Citation
Enhancing Agriculture in Africa: A Role for U.S. Development Assistance

Material Information

Title:
Enhancing Agriculture in Africa: A Role for U.S. Development Assistance
Creator:
United States. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment.
Publisher:
U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
326 p: ill., 1 map; 26 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Agricultural assistance, American -- Africa ( LCSH )
Agricultural innovations -- Africa ( LCSH )
Genre:
federal government publication ( marcgt )

Notes

General Note:
This report has gathered information on agricultural production throughout Sub-Saharan Africa, looked closely at specific, promising technologies such as agroforestry, small-scale irrigation, soil and water management, and the improved use of animals. As a result, it seems clear that low-resource agriculture has a sizable potential to contribute to increased African food security. Also, it is clear that low-resource agriculture must be enhanced in order to reach its full potential. This report identifies ways that U.S. development assistance can aid this process.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of North Texas
Holding Location:
University of North Texas
Rights Management:
This item is a work of the U.S. federal government and not subject to copyright pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §105.
Classification:
Y 3.T 22/2:2 Af 8 ( sudocs )

Aggregation Information

IUF:
University of Florida
OTA:
Office of Technology Assessment

Downloads

This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

Enhancing Agriculture in Africa: A Role for U.S. Development Assistance September 1988 NTIS order #PB89-137087

PAGE 2

Recommended Citation: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Enhancing Agriculture in Africa: A Role for U.S. Development Assistance, OTA-F-356 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1988). Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 87-619896 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325 (order form can be found in the back of this report)

PAGE 3

Foreword Few African farmers, herders, and fishers have adequate resources to assure continuous food supplies. For them, access to additional resources is vital, along with making the best use of existing capital, information, labor, equipment, etc. On the other hand, most U.S. farmers and ranchers have a larger endowment of resources, including the natural ones upon which agriculture depends ultimately. Nevertheless, increasing numbers of U.S. farmers are choosing to reduce resource use to cut input costs and increase profits. Now, broad interests worldwide seem to be converging on making the most of modest resources. This report examines the situation of African agriculturalists specifically. We anticipate, though, that many of the important lessons learned in Africa will become increasingly relevant to U.S. agricuhure. OTAs Technology Assessment Board, in June 1985, approved requests of three congressional committees and five Board members that OTA examine low-resource agriculture in Africa. OTA published its first results in a 1986 special report l that focused on development in the West African Sahel. OTAs first report examined the record of U.S. assistance to nine African nations, explored the lessons learned in a decade of efforts, and suggested policy alternatives to improve the effectiveness of U.S. assistance. This second report is cast more broadly. OTA has gathered information on agricultural production throughout Sub-Saharan Africa, looked closely at specific, promising technologies such as agroforestry, small-scale irrigation, soil and water management, and the improved use of animals. As a result, it seems clear that low-resource agriculture has a sizable potential to contribute to increased African food security. Also, it is clear that low-resource agriculture must be enhanced in order to reach its full potential. This report identifies ways that U.S. development assistance can aid this process. The committees that requested this study are: the House Select Committee on Hunger, the House Science and Technology Committee (the Subcommittee on Natural Resources, Agriculture Research, and Environment), and the House Agriculture committee. Of OTAs 1985 Technology Assessment Board, Senators Hatch, Kennedy, and Pen and Representatives Evans and Udall requested this work. Also, the House Foreign Affairs Committee supported OTAs assessment. The report draws on the expertise of a large number of people. We appreciate the assistance of our Advisory panel, the authors of contractor reports, workshop participants, and additional reviewers. Also, we owe a special debt to the Africans who responded to our request for their thoughts and advice on U.S. technical assistance and development policy. Of course, OTA remains responsible for the analysis and the report does not necessarily represent the views of individuals who participated in the study.

