, Email:
[email protected] ;
[email protected]
Ecological processes and farmer livelihoods in shaded coffee production Ecological processes and livelihoods
V. Ernesto Méndez and Christopher M. Bacon
In 2000 we started using a Participatory Action Research approach, trying to involve a wide diversity of stakeholders as active participants in the research activities and to integrate research into an action agenda that would contribute to local development and increase biodiversity conservation. The aim of this approach was to foster a mutual learning process which would help improve management of on-farm ecological processes and support farmer livelihood strategies.
Most tropical primary forests have been transformed into landscapes containing many different types of land uses. The challenge to maintain and conserve some of the original biodiversity of these forests has resulted in a need for farming systems to develop and manage biodiversity. Recent research, as well as the experiences of farmers in many parts of the world, shows that shaded coffee agroecosystems have exceptional potential for the conservation of tropical plant and animal species, in addition to producing high quality coffee. This article shows how this potential is linked to farmers’ livelihood strategies in six co-operatives in El Salvador and Nicaragua. The article is based on work carried out by these co-operatives together with two local non-governmental partners, the Central de Cooperativas Cafetaleras del Norte (CECOCAFEN) in Nicaragua, and Asesoría e Investigación Interdisciplinaria para el Desarrollo Local y la Conservación (ASINDEC) in El Salvador.
Work ranged from developing rigorous inventories of the diversity of shade trees on-farm; to providing training on ecological management and support for marketing efforts. We supported farmers through the processes of organic certification, and trained individuals from the co-operatives on ecological methods for identifying, monitoring and managing shade trees. In addition, we have continually supported the efforts of these farmers to incorporate different forms of agroecotourism within their livelihood strategies. In both countries, organic certification and agroecotourism have the potential for increasing the incomes of the organisations and their members. This, however, requires making connections with different local and international networks. Success, though, has come slowly and with many obstacles. The obstacles have included the costs of organic certification, the difficulties in marketing and the cost of constructing the necessary infrastructure for agroecotourism.
In El Salvador we worked with three coffee co-operatives in the municipality of Tacuba, in the western part of the country. These farms are of high ecological importance as they surround the El Imposible National Park, the largest protected area in the country. The farms are situated at elevations ranging between 650 and 1400 meters above sea level, and the co-operatives grow two varieties of shade coffee (“Borbon” and “Pacas”), which both produce high quality beans, although their productivity is much lower than that of full sun coffee varieties. In Nicaragua we also worked with three co-operatives in the communities of Yasika Sur and Yúcul. These farms are located about 25 kilometres from the city of Matagalpa, in the northern part of the country. Coffee varieties found here include “Tipica”, “Maragogipe”, “Borbon” and “Caturra”, with a few farmers having also planted newer hybrid varieties such as “Catuai” and “Catimor”. Yields in Nicaragua range from 140 kg/ha among certified organic farmers to as much as 285 kg/ha among conventional producers.
Advantages and disadvantages Although coffee is traditionally grown under shade, farmers in many countries have been encouraged to shift to coffee varieties which need full sun, as this reduces fungal infections and increases yields. Emphasis on faster maturation and higher yields, however, overlooks other aspects. In shade grown coffee, shade trees protect sensitive coffee bushes from harsh winds and excessive light; protect the soil against erosion, and regulate temperature and humidity. The shade trees have multiple uses (timber, fruit production, fuel wood, medicines) and most important, there is growing evidence that shade positively affects coffee quality.
Photo: Ernesto Mendez
LEISA MAGAZINE 22.4 DECEMBER 2006
Shade trees also have other effects. They improve nutrient cycling by absorbing nutrients through the roots at lower depths in the soil and depositing leaf litter on the surface. They reduce the growth of weeds and also increase local biodiversity by providing food or shelter for many other species, such as birds and insects.
Members of the “La Concordia” cooperative in El Salvador were keen to learn about the ecological processes taking place in their fields, recognising the potential these have for improving their livelihoods.
Farmers’ interest in better understanding the ecological processes occurring on their farms is closely linked to the direct impact that this learning and management can have on improving their livelihoods. Our work focused mainly on how to manage the shade trees and coffee plants, i.e. the competition between different plant species within a cropping system, and on developing ecological management practices for organic production.
Shaded coffee management Shade coffee agroecosystems have a high potential for strengthening ecological processes. This is partly due to the similarity between the structure of shaded coffee farms, and the natural forest ecosystems that they have displaced. Ecological processes such as nutrient and water cycling, energy flows and
22 Learning AgriCultures
99
R2.3.2
Table 1: The most abundant shade species and their multiple uses population regulation mechanisms function in a manner that is similar to those occurring in tropical forests. Our focus therefore was on the management of shade species in coffee plantations, particularly in terms of biodiversity and on-farm agroforestry management. Tree biodiversity conservation Agroecology places a high value on the conservation of biodiversity as a tool for managing competition and pests. In shaded coffee, it is especially important to assess the existing tree biodiversity since, in providing shelter to other species, trees multiply the biodiversity levels of a farm and its surrounding areas. In the Nicaraguan coffee co-operatives we found 106 tree species used for shade. In El Salvador we identified 123 species, from 46 families. The number of shade tree species found on the coffee farms was similar to the number of species found in sample plots in the El Imposible National Park. However, the species themselves were very different, and reflected the farmers’ preferences for useful species, instead of rare, endangered forest species. Shade tree management The similar results from Nicaragua and El Salvador reflect similar management practices in both countries. Farmers manage the shade tree canopy so as to optimise coffee production while maximising the use of the different tree species. This means that all shade trees are pruned once or twice every year, aiming to leave a 40 to 50 percent shade cover. During this yearly activity tree heights are also controlled so that they remain at between five and ten metres. Sometimes farmers leave larger trees in place, to use for construction timber. Weeding is done manually with machetes at least twice a year and farmers always take care to leave naturally regenerated tree seedlings to grow. They are left to grow to provide additional shade in a specific area (regardless of the species), or until they can be identified. Farmers often uproot and transplant desirable, naturally regenerating, trees. Individual small scale farmers also tend to plant a high diversity of trees to meet the family’s needs of firewood, fruit, and timber. This is less common in collectively managed co-operatives, where the shade trees are used for firewood or timber. Cooperatives do not make as much use of fruit trees because there is no clear definition of the responsibilities for taking care of them, nor of ownership of the produce.
Supporting agroecological management The use of Participatory Action Research has helped us reach a better understanding of the ecological processes in shade grown coffee in the co-operatives, and this understanding has made it possible to develop better management practices. The action agenda facilitated exchange of information between researchers and farmers. In this way, the understanding developed during research can be used to support co-operatives and their members’ livelihoods.
Common name
Uses
El Salvador Croton reflexifolius Cordia alliodora Mangifera indica Eugenia jambos
Copalchí Laurel Mango Manzana rosa
Inga punctata Inga oerstediana Ricinus communis Critonia morifolia Inga pavoniana Eugenia salamensis
Pepeto Cuje purito Higuerillo Vara negra Cuje cuadrado Guayabillo
firewood, windbreak timber, shade, fruit firewood, fruit, shade firewood, fruit, windbreak shade, firewood shade, firewood shade shade, firewood shade, firewood timber, shade
Inga edulis Cordia alliodora Inga punctata Guazuma ulmifolia Lippia myriocephala Juglans olancha Citrus sinensis Persea americana Mangifera indica Vernonia patens
Guaba roja Laurel Guaba negra Guasimo Mampas Nogal Naranja dulce Aguacate Mango Tatascame
shade, firewood timber, firewood shade, firewood timber, firewood firewood timber fruit fruit fruit, firewood firewood
Nicaragua
We believe that agroecological management offers great possibilities to achieve both production and conservation goals in co-operative coffee plantations, but there are several key issues that require immediate attention. To improve production, co-operatives need access to financial and technical assistance. Secondly, they need help in finding better markets for coffee that support the conservation of biodiversity. Finally, a comprehensive approach is needed to assist the co-operatives in diversifying their livelihoods through improved food production and agroecotourism. This development will require solid partnerships with a diversity of actors. In our role as the Participatory Action Research partners, we are strongly supporting the co-operatives in finding and developing the partners and networks that will work best for them. ■ V. Ernesto Méndez. Environmental Program and Department of Plant & Soil Science, The Bittersweet, 153 South Prospect St., University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont 05401, U.S.A. E-mail:
[email protected] Christopher M. Bacon. 2830 Magowan Drive, Santa Rosa, California 95405, U.S.A. E-mail:
[email protected] References - Bacon, C., V. E. Méndez and M. Brown, 2005. Participatory action-research and support for community development and conservation: examples from shade coffee landscapes of El Salvador and Nicaragua. Research Brief # 6. Center for Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems (CASFS), University of California: Santa Cruz, California, U.S.A. - Gliessman, S. R., 2006. Agroecology: the ecology of food systems. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, U.S.A. - Méndez, V. E. and C. Bacon, 2005. Medios de vida y conservación de la biodiversidad arbórea: las experiencias de las cooperativas cafetaleras en El Salvador y Nicaragua. LEISA Revista de Agroecología 20 (4):27-30. - Méndez, V. E., S. R. Gliessman and G. S. Gilbert, 2007. Tree biodiversity in farmer cooperatives of a shade coffee landscape in western El Salvador. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, in press. - Somarriba, E., C. Harvey, M. Samper, F. Anthony, J. Gonzalez, C. Staver and R. Rice, 2004. Biodiversity in coffee plantations. In G. Schroth, G. Foseca, C. A. Harvey, C. Gascon, H. Vasconcelos and A. M. N. Izac (eds.) Agroforestry and biodiversity conservation in tropical landscapes. Island Press, Washington D.C., U.S.A. - Soto-Pinto, L., I. Perfecto, J. Castillo-Hernandez and J. Caballero-Nieto, 2000. Shade effect on coffee production at the northern Tzeltal zone of the state of Chiapas, Mexico. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 80:61-69.
LEISA MAGAZINE 22.4 DECEMBER 2006
Shade management is directly linked to the yields obtained. Although “full sun” coffee varieties have the potential to produce more coffee beans per plant, they require high levels of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides to do so. The co-operatives cannot afford this type of management, nor the cost of replacing their shade-loving varieties with those resistant to full sun. Instead, farmers are improving production without changing the shade tree system. Examples of improved management include replanting coffee in areas where the plants are too old, improving fertility management, and following basic agronomic practices like the regular pruning of the coffee plants.
Tree Species
23 100
Learning AgriCultures
Making the most of underutilised crops Spreading risk is an essential means to reduce vulnerability, especially for already vulnerable people. Increasing the use of underutilised crops is one of the better buffers to help farmers diversify, and sustain, nutritional, environmental and financial security in times of change.
R2.5.1
impacts will most likely occur. For example, farmers grow or use crops which are more tolerant to environmental extremes, use a variety of plants for balanced nutrition and to spread the harvesting times of cultivated or wild-harvested plants, and make use of important, keystone tree species which provide a range of products. The three strategies summarised here were presented during an international symposium in early 2008.
1. Use more tolerant species Hannah Jaenicke and Nick Pasiecznik
W
hereas it would seem common sense to “not put all your eggs into one basket”, we have witnessed the absolute opposite in recent decades: agricultural intensification. Although net food production has increased, over 50% of the carbohydrate and protein needs of the world’s human population are met by only three plants: maize, rice and wheat. This has also triggered an ever-increasing reliance on external inputs to keep up with pest and disease outbreaks. Similarly, improved crop varieties need increased water and fertilizer. These problems are being aggravated by climate change, with significant effects on rural livelihoods. Droughts and floods will increase in frequency and intensity. Changing temperatures will allow pests, diseases and other invasive species to thrive in new areas. One means to achieve increased resilience to shocks and change is by increasing the production, use and marketing of underutilised species on farms. Of special importance are indigenous plants with traditional uses and cultural links with local people. By diversifying farming systems, the food, medicines, fibres, fodder or other products they yield offset demands for imported, unavailable or unaffordable alternatives. People are already using a number of coping strategies to alleviate periodic hunger. A look at these can teach us where positive
Bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea) is a drought tolerant legume from West and Central Africa. It used to be grown extensively in sub-Saharan Africa as a nutritional complement to cereals, before the cultivation of peanuts took over traditional growing areas. Farmers had problems with low and/or unpredictable yields, the long time needed for processing and cooking, and the cultural perception that it was a “woman’s crop”. All these factors limited its production and use. Using a multi-partner, multi-location system, a team led by the University of Nottingham is using an array of approaches to test the suitability of bambara groundnut in new environments. In addition, they are establishing a breeding programme to develop better-yielding cultivars. The programme, which started in 1988, is seeing results. Bambara groundnut is regaining acceptance in sub-Saharan Africa, as well as being accepted and integrated in farming systems in drought-prone areas of India. Breadfruit (Artocarpus altilis) is a staple in the Pacific. It is eaten occasionally elsewhere where it grows, and it compares well with rice for a range of nutrients from calcium to vitamin C. On most Pacific islands, plants have to be adapted to the thin calcareous soils and must be tolerant to frequent exposure to salt spray. Although breadfruit is a key resource, its productivity and even its survival, is limited by conditions of drought and increasing salinity. In contrast, plants specifically adapted to such conditions are pandanus (Pandanus tectorius), giant swamp taro (Cyrtosperma merkusii) and coconut (Cocos nucifera). Pandanus fruits contain high levels of beta-carotene, and normal consumption of especially the orange-fleshed varieties can satisfy a person’s vitamin A requirements. Giant swamp taro has a beta-carotene content so high that a normal daily intake of four cups a day provides more than half of the estimated vitamin A requirement. Zinc and calcium contents are high enough to satisfy 50-100% of the recommended daily intakes of these nutrients. In addition, iron content is twice as high as that of banana or breadfruit.
2. Spread the harvest
Photo: L. Englberger, IFCP
Enjoying a pandanus fruit .
Fruiting calendars show when particular crops are available, and when there is need for supplemental nutrition. In Nepal, over 60% of fruits consumed are produced in family home gardens. Although there is a lot of diversity in these systems,
Learning AgriCultures
LEISA MAGAZINE 25.1 MARCH 2009
In rural Kenya, 60-80% of the population lacks adequate amounts of food for two to five months a year. Whereas experts recommend a daily intake of about 200 g of fruit, in Kenya this can be as low as 20 g per day, even though the country has many indigenous plants producing fruit. A recent study identified 57 indigenous fruit species in Mwingi District and showed that wild fruits form a very important safety net for rural Kenyans during the months of food shortage. In particular, children consumed significant amounts of fruit – far more than adults. Efforts are now being taken to encourage families to grow some of these wild species within their home gardens. This will increase the availability of fresh fruits and improve the family’s nutritional security.
11 101
Underutilised trees o
often containing 30-40 species, nutritional intake may still be inadequate during some months. However, targeted “diversity kits” have been developed and made available to farmers. They contain seeds, planting material and information about selected complementary species. These kits help to ensure that the home gardens can provide sufficient nutritional balance throughout the year. The Gruni people in northern Ghana have developed a way to deal with hunger, based around the baobab tree (Adansonia digitata). From January to June the availability of staple crops (sorghum, millets and groundnut) is limited, due to floods and droughts. Important ceremonies often have to be cancelled due to food shortages. During this time, apart from seeking labour in the cities, people rely on wild baobab trees. Its leaves, flowers, fruit pulp and seed are the most important products, used primarily for home consumption, but also for sale and barter. Women play a major role in collecting and processing baobab products. They consider the dry pulp in particular as a good source of household food. However, the Gruni have witnessed a marked decline in the number of baobab trees over the past 70 years. They attribute this to increased human population pressure and consequently, overharvesting. People are now being encouraged to start planting baobab trees and to develop modern processing methods to increase efficiency and reduce wastage.
Supporting the spread of underutilised species These examples show that many people have developed and use various coping or buffering strategies. They are using several “baskets” to carry their “eggs” – or fruits and other food as the case may be. Since we know that hunger periods will occur more often and become more severe in the future, what is needed now is to encourage increased use of more underutilised species, and the planting of hitherto “wild” productive species in or near the farms. There is need to develop stronger seed supply systems and mother tree orchards. It is also necessary to support the development of processing strategies to increase shelf life and thus availability of produce through the hungry periods. Successful marketing of underutilised crop products also requires support and mentoring in business practices and the availability of credit systems. Overall, underutilised crops provide a better buffer to reduce nutritional, environmental and financial vulnerability, and their increased use should be promoted. n
LEISA MAGAZINE 25.1 MARCH 2009
Hannah Jaenicke and Nick Pasiecznik. International Centre for Underutilised Crops (ICUC), P.O. Box 2075, Colombo, Sri Lanka. E-mails:
[email protected] ;
[email protected] ; http://www.icuc-iwmi.org
12 102
References -Jaenicke H., J. Ganry, I. Höschle-Zeledon and R. Kahane (eds.), 2009. Underutilised plants for food security, nutrition, income and sustainable development. Proceedings of International Symposium held in Arusha, Tanzania, 3-7 March 2008. Acta Horticulturae 806. International Society for Horticultural Science. Leuven, Belgium. The case studies presented here are taken from papers by: Englberger, L. and A. Lorens; Gautam, R. et al.; Kranjac-Berisavljevich, G. et al.; Mayes, S. et al.; Taylor, M. et al. and Simitu, P. et al. -Jaenicke H. and I. Höschle-Zeledon (eds.), 2006. Strategic framework for underutilised plant species research and development with special reference to Asia and the Pacific, and to sub-Saharan Africa. International Centre for Underutilised Crops, Colombo, Sri Lanka and the Global Facilitation Unit for Underutilised Species, Rome, Italy. -various authors, 2004. Valuing crop diversity. LEISA Magazine, 20.1. March 2004. The International Centre for Underutilised Crops (ICUC) has recently merged with the Global Facilitation Unit for Underutilised Species (GFU) and operates as Crops for the Future. The mandate of Crops for the Future is the support, collection, synthesis and promotion of knowledge on neglected and underutilised species for the benefit of the poor and the environment.
