| About Necofa | General Acitivities | Projects | National Network Groups | Picture Gallery | Services | Contact & Imprint |
|
Vol.3,No.3 |
On behalf of NECOFA in general, the coordinating and advisory body, let me start by formally welcoming NECOFA-South Africa to the grand Family of NECOFA. South Africa the country of Nelson Mandela, Winner of the 1993 Nobel Prize in Peace - has joined the sisters countries and members of the Network for Ecofarming in Africa: Zambia, Tansania, Ethiopia, Uganda, Cameroon, Nigeria, Ghana and Kenya. I indeed welcomed with warm response the application of Ecohope -South Africa in becoming a member of NECOFA and salute the enlargement of the members countries. We also warmly congratulate NECOFA Ethiopia for its official registration as an NGO and wish all the best in its future activities.
S. Tesfai
International Coordinator
Since the follow-up seminar in Bamenda, NECOFA- Ethiopia has made few, but basic attempts in promoting Ecofarming. Even if the coverage is so narrow, it is hoped that the out-comes of these efforts will be so positive. The following are some of the attempts:
A Report on the Ecofarming Follow-up Seminar-Workshop (21/10/2000-11/11/2000) in Bamenda, Cameroon was prepared and distributed to all relevant bodies.
Oromiyaa is the largest region of the E.F.D.R. in many respects. If any activity of promoting ecofarming in Ethiopia is initiated in this region, the final impact will be so effective for the future implementation. With this belief, some activities are undertaken in this region at different levels.
2.1.1. Training
Trainings were conducted at two different woredas (districts) based on:
* Concepts, principles and techniques of ecofarming,
* Local level participatory planning.
Both woredas are strategic in their geographical positions and state of resource degradation.
In both woredas the trainees were farmers, DA's, zonal experts and some district administrators.
2.1.2. Governmental Level
The Country Rep. arranged a meeting with a member of Executive Committee, who was in charge of economic affairs (currently President) of the regional state. A term of understanding was achieved, after which the Network was required to present its idea in a written form.
2.1.3. Bureau and Cooperative Level
Approach was made to influence the Bureau of the regions Cooperative Promotion and the Oromiya Coffee Farmers' Cooperative Union Ltd. Both institutions are persuaded:
Focus No. 1: The International Coordinating Unit and ICNSD- Search for Int. Market.
Any forum obtained is exploited to promote ecofarming. One such forum is the workshop at the Agricultural College of Ambo. The workshop, Oct.1-2, 2001 was intended to develop a course content for a course on Environmental Sciences. The Country Rep. was invited to present a paper on policy issues. The chance was exploited to introduce ecofarming as a point of discussion, on which finally the whole staff was convinced to include some of the components of ecofarming in the course content. The college, as an institution, and many of its staff individually, have confirmed to enrol as members in NECOFA-Ethiopia. Moreover, there is a possibility of using the demonstration plot of the College, which is more than 600 ha., for ecofarming activity if adequate linkage with appropriate body is established.
Focus No. 2: The Int. Coordinating Unit and ICNSD- Link Us with Partner Universities.
A Project Document was presented to the relevant body for registering the network. This is a necessary procedure for obtaining legal base. Major component of the document is institutionalization of the network, without which the promotion of ecofarming is impossible. Ofcourse, other vital components are also included in the document (See full text). The relevant body for registering will supervise our activity after six months of issuance of the permit. If activities are not started, the permit will be revoked. Upto now, we could not secure any fund from anywhere.
Focus No. 3: The Int. Coor. Unit and ICNSD-Solicitize Fund, atleast to start with.
By Asfaw Tihune, March, 2001
The largest majority of our agricultural community is small holders which farms under rain fed conditions in diverse and risk-prone environments. They have evolved a wide range of farming systems each of which have adopted to its local ecological conditions inextricably entwined with the local culture These farming systems were in fact not static, they have changed over generations In the process those which could not fit to the new conditions faced extinction while those able to adapt persisted.
These traditional farming systems which did not use modern technology and external inputs could not meet the food need of the growing population, led to the degradation of natural resources and an over all ecological problems. They were unsustainable and could not bring food security. These problems dictated a shift in the agricultural sector. As a result a conventional [modern] agricultural system came to the front.