PAGE 4

Advisory Panel-Enhancing Agriculture in Africa: A Role for U.S. Development Assistance Mary B. Anderson, Chair Consultant in International Economic Development Eugene Adams Office of International Programs Tuskegee University Tuskegee, AL Haidari Amani Department of Economics University of Dar-es-Salaam Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania Leonard Berry Provost Office Clark University Worcester, MA David Brokensha Department of Anthropology University of California Santa Barbara, CA Cornelia Flora Department of Sociology, Anthropology and Social Work Kansas State University Manhattan, KS Jake Halliday Battelle-Kettering Laboratory Columbus, OH The Rev. Thomas Hayden Society for African Missions Washington, DC Michael Horowitz Institute for Development Anthropology Binghamton, NY Goran Hyden 2 Department of Political Science University of Florida Gainesville, FL Harvard University, Cambridge, MA Joseph Kennedy AFRICARE Washington, DC David Leonard Department of Political Science University of California Berkeley, CA Shem Migot-Adholla Department of Sociology University of Nairobi Nairobi, KENYA Elliot Morss 2 Center for Asian Development Studies Boston University Boston, MA Bede Okigbo International Institute of Tropical Agriculture Ibadan, NIGERIA Robert Rodale Rodale Press, Inc. Emmaus, PA John Scheuring 4 International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics Bamako, Mali Anita Spring College of Liberal Arts and Sciences University of Florida Gainesville, FL Helen Vukasin 5 Environment and Development Program CODEL New York, NY Aart van Wingerden Double Harvest, Inc. Fletcher, NC Garth Youngberg Institute for Alternative Agriculture Greenbelt, MD Executive Branch Liaisons Cheryl Christensen Economic Research Service U.S. Department of Agriculture Washington, DC Brian DSilva 7 Economic Research Service U.S. Department of Agriculture Washington, DC Howard L. Hill National Climate Program U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Rockville, MD Marcus Winter Africa Bureau U.S. Agency for International Development Washington, DC John Zarafonetis U.S. Peace Corps Washington, DC lResigned as of June 24, 1986. 2Appointed as of May 19, 1986. 3Resigned as of Apr. 24, 1986. 4 Appointed as of Feb. 12, 1986. 5Appointed as of J U l Y 15 1986. 6Resigned as of Sept. 26, 1986, 7 Appointed as of Sept. 27, 1986. NOTE: OTA gratefully acknowledges the members of this advisory panel for their valuable assistance and thoughtful advice. The panel does not, however, necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this report. OTA assumes full responsibility for the report and the accuracy of it contents. iv

PAGE 5

OTA Project Staff-Enhancing Agriculture in Africa: A Role for U.S. Development Assistance Roger C. Herdman, Assistant Director, OTA Health and Life Sciences Division Walter E. Parham, Food and Renewable Resources Program Manager Phyllis N. Windle, Project Director Bruce J. Horwith, Analyst Edward F. MacDonald, Analyst J. Kathy Parker, Analyst Allen M. Ruby, Research Analyst Chris Elfring, Editor Gregory Booth, Contractor Additional Analytical Staff for Special Report George Scharffenberger, Contractor Kathy Desmond, Contractor Administrativo Staff Beckie Erickson, z Sally Shafroth, 3 Administrative Assistants N. Ellis Lewis, Administrative Assistant Nellie Hammond, Secretary Carolyn Swann, Secretary 1 From March to August, 1986 2 Unti] December 1986. 3 Until May 1987.

PAGE 6

The work was back-breaking. Farmers in the Sahel were carrying rocks, really boulders, on their heads to block gullies and rebuild soil. Their grandparents grew cotton on this land but, after years of erosion, it was rock hard and bare. They came from the village to show us their work, proud of the wire-filled bags of rocks and the smidgins of soil beginning to accumulate around them. One farmer bowed as we met, welcoming visitors who had travelled far to see their efforts, and, maybe, giving us more respect as outside experts than we deserved. No, one of us responded, we should bow to you for the work you are doing here. Notes from an OTA field visit near Ouahigouya Burkina Faso, November 16, 1986.

