Transcript No Slide Title

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