Learning AgriCultures
Photo: Abhay gandhe
3. Make more from keystone tree species
As an example of the principles described in the previous article, tribal farmers in India are being encouraged to plant underutilised indigenous wild trees on their land. This is in response to the fact that, in recent times, farming systems in central India have become less diversified and natural resources are becoming scarcer. Tribal communities living in remote areas are especially affected. While forest products were previously a major source of income, they are now being overexploited. Promotion of underutilised species can diversify farms, preserve forests and provide opportunities for income. Abhay gandhe and Arun dolke
T
he two main crops grown in central India are rice and cotton. While other minor millets, pulses and oilseeds are also grown, many farms have evolved to now operate as monocultures. Farming systems have become less diversified, soil and water resources have become poorer, and growing populations are putting more pressure on limited land resources. If a main crop fails, farmers suffer as they have few options to fall back on. With systems becoming more unsustainable, communities are increasingly using natural resources from surrounding forests. This can result in overexploitation and the loss of biodiversity. Farmers need additional opportunities within their existing farming systems. This is especially true for tribal farmers who inhabit more remote and marginal areas. BAIF Development Research Foundation, in Pune, India, has established a Resource Centre for Tribal Development (RCTD) to identify and develop potential new interventions for tribal communities. Tribal farmers are indigenous communities generally living in forest fringed remote areas and practising subsistence farming on small land holdings. Collection and sale of a variety of non-timber forest products (NTFP) constitutes a major source of livelihood for tribal farmers. However, widespread poverty, degrading agriculture and the vague tenure status of wild NTFP trees is leading to their overexploitation. Crop diversification has been identified as a key measure for countering the threats of degrading farming systems. However, BAIF and RCTD realise that there are limitations to developing
R2.6.1
Mature dom palm with harvested leaves drying on the ground. Photo: Stephen Connelly
Trees for semi-nomadic farmers: a key to resilience Stephen Connelly and Nikky Wilson Like many peoples of the dry lands of Africa, the farmers of the savannahs in the Western Lowlands of Eritrea have survived the variation and stresses of their hostile environment through developing a flexible farming system involving a mix of crops and animals, production for cash and for subsistence, and widespread dispersion of activities over hundreds of miles. The resourcefulness and resilience of such farmers is well known and well documented. They are traditionally viewed by the outside world as semi-nomadic herders and opportunistic farmers (‘agro-pastoralists’). In this article, however, we show that despite such views these farmers in Western Eritrea are also dependent on a third strand of the farming system: the management, collection and processing of forest products, and in particular of the dom palm (Hyphaene thebaica). This third strand is always important, but never more so than when disaster strikes – in times of drought and war forests become the key to survival.
LEISA MAGAZINE . APRIL 2001
Disasters strike frequently The Western Lowlands of Eritrea are the easternmost extension of the Sahel, lying between Eritrea’s border with the Sudan and the Eritrean/Ethiopian Highlands. Principally covered in semidesert scrub and savannah woodland their low hills and plains are interrupted by three river valleys clothed in remarkably dense woodland, some of it mixed acacia and dom palm and elsewhere almost pure stands of dom. They are home to several hundred thousand people of six ethnic groups, each of which has developed their own distinctive survival system, involving greater or lesser emphasis on animals, crops, palm fibre and other forest products. All these systems are characterised by flexibility, and all have been repeatedly disrupted by the natural and man-made upheavals of the past forty years. A series of major droughts has struck the area (early 1970s, 1982-5, 1990-1, late 1990s), causing repeated crop failure and massive livestock losses and – in the early 1980s – a complete collapse of the farming system, many deaths and mass exodus of
the population as refugees. At the same time the area has been ravaged by war: the Lowlands changed hands several times in the thirty years of liberation struggle (1961-91) and villages and crops were repeatedly bombed and destroyed by warfare on the ground. After liberation (1991) and independence (1993) farmers picked up the pieces and started farming again under more settled conditions, though facing new threats from government development policies, and then in 1998-2000 by renewed war that saw the invasion of the Lowlands by Ethiopian armies.
Dependence on dom palm At all times, forest products play a crucial role in people’s livelihoods. The traditional farming system involves growing sorghum for food, and keeping camels, cattle, goats and sheep for food and occasional sale. Amongst all the tribes a vast range of subsistence needs (e.g. housing, tools, and some food) come from the forest, and for the majority of the Lowland population (belonging to the Tigre, the Beni Amer and the Hidareb tribes) the principal source of cash income is dom palm fibre. Palm leaves are cut on a massive scale from the riverine forests, and either sold in their unprocessed form or woven into mats, rope and other household utensils for sale in the markets of Eritrea and Sudan. Under ‘normal’ circumstances - i.e. in peacetime and when rainfall is sufficient to allow at least some cropping and herding – dependence on the forest is greatest for the poorer members of the community. Those with few or no animals, or who cannot farm land – such as the many war widows – rely on cutting, weaving and selling palm for their survival on a permanent basis, while even for most richer farmers the dom is a vital source of income, particularly during the lean months of the year. The population clearly values the forests highly. This has been a factor in its preservation: farmers that we interviewed described harvesting patterns governed by informal regulations and an understanding of the nature of dom palm regeneration and growth. These systems prevent over-cutting through restricting access and over-frequent cutting, and their overall impact appears to be a sustainable management system.
10 Learning AgriCultures
103
Key element of resilience In years of bad rainfall dependence on the palm forest increases as crop and animal production falls. In serious drought years cutting and selling palm leaves becomes the main source of income for most of the population – men travel miles from villages far from the rivers in order to cut palm leaves to buy food. At the same time food collection from the forest increases: dom palm nuts are a food of last resort for the poor in the hungry season before harvests, and in drought years they become a staple food for many. One ethnic group – the Kunama – has a distinctly different approach to the forest. They cut very little palm for income, but collect food from twenty or more tree species. These include the dom palm and others that they value as food reserves for drought years when their crops fail: for them the riverine forests are their insurance, rather than a regular income source. Thus harvesting from the forests provides a key element of the resilience of the farming system, enabling poor farmers to survive from year to year and entire communities to weather the bad years, even to survive for a time when war makes farming impossible. Only in major droughts does the system finally collapse and people become refugees. In the period of peace from 1991-98 the palm forests were crucial in re-establishing a normal social and economic system in the Lowlands, both for those who had remained and for those who were returning from refugee camps. Livestock numbers were low and many female headed households (war widows) and physically disabled people in the villages had limited ability to farm. Harvesting and export of palm leaves has consequently been a major source of support for the Lowland population.
Forest or irrigation? However, this revival of the traditional system has not been actively supported by the government’s agricultural extension services. This appears to be partly because they recognise neither the importance of the forest to the farming system nor its sustainable nature. The Lowland farmers are seen as ‘agropastoralists’ for whom trees are a minor aspect of the farming system, and there is a widespread – though unfounded - belief amongst officials that cutting is carried out in ways that damage the trees.
The other major factor is that the government has other priorities: the forests occupy fertile land with high water tables, which is ideal for irrigated agriculture of cash crops such as onions and bananas. Increasing production of these is a high priority, in order to feed urban populations, raise hard currency through exports, and to attract investment from wealthy (often formerly expatriate) Eritreans. Thus the traditional system and the government’s preferred land use are in direct competition, and the appropriation and clearance of forest land has caused serious tensions in the Lowlands between local people and the government. Exacerbated by current and historical ethnic and religious factors, this conflict over a resource fundamental to local livelihoods contributed to unrest and the recurrence of violence in the Lowlands during the 1990s. Ironically, the recent (1998/2000) war between Eritrea and Ethiopia may have stopped the clearance of forests for commercial farming, though once again presumably forcing local people to rely on the forest as farming becomes impossible.
Sustainable forest management With the recent peace accord the question arises again of how local communities, government and – perhaps - outside researchers and agencies can work together. Although the deeper animosities are undoubtedly still present and intractable, the more immediate resource management issues should not be impossible to solve. This would require, however, that the government recognises both the importance of the forest to the local livelihood system, and the right of local people to have continued use of and control over the forest. It would thus have to forego – or at least restrict – the issuing of licenses for agricultural production in forestland. More positively, government and local people could work together on improving sustainable management – particularly where large numbers of former refugees are being settled - and on the provision of raw material for the industrial use of palm fibre. In conclusion, we can say that for many farmers in the Western Lowlands of Eritrea, the riverine forests, and in particular the dom palm, are an essential resource for their survival. They show great flexibility in switching emphasis between the components of their farming system (crops, livestock and forest) to meet changing conditions, but their ability to cope with the uncertainty of marginal farming and the stresses of war and drought is ultimately underpinned by their reliance on the forest for income and food. This dependency is even greater for poor people, and especially for those who are prevented from farming by physical disability or by social custom, as is the case with female heads of households. This dependency has been strangely neglected by both officialdom and outside agencies and researchers. We believe, however, that the sustainable exploitation of the forest under local management systems has huge potential to ensure that farmers’ coping mechanisms are both preserved and enhanced. ■
The authors carried out social and silvicultural research on the riverine forests and farming systems of the Western Lowlands of Eritrea in 1995/6, and returned in the summer of 1997. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors. A full report is available as Report on a preliminary study of the riverine forest resources of the South West Lowland Zone, Eritrea from SOS Sahel International UK, 1 Tolpuddle Street, London N1 0XT, England (
[email protected]) or from the authors at
[email protected].
The dom palm products market, Keren. Photo: Stephen Connelly
LEISA MAGAZINE . APRIL 2001
Stephen Connelly & Nikky Wilson, 31 Storrs Hall Road Sheffield S6 5AW UK.
11 104
Learning AgriCultures
The development of Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration predators such as insect eating birds, reptiles, amphibians and beneficial insects had disappeared along with the trees.
Tony Rinaudo
Conventional methods of reforestation in Africa have often failed. Even community-based projects with individual or community nurseries struggle to keep up the momentum once project funding ends. The obstacles working against reforestation are enormous. But a new method of reforestation called Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration (FMNR) could change this situation. It has already done so in the Republic of Niger, one of the world’s poorest nations, where more than 3 million hectares have been re-vegetated using this method. Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration involves selecting and pruning stems regenerating from stumps of previously felled, but still living trees. Sustainability is a key feature of the programme which requires very little investment by either government or NGOs to keep it going. The story in Niger can offer valuable insights and lessons for other nations.
Conventional approaches The severe famine of the mid 1970s led to a global response. Stopping desertification became a top priority. Conventional methods of raising exotic tree species in nurseries were used: planting out, watering, protecting and weeding. However, despite investing millions of dollars and thousands of hours labour, there was little overall impact. Conventional approaches to reforestation faced insurmountable problems, being costly and labour intensive. Even in the nursery, frogs, locusts, termites and birds destroyed seedlings. Once planted out, drought, sand blasting, pests, competition from weeds and destruction by people and animals negated efforts. Low levels of community ownership and the lack of individual or village level replicability meant that no spontaneous, indigenous re-vegetation movement arose out of these intense efforts. Meanwhile, established indigenous trees continued to disappear at an alarming rate. National forestry laws took tree ownership and responsibility for care of trees out of the hands of the people. Even though ineffective and uneconomic, reforestation through conventional tree planting seemed to be the only way to address desertification at the time.
Photo: Author
discovering Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration
Children helping to source firewood.
LEISA MAGAZINE 23.2 JUNE 2007
The situation in Niger The almost total destruction of trees and shrubs in the agricultural zone of Niger between the 1950s and 1980s had devastating consequences. Deforestation worsened the adverse effects of recurring drought, strong winds, high temperatures, infertile soils and pests and diseases on crops and livestock. Combined with rapid population growth and poverty, these problems contributed to chronic hunger and periodic acute famine. Back in 1981, the whole country was in a state of severe environmental degradation, an already harsh land turning to desert, and a people under stress. More and more time was spent gathering poorer and poorer quality firewood and building materials. Women had to walk for miles for fuel such as small sticks and millet stalks. Cooking fuel was so scarce that cattle and even goat manure was used. This further reduced the amount of fodder available for livestock and manure being returned to the land. Under cover of dark, people would even dig up the roots of the few remaining protected trees. Without protection from trees, crops were hit by 60 - 70 km/hour winds, and were stressed by higher temperatures and lower humidity. Sand blasting and burial during wind storms damaged crops. Farmers often had to replant crops up to eight times in a single season. Insect attack on crops was extreme. Natural pest
In 1983, the typical rural landscapes in the Maradi Department in the south of Niger, were still windswept and with few trees. It was apparent that even if the Maradi Integrated Development Project, which I managed, had a large budget, plenty of staff and time, the methods being employed would not make a significant impact on this problem. Then one day I understood that what appeared to be desert shrubs were actually trees which were re-sprouting from tree stumps, felled during land clearing. In that moment of inspiration I realised that there was a vast, underground forest present all along and that it was unnecessary to plant trees at all. All that was needed was to convince farmers to change the way they prepared their fields. The method of reforestation that developed is called Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration (FMNR). Each year, live tree stumps sprout multiple shoots. In practising FMNR the farmer selects the stumps she wants to leave and decides how many shoots are wanted per stump. Excess shoots are then cut and side branches trimmed to half way up the stems. A good farmer will return regularly for touch up prunings and thereby stimulate faster growth rates. The method is not new, it is simply a form of coppicing and pollarding, which has a history of over 1000 years in Europe. It was new, however, to many farmers in Niger who traditionally viewed trees on farmland as “weeds” which needed to be eliminated because they compete with food crops. There is no set system or hard and fast rules. Farmers are given guidelines but are free to choose the number of shoots per stump and the number of stumps per hectare that they leave, the time span between subsequent pruning and harvest of stems, and the method of pruning. Acceptance of this method was slow at first. A few people tried it but were ridiculed. Wood was a scarce and valuable commodity so their trees were stolen. A breakthrough came in
32 Learning AgriCultures
105
R2.6.3
FMNR in practice 1. FMNR depends on the existence of living tree stumps in the fields to be re-vegetated. New stems which can be selected and pruned for improved growth sprout from these stumps. Standard practice has been for farmers to slash this valuable re-growth each year in preparation for planting crops.
2. With a little attention, this growth can be turned into a valuable resource, without jeopardizing, but in fact, enhancing crop yields. Here, all stalks except one have been cut from the stump. Side branches have been pruned half way up the stem. This single stem will be left to grow into a valuable pole. The problem with this system is that when the stem is harvested, the land will have no tree cover and there will be no wood to harvest for some time.
3. Much more can be gained by selecting and pruning the best five or so stems and removing the remaining unwanted ones. In this way, when a farmer wants wood she can cut the stem(s) she wants and leave the rest to continue growing. These remaining stems will increase in size and value each year, and will continue to protect the environment and provide other useful materials and services such as fodder, humus, habitat for useful pest predators, and protection from the wind and shade. Each time one stem is harvested, a younger stem is selected to replace it.
Species used in this practice in Niger include: Strychnos spinosa, Balanites aegyptiaca, Boscia senegalensis, Ziziphus spp., Annona senegalensis, Poupartia birrea and Faidherbia albida. However, the important determinants of which species to use will be: whatever species are locally available with the ability to re-sprout after cutting, and the value local people place on those species.
106
Reasons for the rapid spread Aside from simplicity, early returns and low cost, other factors contributed to the rapid spread of FMNR. Introducing the method on a district-wide basis with a “Food for Work” programme eliminated much of the peer pressure that early innovators would normally have to endure. As villagers experimented, project staff who lived in the villages were supportive, teaching, encouraging and standing alongside farmers when disputes or theft of trees occurred. This support was crucial, particularly in the early days when there was much opposition to FMNR. As trees began to colonise the land again, excited government forestry agents nominated lead farmers and even project staff for regional and national awards. Often these nominees won prizes, lifting the profile of FMNR. As news began to spread, national and international NGOs, church and mission groups received training and began promoting the method across Niger. During the development of farmer-managed natural regeneration, farmers did not own the trees on their own land. There was no incentive to protect trees and much of the destruction of that era was linked to this policy. After discussions with the head of the Maradi Forestry Department, project staff were able to give assurances that if farmers cared for the trees on their land they would be allowed to benefit without fear of being fined. These laws were only changed in 2004 after much negotiation by entities such as USAID. Farmers began to access markets without undue hassle. And as trees on farms switched from being nuisance weeds to becoming a cash crop in their own right, this was good motivation for farmers to cultivate them. Over time, locally agreed upon codes and rules with support from village and district chiefs were established. Without this consensus and support for the protection of private property, it is unlikely that FMNR could have spread as fast as it did. The benefits of FMNR quickly became apparent and farmers themselves became the chief proponents as they talked amongst themselves. FMNR can directly alleviate poverty, rural migration, chronic hunger and even famine in a wide range of rural settings. FMNR contributes to stress reduction and nutrition of livestock, and contributes directly and indirectly to both the availability and quality of fodder. Crops benefit directly through modification of microclimate (greater organic matter build up, reduced wind speed, lower temperatures, higher humidity, and greater water infiltration into the soil), and indirectly through manuring by livestock which spend greater time in treed fields during the dry season. The environment in general benefits as bio-diversity increases and natural processes begin to function again. With appropriate promotion, FMNR can reduce tensions between competing interests for landbased resources. For example, as natural regeneration increases fodder availability (tree pods and leaves), farmers are in a better position to leave crop residues on their fields and are less likely to take offence when nomadic herders want to graze their livestock in the dry season.
LEISA MAGAZINE 23.2 JUNE 2007
1984, when radio coverage of an international conference on deforestation in Maradi helped to increase awareness of the link between deforestation and the climate. This was followed by a Niger-wide severe drought and famine which reinforced this link in peoples’ minds. Through a “Food for Work” programme in Maradi Department, people in 95 villages were encouraged to give the method a try. For the first time ever, people in a whole district were leaving trees on their farms. Many were surprised that their crops grew better amongst the trees. All benefited from having extra wood for home use and for sale. Sadly, once the programme ended, over two thirds of the 500 000 trees protected in 1984 - 1985 were chopped down! However, district-wide exposure to the benefits of FMNR over a 12-month period was sufficient to introduce the concept and put to rest some fears about growing trees with crops. Gradually more and more farmers started protecting trees, and word spread from
farmer to farmer until it became a standard practice. Over a twenty-year period, this new approach spread largely by word of mouth, until today three million hectares across Niger’s agricultural zone have been re-vegetated. This is a significant achievement by the people of Niger. The fact that this happened in one of the world’s poorest countries, with little investment in the forestry sector by either the government or NGOs, makes it doubly significant for countries facing similar problems.
