6.1. Diversification: Nature of the Needs and Opportunities
6.2. Livestock: Expansion of On-Farm Activities
6.3. Agroforestry: Making Marginal Lands More Productive
6.4. Forests and Diversification of Land Use Activities for Poverty Alleviation
6.5. Expansion of Off-Farm Employment and Vertical Integration of Farm Activities
6.6. Increased Emphasis on Niche Opportunities and Underutilized Plants and Animals
6.7. Current Activity and Future Options for the CGIAR
The Director General of FAO, in commenting on the marginal lands issue, points out that:
In marginal areas, farmers often spread the risk by engaging in mixed systems that combine agriculture with other economic activities. We need to draw upon such ancestral wisdom and encourage combined activities in their appropriate ecological and socio-economic setting. They are an expression of sustainable agricultural development, successfully merging cropping, stock raising, poultry farming, fish culture, forestry, hunting and gathering, the sale of produce on local markets, seasonal migration and all sorts of activities that mark the rhythm of a farming household's working year. (Statement of the DG on the occasion of World Food Day, Rome, 16 October, 1996)
Poverty is associated with significant risks for the poor. They do not have the "safety net" that richer people have through their savings and, most commonly, through the social systems to which they belong. The poor often are on their own - in fact that is a major factor associated with their poverty, which derives from the institutional and policy context. However, correcting policy and institutional problems is only part of the picture. Diversification of land use and farming system activities and income opportunities cuts across nearly all poverty situations in MAs.
The Panel recognizes that some of the diversification options mentioned below are merely part of a "holding pattern" - stop-gap measures that will maintain rural poor, but not lead to poverty alleviation and economic development. For that to happen, broader markets need to develop for non-agricultural products, education and technology development need to come to the forefront; and access for the poor to various social services and income generating opportunities needs to be improved. These changes are far beyond the scope and mandate of the CGIAR in its present form. It can help in terms of what it knows best - the institutional and technological change related to agriculture, agroforestry, forestry, and fisheries.
Diversification can involve a number of things - and the type of diversification that best fits a situation in MAs will depend very much on the nature of the poverty issues in that particular region. Where diversification is to be based on natural resources available to the poor, it is evident that knowledge of the biophysically marginal and favoured lands within any specific MA will be critical.
In general, the most promising types of diversification opportunities include the following:
· increased integration and further intensification of livestock in mixed farming systems - expansion of on-farm activities;· introduction or improvement of agroforestry systems that provide various products both for home consumption and for markets, and that improve agricultural productivity in some cases;
· increased integration of forest-based activities into overall farming systems development and into poverty alleviation programmes for the landless;
· increased blending of off-farm employment and income generating activities with farm system management and increased vertical integration of farm activities from field to consumer using new developments in postharvest technologies;
· increased use of niche opportunities - using exotic and indigenous, often underutilized, plants and animals; and taking advantage of small areas of good land, or other unique attributes, to produce high value crops such as flowers, herbs, spices, rabbits, honey, etc.
Animal products are generally characterized by a high consumer preference. Given this, and the "walking bank" role of animals in small farms, farmers tend to respond favourably to opportunities for increasing the numbers of small or large animals to improve farm income. Thus, diversifying production into mixed crop-livestock systems or intensifying livestock production is often of strong interest to farmers in most parts of the world.
At the farm level, livestock can contribute to sustainability with its various interfaces with cropping and with the farming household (sales can be year-round sources of cash income, animals serve as mobile assets, supply of fuel material, supply of nutrient rich food). The integration and intensification of livestock keeping is a reliable way to stimulate income or consumption growth at the farm level, especially when farm-based inputs can be used in this process. In diversification, farm animals play an important linkage role between different sub-sets of the farming system as means of draught power for recycling nutrients and enhancing land productivity. Crop by-products and refuse can be fed to monogastric as well as ruminant animals. Under diversified land use coarse grains and (sown) pastures, fodder trees, and fodder shrubs on marginal lands can provide feed and can also restore soil fertility.
The year-round increase of livestock production is, furthermore, an ideal way to increase labour productivity. While cropping is characterized by peak labour demands, the steady work needed for livestock husbandry can spread requirements more evenly over time, thereby increasing labour efficiency. On-farm processing of animal products (butter, ghee, cheese) and local self-marketing are other possibilities to add value by linking available labour with production resources to obtain the larger benefits. Examples of expansion of on-farm activities involving livestock are given in Box 2.