Modern agriculture, which is enforced by conventional science-based research and extension activities, focused on high levels of external inputs. Technologies have been developed in research stations and experimental farms in better-controlled areas from where these ready-made technology packages are transferred to farmers.
The primary effort of this system is to increase production of certain commodities. As a matter of fact, conventional agriculture has succeeded for the last few decades, in contributing greatly to the alleviation of hunger and increasing productivity. It has served its purpose up to a point but did not change the life standard of the smallholder farmers.
The negative environmental and social impacts of this system are becoming increasingly obvious. It did not solve the problems of natural resource degradation. The technologies used are not available to the smallholder farmers and not appropriate. It aims at short-term benefits but not long-term sustainability. The human element in this system is completely pushed out of scene. And yet, the strategy of achieving food security by increasing production is the wrongly seen scenario of this system.
All this imply that we should rethink about our agricultural and land use policies. That we should be aware of the fact that we need agricultural systems that focus as much attention on people as they do on technology, as much on resources as on production, as much on long term as on the short term. The realities show us that the basket for agriculture should contain a number of optional packages. Here is proposed ECOEARMING as an optional package.
Ecofarming is an ecologically and socially sustainable land management and utilization. It is site- specific agriculture which involves a comprehensive management of natural resources in a sustainable form. It is oriented towards the long -term and stresses the human being as a factor in the ecosystem, thus allowing him for conservation and replenishment of these resources. It uses appropriate technology and emphasizes the use of local recourses. It is aimed at minimizing the use of chemical inputs rather than completely avoiding them.
Man is the center of the Ecosystem. An agricultural development scheme that neglects those who care for, work on and tender the soil-man, the farmer is a failure from the very beginning. Especially in our region where more than 85% of the agricultural community comprises smallholder farmers, the maximum possible attention should be given to this part of the society. The empowerment of this group of people should be the final target of any policy to be designed in Oromiya.
Basically ecofarming does not aim at the maximum. It searches for the optimum. And yet it advocates that increased productivity of agriculture can be obtained through sustainability. To meet the challenge of feeding our population, our policies should focus on our available resource potentials .By sustainability of agriculture we mean any agricultural development activity which is ecologically sound, economically viable, socially just, humane and adaptable.
Ecofarming intends to promote agricultural activities on the basis of agro ecosystems. It advocates that farming regions and individual farms must be treated as ecological systems It is not confined to the natural conditions (e.g. soils, climate, plants, animals) but considers it as the entire complex of physical, economic, social and cultural conditions which affect the growth and development of an organism or organic system. In the midst of this fact, ecofarming advocates that agricultural development efforts must be location specific.
Just as recommendations for use of chemical fertilizers cannot be made for an entire country or region without consideration of different soil type, rainfall patterns, fertilizer availability, etc so also the recommendations for agricultural technologies must suit the specific ecological environment and socioeconomic situation of those applying the technologies.
Ecofarming strives to create a cultivated but balanced ecosystem designed to sustain human life. It is not an attempt to restore nature to a close to pristine form, but mimic it. It differs from organic farming which completely forbids the use of agrochemicals. It also differs from conventional farming which advocates the indefinite use of agrochemicals. It is a way of using available natural resources without destroying them, or where environmental decline has already set in, regenerating resources so that they can support man once again.
Ecofarming stresses that research; extension and development activities should not be divorced from each other. It aims at a strong cooperation of scientists, extension workers and farmers. According to ecofarming principles, the indigenous knowledge, skill and practices of smallholder farmers not be over passed. The farming community should be considered as the main actors in research. Farmer experimenters are possible to be found. GOALS OF ECOFARMING Incorporation of the natural resources, nutrient recycling, nitrogen fixation, biological pest control, etc.
Of course, the first question we must ask is whether the Nutrient Access Concept can explain the phenomena mentioned above better than the Nutrient Quantity Concept could.
First of all, the Nutrient Access Concept does not deny that heavy concentrations of nutrients can produce high yields in many circumstances, especially in cooler climes, and when soils are compacted or optimal soil structure has otherwise been damaged, CEC is high and farmers are well-capitalized. It would tend to indicate that high-input agriculture is probably more expensive than it need be to achieve maximum productivity, but it does not deny that high levels of productivity can be achieved through high concentrations of nutrients in developed nation agriculture, and even highly capitalized plantation agriculture on the best soils of the tropics.