33 Learning AgriCultures
Since 2000, World Vision has been promoting this method in a number of other African countries. Malatin André, a Chadian farmer practising it for just two years reported: “Thanks to the new technique our life has changed. Food production has doubled and many people who were laughing at us, have also adopted the techniques for soil regeneration. As a result, there is always good production, the soil is protected from erosion and heat, and women can still get firewood. We have been using the same plot for more than 30 years and without such natural fertilizing possibility, we would soon stop getting food from it”. Khadidja Gangan, a 35 year old Chadian mother of six said: “This year is very exceptional for me because I have been able to get enough sorghum. I cultivated one hectare and harvested 15 bags of sorghum. Generally, I could get three to five bags when working this land in the past. This would have been impossible if I was not taught the new technique of land management”.
Other factors also affected the spread of the technique, for example, where language may reflect deeply held attitudes. In Hausa the word for tree (itce) is the same as the word for firewood, and therefore trees were seen to have little value of their own, apart from for firewood. Cultural factors may also work against adoption. Traditionally, Fulani cattle herders saw their lifestyle as the best in the world. Initially they found it humiliating to consider harvesting and selling wood, the way sedentary farmers did. In addition, the practice of FMNR depends on having living tree stumps in the fields to start with. However, in many cases, farmers can successfully broadcast seeds of desirable species which, once established, become the basis of a FMNR system. The number of trees to be left in a field will depend on the number of stumps present and the farmer’s preferences. Some left over 200 trees per hectare, others not even the recommended 40. The “correct” number of trees to be left will be a balance between farmers’ needs for wood and other products, optimal environmental protection and minimal negative effect on crop yields. In areas of low rainfall, growth rates will be slower, and harvest or cutting regime should be reduced accordingly. Also, in low rainfall areas, establishment of direct sown seeds will take longer and be more difficult than in higher rainfall areas.
Conditions for success and future challenges There are, however, still many gaps in our knowledge of natural regeneration. Farmers adapt it to their own personal needs and have different reasons for practising it. Further investigation is needed into various technical aspects, such as the most beneficial spacing, species mix, age to harvest, or type of harvesting, for specific purposes. In addition, legal and cultural considerations and historical relations between stakeholders need to be taken into account. For example, the major difficulties faced in Niger included:
In areas where existing species are predominately thorny, or they compete heavily with crop plants, farmers may have second thoughts about FMNR. Where existing tree species are palatable to livestock, the increased effort required to herd animals or protect trees is beyond the reach of many farmers. In many cases however, the species are not palatable and there is no need to exclude animals from the field during the dry season.
Photo: Author
Conclusion What most entities working in reforestation have failed to recognise is that vast areas of cleared agricultural land in Africa retain an “underground forest” of living stumps and roots. By simply changing agricultural practices, this underground forest can re-sprout, at little cost, very rapidly and with great beneficial impact. In other words, in many instances the costly, time consuming and inefficient methods of raising seedlings, planting them out and protecting them is not even necessary for successful reforestation. Presumably, the same principle would apply anywhere in the world where tree and shrub species have the ability to re-sprout after being harvested.
LEISA MAGAZINE 23.2 JUNE 2007
Harvesting millet amongst the naturally regenerated trees in Niger.
• The tradition of free access to trees on anybody’s property and a code of silence protecting those who cut down trees. It was considered anti-social to expose anybody who had felled trees. This tradition was hard to break and those who left trees were often discouraged when their trees were taken by others. This situation was successfully addresses through advocacy, creation of local by-laws and support from village and district chiefs in administering justice. Gradually, people accepted that there was no difference between stealing from someone’s farm and stealing from within someone’s house. • Fear that trees in fields would reduce yields of food crops. Field results put these fears to rest over time. • Inappropriate government laws – if the farmer does not have the right to harvest the trees she has protected, there will be little incentive for her to do so. Farmers feared that they would be fined for harvesting their own trees. By collaborating with the forestry service, we were able to stop this from happening.
Farmer managed natural regeneration is a cheap and rapid method of re-vegetation, which can be applied over large areas of land and can be adapted to a range of land use systems. It is simple and can be adapted to each individual farmer’s unique requirements, providing multiple benefits to people, livestock, crops and the environment, including physical, economic and social benefits to humans. Through managing natural regeneration, farmers can control their own resources without depending on externally funded projects or needing to buy expensive inputs (seed, fertilizers, nursery supplies) from suppliers. Its beauty lies in its simplicity and accessibility to even the poorest farmers, and once it has been accepted, it takes on a life of its own, spreading from farmer to farmer, by word of mouth. n Tony Rinaudo. Natural Resource Management Specialist, World Vision Australia. G.P.O. Box 399C, Melbourne, Victoria 3001, Australia. E-mail:
[email protected] Reference - National Academy of Sciences, 1980. Firewood crops. Shrub and tree species for energy production. N.A.S., Washington, DC, U.S.A.
34 Learning AgriCultures
107
R2.7
Seed fairs in Nampula promote food sovereignty
If you don’t save seed, you are not a re In parts of Mozambique, seed fairs have become an important tool for improving family farming and food sovereignty. LEISA MAGAZINE 25.3 SEPTEMBER 2009
The concept is simple: create a space for small farmers from different regions to come together to exchange seeds.
20 108
gaining access to (diverse) genetic material allows for new opportunities and ideas for reducing risk and increasing productivity on farms. But seed fairs also offer a way to value and strengthen farmers’ knowledge and local culture, as well as strengthening farmers’ movements. An inspiration to others to set up their own seed fairs! Nico Bakker and Feliz Zenén Martínez Mendoza
I
n Mozambique, farmers as well as farming organisations are becoming more aware of the strength of their local food production systems, and the fact that these help them reduce risks. At the beginning of this decade, some farmers tried to improve their incomes by participating in cotton and sweet pepper “market outgrower schemes”: they obtained packages of seeds and chemical inputs from extension agents of big companies, who then bought up the harvests at the end of the season. Farmers were paid for their production, minus the cost of inputs. But this
Learning AgriCultures
experience left many farmers in debt because of high investment costs, and in the process of specialising in a particular crop, they became vulnerable to an uncertain climate and volatile markets. Margarita Amisse from Natikiri participated for the third time. She brought groundnuts to the market and returned with sesame, cowpeas and rice. She also bought maize seeds for a neighbour. According to Margarita, the benefit of the fairs is that the seeds are less expensive than in the shops, and the variety is much greater as well.
about 140 farmer members (of which 40 percent were women) participated in each fair – and 700 members in total. Even more people benefited from the fairs as other, non-member farmers from the areas visited them and brought back materials for their neighbours as well. Practically all of the material (over 95 percent) at the five fairs was exchanged. Adelaide Mesquita from M’puto participated for the fourth time. She brought groundnuts of the fast-growing Virginia variety and returned with cashew tree seeds and jugo nuts. The variety of cashew she acquired is known for growing fast and for having larger nuts. The jugo nut variety she obtained matures quickly (in two instead of three months). What she likes about the fairs is the diversity and the possibility to recover seeds that are lost when production is low. At the end of the fairs, non-member farmers from the area always come by to try to get seeds too – which can attract new members to the farmers’ organisations.
diversity is growing due to seed fairs Genetic material is crucial for all agricultural production systems and its management determines to a large extent the food sovereignty of a given community. In principle, all family
Photo: Nico Bakker
Why farmers value seed fairs
Many of the farmers who participated in the seed fairs were women.
real farmer With these challenges in mind, the Union of Agricultural Cooperatives of Nampula (UGCAN) organised its first seed fair in 2002 in the province of Nampula in northeast Mozambique. UGCAN’s objectives were to: 1) create an opportunity for family farmers to exchange genetic material which was adapted to local conditions and customs; 2) promote the diversity of seeds used by farmers; 3) exchange experiences on the production of varieties adapted to local conditions; and 4) make farmers aware of the importance of controlling their own seed. Since then, membership of UGCAN has grown to 2000 farmers. It was therefore decided in 2008 to replace the single central fair with five simultaneous regional fairs, in order to help farmers participate more easily, closer to home. On average,
• Participating farmers do not look for “high-yielding” varieties but rather seek out varieties that increase the probability of a yield (crops that have a short cycle and are early maturing or pest resistant). Fast-maturing crops found at the fairs, such as groundnuts, maize, beans, sorghum, cassava and millet, attract much interest from farmers. this material helps to reduce the four-month wait for staple crops to mature once the rainy season begins, and so reduces the period of food scarcity. resistance to disease and pests is another important factor – for example, a variety of cassava that is more resistant to brown-streak and certain varieties of millet and sorghum with long and flexible heads, making it difficult for birds to get at them. • Farmers also value culinary qualities such as shorter cooking time and sweet taste, as in certain varieties of cassava, for example. • Fairs provide an opportunity to recover “lost” varieties. varieties become lost because of poor production, which obliges the family to eat or sell what they have saved. In Mozambique, this is often the case with maize and groundnuts as they are both cash and food crops and relatively easy to sell in times of crisis. Marupi, a wild cereal traditionally used in porridge, is another example. the reason it appears at the fairs might be that it no longer easily reproduces naturally. • Farmers are curious and have a drive for innovation, and are therefore eager to get to know new varieties. • Farmers appreciate the easy access to seeds. At the Nampula fairs, seed is exchanged or otherwise sold at a symbolic price. • Seed fairs allow farmers to actively look for and exchange knowledge regarding seed. • Finally, the farmers appreciate having a space of their own.
Learning AgriCultures
LEISA MAGAZINE 25.3 SEPTEMBER 2009
At the same time, food culture has been changing. Local crops such as cassava and sweet potato, as well as cereals such as sorghum and millet, are being increasingly substituted in the people’s diet by crops that are not locally produced, such as potato and wheat.
• In general, farmers value the diversity available at the fairs, which is greater than that in the shops or from local distributors. In Nampula, the fairs offer more and more varieties over the years. two examples are the supply of ‘virginia’ groundnuts as well as the brown-streakresistant variety of cassava: in the beginning, these were only brought by farmers from a particular area, but in recent years, more farmers from other zones also bring them to the fairs.
21 109
How to organise a seed fair farmers in Mozambique save their seeds because, as they say, “if you don’t save seed, you are not a real farmer”. Managing seed is, however, a dynamic process. It is normal for farmers to exchange seeds with their neighbours and in this way create small differences in seed stocks between neighbouring farms. Seed fairs give farmers a greater opportunity to increase seed diversity, as they can exchange with colleagues further away.
1. organise the fairs regularly, and avoid the busy time of the growing season. the Nampula fairs are annual and take place about two months before the rainy season. 2. Start with a central fair, but later increase the number of fairs to cover different regions, thus allowing increased participation. 3. Let the regions be responsible for organising their own fair, to allow local farmer leaders to gain experience in organising activities. In the Nampula case, representatives were selected for the different regions, as well as an organisational committee composed of leaders from each area.
This is certainly the case in Nampula, as the fairs have come to offer more and more diversity over the years. In 2008, each of the regional fairs had more than 20 different varieties on display, and the following produce was represented: • Cereals: maize, rice, millet, sorghum, marupi (type of wild amaranth grain) • Beans: cowpeas (nhemba and ecute), mung beans, fava beans, jugo (bambara) nuts, namara beans, pigeon peas, butter beans • Oils: groundnuts, sesame, local sesame, cashew, castor beans • Tubers: cassava, sweet potato, yam and local wild tuber • Vegetables: okra, tomato, garlic, cabbage, chili pepper, local pepper, pumpkin, cucumber, onion, two other types of local vegetable • Medicinal plants: African potato (Uapaca kirkiana), Indian mulberry (Morinda citrifolia), neem and two other local medicinal plants (seeds, leaves and/or roots) • Fruit: watermelon, banana, orange, lemon, pineapple • Other: sugarcane
4. When organising simultaneous events as ugCAN did, keep the logistics manageable. the five seed fairs catered to members within a 180 km distance from the ugCAN headquarters in Nampula. 5. Move the location of the fairs within the regions every year. 6. State clearly in the invitations that an equal number of women and men are expected to represent each area at every fair. 7. Also explain in the invitations that diversity and a good quantity of seeds are important, as is information about the seeds (when to plant, preferred type of soil, water needs, etc.). 8. Add some local cultural interest: for the Nampula fairs, local authorities were invited, as well as a drum and dance group. ugCAN members were also asked to prepare songs or a play that highlights the importance of seed. 9. Provide money to the organisational committees, which can also be used for food for the participants and guests. At the end of the fair, a breakdown of the costs should be presented to the participants.
Ana Leite from Murrupula participated for the first time and obtained a variety of light-skinned cassava. This variety is not bitter and can be eaten raw, which made it a much sought-after product at the fair. Ana Leite took home maize seeds and a cutting of a kind of sugarcane she had never seen before, so she was also given information on how to cultivate it. For Ana, the fairs offer diversity and an opportunity to discover new varieties.
10. Ensure that the seed be exchanged or otherwise sold at a symbolic price to keep it accessible to the farmers. 11. Keep out commercial seed companies (authorities inevitably suggest inviting representatives of seed companies, which of course completely negates the idea of the fairs). 12. Award prizes at the end of the fair to the areas that managed to attract the most seeds in terms of diversity and quantity. 13. Afterwards, evaluate the fairs to evaluate possible adaptations for the following year.
At one fair, participants identified three varieties each for maize, groundnuts, cassava, sorghum and rice and two varieties each for fava and jugo nuts, sugarcane, pumpkin, sweet potato, and millet.
LEISA MAGAZINE 25.3 SEPTEMBER 2009
In addition to the direct aspects of farming, seed fairs offer a way to appreciate and strengthen farmers’ knowledge and local culture. They also provide an instrument for farmers to mobilise members, strengthen self-organisation, increase visibility, and show a novel approach for local organisations. n Nico Bakker. Former advisor to the UGCAN, Oxfam Solidarity Belgium. E-mail:
[email protected]
Photo: Nico Bakker
Feliz Zenén Martínez Mendoza. Former advisor to ANAP (National Association of Small Farmers) in Cuba, and specialist in Popular Education and Sustainable Agriculture. He worked for one year in Nampula to help set up the Farmer-to-Farmer network. E-mail:
[email protected]
22 110
Sitting under shady trees, farmers display a wide diversity of seeds and other genetic material at one of the seed fairs in Nampula.
Learning AgriCultures
Further reading The FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) produced a useful handbook in 2006, based on its LINK project (Gender, biodiversity and local knowledge systems for food security) in Tanzania. Following two studies and four seed fairs, FAO prepared simple guidelines for rural communities on how to organise a community diversity seed fair: FAO, 2006. Community diversity seed fairs in Tanzania: Guidelines for seed fairs. Report no 51, Rome, Italy. Downloadable at: www.fao.org/sd/dim_pe1/pe1_060701_en.htm
Stimulating GMO-free breeding for organic agriculture: a view from Europe Edith Lammerts van Bueren and Aart Osman In the mid-90s the organic agricultural sector decided not to allow the use of GMOs in organic production. This was partly due to the risks of undesired and unknown environmental and health-related side effects of GMOs. But the main reason was a more ethical choice of respecting the integrity of plants and animals. The decision to remain GMO-free is incorporated in the Basic Standards of the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) and hence applies worldwide. These standards define how organic products are produced, processed and handled. Most organic certification bodies use these standards for certification purposes.
A new vision for organic plant breeding European organic agriculture is greatly dependent on the conventional seed industry. Organic farmers use modern productive varieties, bred for a high-input farming system with the use of chemicals. Although these varieties yield better than the old land races, they are not adapted to specific organic conditions. They lack traits like nutrient uptake efficiency, early soil coverage against weeds, broad field tolerance against pests and diseases etc. This was hardly an issue in the organic sector in The Netherlands until the threat of GMO varieties put it on the agenda. Space was thus created for a thorough discussion on the suitability of current plant breeding techniques for organic agriculture. Louis Bolk Institute, a private research institute for organic agriculture, organised a discussion with all key players in the organic and conventional sectors (organic farmers, traders, commercial plant breeders and researchers of national agricultural research institutes) in the Netherlands. This resulted in a vision on organic plant breeding that was further discussed at workshops throughout Western Europe in order to formulate a common standpoint for those involved in organic seed production. The findings were finalised at a recent workshop by a group of European key players (organic sector, commercial seed enterprises). The resulting proposal was forwarded to IFOAM for incorporation in the Basic Standards for Organic Agriculture.
Avoiding undesired cross-pollination. Photo: Louis Bolk Institute
Principles of organic farming as the basis
LEISA MAGAZINE . DECEMBER 2001
Judging the suitability of plant breeding methods is based on the principles of organic farming. Organic farming is not merely the avoidance of chemical fertilisers, pesticides and GMOs. It takes the living soil as a basis and uses methods which stimulate (agro-)ecological processes, without exhausting natural resources. Being founded on the integrity and intrinsic value of living entities like the soil, plants, animals and human beings, organic farming respects the environment, farm ecology and the complexity of nature. This attitude of respect prevents farmers from taking actions that affect a plant’s reproductive potential and impede the sustainable use of cultivars. Thus, the concept of organic plant breeding as formulated by the European key players reads as follows: “The aim of organic plant breeding is to develop plants which enhance the potential of organic farming and bio-diversity. Organic plant breeding is a holistic approach that respects natural crossing barriers and is based on fertile plants that can establish a viable relationship with the living soil.”
Biodiversity - an essential feature Cross pollination within natural barriers Photo: Louis Bolk Institute
As biodiversity is one of the main features of a sustainable organic farming system, the organic sector places great value on
12 Learning AgriCultures
111
R2.8
the free exchange of the genepool. The rights of breeders are respected but patents and techniques to make plants sterile endanger the free exchange, and consequently the genetic diversity. One of the techniques to prevent free exchange of genetic diversity is the utilisation of cytoplasmic male sterility without restorer genes to produce hybrids (see Box p.14). The absence of restorer genes prevents the production of seeds and hence this type of hybrids should be forbidden. All other types of hybrids produce viable seeds. They do not maintain purity after multiplication at the farm, but can still be used for developing new varieties. Seed saving is not practised in the highly specialised horticultural sector in Europe. Dutch organic farmers prefer to buy their seeds, and most of them prefer hybrids. The uniformity of the plants allows for mechanical harvesting and reduces the requirement of seasonal labour that is scarce. Whether hybrids are the best option for the South depends very much on the socio-economic circumstances. Often there are valid arguments against hybrids. Low-income farmers who do not have sufficient funds to buy new seeds every year are better off with varieties that they can multiply inexpensively.
genetic resistance traits from wild relatives and other species into modern cultivars. This has led to a disproportionate reliance on resistant genes and negligence of other characteristics and techniques that prevent the build-up of diseases and pests. For example, the build-up of soil-borne fungal diseases is delayed in cereals, which are taller and have a more open plant structure (opposed to the compact short straw types). Growing varietal mixtures and intercropping also prevents disease epidemics. An organic breeding strategy would therefore aim at compensating for low genetic resistance with a better plant structure and varieties that perform well in mixtures. In this way it would not rely just on a single resistant gene, but on a larger, more sustainable set of measures. Breeding with as little biotechnology as possible requires a rethinking of what we want to achieve and how we can reach our goals. The principles of organic agriculture can help us with this task.