|
Box 2: Expansion of on-farm activities through livestock Example 1: Stall Feeding In Kenya a small farm of 0.3 hectare supports Thomas Nzaywa, his wife, three children and grandmother by a system of no-graze dairy production. Thomas converted the farm from the typical crops such as maize, beans and cash crops to a stall feeding dairy byproducts farm. The fodder from a hybrid of Leucaena leucocephala and Calliandra calothyrsus is used as feed. Flowers from the trees provide nectar for side production of honey. The manure from the cattle is abundant enough to fertilize his field. The field is cropped with rows of the hybrid and spinach and other greens. Fuelwood is always abundant. The excess milk and manure are sold. Complimentary feeds are purchased and extra money is reinvested. Thomas purchased a shredder that mixes the fodder to an optimal nutritional formula and put his children through school. Prinsley, R.T., 1990. Agroforestry for Sustainable Production: economic implications. Commonwealth Science Council, London 1990. Example 2: Desertified Land Reclamation: Desertification is a serious problem in many regions of the world. A project in northwest Peru, covering 1000 hectare, is attempting to reverse the tides. The area is characterized as semi-desert sand dunes. Three varieties of trees have been planted: Prosopis chilensis, P. limensis and P. juliflora, with a spacing of 10 m × 10 m, five seeds to a hole. The trees are intercropped with beans from year 1 to year 4, from year 4 to year 30 pods from the trees will be used for animal feed, food, molasses and honey, sheep grazing and bird hunting will be introduced during this time period. At year 30 timber will be harvested and regeneration initiated. In addition, the stand will provide woodfuel. Two years into the project trees are producing fruit at about US$25 per hectare and pods at US$200 per hectare. Tran van Nao, 1983. Agroforestry Systems and Some Research Problems, In: Huxley, P.A., 1983. "Plant Research and Agroforestry." ICRAF, Nairobi, Kenya. |
Agroforestry is widely practised and has been for centuries in most countries. In major parts of the developing world, it is the main form of land use and a major contributor to sustainability. Yet, because agroforestry lies in the hazy area somewhere between the fields of forestry and agriculture, it does not have the constituency, nor receive the attention it deserves in the policy arena in terms of its potential to contribute to poverty alleviation for those who live in MAs.
Agroforestry to a great extent evolved in response to needs and to sustainability concerns related to resiliency, flexibility, and avoidance of negative side effects of agriculture. Because of its blending of production with protection, it fits nicely with the concept of conservation and forces divergent views to focus on sustaining the overall productivity of land in MAs.
By design agroforestry should provide both environmental and productivity benefits. At the same time, farmers have to be aware that the use of trees in agricultural systems is not always positive in terms of sustainability and income generation. For example, trees can be introduced in such a way that they compete for space, light, nutrients, and water with other crops, thus possibly reducing the overall value of production.
Experience and careful study are needed to find those combinations of trees and other land uses that maximize overall sustainable production. The need for careful research on agroforestry is most pronounced in relation to biophysically marginal areas, where sensitivity to misuse tends to be greater. In some cases, it might mean no trees; in other cases, it might mean total forest cover. In between are the productive agroforestry systems.
Based on ICRAF's experience these systems can contribute to poverty alleviation and sustainability of farming in MAs in three important ways:
· building in flexibility to deal with uncertainty and the dynamics of changing needs;
· improving the resiliency of a land use; and
· creating positive externalities and linkages among land-use practices and their impacts.
The links between forests, trees, food security and deforestation shown in Figure 6.1 indicate that there is a two-way relationship between agriculture and forests. On the one hand, the major source of deforestation is agriculture (particularly slash and burn agriculture and large scale cattle ranching). On the other hand, agroforestry systems and forests contribute to increased food security, income generation and poverty alleviation.
Packages of new options for diversification in MAs include improved use of forests and trees. It has been estimated that a significant part of rural poor people depend in a major way on forests for their benefit flows. The Panel recognizes that improvement and expansion of forest and tree related activity by the poor in MAs is only one small part of the diversification needed. However, in some areas it can be an important part in solving the poverty alleviation puzzle.
Some promising areas of forest and tree related diversification - at least in the early stages of development - include the following:
Forest foods for subsistence and as sources of income. Outputs from the forest (bushmeat and fish, fruits, nuts, gums, resins, and so forth) supplement agricultural outputs in many parts of the world. Studies by IFPRI, CIFOR and others indicate that farmers in many forest regions of the world, e.g., Zaire Basin and the Amazon, depend as much on the surrounding forest as the farm for their food and other products, both those used on the farm and marketed. A study for over 60 countries showed that game and fish contribute 20 percent or more of the animal protein in the average human diet. Another study estimated that around 1974 some 75 percent of sub-Saharan Africa depended largely on traditional wildlife sources of protein. Many similar studies confirm these general orders of magnitude17. The ASB research programme is addressing the potentials for improved linkages between forest fringe farming, use of forests, poverty alleviation, and reductions in deforestation.