PAGE 7

Contents Page Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii Chapter 1. Summary and Options . . . . . . . . . 3 Chapter 2. Prologue . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Part I: Low-Resource Agriculture and Development Assistance Chapter Chapter Chapter Chapter Part II: Chapter Chapter Chapter Chapter 3. The Status of Low-Resource Agriculture . . . . . . 45 4. A Resource-Enhancing Approach to African Agriculture ., 5. The Role of Technology in Enhancing Low-Resource Agricul 6. The Role of Foreign Assistance in a Resource-Enhancing Approach . . . . . . Promising Technologies 7. 8. 9. 10. Chapter 11. 12. Chapter Append Append ,. 77 ture 99 .,., 123 xA xB Improved Use of Soil and Water Resources . . . . ., .161 Soil and Water Management . . . . . ,.,.., ....161 Improving Soil Fertility . . . . . . . . . .170 small-scale Irrigation . . . . . . . . . ..178 Improved Cropping Practices . . . . . . ..., ..195 Intercropping . . . . . . . ...0..... ..., .195 Agroforestry . . . . . . . . . . . ..200 Crop and Livestock Genetic Improvement ..............,......21 3 Crop Breeding . . . . . . . . . ., ., .215 Animal Breeding . . . . . . . . . . ..226 Improved Use of Animals . . . . . . . . ..237 Appendix C. Appendix D. Appendix E. Index . Mixed Crop/Livestock Systems Using Small Ruminants . . ,243 Animal Traction. . . . . . . . . . ., ., .,245 Aquiculture. . . . . . . . . . . . ..248 Improved Systems To Reduce Losses . . . . . ..., .,257 Integrated pest Management . . . . . . . ,.257 Improving Animal Health . . . . . . . . .264 Post-Harvest Technologies . . . . . . ..........273 Epilogue . . . . . . . .............,.,...,287 The Assessments Contractor Reports . . . ., . ,297 Workshop Participants African Correspondents External Reviewers . The U.S. Department of Low-Resource Agricul ,$.... ....!.! . . ,.,, ,.,. ..,. Agri ture ,.,, . . . . . . . . 303 . . . . . ,.,.,,, ..,,.O 305 . . . ,.,,.., ..,,.,, ,,.,,, 308 cultures Database on . . . . . . . . 310 . . . . . . ,.,. OO 319

PAGE 8

Chapter 1

PAGE 9

CONTENTS Page Why Focus on Low-Resource Agriculture?. . . . . . . . 3 The Status of Low-Resource Agriculture . . . . . . . 3 Problems in the Face of Mounting Pressure . . . . . . 9 A Resource-Enhancing Approach to African Agriculture . . . . 10 The Role of Technology . . . . . . . . . . . 13 A Promising Technological Framework . . . . . . . 13 Promising Technologies . . . . . . . . . . 14 The Role of Foreign Assistance . . . . . . . . . 17 Congress and a Resource-Enhancing Approach . . . . . 17 Three Categories of Assistance . . . . . . . . . 18 AID and a Resource-Enhancing Approach . . . . . . 20 The Road Ahead . . . . . . . . . ....,,,., 20 Findings and Options . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Box 1-1 1-2 1-3 Boxes Page Faces of Low-Resource Agriculture . . . . . . . 4 African Agroecological Zones and Primary Food Commodities. .....,. 6 Building on Low-Resource Agriculture . . . . . . . 10 Tables Table Page l-1. Low-Resource Agriculture and African Staple Food Production ..,.... 8 l-2. Promising Technologies and Practices by Agroecological Zone. ...,.., 14 l-3. Findings and Congressional Options for Enhancing Low-Resource Agriculture in Africa . . . . . . . 22

PAGE 10

Chapter 1 Summary and Options Low-resource agriculture is a form of agriculture practiced by a diverse group of farmers, herders, and fishers that is based primarily on the use of local resources but that may make modest use of external inputs, including information and technology. It is the predominant form of agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa, and it is the major source of food production, employment, and rural income. Although low-resource agriculture has been the basis for the regions food securityl in the past, it can no longer meet the continents increasing needs. Nevertheless, lowresource agriculture has the potential to be imI Food security is a critical goal in Africa. It is access by all people at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life. Its essential elements are availability of food and ability to acquire it [Poverty and Hunger: Issues and Options for Food Security proved substantially, and technology and U.S. development assistance can contribute to these changes. The purpose of this assessment is to examine technologies that show promise to help the heterogeneous group of Africans who practice lowresource agriculture. Also, OTAs goal is to provide Congress with a range of options which, if pursued, would help Africans increase their ability to assure, on a long-term basis, timely, reliable, and nutritionally adequate food supplies. in Developing Countries, Washington, DC: The World Bank, 1986). This can include dependab~e, long-term access to food through local production, or through the power to purchase food via local, national, regional, or international markets. Africa is larger than the United States, western Europe, and China combined, and it is a continent of varied cultures and environments. This diversity is reflected in how agriculture is practiced, so the specific nature of how people farm, herd, or fish varies greatly from place to place and there is no such thing as a typical African farm. Nevertheless, some common elements can be seen in African agriculture. One consistent aspect is its prominent place in African economies. Agriculture employs about three-quarters of Sub-Saharan Africas labor force and accounts for about one-third the regions gross domestic product. Also, about one-half of the countries in the region derive at least 40 percent of their export earnings from agricultural products. Further, despite major increases in food imports in the last two decades, the region produces a high proportion of its own foodat least 80 percent of cereals, 95 percent of meat, 75 percent of dairy products, and almost all roots and tubers. More specific similarities in African agriculture can also be found among the large majority of African farming systems that can be termed low-resource agriculture. Low-resource agriculture is difficult to quantify because use of modern inputs (e.g., commercial fertilizers and hybrid seeds), scale of operation, proportion of crops sold, and income vary widely (box 1-1). The majority of resource-poor farmers and herders are on the lower-to-middle end in the use of these inputs, size of holdings, and cash income, however. Some use virtually no external inputs, earn little money, and produce goods primarily for their own familys consumption. Large-scale commercial ranches and farms that rely up greater amounts of inputs are not considered low-resource; such operations probably contribute no more than 5 percent of Africas food production. 3