The cell level divide The biotechnological techniques used in modern plant breeding (see Box p.14) can be divided into those that stay within the realm of life and those that go beyond. If the cell is considered the lowest organised structural entity of life, then all breeding techniques that intervene below cell level do not conform to the organic principles. This means that genetic modification (which interferes at DNA level) and protoplast fusion should be forbidden for the organic sector. All other cell biological techniques, including embryo rescue techniques and in vitro-pollination, are acceptable. A few plant breeders are willing to go further: not only banning the techniques that go below cell level, but also avoiding those that intervene at cell level. The proposed certification system will label the latter as “organic varieties”. Varieties that respect the standards for organic breeding, but go beyond plant level, will be labelled as “organic seeds”. “Organic seeds” come from conventional breeding programmes, which respect the organic breeding standards and are multiplied under organic growing conditions for at least one generation.
Re-thinking plant breeding For the breeders who want to work with as little biotechnology as possible, the challenge is to develop new concepts and breeding strategies that make it redundant. Most biotechnological techniques in plant breeding are used to introduce specific
The breeding fields of Vitalis, a Dutch organic breeding company Photo: Louis Bolk Institue
Setting standards for organic breeding The development of new varieties requires considerable financial investments. As a relatively small sector, organic farming in Europe depends largely on conventional seed breeders for new varieties. Setting standards for organic plant breeding can influence technology development for the organic sector. These standards specify the techniques allowed for the development of new varieties. To make the implementation of these standards feasible, the private (conventional) seed sector has been involved in the discussions on organic breeding from the beginning.
‘Think twice before you act’: EU blocks new GM crops to be released Before such an operational system will be implemented it could take another two years, or even longer if the issue of environmental liability has to be turned into law as well. In non-EU member Switzerland, the release of genetically altered plants into the environment is also forbidden. The government states that, on the basis of current knowledge, it is not possible to gauge the dangers to humans and the environment of the release of such organisms. This precautionary principle by (some of ) the EU countries and neighbouring Switzerland is an important acknowledgement of the fact that GM crops are different from “naturally” improved varieties. ‘Think twice before you act’ seems to be the European answer to GM crops.
LEISA MAGAZINE . DECEMBER 2001
GM Crops such as Bt-maize, RR soybean and Bolgard cotton, are widely accepted in the United States, but public opinion in Europe continues to be increasingly sceptical to GMOs. Only 11 GM varieties were licensed for cultivation in the European Union before an informal moratorium was introduced in 1998 as compared to some 50 GM varieties that are commonly planted in the US, Canada and Argentina. Last October, EU governments rejected the idea of lifting this threeyear ban on importing and planting of new GM crops. Environment ministers spoke against plans to restart licensing GM seeds. Biotech companies like Monsanto and Novartis have been waiting for years to start selling their new varieties of modified maize, soy bean, etc. in the EU. A total of 13 GM varieties are awaiting approval. In 1998, a number of EU countries said they would not allow any new GMOs into the EU until tough rules on testing, labelling and tracing were put in place.
Sources: www.ictsd.org/weekly, and www.nzz.ch/english/swiss_week
13 112
Learning AgriCultures
The formulation of standards for organic plant breeding gives the seed companies clarity on what is expected from them. Some companies in the Netherlands, like Vitalis Biologische Zaden, are willing to adhere to these standards and breed organic seed without using the undesirable biotechnologies. The standards for organic plant breeding do not indicate how the actual varieties should look like. Louis Bolk Institute helps farmers to formulate their specific wishes (i.e. adaptation to organic soil, tolerance to problematic diseases etc.) by way of crop ideotypes. Seed companies are requested to provide varieties, which comply with these ideotypes for trials on farmers’ fields. The trials are evaluated in the field with farmers and
breeders. Here a platform of discussion between breeders and farmers is created. The exchange of knowledge stimulates the development of varieties, which better meet the needs of the farmers and are more adapted to an organic farming system. ■ Edith Lammerts van Bueren and Aart Osman, Louis Bolk Institute, Hoofdstraat 24, 3972 LA Driebergen, The Netherlands. E-mail: References - Lammerts van Bueren, E.T., Hulscher, M., Haring, M., Jongerden, J., van Mansvelt, J.D., den Nijs, A.P.M and G.T.P. Ruivenkamp, 1999. Sustainable Organic Breeding -Final Report, Louis Bolk Instituut, Driebergen, The Netherlands. (the document can be downloaded at www.louisbolk.nl/eng/info/sopb.htm)
Biotechnological Techniques applied in Plant Breeding At cell level Embryo culture Ovary culture In-vitro pollination
Used for crossing of closely related species, such as cultivated tomatoes and wild relatives. Such crosses occur in nature but do not result in viable seeds as the embryos are aborted prematurely. When these organs are separated from the plant and grown in test tubes, they develop into mature plants.
In-vitro selection
Mostly used to select new varieties, which are tolerant to stress conditions, such as salinity. Plants are grown in test tubes containing a salt solution. Plants that survive are selected.
Anther culture Microspore culture
Pollen and anthers are grown in-vitro. These male sexual organs are not fertilised and hence contain only half a set of chromosomes. This set is doubled with chemicals to get plants that are genetically identical.
Meristem culture Micro propagation Somatic Embryogenesis
This is used for a rapid propagation of plants with an identical genetic make-up. Plant cells are multiplied in test tubes and these cells are regenerated into new plants.
Below cell level
LEISA MAGAZINE . DECEMBER 2001
Genetic modification Protoplast fusion
Genetic material of unrelated species that do not cross in nature are inserted into cells. Protoplast fusion implies the merging of complete cells. In genetic modification only small pieces of foreign DNA are inserted into the cell.
Cytoplasmatic Male Sterility (CMS) Used to produce parent lines for hybrid production which are male sterile. A plant cell is merged with a cytoplast (a plant cell of which the chromosomes are removed). The cell plasma of the cytoplast contains without restorer genes factors, which cause male sterility. CMS does occur in nature, but is accompanied with factors that neutralise the male sterility. When CMS is transferred from an unrelated species into a crop, without the neutralising factors (restorer genes), the new male sterile plants can not be multiplied in nature. DNA marker assisted selection
Certain sequences of DNA can be associated with certain plant traits. These sequences (markers) can be used to select plants for characteristics, which are not directly visible in the field, such as drought tolerance. This technique makes use of available DNA sequences in the plant cells, but does not change them, and is acceptable for organic agriculture. Sometimes radiation or genetically modified enzymes are used to detect these markers, which is not acceptable for organic farming. Detection can be done with substances that are permitted by organic agriculture such as fluorescence.
14 Learning AgriCultures
113
Community seed banks for maintaining genetic diversity
R2.9.1
Vanaja Ramprasad
By the beginning of the 1990s, the Genetic Resource Ecology Energy Nutrition (GREEN) Foundation had realised the importance of working with the farmer community to conserve agro-biodiversity, and its importance in ensuring food security and developing a sustainable agriculture. So, in 1992, we initiated a programme with small farmers in the drier areas of the Indian states of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. The first activities were aimed at creating awareness about the rapid loss of useful plant species and the concept of conservation of agro-biodiversity. To begin with, farmers had to go through an “unlearning” process, as years of modernised agriculture had taken them very far away from a sustainable production. Many farmers did not seem aware that traditional crops and varieties had been lost, which made it difficult to talk with them about conservation of plant diversity. It was even more difficult to convince them that some of the traditional varieties could yield as well as the introduced, commercial varieties that they had become used to.
LEISA MAGAZINE 23.2 JUNE 2007
20 114
During meetings with the community (particularly with the elders) and by using PRA techniques, information was gathered about the plant species and varieties that had previously been in use by the local people and which, in the course of time, had either become extinct or were not used any more. This ethnobotanical survey of a village area was referred to as “seed mapping”. This activity yielded valuable information on genetic diversity, on how local plants were used by people from the community, and where these species could be found. This inventory also revealed whether seeds of the most interesting plant species were still available. Where possible, small quantities of seeds were collected, sometimes from other areas where they were still grown. One such participatory seed mapping exercise, conducted in the northern dry regions of Karnataka, helped to identify 61 different varieties of sorghum and eight varieties of pearl millet. A seed mapping exercise also provokes dialogue and debate in the village community. Through their discussions, farmers would come to realise what the effects of their conversion to modern, high-yielding crop varieties had been: a monocrop farming system and loss of plant diversity on their land. However, the GREEN Foundation was always very careful with the message that they tried to convey to farmers so that they would not feel pushed into any decision to change their agricultural practices. This is very important, because when a farmer does decide to convert to a more diverse and integrated cropping system, it is his or her own decision. The GREEN Foundation deliberately uses the meetings with the communities to motivate the women to participate in this effort because, traditionally, women decide which food crops to grow, and the men work in the fields.
Multiplying seeds After the awareness creation activities and the seed mapping, all interested farmers were provided with seeds of some of the plant species collected during the seed mapping exercises. Some women were also interested in assisting the programme voluntarily by multiplying seeds of several crop varieties on their land. That way, more farmers could be provided with seeds at a later stage.
Photo: GREEN Foundation
Our approach was to promote a sense of pride and ownership within the community towards their common traditional knowledge. The important message was that they were the custodians of their genetic heritage. Seed yatras were organised, where farmers, NGO staff and other supporters marched through several villages to promote awareness about the effects of globalisation, and the way this has impacted on the agricultural sector. Such a mass awareness raising activity also helped to build links between farmers from different villages, and stirred general public interest in the concept of sustainable agriculture. During a yatra, a combination of art, culture and music is used to engage peoples’ interest: an oxen-cart decorated with produce of different crops and vegetables is taken around the village, which brings people out to see. Subsequently, folk songs and street plays with a message are enacted.
A participatory inventory
Learning AgriCultures
Women have been important partners in this programme since its inception and they have assumed a very significant role in the GREEN Foundation’s efforts to assist local communities in the conservation of agro-biodiversity. The men, however, showed less interest at first because they were mostly focused on growing commercial crop varieties, for the market. But when Karnataka was hit by drought in 1995, the men noticed that some local varieties of finger millet, for instance, still managed to be productive while the so called high-yielding varieties failed. In time, the assortment of seeds that the programme managed to gather began to increase, and provided an interesting base for further work. Gradually, more women farmers started joining in the programme activities and became involved in multiplying seeds of different varieties of rice, finger millet and other food crops that could be planted in mixed-crop systems. This gave way to the idea of establishing a saving system for seeds, from which villagers could borrow seeds for planting. The first such “seed bank” was established by an existing self help group in a village called Thally. This group’s original objective was to organise micro-credit and savings activities for its members.
Seed banks A community seed bank functions very much like a commercial bank. The transfers are, however, not in money but in seeds. Any inhabitant of the villages that a seed bank serves can become a member of the seed bank by paying a nominal annual fee. Seeds of food crops that are stored in the bank are provided free of charge to members of a seed bank. The member then sows the seed and after harvesting the crop, returns double the amount of seeds to the seed bank. Seed banks do not require special building structures and seeds are stored at ambient temperature. The staff of a community seed bank have various tasks: making sure the seed is treated properly against pests; monitoring seed distribution by maintaining monitoring cards to see who is growing what; working out a record of members’ needs for seeds, and planning for seed distribution in the following season. Seed banks also develop some activities to promote the use of local varieties of food crops. To ensure the continuous quality of seeds managed by the seed bank, the members set down some rules such as banning the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. “We go to farms now and then to see whether the farmers are following these rules”, says Kalamma, who works for the seed bank in Thally. “When it is harvest time, we often go to the fields of members who have borrowed seeds, and we select the best seeds and ask that these be returned to the seed bank”. The women who work for the community seed bank are paid for their service from the membership fees and from commission that the seed banks make on the marketing of rice, sorghum and millets on behalf of farmers. Furthermore, some seed banks earn some income from processing activities, adding value to crop produce. The farming community responded slowly to the first community seed bank in Thally village. As the concept was new to them, and they had lost the sense of ownership over their seeds, it took some time for farmers to see the importance of having the option to plant traditional varieties again. The GREEN Foundation took farmers for exposure visits to well-established seed banks, as a way to enable learning between farmers from different regions. When farmers interact with one another, it creates an enhanced understanding, awareness and knowledge about the process at work. With some persistent efforts, the belief in the seed bank concept grew and local farmers also began to see the differences between the traditional varieties and the commercial varieties, both in terms of production cost and yield reliability.
Upscaling Once the programme had taken root in Thally, the GREEN Foundation looked to expand activities. In 1999, awarenessraising programmes were conducted in the surrounding villages on the need to conserve agro-biodiversity, and the methods of conserving seeds efficiently. Seed mapping was carried out and indigenous seeds were tracked and collected from the farmers who had conserved them. Subsequently, more seed banks were set up in different villages, catering for larger clusters of farmers. A network was created with other NGOs to expand plant diversity conservation activities with selected organisations in their own regions. Of the 45 seed banks currently operating in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, the GREEN Foundation has facilitated 14 seed banks covering about 100 villages. Immediately after harvesting the crops, seed fairs are held. This is traditionally the time that several festivals are celebrated while there is also a quiet period in agricultural activities, so farmers have time to participate. A seed fair is much like a traditional market setting where besides buying their weekly needs, farmers also interact socially and exchange knowledge and information about certain practices. By reviving this “market” concept, the GREEN Foundation brings diverse farming communities together, and during seed fairs more farmers become convinced of the need to conserve agro-biodiversity. The seed fairs also provide opportunities for demonstrating seed storage techniques to farmers, and other sustainable agriculture practices such as soil nutrient management, control of pests and diseases, and managing crop diversity. Over the years, the GREEN Foundation has become an umbrella organisation that trains and serves more than thirty local sustainable agriculture organisations in Karnataka and northern Tamil Nadu. Training and other capacity building activities are based on farmer-to-farmer extension with some farmerteachers receiving a small compensation for their involvement. Training is also done through village governance programmes where a village can now apply for help from the state government in the process of changing to organic growing. Community seed banks are an important aspect of the programme for safe-guarding traditional varieties of food crops. The GREEN Foundation believes that the seed bank is not just a store where seeds of traditional varieties of food crops are kept for distribution to farmers. More than this, it is an important self-help strategy for maintaining genetic diversity in crop and plant species on farms. n
LEISA MAGAZINE 23.2 JUNE 2007
Initial challenges
At a completely different level was the somewhat demoralising attitude of the scientists and business community. The GREEN Foundation team often felt dwarfed by the opposition of the big multinationals, universities and the scientists who regarded them as reactionary, trying to take science backwards by promoting the use of traditionally used crops or varieties. We went through cycles of despair and frustration as our work was often looked at with disbelief. But our strong belief in our work made us continue. More farmers became involved in seed banks, and media attention regarding the conservation of agro-biodiversity increased, spreading the message to other stakeholders. Eventually, the message was convincing enough that resource persons from agricultural universities, industry and other NGOs have now also become involved in training farmers at the village level and district levels.
Vanaja Ramprasad. Director, GREEN Foundation. 30 Surya, 4th main, N.S. Palya, Bangalore 560076, India. E-mail:
[email protected]
21 Learning AgriCultures
115
Indigenous honeybees: allies for mountain farmers
R2.10
Farooq Ahmad, Uma Partap, S.R. Joshi and M.B. Gurung
Indigenous honeybees play an important role in mountain ecosystems. They are the natural pollinators for a wide variety of mountain crops as well as indigenous plants. While visiting flowers to collect nectar, the bees transfer pollen from one flower to another. Three quarters of the world’s cultivated crops are pollinated by different species of bees, and honeybees are the most effective and reliable pollinators. They also play an often unrecognized role in maintaining the vegetation cover: more pollination means more seed, more young plants and eventually more biomass, providing food and habitats for birds, insects and other animals.
LEISA MAGAZINE . DECEMBER 2004
There are very few areas in the world where indigenous species of honeybees other than Apis mellifera still exist, and even fewer where the indigenous honeybees can be kept in hives and managed by farmers. In the Hindu Kush Himalayas, indigenous honeybees include Apis dorsata, Apis florea, Apis laboriosa (bees whose products can be collected but which cannot be kept in hives) and Apis cerana. In addition to their importance for pollination, these bees contribute directly to the livelihoods of mountain people by providing honey and other bee products. Apis cerana, the Asian hive bee, is particularly important to mountain farmers as a source of cash income. This species is well suited both to the climatic conditions in the region and to the farming practices that are typical of these marginal, mountainous areas. It has the ideal characteristics to ensure the pollination of mountain crops, having adapted its foraging patterns to suit the changing flowering and nectar production rhythms that result from the uncertain and variable climatic conditions in mountain areas. It can work under cool conditions up to an altitude of 3000 metres and is ideally suited as a pollinator of early flowering crops like almonds, peaches and plums. Kept in hives in the backyards, these bees pollinate kitchen garden crops, usually the main source of vegetables. The indigenous bee offers a further advantage in that it keeps going even under adverse conditions; if the situation becomes really difficult the colonies may migrate temporarily, but the bees come back to their hives when conditions allow them to do so.
Decline in native pollinators Despite an increasing recognition of their important role in pollination, the population and diversity of native bees is declining in the region. Factors causing the decline include habitat loss through land use changes, increasing monoculture and negative impacts of pesticides and herbicides. In addition, the well-intended introduction of the European honey bee, Apis mellifera, to the Himalayas has brought difficulties for indigenous bee species, partly because of competition for nectar in some areas, but more importantly through the introduction of
12 116
Learning AgriCultures
Photo: S.R. Joshi/ICIMOD
In mountain agriculture, field crops, fruits, vegetables, livestock and honeybees combine to provide self-sufficiency for farmers. Together, they help provide the resilience necessary to live with the hardships and extremes of mountain environments.