17 Redford, K., R. Godshalk and K. Asher. 1995. 'What about Wild Animals? Wild Animal Species in Community Forestry in the Tropics'. FAO Community Forestry Note 13. FAO. Rome, Italy. 96 pp.
Bioenergy from trees. Fuelwood grown on farms, or taken from forests, provides the major source of cooking and heating energy for a majority of people in most developing countries. Adequate fuel is an essential ingredient in any poverty alleviation programme. Fuelwood, particularly converted to charcoal, provides a significant source of income for many rural people. It provides another link in the diversification of rural activity in many MAs. However, much research is needed to understand the various linkages between use of fuelwood, deforestation, and health issues (mainly from the inhalation of smoke).
Protecting watersheds. Forests and use of trees in land use systems can contribute to downstream agriculture, e.g., through regulation of water flows and quality that directly affects irrigation options. Furthermore, it is well known that forests have a beneficial and regulating impact on the hydrological conditions of a watershed, such as the presence of springs, higher groundwater level, creeks with water for longer time periods.
In many parts of the world, e.g., in the middle Himalayas, parts of the highlands of Africa and Latin America and drylands, population growth is such that expansion of off-farm sources of employment will become a necessity. The land in those areas just will not support the growing numbers of people.
We can illustrate the potentials with some numbers from the small scale enterprise sector involving trees and forest products. FAO estimates, for example, that India currently has some 30 million persons working in forest-related enterprises. In Brazil, more than two million people earn a significant part of their income from activities associated with extraction of various products from the wild babassu palm. Similar stories abound from around the world. Many of these activities involve women and provide them with a supplemental source of income, often used to purchase food.
Figure 6.1: Links Between Forests and Food Production
Many other important sources of off-farm income exist. Their development often becomes the first step in evolving a balanced economy that goes beyond nearly total dependence on agriculture for income. Yet, the Panel recognizes the problems involved in generating markets. Most commonly, the products produced in these small scale enterprises are not of the quality where they can be exported out of the region; and the local markets, because of the depressed nature of much of the agriculture, are not large enough to support significant off-farm activity. The CGIAR has a limited role in this area. However, in some instances, it might be a catalyst in linking increased farm activity to off-farm opportunities.
Another area which recently was reported on by a TAC panel is that of postharvest technologies. That study18 recommended that the CGIAR give greater emphasis to the harvest and postharvest components of the production-to-consumption continuum. In MAs, postharvest losses can be great; value added to crops can go outside the regions; and opportunities to generate added off-farm employment can be lost. Thus, the Panel endorses the recommendations of the TAC postharvest technology study as being relevant to improvement in conditions in MAs and, ultimately, can contribute to poverty alleviation. An example is CIAT's work on storage, processing and marketing of cassava in the Andean region.
18 TAC Secretariat. 1996. 'Harvest and Postharvest Problems in Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries - The CGIAR Contribution to Research -'. (SDR/TAC:IAR/96/5).
Closely related to livestock, agroforestry, postharvest technology and vertical integration options, is the opportunity to diversify on the basis on "niche" opportunities. These generally are crops that currently are underutilized, for which promising technologies and defined markets exist, and for which there is suitable pockets of land within the MAs. Examples include, spices, herbs, mushrooms, honey bees, various tree crops, flowers, fruits and vegetables. Experience to date indicates that individual opportunities, with a few exceptions, are not large. However, on a cumulative basis, niche crops can be an important element in an overall diversification and poverty alleviation programmes (see Box 3).
Possibilities exist also to integrate aquaculture activities into farming systems in some parts of the world. Gains through research have led to some promising varieties of tilapia, carp, and so forth. ICLARM is in the forefront of this work.
With the introduction of agroforestry, forestry, and fisheries into the CGIAR, the System already had started on the road towards research on issues related to land use and farming system diversification. The strong emphasis on NRM, in an INRM context (cf. TAC's Soil and Water strategic study), has led a number of centres to emphasize both production and conservation objectives related to diversification. The latter objective is important to the CGIAR portfolio, since in some cases diversification can lead to even more rapid environmental degradation than currently exists.