Where the Nutrient Access Concept does point to agricultural practices of a radically different kind is where soils have very low CEC's, where soil o.m. is or could be abundant and cheap, where capital is scarce, and/or where temperatures are high. But in these situations, very common in the tropics, would the Nutrient Access Concept be any more useful than the Nutrient Quantity Concept ?
The Nutrient Access Concept has already led, in southern Brazil (Bunch, 1994) and small pockets of farmers in country after country, to competitive yields at relatively low costs, often on what were previously considered "low potential" soils, and with a much more positive long-term ecological impact than that of agriculture according to the traditional Nutrient Quantity Concept. (Pretty and Hine)
These experiences, plus the nature of the Nutrient Access Concept itself, would indicate that there is a good chance that this Concept could reduce significantly the costs of producing competitive yields in the tropics. For small-scale, poor farmers, especially on impoverished soils with low CEC's, the technology resulting from the Nutrient Access Concept could be a major life-saver, both literally and figuratively.
The Nutrient Access Concept provides absolutely no rationale for the present unjust discrimination against those farming on so-called "low potential" soils.
Instead, it supports the idea that with fairly small, inexpensive applications of highly accessible nutrients, these soils can produce harvests several times their present levels. The "potential" of the soil depends more on the proper management of the soil than it does on the addition of large quantities of very expensive nutrients.
It would also call into question efforts to introduce and subsidize tremendous quantities of expensive chemical fertilizers to dozens of African nations already on the brink of bankruptcy. Presently, there is a lot of discussion about the possibility of bringing the "Green Revolution" to Africa. Proposals center on the idea that the World Bank and other major financial institutions should make a concerted effort to introduce and subsidize chemical fertilizers in Africa because of the perceived dangers of "soil nutrient depletion". (See IFPRI, SSSA)
These proposals, of course, fly in the face of increasing petroleum prices and a decade of Neoliberal efforts to reduce artificial governmental subsidies. But more basically, the perception that reduced levels of nutrients in Africa's soils will inevitably preclude high levels of production is, of course, based on the Nutrient Quantity Concept. Adoption of the Nutrient Access Concept would force a major rewrite of these proposals, orienting them instead toward the achievement of increased yields through higher levels of biomass production, soil structure improvement and mulch-based systems, rather than through the unsustainable use of billions of dollars of increasingly expensive chemical fertilizers.
Of course, even if we believed the Nutrient Quantity Theory, we have mentioned above that small farmers' lack of financial resources and the lack of their depleted soils' response to chemical fertilizers are a major an obstacle to maintaining or increasing soil nutrient levels with chemical fertilizers just as their lack of access to sufficient o.m. prevents them from doing the same with o.m. And with intercropped or dry season gm/cc's and/or dispersed trees, the former limitation may be much greater than the latter. If this is the case, someone must explain why, if African soil fertility is to be subsidized, it would be better to subsidize chemical fertilizers and rock phosphate to the total exclusion of subsidies of the dispersed planting of trees or of the price of green manure/cover crop grains.
The Nutrient Access Concept can explain very adequately those observed phenomena that the traditional theory cannot:
- Yields in gm/cc and agroforestry systems do not depend on high concentrations of nutrients. Rather, they depend on the fixation of N and the recycling of large amounts of o.m., which makes the P and other nutrients in the soils much more soluble (i.e. chemically available), and places most of these nutrients near the soil surface, where they are easily accessible to plant roots. Such systems can therefore produce good yields over long periods of time with low or no applications of additional nutrients (though eventually some nutrients, notably P, obviously have to be added to achieve sustainability).
- The SRI yields are achieved on very poor soils with only limited applications of compost because the rest of the technological package aerates the soil and makes the plants grow close to six times more roots per plant than does the conventional rice system, thereby allowing the plants to access many more of the limited nutrients in the soil. (Uphoff)
- West Africa's extremely poor soils with very low CEC's produce well near people's compounds because the o.m. thrown out of the kitchens maintains a small, steady supply of nutrients, and therefore low CEC's are sufficient to hold the nutrients necessary for a few hours or days until more nutrients are released from the next day's discarded o.m.