A mountain village in Nepal.
different types of contagious bee diseases and harmful mites. Although Apis mellifera potentially produces more honey than the indigenous honeybees, it is not as well adapted to the local climatic conditions and the indigenous vegetation, making it a less effective pollinator. The introduction has therefore adversely affected the livelihoods of mountain farmers. In spite of these developments, Apis cerana beekeepers with backyard bees are still being confronted by development extensionists trying to encourage introduction of Apis mellifera – in the areas of origin of Apis cerana. In isolated mountain areas like Jumla and Humla in Nepal and in many parts of Afghanistan, Pakistan and India, subsistence farmers are totally dependent on their own resources for their survival. Due to environmental degradation as well as poor pollination, the quantity and quality of many life-saving mountain crops is declining significantly, making survival increasingly difficult and forcing people to migrate to the plains. The situation is similar in many other areas of Nepal and Afghanistan.
Decline in fruit and seed production Agriculture in the Hindu Kush-Himalayan region is in a stage of transition from traditional cereal crop farming to high-value cash crops such as fruits and vegetables. This ongoing transformation from subsistence to cash crop farming poses a number of new challenges, including low production or crop failures due to inadequate pollination. This emerging problem has been documented in a series of field studies carried out by ICIMOD across the region. Findings suggest that the decline in pollinator intensity presents a serious threat to agricultural production and maintenance of biodiversity. The negative impact of declining pollinator intensity is visible in Himachal Pradesh of India, Azad Jammu and Kashmir of Pakistan as well as in mountain areas of Afghanistan and China.
In Maoxian County, Sichuan, China, farmers have resorted to hand pollination of their apples and pears, as there are not enough natural insect pollinators to ensure a proper fruit setting. Awareness about the use and function of honeybees is lacking, and the beekeepers in this area hesitate to let their bees into this fruit-producing valley because of the serious overuse of pesticides in apple orchards. In Pakistan, disappointed farmers are cutting down their apple trees and recently ICIMOD found evidence of cutting down almond orchards in the Bamiyan valley of Afghanistan due to low yields caused by insufficient pollination. A major reason for this development is the lack of awareness on the importance of pollinators for crop production, as well as lack of knowledge about the habits and management of bees. The promotion of beekeeping has focused only on honey production, neglecting the more valuable role of bees in pollination. Farmers
The importance of polliniser trees In Himachal Pradesh in India, farmers used to plant many varieties of apples. However, due to the better market value farmers have been planting only Royal Delicious and uprooting other varieties. Royal Delicious is self-sterile and requires cross-pollination from other compatible varieties for fruit setting. Some farmers do not have even a single polliniser tree in their orchards. So, wherever the orchards have Royal Delicious only, there are serious pollination problems.
Adapted from the article “Declining apple production and worried Himalayan farmers: promotion of honeybees for pollination issues in mountain development 2001/1, by Uma Partap and Tei Partap.
New focus in beekeeping ICIMOD is working to address the pollination issue in partnership with local people and grassroots networks and more than 25 institutions of Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, India, Myanmar, Nepal and Pakistan. ICIMOD is engaged from policy to action level in promoting the importance of pollination for mountain agriculture. The programme is focusing on the conservation and sustainable management of wild bees, Apis dorsata and Apis laboriosa, and on promotion and sustainable management of the Asian hive bee, Apis cerana, through selection and breeding in collaboration with local communities. This programme intends to improve livelihoods by increasing pollinator intensity without disturbing local biodiversity. A selection and multiplication programme on Hand pollination by “human bees” in China. indigenous Apis cerana in India, Nepal and Pakistan is being implemented through action research. Farmers are involved in recording selection data and identifying better colonies for multiplication. Mass queen rearing from these colonies helps in increasing pollinator intensity and honey yield. Databases on the cliff sites and nesting habitats of wild honeybees are also being developed to monitor the trends in their population with the help of local communities. Honey gathering communities have been sensitized to protect and conserve the nesting habitats of the wild bees, which provide them with additional income, thereby contributing to the conservation of biodiversity. In addition to playing a crucial role in pollination and thereby improving crop yields, honeybees contribute in a balanced way to rural development efforts leading to secure and sustainable livelihoods. ■ Farooq Ahmad, Uma Partap, S.R. Joshi, and M.B. Gurung. ICIMOD, P.O. Box 3226, Jawalakhel, Kathmandu, Nepal. Email:
[email protected] References - Ahmad F; S.R. Joshi and M.B. Gurung, 2003. The Himalayan cliff bee Apis laboriosa and the honey hunters of Kaski. Indigenous honeybees of the Himalayas (Volume I). ICIMOD, Kathmandu. 52p. - Ahmad F. U. Partap; S.R. Joshi and M.B. Gurung, 2002. Please do not steal our honey. Bees for Development Journal 64: 9. - Gurung, M.B.; F. Ahmad; S.R. Joshi and C.R. Bhatta, 2003. The value of Apis cerana beekeeping for mountain farmers in Nepal. Bees for Development Journal 69: 13. - Partap, U., 2003. Improving agricultural productivity and livelihoods through pollination: some issues and challenges. In: F. Waliyar, L. Collette and P.E. Kenmore (eds). Beyond the Gene Horizon. pp.24-26. ICRISAT, India and FAO, Rome. - Partap U. and T. Partap, 2003. Warning signals from the apple valleys of the Hindu Kush-Himalayas: productivity concerns and pollination problems. ICIMOD, Kathmandu. 104 p.
LEISA MAGAZINE . DECEMBER 2004
Some farmers are now including “polliniser” trees in their orchards. These are grafted on to commercially premium varieties for fast results. Farmers have even devised short-term solutions to bridge the gap until the grafted branches or newly-planted polliniser trees begin flowering: Bunches of small flowering branches of the pollinisers called “bouquets” are put in plastic bags filled with water. These bouquets are hung in the branches of commercially premium varieties. This type of pollination method is locally referred to as “bouquet pollination”. The large-scale use of plastic bags has increased the price of plastic bags in the local market from US$0.75 per kg to US$2.10 per kg.
are therefore usually unaware of the role of bees as well as of the need for suitable polliniser varieties in the pollination process: In order to pollinate fruit such as apples, for example, the bees first need to take pollen from a compatible variety of apple and bring this pollen to the tree being pollinated (see box).
Photo: U. Pratap/ICIMOD
Despite increasing agronomic inputs, there is a clear decline in the production and quality of fruit crops such as apples, pears and almonds, and seed crops such as buckwheat. In fact, the negative effects of these agronomic inputs on pollinators is one of the major causes of pollination failure and hence the observed declines in productivity. For example, apple cultivation in Himachal Pradesh in India, though it initially gave significant economic gains, has resulted in a loss of agricultural biodiversity and a decline in natural insect pollinators. In this area, farmers are now compelled to rent colonies of honeybees for pollinating their apple orchards. At present, it is mostly the Department of Horticulture and a few private beekeepers that rent out bee colonies to apple farmers. The current rate for renting an Apis cerana or Apis mellifera colony for apple pollination is US$20 per colony. Only a few farmers keep their own colonies for pollination. A heavy demand for honeybees for pollination has been created, and there are not enough bee colonies to meet this demand. Hence, in the apple growing areas of Himachal Pradesh, there is a tremendous scope for entrepreneurial beekeeping for pollination.
13 Learning AgriCultures
117
Enhancing the Push-Pull strategy
R2.12.1
David Amudavi, Zeyaur Khan and John Pickett
Millions of rural people in Eastern Africa depend on maize and sorghum for food security and cash income. Despite this, production of these crops is seriously affected by constraints such as stemborers, the parasitic weed Striga hermonthica, low and declining soil fertility, lack of knowledge on how to manage these pests and weaknesses in the extension system. Stemborers lead to yield losses of 30 - 40 percent, while Striga infestation causes a loss of 30 - 50 percent to Africa’s agricultural economy on 40 percent of its arable land. Although chemical control is usually recommended, it is uneconomical and impractical for many smallscale farmers, and has negative impacts on the environment and human health. On the other hand, the commonly used cultural method of uprooting Striga is labour-intensive and less effective. Adoption of effective control methods is limited due to lack of labour, little knowledge about the pest problems, and lack of other resources needed to make the necessary investments. Affordable alternative strategies are needed to combat the growing threats to the smallholders’ livelihoods. One such method is the “Push-Pull” strategy. This combines knowledge of the chemical ecology and agro-biodiversity of the stemborer, with Striga management. This strategy was developed by scientists at the International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE) in Kenya and Rothamsted Research in the United Kingdom, in collaboration with other research organisations in Eastern Africa. A first article about Push-Pull in LEISA Magazine (Vol.17 No.4, December 2001) presents it as a viable “organic” alternative to genetically modified maize (Bt maize). This article explains how the Push-Pull strategy has been adopted by farmers in Kenya since then.
and improvement in the sustainable use of natural resources. The strategy provides several benefits, directly or indirectly contributing to the livelihoods of rural families. Such opportunities include: Improving food security Push-Pull has increased maize yields of farmers in Kenya by an average of 20 - 30 percent in areas with only stemborers (Trans Nzoia district), and by more than 100 percent in areas with both stemborers and Striga (e.g. Vihiga, Siaya, Suba and Migori districts). This has been a key incentive for its increased adoption. Reduced soil erosion and increased soil fertility By providing a good ground cover, the strategy improves soil conservation. Through nitrogen fixation, the strategy reduces the required amount of nitrogen fertilizers, which are unaffordable by most smallholder farmers. A long-term study at ICIPE’s on-station fields in Mbita, western Kenya, has shown a significant increase in total nitrogen on field plots under maizeDesmodium intercropping for three years, especially when compared to maize fields intercropped with other legumes. Enhanced biodiversity The Push-Pull strategy promotes and conserves biodiversity by maintaining species diversity. This, in turn, improves natural and agricultural ecosystems by contributing to ecosystem services such as nutrient cycling and decomposition. This helps in developing sustainable crop protection systems which rely less on pesticides. A study conducted in Lambwe Valley (Suba district, Kenya) shows that the strategy is associated with an overall enhancement of beneficial predators, which is important in agricultural systems.
LEISA MAGAZINE 23.4 DECEMBER 2007
How does the Push-Pull strategy work? Push-Pull uses a combination of legume repellent plants to deter the pest from the main crop (“push”) and trap crops to attract the repelled pest (“pull”). Molasses grass (Melinis minutiflora) and Desmodium (Desmodium uncinatum) are the common repellents, whereas Napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum) and Sudan grass (Sorghum vulgare var. sudanense) are the common trap plants. Research has shown that the repellent plants produce chemical compounds, some of which repel the stemborer pests. On the other hand, during dusk Napier grass produces other chemical substances that evaporate easily, some of which are good attractants for stemborers to lay eggs. Fortunately, Napier grass produces a gummy substance which traps the resulting stemborer larvae, and only few survive to adulthood, thus reducing their population. Push-Pull also suppresses and eliminates the Striga weed through several mechanisms, including nitrogen fixation, soil shading and allelopathy. Allelopathy is where one plant harms another with chemical substances: Desmodium roots produce such chemical compounds. Some of these compounds stimulate Striga seeds to germinate but others inhibit lateral growth and the attachment of the Striga roots on to maize roots. The Striga dies, and eventually the number of Striga seeds in the soil decreases. As Desmodium is a perennial crop, it controls Striga even when the host crop is out of season, making it a better repellent than other legumes.
Protecting fragile environments Higher crop yields and improved livestock production, resulting from habitat management strategies, have the potential to support rural households under existing circumstances. This can slow the migration of rural populations to areas designated for protection. Moreover, farmers using such strategies have less reason to use pesticides that could affect flora and fauna in the agro-ecosystem. Income generation and gender empowerment Push-Pull has shown promising impacts of not only enhancing farm incomes but also empowering rural women. It provides alternative income sources, as surplus grain, fodder and Desmodium seed can be sold. It also has potential for improving the quality of rural life as more partners interact with farmers to disseminate it to other farmers.
Opportunities for diversifying livelihoods
Push-Pull dissemination to smallholder farmers
The Push-Pull strategy is a good case of how basic research can contribute to the enhancement of agricultural productivity
The Push-Pull strategy has been adopted by more than 10 000 households in 19 districts in Kenya, five districts in Uganda,
8 118
Livestock production and human health Unstable availability and seasonality of livestock feed have been major constraints to improving dairy livestock in Eastern Africa. Push-Pull provides quality fodder for livestock. On small farms where land pressure is high, this is likely to improve the health of farming families, especially children. Improved dairy cows and goats are emerging as important income alternatives for smallholder farmers.
Learning AgriCultures
Photo: Jimmy Pittchar / ICIPE
Consolata enjoys talking about the success of her Push-Pull fields, and sharing her knowledge with others as an FFS facilitator.
and two districts in Tanzania. It is being promoted by the public extension system, non-governmental organisations, the private sector, and by regional partners in these three countries. Previously, the strategy has been disseminated through mass media (a radio programme called Tembea na Majira), printed material (newspapers, brochures, information bulletins and posters), farmer field days comparing Push-Pull and conventional cropping systems, agricultural shows, farmer-tofarmer extension (farmer teachers), on-station demonstrations, and public meetings (barazas). These methods have produced variable achievements.
Following the successful launch of the Push-Pull curriculum in Bungoma district in western Kenya, in March 2007, ICIPE organised a first training workshop for FFS facilitators the following month. The objective was to train facilitators on the strategy, learn how to implement it in a field school, and develop facilitation and group management skills. The workshop was attended by experienced FFS facilitators from Bungoma and Busia districts and potential facilitators from Suba and Homa Bay districts, all in western Kenya. After the training, the facilitators from Bungoma and Busia started implementing the curriculum in the existing FFSs. Now there are 22 and 12 FFSs in Bungoma and Busia respectively. One such school in Bungoma, the Ngwelo FFS, started in 2005 initially to learn about conservation agriculture in growing groundnut and water melon. Its members had some prior knowledge about Push-Pull through the Push-Pull radio programme. Some of the FFS members were among a group of farmers who took a study tour to the ICIPE-Mbita station to see
LEISA MAGAZINE 23.4 DECEMBER 2007
The Farmer Field School (FFS) approach is now being used to disseminate this strategy as it is knowledge-intensive, and the FFS approach is likely to increase economies of scale by reaching out to many thousands or millions of farmers. The FFS approach uses a curriculum developed by stakeholders involving farmers, government extension staff, researchers, FFS and curriculum specialists, ICIPE scientists, and staff from NGOs and community-based organisations. The curriculum includes weekly sessions during two cropping seasons, largely based on the life cycle of maize, namely: (a) pre-season weekly sessions of five weeks covering activities that prepare the ground for FFS formation and implementation, (b) a first season of 21 weeks corresponding with the first maize cropping season activities, (c) first off-season sessions of two weeks involving relevant economic activities, and (d) a second season of 23 weeks corresponding with the second maize cropping season. The programme follows two seasons because during
the first season, the companion crops (Desmodium and Napier grass) are not fully established for farmers to learn how to manage them. Additionally, given the emphasis on learning by observation and discovery, learning how to conserve and utilise Push-Pull products is made easier during the second season. During this season farmers also learn how to establish Push-Pull plots using Desmodium vines and Desmodium seed multiplication plots. The curriculum also involves collecting relevant information for assessing the effectiveness of the PushPull strategy.
9 Learning AgriCultures
119
the Push-Pull demonstration site. They were encouraged by the superior performance of Push-Pull compared to other legume intercrops. The school then approached the Bungoma district Umbrella FFS Network to provide an experienced facilitator whom they pay weekly stipends. Ngwelo FFS has provided useful lessons for establishing FFSs in other areas in western Kenya.
support provided by the ICIPE field staff, Consolata and the other farmers planted Push-Pull fields. Currently, Consolata is the facilitator of an FFS in Ebukhaya village in Vihiga district. Consolata used to harvest about 45 kgs of maize per season from a 0.25 acre plot. During the 2002 long rainy season she started using the Push-Pull strategy and harvested about 270 kgs. This motivated her to increase her Push-Pull acreage to half an acre in 2006. Since then she has been selling some of her Napier grass to neighbours. She has also acquired a dairy goat, which she feeds on her own fodder. She has increased her livestock herd and her milk production has increased dramatically.
ICIPE organised a second workshop in June 2007 at the ICIPEMbita station to train FFS facilitators from the Suba and Homa Bay districts. First, interested farmer groups were identified through focus group discussions with experienced Push-Pull farmer teachers and non-practising Push-Pull farmers. These discussions were used to find out about the groups’ profiles, members’ access to information, and experience with Striga and stemborer control. They also provided entry points for raising awareness among farmers about the strategy and role of FFS in providing opportunities to learn new or improved strategies. Each group then selected one farmer to attend the
Consolata has disseminated the Push-Pull strategy to several other farmers in her neighbourhood. She has been an example to others, with over 30 visitors to her farm from outside the district. Consolata is gradually expanding her Push-Pull fields, leaving a small portion of her farm for planting maize and beans. Asked to sum up what she enjoyed most about the strategy, she said: “I don’t have to buy a lot of maize from the market to feed my family. Push-Pull has also enabled me to have more livestock”.
Photo: Philemon Orondo / ICIPE
Future outlook
LEISA MAGAZINE 23.4 DECEMBER 2007
An FFS Farmer facilitator demonstrates how to plant Napier grass around a maize field; Lambwe Valley, Suba.
facilitators training workshop. As in the first training, this was also supported by experienced FFS facilitators from established FFSs in Bungoma district. The trainees visited ICIPE’s onstation Push-Pull fields at Mbita and several Push-Pull farmers in Suba. Later, the Suba and Homa Bay facilitators visited Farmer Field Schools in Bungoma district, where they observed how a typical FFS is organised. They engaged in observational learning, asked questions and sought clarifications. They also visited Desmodium seed bulking plots. Using this strategy of training, ICIPE has trained more FFS facilitators in about ten districts in Western Kenya. It has also organised training for farmers from Uganda, who will eventually be trained as FFS farmer facilitators.
