Bamboo species (Gramineae bambuseae bambusoideae) provide important income and household consumption to low-income rural residents. According to a local knowledge study in Hoa Binh province, Vietnam, bamboo maintains fertility and productivity of the land because of surface litter accumulation, minimized leaching and long-term primary productivity. A study in Kenya shows that bamboo absorbs water faster than most other plants and is used to clean sewage water in some parts of the world. Bamboo may also be one strategic option of waste prevention and recycling. The uncontrolled dumping of large amounts of urban organic solid wastes in Vietnam causes pollution and ground water contamination. One of strategies since 1980s in dealing with this problem in northern Vietnam is composting solid waste to produce organic fertilisers (OF). However, farmers are skeptical to these OF and risk of the high concentrations of heavy metals is reported in literature. Our assumption is that Bamboo may function as an efficient ‘filter’, which takes up plant nutrients as well as trace (heavy) metals from the OF, and thereby mitigates the risk of environment al pollution. Significant nutrient inputs to the soil, obtained by applying OF together with a better land management, are expected to promote farm production of significant quantities of high quality bamboo products. This is an innovation for upland-lowland interaction for sustainable livelihood and environment protection.
Tag: Agricultural economics
First and second generation research effort on commodising indigenous fruit tree crops in southern Africa
Harvesting of indigenous fruits from the wild provides important food supplements and cash income for many people in the rural communities. Household analysis in Southern Africa indicated that indigenous fruits can reduce vulnerability of rural households to income poverty and food insecurity. Research efforts on indigenous fruit trees in Southern Africa involved two interconnected phases. The first generation phase which included the development of long-term domestication strategies, selection of priority species, tree germplasm collection and genetic improvement, propagation systems, and field management. The second generation phase included participatory development of superior cultivars, analyses of production economics, adoption, post-harvest handling, enterprise and product development, and market research of indigenous fruits. This paper synthesises first and second generation research carried out on indigenous fruit tree domestication, utilisation, and commercialisation in Southern Africa. It also presents the lessons learned and provides the way forward to enhance food security and income generation in Southern Africa.
Adoption, Profitability, Impacts, and Scaling up of Agroforestry Technologies in Southern African Countries
Because of a mix of agroecological factors (incessant drought, low soil fertility, environmental degradation) and other man-made problems (illiteracy, unfavorable development policies), the southern African region faces several challenges including worsening poverty, food insecurity, low income base, and more recently HIV=AIDS pandemic. Low soil fertility is identified as one of the greatest biophysical constraints to increasing agricultural productivity (Bekunda et al., 1997; Sanchez, 1999). The degradation of soils is caused by a breakdown of the traditional production systems resulting from shortening of fallow periods due to population pressure (Kwesiga et al., 1999). With the collapse of the erstwhile government support for the use of mineral fertilizer (e.g., through subsidies and distribution channels), in the 1990s, the ability of most smallholder farmers to purchase the same level of mineral fertilizers was reduced because the input became unaffordable to them. In addition, many countries in southern Africa are landlocked, thus increasing the cost of transporting fertilizer from the ports. Howard and Mungoma (1996) estimated that the use of mineral fertilizer fell by 70% following an increase in the cost of the inputs. The subregion also faces a rapid degradation of the miombo woodland, shortage of fodder, and decreasing access to fuelwood supplies (Kwesiga and Beniest, 1998). For example, Chidumayo (1987) estimated that Zambia alone loses ~200,000 ha of forests per year. Some of the key avenues for overcoming food insecurity and rural poverty in southern Africa include reversing soil fertility depletion, intensifying and diversifying land use with introduction of high-value products, and facilitating an appropriate policy environment for the smallholder farming sector. Although mineral fertilizer is still one of the best options for overcoming land depletion and increasing food production, the majority of the smallholder farmers are unable to afford and apply the fertilizers at the recommended rates and at the appropriate time because of high cost and delivery delays (Kwesiga et al., 2003; Akinnifesi et al., 2006). Low-cost technologies are needed on a scale wide enough to improve the livelihood of these farmers. This will require the adoption of new approaches to agriculture and rural development. Agroforestry has proven to be one of such approaches. For the past 15 years, farmers and researchers from different national and international institutions led by the International Centre for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF), otherwise known as the World Agroforestry Centre, have been combining their expertise and resources to develop agroforestry technologies and options to address some of these challenges facing smallholder agricultural production and the environment in the subregion. The different types of agroforestry technologies address specific human and environmental needs in southern Africa. These include fertilizer tree systems for replenishing soil fertility, rotational woodlots for solving fuelwood problems, fodder banks to supplement feed for livestock, and indigenous fruit trees for improving nutrition during the seasonal hunger periods and enhancing the preservation of indigenous plant genetic materials.