- The regeneration of tropical soils through fallowing does not occur primarily because large quantities of nutrients are brought to the surface and kept there. Rather, the large amounts of biomass deposited on the soil by the regrowth of forests or grasslands either maintain or, gradually and over a number of years, improve the soil structure, so that the newly cleared land allows crops to access much more efficiently the low concentrations of nutrients that exist in the upper horizons of the profile. Meanwhile, the organic matter on the soil surface or near it, produced during years of fallow, continues to supply nutrients in small quantities that can maintain reasonably high levels of productivity, at least for a year or two.
- Likewise, the same process maintains the impressive productivity of rainforests for millennia. Optimal soil structure and mulches are maintained, maximizing the access of the forest's trees to the few nutrients that are constantly being supplied through soil o.m. mineralization. And, to some extent, deeper tree roots, having a tremendous number of feeder roots like the rice under SRI, can capture large amounts of nutrients even in soil horizons with extremely low concentrations of nutrients.
In this last case, of course, the Nutrient Quantity people would largely agree with this analysis. What they cannot explain is how forests can grow so well on the basis of these very low concentrations of nutrients when, according to their Concept, low nutrient levels (i.e. "low inputs"), in whatever part of the soil profile and of whatever origin, should result in the low productivity (i.e. "low outputs") of the entire system.
- Lastly, it is quite obvious that the research on, and benefits of, slow-release chemical fertilizer is much more understandable based upon the Nutrient Access Concept than upon the Nutrient Quantity Concept.
The above explanations are, of course, quite simplistic. Much more is happening in the soil than these explanations would indicate. Plants' access to nutrients, though certainly helped by applying the nutrients to the soil surface or together with o.m., or very near the seed, or by plants' growing in well-flocculated soils free of compaction layers, is a very complicated phenomenon which involves a large number of factors. These would include those of soil temperature, soil o.m. levels, pH, soil chemical properties, the presence of compaction layers, and nutrient positioning and equilibrium, all of which are in turn affected by the activity of hundreds of thousands of microorganisms in every teaspoonful of soil. Thus, nutrient access involves a whole series of dynamics which we only somewhat dimly understand as yet. Nevertheless, the Nutrient Access Concept seems to come much closer to explaining the overall sum or average of all these varied and mysterious processes than does the Nutrient Quantity Concept.
It will be immediately evident to many people that the Nutrient Access Concept can most easily be put into practice through the copious use of o.m. O.m. can and does supply low to medium concentrations of nutrients, and almost always in well-balanced quantities. Furthermore, o.m., by its very nature, has a slow-release mechanism, allowing the nutrients to become available to plants over a period of several months or years. And lastly, though this mechanism is somewhat slower and sometimes problematic in improving the structure of heavily compacted soils, soil o.m. does serve to gradually improve soil structure. Soil o.m. does so both directly, through the provision of binding materials to improve flocculation, and indirectly, by feeding earthworms and other soil organisms, both macro and micro, which also improve soil structure. (Minnich)
Experience shows that the best way to apply o.m. in order to improve soil dynamics in these three respects, as well as to reduce costs, is to apply it either to the soil surface or, during the period of transition, within 20 cm of the surface.
Although there is still some argument as to how the o.m. should be applied to the soil the first year or two of a transition into mulch-based agriculture (when soil compaction below the surface is a serious limiting factor), experience tells us that after the first year or two, virtually all the o.m. should be applied to the soil surface. (See, for instance, Primavesi; MAG/DGP)
It should be mentioned here that the Nutrient Access Concept does not necessarily support the total discontinuation of the use of chemical fertilizer. While organic agriculture proponents may agree with this Concept, the Concept does not necessarily support a totally organic approach. What the Concept does do is open the door to a greatly reduced use of chemical fertilizers in the short run, and the gauging of their use in the long run more according to the replacement levels of net losses of nutrients for the purpose of sustainability (minus those nutrients supplied by o.m. and N fixation), rather than the much higher levels of use presently thought to be the only way to significantly increase productivity.