Work is underway to develop tools for ensuring the performance of new Push-Pull components, as well as to improve our understanding of soil nutrient dynamics. Research is also ongoing into the emerging problems of a previously unrecognised pest (a pollen beetle attacking Desmodium) and a disease of the companion crops (phytoplasma disease in Napier grass). Questions relating to the potential integration of new production and protection strategies (e.g. Bt maize) or their complementarities have been raised. This has stimulated the need to evaluate crop productivity and protection strategies in continued collaboration with other centres. The Push-Pull strategy thus lays the foundation for wider scientific work and serves as a model for the management of other pests in Africa and beyond. n David M. Amudavi and Zeyaur R. Khan. Habitat Management Programme, International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE), Nairobi, Kenya. E-mails:
[email protected] ;
[email protected]
Success story
John A. Pickett. Rothamsted Research. Harpenden, Hertfordshire AL5 2JQ, United Kingdom. E-mail:
[email protected]
Consolata James is a mother of four children, living in Ebuchiebe, a village in the Luanda division in Vihiga district (western Kenya) with 3.5 acres of land. She was among the first 12 farmers from Vihiga who visited the ICIPE-Mbita station and the farmers in Suba in 2001 to learn about PushPull. Following this field experience and with technical
References - Cook, S.M., Z. R. Khan, and J.A. Pickett, 2007. The use of ‘Push-Pull’ strategies in integrated pest management. Annual Review of Entomology 52: 375-400. - ICIPE, 2007. Push-Pull curriculum for Farmer Field Schools. International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology, Nairobi, Kenya. - Nielsen, F., 2001. The Push-Pull system – a viable alternative to Bt maize. LEISA Magazine Vol.17 No.4: 17-18.
10 120
Push-Pull is not a universal remedy for solving smallholder farmers’ problems, but it can provide opportunities for diversifying livelihoods. The major constraint to its dissemination to thousands or millions of farmers has been the non-availability of Desmodium seed. Several opportunities have emerged, including involvement of a private seed company, community-based seed production and vegetative multiplication. The relative merits of these in stimulating the diffusion of the strategy are being investigated. In addition, the effectiveness of different dissemination pathways, such as mass media, print media, farmer-to-farmer advisory and Farmer Field Schools are being evaluated to provide lessons for improving the dissemination of Push-Pull.
Learning AgriCultures
Managing pests through plant diversification Miguel A. Altieri, Luigi Ponti and Clara I. Nicholls
Agroecology provides guidelines for developing diversified agroecosystems that take advantage of the integration of plant and animal biodiversity. Successful integration of plants and animals can strengthen positive interactions and optimise the functions and processes in the ecosystem, such as the regulation of harmful organisms, recycling of nutrients, biomass production and the build up of organic matter. In this way agroecosystems can become more resilient. Farmers need to identify and support processes that strengthen the functioning of the agroecosystem. These will include: • natural pest control; • decreased toxicity through avoiding the use of agrochemicals; • optimised organic matter decomposition and nutrient cycling; • balanced regulatory systems such as nutrient cycles, water balance, energy flow and populations of plants and animals; • enhanced conservation and regeneration of soil and water resources and biodiversity; • increased and sustain long-term productivity.
existing environmental and socioeconomic conditions, the end result is improved ecological sustainability. By adopting key ecological management practices the farmer can increase the stability and resilience of the agroecosystem. These practices should contribute to: • increasing the plant species and genetic diversity in time and space; • enhancing functional biodiversity (for example natural enemies); • enhancing soil organic matter and biological activity; • increasing soil cover and crop competitive ability; and • removing toxic inputs and residues. In this article we explore one example of agroecology – the restoration and management of agricultural biodiversity for pest control in vineyard monocultures in California, U.S.A. The principles for improving ecologically vulnerable vineyard monocultures can be applied to other simplified cropping systems. Improved biodiversity establishes a sound ecological base where key ecological processes, such as pest regulation, can function effectively. It is also crucial for crop defences: the more diverse the plants, animals and soil-borne organisms within a farming system, the more diverse the community of pest-fighting beneficial organisms.
Creating habitats for natural enemy species on the least productive parts of the farm is an important strategy. The island of flowering plants, behind the fence in this photo, acts as a push-pull system for natural enemy species.
LEISA MAGAZINE 22.4 DECEMBER 2006
Photo: M.A. Altieri
Today there is a wide selection of practices and technologies available to improve the functioning of agroecosystems. When these agroecosystems are developed so that they are in tune with
R2.12.2
9 Learning AgriCultures
121
In vineyards, farmers can enhance biodiversity by: • increasing plant diversity by growing cash crops between the vines; • planting cover crops between the vines; • managing the vegetation in surrounding fields to meet the needs of beneficial organisms; • designing corridors of plants that make it possible for beneficial organisms to move from nearby forests or natural vegetation towards the centre of the fields; or by • selecting non-crop plants grown as strips in fields, whose flowers match the requirements of the beneficial organisms. All these strategies provide food (pollen and nectar), as well as hiding places, for predators and parasitic wasps, thereby increasing the diversity and numbers of natural enemies in vineyards. These factors contribute to optimising a key ecological process: pest regulation.
Biodiversity in vineyards There are two distinct types of biodiversity in vineyards. The first, called planned biodiversity, includes the vines and other plants grown in the vineyard such as cover crops or corridors. The second type, called associated biodiversity, includes all flora and fauna that come from surrounding environments to live in the vineyard, and which will, under suitable management, thrive there. The relationship between these different types of biodiversity is illustrated in Figure 1.
Farmer management
Surrounding biodiversity (forest, hedgerows, etc.)
Planned biodiversity (cover crops, corridors, etc.)
Associated biodiversity (predators, parasitoids)
LEISA MAGAZINE 22.4 DECEMBER 2006
Ecosystem function (i.e. pest regulation)
Figure 1. Relationship between several types of biodiversity and their role in pest regulation in a diversified vineyard.
Planned biodiversity has a direct function. For example, cover crops enrich the soil, thus helping vine growth. They have a direct function in enhancing soil fertility. Yet, they also have an indirect function, in that their flowers contain nectar which attracts wasps. These are the natural parasitic wasps of pests that normally attack the vines and are part of the associated biodiversity. The challenge for farmers is to identify the type of biodiversity that they wish to maintain and enhance on their farms in order to enable specific ecological services (i.e., pest regulation), and then to decide on the best practices for encouraging such biodiversity. In our experience, cover cropping and creation of habitats within and around vineyards are key strategies.
10 122
Learning AgriCultures
Increasing biodiversity In California, many farmers either manage ground vegetation or plant cover crops to provide a habitat for natural enemies during the winter. These practices reduce the numbers of mite and grape leafhoppers but are often not sufficient to avoid economic losses from pest attacks. Usually the problem is due to the common practice of mowing or ploughing under the winter cover crops or weedy resident vegetation at the beginning of the growing season. As a result, from late spring on, these vineyards become virtual monocultures without floral diversity at the beginning of the growing season. Pest control is better achieved by providing habitat and food for natural enemies throughout the entire growing season. The green cover should therefore be maintained during spring and summer. One way to achieve this is to sow summer cover crops that flower early and continue to flower throughout the season. This provides a highly consistent, abundant and well-dispersed food source, as well as microhabitats for a diverse community of natural enemies. In this way it is possible to build up the number of natural enemies in the system early in the growing season, which helps keep pest populations at acceptable levels. In a vineyard near Hopland, northern California, summer cover crops such as buckwheat (Fagopyrum sp.) and sunflower were maintained throughout the growing season. This floral diversity increased the associated natural enemies and reduced the abundance of western grape leafhoppers and western flower thrips (see box). During two following years (1996-1997), the areas with flowering cover crops had lower densities of thrips and grape leafhoppers and there were more predators on the vines in the cover-cropped sections than in the monocultures. Generally, the number of predators was low early in the season, but increased as prey became more numerous as the season progressed. Dominant predators included spiders, Nabis sp., Orius sp., Geocoris sp., coccinellids, and Chrysoperla sp.
Designing corridors The abundance and diversity of beneficial insects within a field depends on the diversity of plants in the surrounding vegetation. To take advantage of this insect diversity, some farmers have established corridors composed of several flowering species, which connect to forests near water sources and cut across their vineyards. Such corridors serve as “biological highways” for the movement and dispersal of predators and parasitic wasps into the centre of the vineyards. Studies conducted in the Hopland organic vineyard showed that predator species, including spiders, were often found on the flowers of the plants in the corridor, demonstrating that populations of key predator species become established and circulate within the corridor. In both years studied (1996-97) the number of harmful adult leafhoppers was clearly lower in the vine rows close to the corridor and gradually increased toward
Key pests in vineyards and their natural enemies Key pests
Natural enemies
Frankiniella occidentalis (Thrips)
Orius spp. (minute pirate bug), coccinellids, spiders, Nabis sp.
Erythroneura elegantula (Grape leafhoppers)
Anagrus epos ( parasitic wasps), spiders, Geocoris sp., chrysopids
It is important to establish a diversity of plants to attract an optimal number and mix of natural enemies. The size and shape of the flowers determine which insects are attracted, as only those who are able to access the flowers’ pollen and nectar will make use of the food sources provided. For most beneficial insects, including parasitic wasps, the flowers should be small and relatively open. Plants from the Compositae (for example, daisy or sunflower) and Umbelliferae families are especially useful.
Photo: M.A. Altieri
The period during which the flowers are available is as important as the size and shape of the flowers. Many beneficial insects are only active as adults and for specific periods during the growing season; they need pollen and nectar during these active periods, particularly in the early season when prey is scarce. With this knowledge farmers can provide mixtures of plants with relatively long, overlapping, flowering times.
The size and shape of flowers determine which insects are attracted to the “insectory”.
Current knowledge about which plants are the most useful sources of pollen, nectar, habitat and other critical needs is far from complete. Clearly, many plants encourage natural enemies, but scientists have much more to learn about which plants are associated with which beneficial insects, and how and when to make desirable plants available. Because beneficial interactions between plants and insects are site-specific, the geographic location and overall farm management are important aspects to consider.
Farm planning the centre of the field. The highest concentration of leafhoppers and thrips occurred 20 to 25 rows (30 to 40 metres) downwind from the corridor. In both years substantially more thrips were caught in the central rows than in rows near to the corridor.
Flowering islands Creating habitats on the least productive parts of the farm to concentrate natural enemies is another important strategy. This approach is used in a biodynamic farm in Sonoma County, where an island of flowering shrubs and herbs was created at the centre of the vineyard, which acts as a push-pull system for natural enemy species.
Ways forward A key strategy in agroecology is to enhance biodiversity at the landscape and field level. As in the case of vineyards, diversified agroecosystems develop ecological properties that increase their capacity for self-regulation. The basis for ecological pest management is increased agroecosystem diversity. This serves as a foundation for establishing the beneficial interactions that promote the ecological processes needed for pest regulation.
Miguel A. Altieri, Luigi Ponti and Clara I. Nicholls. University of California, Berkeley. ESPM-Division of Insect Biology, 201 Wellman Hall-3112, Berkeley, California 94720-3112, U.S.A. E-mail:
[email protected] References - Altieri, M.A. and C.I. Nicholls, 2004. Biodiversity and pest management in agroecosystems. Food Products Press, Binghamton, New York, U.S.A. - Altieri, M.A., L. Ponti and C.I. Nicholls, 2005. Manipulating vineyard biodiversity for improved insect pest management: case studies from northern California. Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management, 1: 191-203. - Landis, D.A., S.D. Wratten, and G.M. Gurr, 2000. Habitat management to conserve natural enemies of arthropod pests in agriculture. Annual Review of Entomology, 45, 175-201. - Nicholls, C.I., M. Parrilla and M.A. Altieri, 2001. The effects of a vegetational corridor on the abundance and dispersal of insect biodiversity within a northern California organic vineyard. Landscape Ecology, 16, 133-146. - Nicholls, C.I., M. Parrella and M.A. Altieri, 2000. Reducing the abundance of leafhoppers and thrips in a northern California organic vineyard through maintenance of full season floral diversity with summer cover crops. Agricultural and Forest Entomology, 2, 107-113.
LEISA MAGAZINE 22.4 DECEMBER 2006
The island provides pollen, nectar and neutral insects from early April to late September for a variety of predators and parasites including Anagrus wasps. During the 2004 season, the island was dominated by neutral insects that forage on the various plants, and which provide food for natural enemies. As a result, the natural enemies slowly increased in number in the adjacent vineyard as the season progressed. Many natural enemies moved from the island into the vineyard, a distance of up to 60 metres. Orius sp. and coccinellids move to the vineyard at the beginning of the season, followed later in the season by syrphid flies and Anagrus wasps. Parasitisation of leafhopper eggs by Anagrus wasps was particularly high on the vines near the island, but lower nearer the centre of the vineyard.
Once farmers have a good knowledge of the characteristics and needs of key pests and their natural enemies on their farm, they can develop a management strategy. A few guidelines need to be considered: • Consider the size of the habitat which is to be improved (e.g., field or landscape level); • Understand the predator-parasite behaviour which will be influenced by managing the habitat; • Decide on the most beneficial arrangement (within or around the fields) of the plants considering local conditions and time of flowering; • Select the most appropriate plant species; preferably those with multiple benefits, such as improving pest regulation and contributing to soil fertility and weed suppression; • Be aware that adding new plants to the agroecosystem can affect other agronomic management practices and be prepared to develop ways to manage this. ■
11 Learning AgriCultures
123
The successful intensification of smallholder farming in Zimbabwe
R2.13
Ten years ago, soyabeans were promoted with smallholder farmers in Zimbabwe to help offset problems of soil fertility, introduce diversity into cropping systems dominated by maize production, and increase incomes. A mix of soyabeans can now be seen in most smallholder farming areas in suitable agroecologies throughout the country. This success is due to a solid multi-institutional effort that included establishment of local input facilities, as well as market and transport opportunities.
Maize is the dominant staple crop across most of southern Africa, and takes up more than 80 percent of the smallholder planted land area. Soyabean was identified as a crop with potential to address the need for diversification in cropping systems, to assist in overcoming soil fertility constraints, and one that could increase incomes of smallholder farmers. An initiative was launched in 1996/97 in Zimbabwe to test out soyabean as a potential smallholder crop. From the initial five villages, soyabean production expanded rapidly – from 50 farmers in the first year to an estimated 10,000 farmers three years later. Since then, soyabean has diffused spontaneously into most of the higher rainfall areas of Zimbabwe. Its adoption by a large number of smallholders thus exploded the long-held belief that soyabean was an inappropriate crop for smallholders.
Photo: Author
Ken giller
Farmers evaluating soyabean varieties in adaptive trials run through the Soyabean Promotion Task Force in Zimbabwe. The tall leafy variety centre of the picture is the promiscuously-nodulating variety Magoye. The variety in the foreground is a specifically-nodulating variety Nyala.
Soyabeans in Africa
LEISA MAGAZINE 24.2 JUNE 2008
Soyabean is known to have been cultivated in Africa since the early 1900s, although it is likely that the crop was introduced much earlier through extensive trade around the Indian Ocean. Although nodulation of soyabean by rhizobia (see Box) in the absence of inoculants had been observed earlier, it was not until 1981 that an intensive varietal screening programme in Zambia identified one exceptionally promiscuous local variety which was named Magoye. Magoye nodulates readily in virtually all soils in southern Africa where it has been tested. This characteristic, together with its good and consistent yields, has led to its widespread promotion in Southern Africa for use by smallholder farmers. Magoye is a good variety for production by smallholders when rhizobial inoculants are not available, and it has some other
Rhizobia Rhizobial inoculants – which are used to deliver the nitrogen fixing bacteria (collectively termed rhizobia) – have been on the commercial market for over 100 years. More than 90 percent of rhizobial inoculants worldwide are used with soyabean. Soyabean differs from many other tropical legumes such as cowpea, groundnut and common beans as it has “specific” requirements in terms of the types of rhizobia that are able to form nodules on its roots and actively fix nitrogen, while others form nodules with a wide range of rhizobia that are present in most soils. These are termed “promiscuous” or “naturally-nodulating” grain legumes, and they make effective use of the inherent soil biodiversity of rhizobia.
30 124
Learning AgriCultures
advantages. Magoye is a very leafy, indeterminate variety that can supply a lot of nitrogen for subsequent crops. It also seems to be more resistant to environmental stresses, such as poor soil fertility and mid-season drought, than the specific varieties that are available commercially. On the down side, because Magoye is an “unimproved” variety, it is susceptible to some diseases (such as bacterial pustule) as opposed to modern varieties in which resistance has been incorporated. Many new high-yielding “promiscuous” cultivars developed by the International Institute for Tropical Agriculture at Ibadan, in Nigeria, are currently being tested with farmers throughout Africa.
Complementarity of promiscuous and specific soyabeans Although the initial aim was to promote the promiscuouslynodulating Magoye, farmers were keen to grow both types of soyabeans. The specifically-nodulating varieties have a greater yield potential as a cash crop, while the promiscuous varieties are considered more robust as they do not need inoculants, and have greater potential for fodder and soil fertility improvement. The programme therefore assisted farmers with timely access to seeds of specifically-nodulating varieties, together with careful education of smallholder farmers in the use of rhizobial inoculants. Specifically-nodulating varieties were promoted together with rhizobial inoculation because there was no system for seed production of the promiscuous varieties to meet the rapid increase in farmers’ demand. Another key part of the input package was a small amount of lime and P:K:S fertilizer. This would help to overcome the other nutrient constraints on
the highly-weathered sandy granitic soils that are predominant in the smallholder farming areas of Zimbabwe. Farmers were able to afford all of the inputs themselves. Farmers also paid the transport costs when their produce was collectively delivered and sold at the factory gate. In on-farm experiments, maize grown after maize commonly yielded only 0.5 t/ha whereas yields of maize after soyabean were more than 1.5 t/ha. Effectively growing soyabean was sufficient to replace the basal nitrogen fertilizer, but to achieve yields of 3-4 t/ha of maize, extra nitrogen fertilizer as topdressing was required. We also found that the inoculant strains tended to decline in numbers within a few years on the coarsest sandy soils, but that a moderate rate of cattle manure, that could also serve as a basal fertilizer for soyabean, could enhance persistence of the rhizobia.