PAGE 11

4 Box 1-1.Faces of Low-Resource Agriculture Definitions sometimes do not capture the essence of the activity being defined. Perhaps the best way to understand low-resource agriculture is to imagine how a resource-poor farmer or herder actually lives. A Farmer: Sindima is a farmer in Malawi. She is in her late thirties and lives with her five children in an area with relatively good soils and dependable rainfall. Her husband left to find work in the city and she sees him infrequently, so she heads the household, manages the farm, and does almost all the work. She farms about 2 1/2 hectares and is able to feed her family and produce some crops to sell. By local standards, Sindima is affluent. A development assistance program has been active in her village, so she belongs to a farmers club and has access to the extension agent for information and credit for some fertilizer and improved seeds. With this help, she plants a fairly complicated mix of crops: hybrid and local maize, groundnuts, beans, a little tobacco, and a variety of local vegetables. She uses the hybrid maize and fertilizer on about one-half hectare, but she continues to plant local maize even though it it less productive because it tastes better and is less susceptible to insect damage in storage. Sindimas fields require heavy laborwith preparation, planting, weeding, and harvesting all timed to keep the land in production as long as the rains last. She also has household responsibilities: caring for the children, grinding maize, gathering firewood, cooking; she even brews a little beer to sell at the market. Her children helpthe older girls walk to the well twice each day to get water and help search for firewoodbut she can afford to pay their school fees so she encourages them to get an education. A Nomadic Herder: Mossa is in his forties and has always lived north of Timbukto, Mali, in the vast, dry area of West Africa known as the Sahel. Mossas nomadic community consists of about 10 related families who move together with their livestock seeking pasture and water. Animals are the core of life for Mossa, his wife, and their seven children. Cattle, sheep, and goats provide milk, butter, cheese, and, for special occasions, meat. Their heavy tentsstrong enough to withstand high winds, sand storms, and the driving rain of the wet seasonare made of hides, as are their sandals and many household goods. When the family needs grain or other goods, Mossa trades what he must from the herd. Mossa learned to manage his herd from his father, and through trial and error. He has a good understanding of breeding and, while Western veterinary medicine is not generally available, he has a variety of traditional, and often effective, methods to treat his animals. To Mossa and his family the herd is more than a source of income. It is a measure of their status and security. Livestock are their bank account, their way of saving resources for bad times in a land that has unpredictable but frequent droughts. Life has changed dramatically for Mossa over the past few years. He has far more contact with other people, and he buys more goods and food. His access to the land is changing, too. Some of the productive lands he once grazed have deteriorated, like in the place where the government dug a deep well and too many animals stripped the land of all vegetation when they came to drink, Crop farmers have taken over other of his traditional lands. During the last drought, Mossa was unable to feed his family and, for the first time had to turn to international organizations for food aid. Mossa has not recovered from that drought, when he lost more than half of his herd. He is uncertain how he will fare if another drought strikes soon. l Sindima and Mossa are fictional, but these profiles are composites drawn from the lives of real African people. SOURCES: American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), Tin Aicha Nomad Vi]]age (Philadelphia, PA: AFSC, 1982); Michael Horowitz, The Sociology of PWordism and African Livestock Projects, AID Program Evaluation Discussion Paper No. 6 (Washington, DC: Bureau for Program and Policy Coordination, AID, May 1979]; George Scharffenburger, Consultant, Washington, DC, personal communication, 1987; Anita Spring, Associate Dean, College of Liberal Arts, University of Florida, Gainesville, personal communication, 1987; and Profiles of Men and Women Smallholder Farmers in the Lilongwe Rural Development Project, Malawri, report to Office of Women in Development, U.S. Agency for International Development, Washington, DC, March 1984.