Agricultural enterprise and land management in the highlands of Kenya
This chapter focuses on the management of agricultural land by smallholder households in the highlands of Kenya. It draws mainly from several recent studies from the central highland areas near to the south and west of Mt. Kenya and the western highland areas to the north and west of Kisumu, which were led by the authors. The chapter also draws from a set of studies under the KAMPAP project.1 See the appendix for a description of the key papers used in this synthesis. The main purpose of this synthesis is to understand constraints and opportunities for improving agricultural productivity in a sustained manner. The comparison between the central and western highlands offers considerable insights because one area consists of relatively dynamic and productive agricultural systems (central), and the other is relatively stagnant and unproductive (western).
Reviewed work(s): The economics of sustainable development by Ian Goldin and Alan Winters
This book applies rigorous economic analysis to the question of sustainable development. It considers the inter-relationship between growth and sustainability showing that one does not necessarily exist to the detriment of the other. Sustainability may be measured and defined in national accounting terms and the contributors explore a potentially powerful theoretical definition. Case studies on Morocco and China examine some of the domestic policy requirements of sustainability, revealing the desirability of quite complex combinations of policies. International policy aspects of sustainability are considered, such as technology transfers and the establishment of workable agreements to reduce global pollution. The volume demonstrates the need to build the sustainability debate on sound economic foundations, and the ability of economists to provide such foundations.
Agroecological intensification of smallholder farming
This chapter is from the forthcoming Oxford Handbook of Food, Politics, and Society edited by Ronald Herring. The smallholder farmers who cultivate many of the planet’s diverse production systems are faced with numerous challenges, including poverty, shrinking farm sizes, degrading natural resources, and climate variability and change. Efforts to improve the performance of smallholder farming systems focus on improving access to input and output markets, improving farm resource use efficiency, and improving resources invested in smallholder farming. In order to support market-oriented production and self-provisioning, there is a need for greater focus on agroecological intensification (AEI) of smallholder production systems. This chapter provides an overview of some of the research frontiers supporting AEI. Market-oriented and agroecological approaches may or may not conflict, and more effort should be made to ensure that they are mutually reinforcing. To be reliable, value chains must be founded on sound production ecology. Agroecological options may be limited if farmers cannot participate in markets that support investment in the intensification and diversification of these systems. Because options must be adapted to farmers’ heterogeneous and dynamic contexts, successful AEI will require that specifics be optimized locally. Researchers must therefore understand and communicate relevant agroecological principles, and farmers and intermediaries must develop their capacity to adapt the principles to local needs and realities.
Balancing agricultural development and environmental objectives: assessing tradeoffs in the humid tropics
This volume so far has presented numerous issues opportunities and concerns from specific national and thematic perspectives on tropical forests and deforestation. This chapter attempts to pull these together through analysis of tradeoffs across those vari – ous perspectives. And indeed everyone in the world seems to want something from tropical forests. Forest dwellers want to continue aspects of their traditional way of life based on hunting and gathering while improving the welfare of themselves and their families. They are losing their land to migrant smallholders who clear small amounts of forest to earn a living by raising crops and livestock. Both these groups tend to lose out to larger more powerful interests—ranchers plantation owners large-scale farm – ers or logging concerns—whose aim is to convert large areas of forest into big money. Outside the forests is the international community who want to see forests preserved for the carbon they store which would otherwise contribute to global warming for the wealth of biological diversity they harbor and for the many other ecosystem ser – vices they provide. Deforestation continues because converting forests to other uses is almost always profitable for the individual household or firm that engages in it. However society as a whole bears the costs of lost biodiversity global warming smoke pollution and the degradation of water resources. Every year the world loses about 13 million ha of tropical forest an area more than three times the size of Belgium. None of the land use systems that replace this natural forest can match it in terms of biodiversity rich – ness and carbon storage. However the land use systems that replace the forest vary greatly in the degree to which they combine at least some environmental benefits with their contributions to economic growth and poor peoples’ livelihoods. Therefore it is always worth asking what will replace forest (and for how long) both under the cur – rent mix of policies institutions and technologies and compared with possible alter – natives some of which may leave forests largely intact. In other words what can and should be done to secure the best balance between the conflicting interests of different groups including some who are poor and experience chronic hunger?