Local inoculum production Farmers’ continuous access to inoculants was ensured due to the inoculum production facility at the Soil Productivity Research Laboratory in Marondera. This semi-commercial operation was established in 1964 and largely served the commercial farming sector until the expansion of smallholder soyabean production. The long history of inoculant production means that there is a solid body of expertise in inoculant production, including expert technical staff. More than 90 percent of the inoculants produced are for soyabean, although inoculants are also made for other crops. The soyabean inoculants are made from pure cultures of Bradyrhizobium japonicum. The inoculants have a shelf life of up to six months when refrigerated at 4oC – and a shelf life of four months when stored at room temperature in clay pots. Production of inoculants increased until the collapse of commercial agriculture in 2001 to a peak of 136,000 sachets (see Figure). Since 2000, many of the inoculants produced have been used in smallholder agriculture, with production gradually gaining ground in response to demand until 2006. During the past season (2007/2008) problems of intermittent electricity supply have hampered production, but the committed staff have worked at night when power was available to ensure production. The facilities are well-maintained under the circumstances, but are in dire need of reinvestment. 16000 14000 12000
Keys to successful soyabean adoption A key to the successful adoption of soyabean as a smallholder crop in Zimbabwe was the formation of a Soyabean Promotion Task Force (SPTF). The task force comprised members of the University of Zimbabwe, the Department of Research and Specialist Services, the extension service, the Zimbabwe Farmers’ Union, the Commercial Farmers’ Union, and the main company purchasing soyabean, a vegetable oil producer, Olivine. The SPTF arranged for leaflets to be printed. These were written for development workers (extension and NGOs) in English and in the local vernacular directly for farmers with guidance on simple agronomy, how to handle inoculants and pest and disease management. Besides the income benefits of selling soyabeans to Olivine, local extension staff gave training in local processing of soyabean for food: milling soya with maize meal for a fortified porridge for children, baking soya bread, making soya milk and as a relish. Before the SPTF embarked on an extensive promotion campaign, an economic study was conducted to assess models for the involvement of farmers’ organisations, and to confirm the market demand for soyabean. Olivine tested a wide range of samples of soyabean grain from smallholders and was so impressed with the quality that they agreed to change the grading of smallholder soyabeans from “D” grade to “B” grade with the associated higher price. The smallholder grain was found to be cleaner (less chaff and stalk) than commercially-produced grain because it was hand-harvested and cleaned. Soyabean as a potential crop was publicised widely by radio, television and in the popular press. The SPTF gave substantial assistance in marketing soyabean from communal farming areas to Harare in the first years when production was expanding rapidly. Technical staff employed by the Task Force through a small grant assisted groups of smallholders to consolidate their production at rural centres. Once a group had managed to collect together 30 tonnes of soyabean they contacted the SPTF, who in turn phoned a haulage contractor to collect the soyabean load by truck and deliver it for sale to the oil-processing factory in Harare. From the payment for the load, the Task Force then deducted the cost of transport and arranged to repay the farmers in proportion to their contributed produce – quantities which ranged from as little as seven kg from one smallholder to more than three tonnes from wealthier farmers. This was a complex process, the transaction costs being borne by the project, but was a necessary step to take soyabean from being an “orphan” crop to fully established marketing. As funding dried up and the promotion activities were scaled back, other traders have come in to take up the role of buying smallholder produce and delivering it to the central markets.
Commitment
8000 6000 4000 2000
LEISA MAGAZINE 24.2 JUNE 2008
Travelling through Zimbabwe during the current growing season I have been amazed to see how widespread soyabean now is as a smallholder crop. This success owes much to the drive and commitment of Professor Sheu Mpepereki of the University of Zimbabwe and his committed staff within the Soyabean Promotion Task Force in championing production of soyabean in the smallholder farming sector. n
10000
Ken Giller. Plant Production Systems, Department of Plant Sciences, Wageningen University. P.O. Box 430, 6700 AK Wageningen, the Netherlands. E-mail:
[email protected]
0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year Inoculant production
Inoculant sales
Figure 1: Production of soyabean inoculants (indicated in number of 80 g sachets) at Soil Productivity Research Laboratory, Marondera, Zimbabwe, since 1995.
References - Giller, K.E., 2001. Nitrogen Fixation in Tropical Cropping Systems. 2nd edition. CAB International, Wallingford, U.K. - Giller, K.E. and K. Dashiell, 2007. Glycine max (L.) In: Merr. In Van der Vossen, H.A.M. and G.S. Mkamil (eds.). Plant Resources of Tropical Africa 14. Vegetable oils. PROTA Foundation, Wageningen, the Netherlands. - Mpepereki, S., F. Javaheri, P. Davis, and K.E. Giller, 2000. Soyabeans and sustainable agriculture: ‘Promiscuous’ soyabeans in southern Africa. Field Crops Research, 65, 137-149.
31
Learning AgriCultures
125
Community management of Afroalpine highlands in Ethiopia Zelealem Tefera
Environmental conservation has often been characterized by a top-down approach that includes the establishment of protected areas, enforcement of legislation and the assumption of ownership of biodiversity by the State. This approach reflects the suspicion of governments that local communities are incapable of managing their own resources. Thus, while these approaches have ensured the survival of a few populations of certain species and ecosystems and contributed to foreign exchange earnings, they have been slow to integrate local people into resource management and decision-making activities. Local communities who live near protected areas and whose populations have invariably grown, are instead faced with a rapidly diminishing natural resource base, often resulting in conflicts between local communities and environmental conservation authorities. There are exceptions, however – including ancient examples of local communities establishing natural resource management systems that are essential to the people’s livelihoods and also to the persistence of biodiversity. These examples not only need to be closely examined to reveal how they work, but they also deserve our full support in a changing and threatened natural world. Following is an experience from Ethiopia, a country which has suffered untold environmental disasters and biodiversity loss.
Community-based natural resource management
As with any restricted system, it required regulation and enforcement. The local people developed an indigenous institution, known as “Qero”. This entailed each of the two user communities in the area democratically electing an elder as a headman, called the Abba Qera. The Abba Qera was then responsible for protecting and regulating the use of the Guassa area. The Qero system could entail the closure of the Guassa area from any type of use by the community for as long as three to five consecutive years. The length of closure depended largely upon the growth of the Guassa grass. When both of the Abba Qeras felt that the grass was ready for harvest, they would announce the date of the opening to the community. This usually took place at public gatherings such as church ceremonies, market places, or burial ceremonies. The area was usually only open for use at the height of the dry season – around February or March each year. There was also a sequence to its use: only once the grass cutting was over were livestock allowed to graze the Guassa area. When the wet season started the use of the area was once again prohibited, giving the resources time to regenerate. The traditional date of closing each year was the 12th of July, the date for breaking the second most important fasting season of the Coptic Church. While the area was closed, the prohibition of its use was strictly enforced by the users themselves. Under the leadership of the Abba Qera, household heads regularly patrolled the area. Every able male household head was obliged to take part. Failure to participate would result in severe punishment – in some instances, punishment could even result in the burning of the absentee’s house.
Drastic changes
The natural resource management system of the Guassa area dates back to the 17th Century. Given that it still persists, this makes it one of the oldest conservation areas in sub-Saharan Africa. The area was set aside as a resource for the community, who use it for harvesting the “Guassa” grass (Festuca sp.) for thatch, for grazing livestock, and for harvesting shrubs for fuelwood. In essence, the use of these resources was restricted to a limited number of users during a limited period of time. The right to use the resources of the Guassa area depended on the prevailing land rights and tenure system, which was based on ancestry and controlled by the Ethiopian Coptic Church.
In 1974 a popular uprising, a revolution, swept the country. On March 4th 1975, the new revolutionary government proclaimed the nationalization of all rural land. Over large parts of Ethiopia, the relationship between tenant and landlord was dissolved. The proclamation abolished private and community ownership of land and gave all farmers the same right to cultivate land within the framework of state ownership. It also established peasant associations to distribute and regulate the use of land. As a result, the Qero system was abolished, together with its mechanisms of natural resource management. The changes also gave people who had earlier been excluded from resource use, uncontrolled access to the Guassa area.
LEISA MAGAZINE . DECEMBER 2004
In the Central Highlands of Ethiopia, there is a small (111 km2) patch of land which has persisted in its current, relatively pristine state for the past four hundred years. The area, called Guassa by the local Menzi people, ranges from 3200 to 3700 metres above sea level. It is part of the Amhara Regional State of North Shoa, 265 km northeast of the national capital Addis Ababa.
An Ethiopian wolf seeking rats among giant lobelias in the Afroalpine ecosystem of Guassa-Menz.
10 126
Learning AgriCultures
Photo: Stuart Williams
R2.14
One of the strengths of community-based institutions is their resilience – their capacity to cope with change. When the Qero system was abolished, the community adapted to the condition set by the new regime. They brought their case to the new local administration, and a new “Guassa Committee” was formed through the eight peasant associations. To some extent this replaced the former Abba Qeras, with the aim of overseeing the activities of the peasant associations for the protection of the Guassa area. The main function of the Guassa Committee was to enforce agreed by-laws, particularly to control illegal uses of the Guassa area during the closed season. The system was enforced by local militia from the peasant associations. Illegal users were prosecuted in the local courts, while repeated offenders were taken to the woreda (district) court. Despite the apparent adaptability and resilience of the system to the new regime, it was less efficient than before and the area started to show signs of overuse and degradation. Indeed, by the mid-1990s, the system was collapsing under the strain. However, the Guassa area was not brought under crop cultivation despite the general craving for land. Its saving feature was the altitude: the Guassa area is above the tree line, which makes cultivation very difficult, and there is therefore no permanent human settlement in the area. The area continues to play an important role in the livelihoods of the Guassa communities and it is therefore not surprising that they have a vested interest in safeguarding the area. The Ethiopian Wolf Conservation Programme (EWCP) had been concerned with the conservation of the area because of the important population of Ethiopian wolves that lives there. Thus, in November 2003, the EWCP facilitated a discussion among community leaders, elders and concerned individuals in all the eight peasant associations about the future of the area. This resulted in the formation of a new committee and new by-laws. Today the Guassa area is managed by a committee comprising of five elected elders from each of the eight peasant associations. They form the Guassa committee, which oversees the use of the area, guards it and prosecutes illegal users. The first meeting of the Guassa committee, in view of the decline of the area in recent years, resulted in the closure of the area for three years starting from June 2003. It will be open again for a few months (March - June) in 2006. The EWCP continues to be involved by monitoring the effectiveness of the community management and assisting in bringing together all stakeholders for workshops and conferences.
Biodiversity benefits By regulating the exploitation of the area, the ancient system has also protected the unique and diverse fauna and flora of the area. The Guassa area harbours many of the endemic species of fauna and flora associated with the Afroalpine ecosystem. For example, there are 22 mammal species found in the area, 27% of which are endemic to Ethiopia.
Rain that falls in the Guassa area starts a long journey to the Mediterranean through the Nile river. Indeed, 26 rivers, springs and streams have their origin in the area. The ecological service provided by the protection of the vegetation by the local community is invaluable to all the downstream users all the way to Cairo! Finally, among the local communities, the area is renowned for medicinal plants for human and livestock uses. Now, through the partnership with the Ethiopian Wolf Conservation Programme, the communities are seeking to broaden the benefits accrued from the protection of the area and its unique fauna and flora. Tourists are welcome to enjoy the area, and the people wish to accrue benefits from the visitors.
Conclusion The contribution made by the Qero system to the conservation of highland biodiversity in Ethiopia is comparable with areas protected under the more formal conservation system of the country. However, unlike other protected areas, the Guassa area community-based natural resource management system also provides the community with valuable resources in times of stress. In general, indigenous communities have developed ways of life remarkably tuned to their local environment. Their long association with their territories has resulted in developing strong ties to their lands, expressed in customary laws, complex religious ceremonies, symbolic activities and extremely detailed knowledge of their resources. Such knowledge may be deeply coded within traditional lore, handed down and refined from generation to generation. The long association with their environment and commitment to remaining there in the future equips indigenous communities for prudent management of natural resources – even by present day standards. Indigenous communities have held resource management systems under complex, often overlapping tenure rights, which share benefits across their community and exclude non community members. Traditional systems are in effect a partnership between individuals and their community, where rules and regulations enshrined within the traditions of the society ensure the smooth functioning of the system. Indigenous systems of communal land use may therefore offer greater promise for sustainable conservation than Western systems. However, indigenous resource management systems are undergoing rapid change and it is not clear to what extent they can be maintained during changing circumstances. ■ Zelealem Tefera. EWCP, P.O. Box 101426, Addis Ababa. Ethiopia. Email:
[email protected]
LEISA MAGAZINE . DECEMBER 2004
On top of this, the people decided there was a need for a management plan which would be recognized by the regional government. In effect, this would mean the classification of the area as a community-based and managed protected area – the first of its kind in Ethiopia. Such a classification would secure the traditional form of land-use and the livelihoods of the local community. Recently, a draft management plan was reviewed by all stakeholders. It is anticipated that the management plan will be approved by the regional Environmental Protection and Land Use Authority, thereby giving an ownership certificate of the Guassa area to the communities.
These include the most endangered canid in the world, the Ethiopian wolf (Canis simensis), also known as the Simien fox. With an estimated 530 individuals in the world, Guassa - Menz protects one of the major populations. The Afroalpine ecosystem also harbours astonishing densities of rodents, on which the wolf preys. The other important species of the area is the endemic gelada baboon (Theropithecus gelada). It is the only surviving member of a once widespread genus Theropithecus. These magnificent animals with their lion-like manes are the only grazing primates in the world. They aggregate into huge herds of up to 400 animals. They too deserve the protection afforded to them by the Guassa area. Bird species have also benefited from the Qero system and 111 species have been recorded in the area. One striking feature of the birdlife in the Guassa area is the abundance of birds of prey that feast, with the wolves, on abundant rats.
11 Learning AgriCultures
127
Photo: Conny Almekinders
R2.15
Seed producer José Manuel in his bean field.
New bean seeds and the struggle for their dissemination
LEISA MAGAZINE 23.2 JUNE 2007
Conny Almekinders, Eduardo Aguilar and Rolando Herrera
Pueblo Nuevo and Condega are two small villages in the mountainous province of Segovia in northern Nicaragua, not far from the border with Honduras. This region has always been an important bean and maize producing area, although the cultivation of tobacco and tomato picked up after 1990, providing farmers with a cash income. Increased cultivation of these crops resulted in a serious increase of white fly populations (Bemisia tabaci), generally controlled with pesticides. These insects, however, soon became resistant to the pesticides commonly used, leading to a higher incidence of viruses in these and other crops. Widespread presence of the Golden Mosaic Virus (GMV) made it impossible to grow beans in the lower parts of the region. The local beans did not show any resistance to the virus, and only a modern variety (‘DOR 364’) could be planted. Developed by CIAT in Colombia and formally released in Nicaragua and other countries between 1990 and 1993, ‘DOR 364’ has a dark-black colour and does not have the culinary and commercial qualities of the light-red local bean varieties. As beans are one of the most important food crops in Central America, farmers in these villages were facing the serious problem of having to purchase them to feed the family. This was the situation in 1999, when a pilot project on Participatory Plant Breeding was proposed by the Centro para la Promoción, la Investigacion y el Desarollo Rural y Social (CIPRES), a Managua-based NGO with an office in Pueblo Nuevo. Although the farmers had little clue of what they
14 128
Learning AgriCultures
were embarking on, they were very interested in this initiative because the beans they were planting did not yield well. The support of CIPRES and the involvement of a bean breeder from the National Agricultural Research Institute (INTA) convinced a group of 42 farmers to take part in this initiative that aimed to develop new bean varieties that would fit their ecological conditions and their own specific demands.
developing a new variety It was originally planned that farmers would identify a local variety that would be crossed with a variety “improved” by a bean breeder, and that, through selection, they would then develop a bean variety with the characteristics they preferred. But one of the first problems the project faced was that there were no seeds readily available that they could work with. This meant that at least a year would be necessary to produce the desired seeds with which the project could really start. The group of farmers, the NGO technician and the breeder agreed to run a pre-trial with some crosses of which the bean breeder had enough seed. They decided that five of the farmers would host the trials. The farms of those five farmers represented the variation in growing conditions in the area, ranging from the relative warm and dry valley areas at 600 m above sea level to the cooler and wetter mountainous parts at 1000 m above sea level. These five farmers started by planting 15 rows with seeds from 15 different progenies (or plant “families”). Thereafter, together with the breeder and taking into account the preferences of the other 40 farmers involved in the project, the five farmer-breeders selected seeds for their next planting.
This part of the process lasted two years, considering that self-pollinating species segregate (or produce seeds of varying genetic makeup) approximately six generations after crossing. At first, the farmers selected the families with the best looking and most resistant plants, and eliminated the progenies that did not show good overall resistance to GMV. From the progenies that did show good resistance, they selected seeds from the plants with an attractive architecture, and a good number of pods per plants and seeds per pod. Other important criteria for selection were plant growth and seed filling capacity in their drought stressed environment. Yield and grain size and colour were the selection criteria used during harvest. In the later plantings they selected the best families, while removing all the plants susceptible to GMV from these families. One could say that, in this way, each of the five farmer-breeders was running a small breeding program. They planted twice a year on average, applied hardly any fertilizer, but did irrigate (so as not to risk the loss of the experiments to drought). Although the five farmers took the group’s criteria into consideration, their final selection very much reflected their personal preferences for plant type, pod load and seed filling performance. For example, one farmer was very keen to select beans that would still give him reasonably well-filled seeds even if the rains stopped early. Another farmer emphasised the ability of plants to remain standing after the torrential rains which typically follow short intense drought periods. After five plantings, each farmer had selected the seeds which performed best in his fields, and ended up with his own “champion” variety. These “champion” varieties were then planted in a series of trials for comparison. The first round of comparisons consisted of a trial on each farmer’s land. This meant that for the first time, they could compare their “champion” variety with the other four “champions” on their own farm. These trials showed how much the selections of the five farmers differed, despite the fact that they had all started with the same seed. Planting was “blind”, meaning that there were no labels to indicate which variety was whose, although the farmer-breeders found it easy to recognise their own variety without any doubt. The results of the joint evaluation, involving the 40 other farmers as well, showed that these seeds were better than the varieties commonly used (see Table 1). What followed was a total of 48 evaluation trials, run in collaboration with the breeder and the CIPRES technicians. Seeds were planted in the second planting season (postrera)
of 2002 and the first season (primera) of 2003. Based on these results, the farmers decided against selecting only one champion variety. They preferred to select two varieties for further seed multiplication: one that did best in the lower, drier areas and one that excelled at higher elevations. The farmers who selected them named them ‘Pueblo Nuevo JM 12.7’ and ‘Santa Elena’. Farmers selected these varieties for their overall performance: they do well at low soil fertility levels, show a good resistance to Golden Mosaic Virus, are drought tolerant and are of a well-liked red colour. ‘Pueblo Nuevo JM 12.7’ is especially liked because of its culinary qualities. The farmers’ aim was to distribute seeds of these varieties to other farmers and also to try to earn some cash income by selling the seed.