PAGE 12

5 Although the agricultural systems that comprise low-resource agriculture are typically complex, diverse, and changing, they generally share these characteristics: l l l l l they strive to minimize risk, even if this means they obtain less than maximum yields; they depend on local knowledge; they depend on biological processes and renewable resources; they involve low cash costs but often require relatively high amounts of labor; and thev are adapted to local cultures and environments, although social and ecological systems are showing increasing strains under growing pressures. Agroecological factors, e.g., rainfall patterns, soil types, and animal diseases, also help define low-resource agriculture (box 1-2). Different crops and types of livestock have different relative importance in the Arid and Semi-Arid Tropics, the Subhumid Tropical Uplands, the Humid Lowlands, and the Tropical and Subtropical Highlands. For example, millet and sorghum are the predominant crops in arid and semi-arid regions, largely because of their greater drought tolerance. Maize is grown more commonly in areas with increased rainfall. Roots, tubers, and plantains are the major source of calories in the Humid Lowlands. Similarly, cattle are the dominant livestock in arid and semi-arid, sub-humid, and highland regions, whereas small ruminantssheep and goatsdominate in humid lowlands because of their greater tolerance to trypanosomiasis. Notwithstanding these general crop and livestock production patterns, descriptions based on a single commodity create an inaccurate picture of low-resource agriculture. African farming systems tend to be highly diversified, producing a wide array of crops and several types of livestock. Diversified agricultural systems help provide food throughout the year, reduce the risk of crop failure, and modulate peak labor demands. Low-resource agriculture can be further described by the importance of non-farm activities such as soap-making, crafts, and non-farm wage employment. An estimated 25 to 40 percent of all household labor is devoted to nonfarm income producing activities. Farm and non-farm tasks are commonly divided by gender and age, with certain tasks allocated to children and the elderly. Women are the major food producers in most African countries and account for almost half of the agricultural labor force that produces food and non-food crops. In general, then, low-resource agriculture meets multiple needs for families and requires balancing scarce endowments of land, labor, capital, and other resources. This calls for complex decisionmaking and facing difficult tradeoffs. A greater appreciation exists now of the efficiency and skill of resource-poor farmers and herders, although their agricultural systems were once perceived to be inefficient and haphazard. In a broader picture, low-resource agriculture is the predominant type of agriculture practiced throughout Africa and it makes a crucial contribution to food securityboth the availability of food and the ability to buy it. It is the source of most of Africas food, a primary income and employment source for the majority of Africans, a source of foreign exchange, and a means used to buffer against food shortfalls and famine by many of Africas people most vulnerable to poverty. Low-resource agriculture produces the majority of grain; almost all root, tuber, and plaintain crops; and the majority of food legumes (table l-l). In addition, a great variety of secondary crops, such as fruits and vegetables, are grown under low-resource conditions to supplement these staples. An estimated 74 percent of all livestock are raised on farms where crop production is the primary source of subsistence and livestock are an important source of cash income. And approximately 20 percent of livestock production occurs in pastoral systems, which are low-resource by nature. Fish is a primary source of animal protein for much of Africa. An estimated 85 to 95 percent of African fish harvest is from small-scale operations that do not use expensive equipment or inputs.

PAGE 13

6 Box 1-2.African Agroecological Zones and Primary Food Commodities Length of growing Agroecological zone period a (days) Annual rainfall primary food commodities Arid and Semi-Arid Tropics 1-74 (arid) 100-1,000 mm 75-180 (semi-arid) Subhumid Tropical uplands Humid Lowlands Tropical and Subtropical Highlands 180-270 900-1,500 mm Bimodal rainfall in East Africa 270 + 1,500+ mm Bimodal rainfall Variable Variable Little cultivation in arid areas. Millet and sorghum predominant, with millet grown in drier areas. Maize in wetter areas and rice in river basins. Food legumes (e.g., cowpeas and groundnuts) important and some roots and tubers grown in wetter areas. Approximately 60/0 of Africas ruminant livestock (goats, sheep, cattle, and camels) raised here by both nomadic and settled pastoralists. Sorghum and maize are the most important cereals, with sorghum preferred in drier areas. Roots, tubers, and plantains are important. Food legumes and rice also produced. Two-thirds of the zone are affected by trypanosomiasis (spread by the tsetse fly) which inhibits livestock production, NDama and Zebu cattle are the economically most important livestock followed by goats and sheep. Roots, tubers, and plantains predominate (e.g., cassava, yams, etc.) Some maize, rice, and sorghum. Trypanosomiasis exists throughout the zone precluding almost all but the small trypano-tolerant NDama cattle and tolerant goats and sheep. Some poultry and swine production. Mixed farming (livestock and crops raised on same farm) prevails. Predominant cereals are maize and sorghum. Roots and tubers (especially sweet potatoes) are important in specific countries. Plantains and food legumes are also grown, The absence of trypanosomiasis and availability of good fodder allow a stocking density four times the average. aLength of growing period is the period when hoth moisture and temperature permit crop growth. SOURCES: U.S. Agency for International Development, Bureau for Africa, P/an for Supporting Natural Resources Management in Sub-Saharan Africa, (Washington, DC: USAID, February 1986). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, African Agriculture: The Next 25 Years: Atlas of African Agriculture (Rome, FAO: 1986). International Livestock Center for Africa, ILCA Annual Report 1983 (Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: ILCA, 1984).