The Five Principles of Agriculture for the Humid Tropics
Based on the Nutrient Access Theory, an increasing number of institutions involved around the world in small farmer agriculture have begun to use some or all of the following Five Principles of soil management (Bunch, 1995):
These same rules may well apply not only to the humid tropics, but to the semi-arid tropics, as well. Reports from some semi-arid areas indicate that this is the case. Nevertheless, there still exist some doubts as to what extent crops can survive during, and recover after, the mulch has dried out completely due to the frequent droughts in such areas. Much more experimental evidence is needed in this case.
Small farmers and NGO's have developed a number of other simple ways that plants' access to nutrients can be inexpensively enhanced during the transition period. Edwin Asante, of World Vision/Rwanda, for instance, has developed a sort of small farmer version of precision planting for potatoes. In this case, an 8-cm ball of o.m., lime, and about one-fourth the normally recommended amount of chemical fertilizer are placed less than 0.5-cm directly below the seed. Yields in impoverished soils with a pH of 3.5 have averaged 20 t/ha, as opposed to 9 t/ha without precision planting. (Personal communication during field visit)
In Honduras, Elías Sánchez developed a type of strip tillage or in-row tillage (locally called "minimum tillage" or "labranza mínima") which concentrates the o.m. in the crop row, where it is more accessible. And Dr. Erich Raddatz is developing mycorrhiza strains that can double fruit production by increasing plants' access to nutrients. (Personal communication)
These Five Principles, apart from having proven themselves time and time again among small farmers around the world, are the self-same principles a humid tropical forest employs to maintain its high "productivity" during millennia, even on soils with very low CEC's. A tropical rainforest maximizes biomass production and biodiversity, keeps the soil shaded at all times, and feeds its plants largely through the litter layer. And, of course, no human beings have to plough a forest to keep it growing lush and green, century after century.
Thus, the sustainability of forest ecology over the millennia provides important evidence that tropical agriculture following these Five Principles should also be sustainable over long periods of time. The small amount of scientific research done on this issue so far tends to support this conclusion. (Buckles)
One major result we could expect of the Nutrient Access Concept of soil fertility would be an increase in optimism about the plight of resource-poor farmers. They are, by the conventional Concept, in serious, perhaps insurmountable, trouble. Their soils are increasingly depleted of nutrients. (Buresh; Henao) Furthermore, they have no hope of increasing their soils' nutrient supplies sufficiently with o.m., and they have far too little money to invest in chemical fertilizers, even if the impact of fertilizers on their impoverished soils were enough to cover the investment. To add insult to injury, the world's rich nations have now decided that somehow these unfortunate people are on a level playing field with rich European and American farmers, and therefore should have to compete with them without the assistance of protective trade barriers.
But given the Nutrient Access Concept, even those farmers with heavily depleted soils should be able to increase their yields dramatically with very little investment other than that of more increased knowledge and the adoption of new agricultural techniques. Gm/cc's provide cheaper nitrogen than fertilizer factories, while zero tillage and cover crops can eliminate the comparative advantage provided by tractors.
Whether most villager farmers will ever be able to compete with European or American farmers is still doubtful, but at least they should be able to produce enough for their own consumption to eat well. Although if conventional farmers in the First World persist in using increasingly expensive fossil fuels and chemical fertilizers at the present exorbitant rate, the poor just might be able to compete, after all.
A second impact of the Nutrient Access Concept would be that the world's agriculture will become a good deal more sustainable. Increased sustainability will come from the reduced use of chemical fertilizers (reducing groundwater and stream pollution, nutrient imbalances and soil acidification), from the positive impacts on the environment of increased biomass production, soil cover, soil o.m. and biodiversity, and from the decrease of farmer dependency on increasingly expensive fossil fuels.
AHN, PETER MARTIN (1993) Tropical Soils and Fertilizer Use, Essex, Longman Group UK Ltd.
______________ (1999) Alternatives to Conventional Modern Agriculture for Meeting World Food Needs in the Next Century, Report of the Cornell International Institute for Food, Agriculture, and Development's (CIIFAD) conference on "Sustainable Agriculture: Evaluation of New Paradigms and Old Practices," at Bellagio, Italy, April 26-30.
BORLAUG, NORMAN (1998) as quoted in Dennis Avery, Saving the Planet with Pesticides and Plastics, The Environmental Triumph of High-Yield Farming, Indianapolis, Indiana, the Hudson Institute.