Registration and commercialisation of the seed The commercialisation of their two “champion” varieties in the formal market meant following the official regulations, which start with an obligatory registration of the variety. This requires data on the performance of the genetic materials along with morphological descriptors, all of which was available from the 48 verification trials. But the farmers soon realised that presenting the data was not enough: they also needed to have a legal set-up under which the varieties could be registered. With the support of CIPRES, the farmers organised themselves into a co-operative, COSENUP. This co-operative was founded in 2004 with 42 members, with the specific aim of controlling the quality of the seed and of commercialising it. In anticipation of the registration, the bean varieties were informally “launched” in a big celebration held in October 2004 in Pueblo Nuevo. The news reached the local radio and newspaper. But this is where the process got stuck. Seed laws and their implications are difficult to understand, especially for a new and small organisation like COSENUP. In addition, there is the difficulty of maintaining the variety. The “owner” of a variety is responsible for maintaining genetically pure, basic seed. Although the farmers are convinced that they can maintain the two new varieties, not everybody else shares this view. Additionally, the registration and the maintenance of pure seed implies yearly costs in visits to the fields by officers of the ministry of agriculture (which can cost up to US$ 300 per year), as well as in inputs and infrastructure (like a storage facility to keep the seed) that are the responsibility of the “owner”. All together, this created a hazy picture that was not easily understood by the farmers and technicians. It was not quite
Table 1. Yield (kg/ha) of the five best families of beans selected by five farmer breeders in evaluation trials on their farm.
Farmer
Location of planting
Juan garcía
Jose M. gonzález
Juan García
Santa Rosa
2005
1551
850 m
Pedro gómez (#) 2717
Santos L. Merlo
Jairo Videa
Test variety
2069
2127
1875
Jose M. González Paso Hondo
630 m
969
(#) 2522
2134
2134
2263
1616
Pedro Gómez
1000 m
969
839
(#) 1948
1098
1164
1551
La Lima
Santos L. Merlo
El Rosario
650 m
1035
1016
1180
(#) 1722
1275
1057
Jairo Videa
Rio Abajo
600 m
2328
1616
1357
1482
(#) 2522
2269
(#) The selection with the highest yield in the trial
LEISA MAGAZINE 23.2 JUNE 2007
Origin of the material (farmer)
15 Learning AgriCultures
129
clear what information was missing and what was the next thing to do, nor who was going to do what. COSENUP farmers multiplied the seed for several seasons and in January 2005 they had a commercial volume of seeds of both varieties. But apart from selling seed to an NGO that planned to distribute it for evaluation trials in the south of Nicaragua, nobody has shown major interest in buying their seed. Of course, there has been interest from neighbouring farmers and family members, but the COSENUP farmers feel they cannot charge neighbours and friends commercial prices for the seed. So, in these cases they give or exchange seed. Apparently, one of the factors that discouraged farmers in other villages from buying seed was a government seed distribution programme which provided seed for free. As a result, the investments made by COSENUP and the farmer-breeders for the construction of silos to store the seed have so far not paid off. Farmers also invested time, energy and land in developing the varieties, and the lack of interest for their varieties is discouraging. This represents a dilemma: formal commercialisation of a new variety is not legal without an expensive registration process, while it is difficult from the beginning to know the potential demand for their seed. More than two years after the informal launching of the two new bean varieties, the National Seed Council (CONASEM) has now acknowledged that the provided information is sufficient, and has officially approved the registration of ‘Pueblo Nuevo JM 12.7’ as a bean variety in April 2007.
contact between the breeder and the farmers, and made sure the plantings were correctly followed through. He mobilised resources for irrigating the plots, made sure there were good bags to store the seeds between the seasons and, something the farmers saw as very important, he inspired the farmers when they got discouraged. He also helped out if there was a difficulty with the trials or when a family crisis had to be overcome. Despite the time consuming efforts, the COSENUP farmers feel proud. The project has boosted their confidence because they now have more knowledge, understand where varieties come from, and what is involved. Bean yields have definitely increased, and farmers can again produce enough for their own consumption. Selling the surplus allows them to buy more meat for the family, extend their house, put on a new roof or buy a bicycle. An interesting observation is that not only the two “champion” varieties are grown by other farmers; they also like a third selection because of its drought resistance.
Future actions
Photo: Conny Almekinders
Although the registration and marketing of the bean varieties took a long time and occasionally lessened the enthusiasm of the farmers, the fire did not extinguish. Several farmers have continued to work with the breeders of INTA. Some of them like to work with early generation bean families that are still segregating into different genotypes, others feel this is too timeconsuming and prefer to select the best seeds from advanced, genetically stable families. Recently, breeders and farmers have started talking about evaluating bean varieties preferred by the Hispanic population in the United States, discussing what they would do differently in a new process (try out each others’ materials at earlier stages; not wait three years before doing culinary tests). Other farmers have engaged in the development of better maize and sorghum varieties, and some have also asked INTA and CIPRES to bring them tomato varieties to work with.
LEISA MAGAZINE 23.2 JUNE 2007
José Manuel gonzalez and his father from Pueblo Nuevo, Nicaragua examine different varieties of their sixth generation bean seeds.
Lessons The overall process took three years (six plantings) of selection and one additional year for evaluation trials. It was extremely time consuming and difficult at times, and the farmers acknowledge that they could not have managed without the breeder and the CIPRES technician. With the breeder they discussed the options and made the plans for the trials. Initially, he was seen as their instructor and teacher. But over the seasons, as the farmers increased their understanding of the selection process, the relationship between the breeder and the farmer-breeders developed into a partnership, in which they discussed the planning on an equal footing. The NGO technician was also crucial in the whole process. He co-ordinated the
16 130
In the meantime, the breeders at INTA have developed new varieties that have good grain colour and show resistance to the Golden Mosaic Virus. And although it does not look as if structural changes in the breeding and production of seeds will result, the interaction between the farmers and the breeders has changed, as they undeniably work more closely together. Maybe the changes in the interactions at the personal level are even more relevant than those in the procedures of the research institutions. In any case, despite the fact that sometimes steps are taken forwards, and at other times backwards, the overall feeling of all involved is that they are moving in a positive direction. n
Learning AgriCultures
Conny Almekinders. Department of Technology and Agrarian Development, Wageningen University, Hollandseweg 1, 6706 KN Wageningen, the Netherlands. E-mail:
[email protected] Eduardo Aguilar. Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, UMB. P.O. Box 5003, Aas, N-1432 Norway. Rolando Herrera. Centro para la Promoción, la Investigacion y el Desarollo Rural y Social, CIPRES. Pueblo Nuevo, Nicaragua Reference - Almekinders, C. and J. Hardon (eds.), 2006. Bringing farmers back into breeding: Experiences with Participatory Plant Breeding and challenges for institutionalisation. Agromisa Special 5, Agromisa, Wageningen, the Netherlands. http://www.agromisalustrum.org/agromisa/agrospecials/Agromisa-AS-5-E.pdf
It’s time to ban highly hazardous pesticides
Photo: Stephen Sherwood
R2.16
Stephen Sherwood, donald Cole and douglas Murray
Development practitioners face difficulties persuading small holder farmers to reduce their use of extremely and highly hazardous pesticides. The patents on many of these pesticides expired long ago, allowing companies to market them at bargain prices. From an agro-ecological perspective, it is ironic that nearly all are nonspecific, broad spectrum insecticides that kill all insects – both harmful and beneficial. From a public health perspective, it is perverse and tragic that they are the most toxic and at the same time normally the most readily available products in the developing world. In small villages in Asia, Africa, and Latin America even children can purchase highly toxics at the local store, and millions of farmers and their families come in contact with them routinely.
Pesticides produce huge health burdens Highly toxic pesticides are associated with suicides, nervous system and mental health problems, not just among those who spray the products but also among the entire family. Researchers who compared the status of mental health and suicides in China, Sri Lanka, and the United Kingdom found that the high suicide rate in Sri Lanka and China is not due to higher levels of mental illness or rates of self-harm acts. People simply have easier access to pesticides than do the residents of the U.K. Success of a suicide attempt is directly associated with access to these pesticides, accounting for 60 to 90 percent of suicides in Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
Box 1. discovering the harmful effects of pesticides
LEISA MAGAZINE 23.3 SEPTEMBER 2007
When we arrived to Carchi, Ecuador in 1998 pesticides were not seen as a problem, but rather a solution. One farmer told us, “I don’t know if I believe in a God, but I do believe in pesticides. Thanks to pesticides, my family eats.” The true costs of pesticides were hidden. To help farmers come to see the harmful effects of pesticides, we employed during workshops a relatively disturbing activity that involved giving baby chicks a small dosage of highly toxic pesticides (usually carbofuran or methamidaphos) and observing them until they died. Participants watched and discussed symptoms as the chicks became wobbly, incoherent and then collapsed over a period of about one hour. Typically, certain participants would complain about the “murdering” of innocent chicks. Admittedly, the exercise was cruel, but it was highly effective at making blindly obvious the health effects that pesticides have on farmers and their families. (To avoid having to repeat the exercise, we came to use videos of the activity.) During the exercise, participants inevitably would open up and talk about previously hidden experiences. Most admitted to becoming “drunk” while applying pesticides. Many said they had passed out in their fields, but that they did not tell anyone because they did not want to be labelled a debilucho, a weakling. We discovered that intoxications were commonplace. We also learned that deaths due to pesticides occurred in each of the communities where we worked, often to young children. Commonly participants would conclude, “The fact is this is happening every day in our fields. We care more about the chicks than we do about our women and children. Something needs to be done!” This activity never failed to shock people into action.
Banning pesticides would not mean losses in production. Farmers are increasingly relying on alternatives such as insect traps. In this case, potato leaves are set under carton boxes around the margins of freshly ploughed fields.
While difficult to demonstrate scientifically, continual exposure to neuro-toxins produces symptoms of depression. Depression often leads people to commit self-harming acts. This has led some medical experts to argue that exposure to highly toxic pesticides may contribute to the climbing number of suicide attempts worldwide. Regardless of whether highly toxics are the cause of wanting to take your life or just an effective means of doing so, where access to extremely and highly hazardous pesticides has been restricted, suicide rates have fallen. Further, research in Northern Ecuador revealed that not just those who applied pesticides were at risk. Women and young children, although not commonly active in field agriculture there, were affected nearly as much. Further research demonstrated that treatment costs and work days lost impose a significant financial burden on the public health system and the individual. Each human poisoning (not accounting for deaths) cost about six worker days. Chronic exposure to highly toxic pesticides adversely affects farmer thinking and motor performance to a level that would justify worker disability payments in wealthier countries.
Alternatives exist Through studies of contamination pathways (Box 2), rural families have learned more about how hazardous pesticides regularly enter their homes. When confronted by these realities, the agrochemical industry argued that they cannot be held responsible for farmers’ mis-use of pesticides, but this belies the industries’ own findings. According to research financed by the Novartis Foundation, the single largest study on pesticide safety concerns anywhere, it is not realistic to expect the people of poor countries to manage these pesticides safely. As a result, the study concluded, “… any pesticide manufacturer that cannot guarantee the safe handling and use of its products should withdraw those products from the market.” While industry and governments continue to tout the value of “safe use” training and education programs, these initiatives have been found largely ineffectual in curbing pesticide hazards on a large scale, and they continue to encourage the general use of pesticides. Companies and governments know that the distribution and use of highly toxic pesticides will lead to poisonings and neurological damage of rural families, yet they are steadfast in their resistance to halting their sale. In cases where access to extremely and highly hazardous pesticides were restricted, no measurable negative effects occurred to rural economies (beyond perhaps, a decline in pesticide sales). Farmers simply found other alternatives, proving that these pesticides can be substituted by switching to non-chemical pest control or less toxic pesticides. The latter are
32 Learning AgriCultures
131
usually more expensive than highly toxics, but judicious use leads farmers to use them economically. Through knowledgebased methodologies, such as Farmer Field Schools, growers have shown that they can eliminate the use of extremely and highly hazardous pesticides with no losses in production. Despite the claims of governments and industry, the problem with eliminating highly toxics never has been a lack of alternatives, but rather the political will to place the interest of the public over those of influential private actors.
Policy initiatives Corporate influence over government policy has resulted in a failure to control pesticide hazards through traditional forms of regulation throughout much of the developing world. This has led the FAO’s Director of Plant Production and Protection, to go beyond calls for the implementation of additional modest policy reforms such as the FAO Code of Conduct, and call for the elimination of extremely and highly hazardous pesticides altogether. In a bold public statement, he said, “There is no way to ensure the chemicals involved would be used within acceptable margins of risk in developing countries”. A few developing countries, including China, Thailand and Viet Nam, are beginning to prohibit the use of the most toxic pesticides. Other governments are being called upon to follow these examples and speed up their withdrawal from markets the world over. Despite such examples, however, most politicians have not shown the willingness to confront the pesticide industry over the sale and distribution of these products. As a result, most countries continue to permit their sale and distribution and companies promote them aggressively, including through cutrate pricing. When publicly questioned about this, industry representatives and government officials typically blame farmers, talk about inadequate monitoring resources or call for more studies. Yet during an informal meeting, a representative from a large pesticide company told one of the authors: “We know the days of highly toxics are numbered. The industry has been planning alternatives for several decades. Nevertheless, it will continue to sell highly toxic pesticides until it becomes either economically or politically unviable to do so.”
Taking charge through grassroots action In order to make extremely and highly hazardous pesticides “politically unviable” greater public pressure is needed. In Ecuador, members of the national agroecology movement have proposed the elimination of these products. In addition to working with growers, they see the need to work with
To illustrate pesticide exposure pathways, we employed a “tracer”– a non-toxic fluorescent powder that glowed under ultraviolet light. Working with community volunteers, we added the tracer powder to the liquid in backpack sprayers and asked farmers to apply as normally. At night we visited homes with ultraviolet lights and video cameras to identify exposure pathways. During video presentations, community members were astonished to see the tracer not only on the hands and face of applicators, but also on their young children who played in fields. We also found traces on clothing and throughout the house, such as around wash areas, on beds and even on the kitchen table. The tracer study helped people discover how pesticides entered to home and how those who did not apply pesticides, in particular women and children, became exposed.
To achieve this, agroecologists are beginning to champion the following grassroots actions: • Organize information campaigns based on existing studies that demonstrate the health, economic, and environmental consequences associated with the use of highly toxics. • Promote the continuous learning on organically based alternatives to pesticides, in particular through farmerto-farmer exchanges. This should include programs on “ecological literacy” – that is, helping rural people to learn how to manage their farm ecologies for their benefit. • Protest and boycott the purchase and consumption of foods such as tomatoes, potatoes, and bananas when the seller cannot guarantee that they were produced free of highly toxic pesticides. • Demand that government regulatory agencies place a label on products that are produced with highly toxic pesticides, informing that the purchase of that product indirectly contributes to the poisoning of men, women, and children of rural communities. • Demand that government agencies, the Ministry of Education, local governments, the FAO, and other national and international organisations do not accept financing from companies that produce, sell, or distribute highly toxics. Further, public agencies should not collaborate in safe use programmes of highly toxic pesticides, since it is known that they cannot be used safely under the conditions of developing countries. Instead, programmes should focus on the elimination of the use of highly toxics. • Establish ties with other like-minded international movements in the Americas, Europe, Africa, and Asia to demand greater corporate responsibility. • Join with NGOs and social movements around the world in promoting private certification and other systems that guarantee the elimination of highly toxic products. We urge LEISA practitioners and readers from throughout the world to consider similar actions in alliance with other sectors of society. n Stephen Sherwood. Andes Area Program, World Neighbors. Los Motilones N40-598 y Carlos Guevara, 3 piso. Casilla Postal 17-17-97, Quito, Ecuador. E-mail:
[email protected] Donald Cole. Department of Public Health Services, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5T 3M7, Canada. Douglas Murray. Department of Sociology and Center for Fair and Alternative Trade Studies, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523, U.S.A. References - BBC World Service, 2004. Dying to make a living. A two-part radio programme on pesticide poisonings in northern Ecuador that is available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/specials/1646_dying/.htm - Bertolote, J.M., A. Fleischmann, A. Butchart, and N. Besbelli, 2006. Suicide, suicide attempts and pesticides: A major hidden public health problem. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. April. 84:4:260-261. - Murray, D., P. Taylor, 2000. Claim no easy victories: Evaluating the pesticide industry’s global safe use campaign. World Development, 28(10):1735-1749. - Pretty, J. (ed.)., 2005. The pesticide detox: Towards a more sustainable agriculture. Earthscan Publications, London, U.K.
LEISA MAGAZINE 23.3 SEPTEMBER 2007
Box 2. Exposure pathways
consumers, to support them in shifting food choices away from that produced with these pesticides. The movement has proposed that by 2010 farmers, women, and children no longer suffer from the sicknesses associated with chronic exposure to highly toxic pesticides.
33 132
Learning AgriCultures
Learning AgriCultures
133
module 3 cropping systems - interim version
R3. Photo gallery
India
Photo 1
Eritrea
Photo 3
Photo: S. Jayaraj
Photo:
134
Learning AgriCultures
Educational Resources for Module 3
Indonesia
Photo 2
Vietnam
Photo 3
Photo: Euis Holisoh
Photo: Luke Simmons
Learning AgriCultures
135
module 3 cropping systems - interim version
Ecuador
Photo 4
India
Photo 5
Photo: R. Lemoyne, CIDA
Photo: Green Foundation
136
Learning AgriCultures
Educational Resources for Module 3
The Netherlands
Photo 6
Honduras
Photo 7
Photo: Hans Peter Reinders
Photo: Faris Ahmed
Learning AgriCultures
137
module 3 cropping systems - interim version
Niger
Photo 8
China
Photo 9
Photo: Peter Cunningham
Photo: CBIK
138
Learning AgriCultures
Educational Resources for Module 3
India
Photo 10
Brazil
Photo 11
Photo: Abnay Ghande
Photo: Arquivo APACC
Learning AgriCultures
139
module 3 cropping systems - interim version
Uganda
Photo 12
China
Photo 13
Photo: Flemming Nielsen
Photo: CBIK
140
Learning AgriCultures
Educational Resources for Module 3
Kenya
Photo 14
Uganda
Photo 15
Photo: Flemming Nielsen
Photo: Flemming Nielsen
Learning AgriCultures
141
module 3 cropping systems - interim version
Cuba
Photo: UBPC Vivero Alamar
142
Learning AgriCultures
Photo 16
Learning AgriCultures
143