|
Box 3: Niche Opportunities In the semi arid parts of India in small pockets people produce grapes and oranges and tamarind which not only have nationwide demand; but the products are exported as brand names such as Mahagrapes from the state of Maharastra; the same is true of onion, garlic and red chilly. In many MAL areas, vegetable seeds are produced for green revolution FAL areas, as the former's climate is disease and pollution free. This occurs more in hill areas where they not only produce disease free seeds, but off-season vegetables as well as flowers and fruits for the FAL and their urban centres. Sericulture and dryland horticulture are picking up even on small farms in areas as dry as Western Rajasthan in India. Recent trends in small-scale stall-fed goat raising, and angora rabbit rearing have helped the poor, as these enterprises do not need much land or investment; and they are highly productive both biologically and economically. ICRISAT generated high-yielding pigeonpea cultivars which, aside from commercial use, is also planted in courtyards by farmers and landless households for quick production and sale as green vegetable in villages nearer the towns. In most of these cases accessibility and nearness of market has played an important role. These processes recently have been encouraged by entry of organized private sector entities in rural areas following the liberalization of the economy. In some cases NGOs have helped. Replication of such small-scale initiatives can make a big difference to the situation of the poor in marginal areas. |
Examples of targeted research activities for developing diversity are: ICRAF's work on small-holder agroforestry systems for the desert margins to alleviate fodder shortages and fence in livestock, enhance soil fertility and address problems of desertification; ICRISAT's work on short-season chickpea improvement and management for post rainy season production in dry and warm marginal environments to diversify existing cropping systems in Asia and East Africa; CIAT's programme for hillsides in Latin America; and ICARDA's work on low-cost improvement of native pastures in marginal lands and rangelands for increasing productivity of pastoralists and nomadic herders; and inter-centre work on developing alternatives to slash and burn agriculture.
The Panel emphasized the importance of keeping sustainability concerns uppermost in mind as diversification options are explored. In the context of sustainable poverty alleviation associated with MAs, the Panel reconfirms TAC's view, supported by the CGIAR members, that strengthening research on NRM and environmental issues is needed in the CGIAR, as is a more explicit linking of this area of research to the Lucerne "vision" of CGIAR contribution to poverty alleviation and sustainable food security. Because of their significance in relation to poverty alleviation, we repeat the pertinent TAC conclusions regarding NRM here:
* TAC reaffirms and emphasizes the point: The System should with few exceptions only be doing environmental and NRM related research that is clearly identified with the impacts of agriculture, forestry and fisheries on sustainable poverty alleviation and food security.* TAC confirms that research on both aspects of land use impacts - on-site and off-site - are priority areas for research in an integrated natural resources management (INRM) research framework such as is needed in the System.
* TAC concludes that once the necessary condition has been met, i.e., the proposed research is identified in a positive way with impacts on sustainable poverty alleviation and food security, then adjustments in specific research may logically be made to take into account potential benefits in terms of other aspects of environmental improvement and health. Such adjustments should, of course, consider the cost implications. In fact, much of the research undertaken by the System does contribute to these other goals (even though such research was initiated in the System only because of its links to sustainable poverty alleviation and food security through agriculture, forestry and fisheries)19.
19 Examples include: biological control undertaken primarily because of the rising costs of chemical control with increasing resistance, but benefiting also farmer health and the environment; trees grown on farms for food, wood and forage, but helping to control erosion and, if native species, helping also to conserve biodiversity.
The CGIAR has traditionally focused on the crop production end of the farming system. Taking more of a poverty alleviation focus, and realizing the importance to the poor of diversifying income generating activities, the Panel suggests that the CGIAR needs to pay more attention to mixed crop-livestock-tree systems. In other words, systems that simultaneously capture different elements of the MA resource potentials need greater attention. For example, integrated systems involving aquaculture, wetland rice, livestock, and agroforestry are likely to contribute to poverty alleviation and sustainable development of inland valleys of sub-Saharan Africa.
The Panel notes that the work by NGOs has shown that poverty alleviation in MAs often is identified with local action. Also poverty alleviation involves diversification of activities and of sources of income and opportunities for improvement (cf. recent speech by DG of FAO20). Research related to opportunity access for the poor is frequently situation specific. At the same time, the CGIAR by its nature must focus research on those areas where it is most cost-effective in providing international public goods.
20 Op. cit.
The Panel believes that there are a number of potential areas related to poverty alleviation that fall within the international public goods category. They include such things as research related to: development of methods and processes for assessment of poverty alleviation constraints; poverty processes and the dynamics of poverty (mainly linked to the role of the agriculture, forestry and fisheries sectors); comparative analysis of location-specific linkages among environment, technology, agricultural development and poverty alleviation; off-farm employment opportunities; and post-harvest technology.
Any decision on broadening the research agenda along the above lines should only be taken after an examination of the options, potential poverty impacts and alternative suppliers of such research. The Panel recognises that precisely because of the international public goods requirement, the CGIAR must proceed with caution into an area of poverty alleviation which requires a site-specific MA focus. The System can only be a minor part in the total research effort devoted to the types of issues and topics arising from this focus. The challenge lies in investing scarce resources in such a way as to catalyze further R&D investments by others. Hence the importance placed on implementing Recommendations 2, 3 and 4 once a first approximation has been made of the characteristics of MAs: where are the marginal rural people? why are they poor? and the scope and nature of options open to the CGIAR to effect change towards sustainable poverty alleviation (Recommendation 1).