BUCKLES, DANIEL, et al. (1998) Cover Crops in Hillside Agriculture, Farmer Innovation with Mucuna, Ottawa, Canada, International Development Research Centre (IDRC) and International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT).
BUNCH, ROLAND (1994) "EPAGRI's Work in the State of Santa Catarina, Brazil, Major New Possibilities for Resource-Poor Farmers," photocopied.
BUNCH, ROLAND (1995) "An Odyssey of Discovery, Principles of Agriculture for the Humid Tropics," ILEIA Newsletter, Vol. 11, No. 3, October.
BUNCH, ROLAND (2001) "A Proven Technology for Intensifying Shifting Agriculture, Green Manure/Cover Crop Experience Around the World," and "Achieving the Adoption of Green Manure/Cover Crops," both presented at the International Institute for Rural Reconstructon (IIRR's) Conference on "Best Practices in Shifting Agriculture and the Conservation of Natural Resources in Asia," held August 14-26 at Silang, Cavite, the Philippines. Both are soon to be published by IIRR.
BUNCH, ROLAND and Gabino López (1995) Soil Recuperation in Central America, Sustaining Innovation after Intervention, Gatekeeper Series No. 55, London, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).
BURESH, ROLAND J., et al., eds. (1997) Replenishing Soil Fertility in Africa, SSSA Special Publication No. 51, Madison, Wisconsin, Soil Science Society of America (SSSA) and International Center for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF).
Committee of Tropical Soils, Agriculture Board, and National Research Council (1972) Soils of the Humid Tropics, Washington, D.C., National Academy of Sciences (NAS).
CRESSER, MALCOLM, et al. (1993) Soil Chemistry and its Applications, Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.
HENAO, JULIO AND CARLOS BAANANTE (1999) "Nutrient Depletion in the Agricultural Soils of Africa," 2020 Vision Brief 62, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, D.C., October.
LADHA, J. K., et al. (1998) "Opportunities for Increased Nitrogen-use Efficiency from Improved Lowland Rice Germplasm," Field Crops Research, Vol. 56.
MINNICH, JERRY (1977) The Earthworm Book, How to Raise and Use Earthworms for Your Farm and Garden, Emmaus, Pennsylvania, Rodale Press.
Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería (MAG)/Dirección General de Planificación (DGP) (1995) Siembra Directa, Primer Encuentro de Productores, Organizaciones y Técnicos, Asunción, La Rural Ediciones.
MOSHER, A. T. (1971) To Create a Modern Agriculture, Organization and Planning, New York, Agricultural Development Council, Inc.
PALM, CHERYL A., et al. (1997) "Combined Use of Organic and Inorganic Nutrient Sources for Soil Fertility Maintenance and Replenishment," in Roland J. Buresh, et al., eds., Replenishing Soil Fertility in Africa, SSSA Special Publication No. 51, Madison, Wisconsin, Soil Science Society of America (SSSA) and International Center for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF).
PRETTY, JULES AND RACHEL HINE (2000) Feeding the World with Sustainable Agriculture, A Summary of New Evidence, Colchester, UK, University of Essex.
PRIMAVESI, ANA (1982) Manejo Ecológico del Suelo, La Agricultura en Regiones Tropicales, Quinta Edición, Buenos Aires, Librería "El Ateneo" Editorial.
QUIÑONES, MARCO A., et al. (1997) in Roland J. Buresh, et al., eds., Replenishing Soil Fertility in Africa, SSSA Special Publication No. 51, Madison, Wisconsin, Soil Science Society of America (SSSA) and International Center for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF).
THURSTON, H. DAVID (1997) Slash/Mulch Systems: Sustainable Methods for Tropical Agriculture, Boulder, Colorado, Westview Press.
UPHOFF, NORMAN (2000) "How Can 'The Biological Maximum' for Rice be Exceeded? Possible Explanations for the High Yields Observed with the System of Rice Intensification (SRI)," draft copy, printed paper.
YOUNG, ANTHONY (1989) Agroforestry for Soil Conservation, Oxon, UK, C.A.B International.
| About Necofa | General Acitivities | Projects | National Network Groups | Picture Gallery | Services | Contact & Imprint |