PAGE 14

7 Western Sahara

PAGE 15

8 Table 1-1 .Low-Resource Agriculture and African Staple Food Production a Minimum estimate of low-resource Crop/livestock/fish External input use b production Millet Sorghum Maize Rice Food legumes (e.g., cowpeas, pigeon peas, beans, and groundnuts) Roots, tubers, and plaintain (e.g., cassava, yam, cocoyam, and sweet potato) Cattle Small ruminants and other livestock (e.g., sheep, goats, poultry, and swine) Fish Virtually no use of fertilizers and very little use of improved seed. Basically the same situation as millet, but hybrids and commercial inputs are becoming more important in some areas. At least 75 percent produced without hybrid seeds and with less than recommended fertilizer levels but probably as much as two-thirds produced with non-hybrid improved seed and moderate levels of fertilizer. At least 75 percent produced using less than recommended levels of fertilizer and receiving inadequate irrigation (and no more than 5 percent using High-Yielding Varieties). Most crops of this diverse group receive virtually no commercial inputs, but some production is under higher resource conditions (e.g., up to 50 percent of of groundnut production). Virtually no use of fertilizers or improved seed. Some high-resource banana production for export. Six percent produced on ranches, generally considered high-resource; 20 percent produced by pastoralists, virtually all under low-resource conditions except for occasional veterinary care; 74 percent produced in mixed farms, a minority of this under higher resource condition, such as dairy farming in some highland areas, Almost all sheep, goats, and camels raised under low-resource conditions; most swine and poultry produced under low-resource conditions, but increasingly more produced under higher resource conditions, especially near some urban areas. As much as 85 to 95 percent caught in small-scale artisanal fisheries mostly under low-resource conditions, though increasingly fishers are using outboard motors; the remainder is harvested by large-scale offshore operations mainly by foreign-owned vessels 720/o 61 /0 37 /0 760/o 55% groundnuts 49 beans 93% cassava 100% yams 100% cocoyam aAggregate agricultural data for Africa usually do not detail levels of external input use but only whether or not such inputs are used. This table shows the importance of low-resource production in two ways: first, It describes the type of input use for the production of specific commodities and second, it sets a minimum boundary on the volume of low-resource production of specific crops, based on estimates of low-input agriculture production in eight African countries. bColumn 2 provides descriptions of the types and levels of external inputs used for specific products. These descriptions help to locate where the majority of production takes place along the range of modern input use. The descriptions were compiled from a set of technology papers written for OTA (app. A) and from additional outside publications. cColumn 3 represents an effort. establish quantitative estimates of the minimum contribution of low-resource agriculture. The data show production under conditions of no modern input use for eight sample countries. These eight countries account for at least 50 percent of African production of maize, sorghum, millet, cocoyam, and no less than 30 percent of cassava, groundnut, and rice production. The data were compiled by the Economic Research Service of the US. Department of Agriculture for OTA (see app. E). SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1988. A large majority of the estimated three-quarraise food crops for local use under low-reters of Africas labor force in agriculture is source conditions. National export earnings are resource-poor. The sale of food and other agrilikely to drop when such farmers cannot purcultural products typically accounts for some chase food reliably and, as a consequence, de60 to 80 percent of the income of rural African vote more of their own production to food crops producers. and less to export crops. Also, low-resource agriculture makes imporResource-poor agriculturalists commonly tant contributions to national food security by face periods of inadequate food availability eiproviding a part of export earnings. A sizable ther during seasonal shortfalls or more irregupart, perhaps the majority, of export crops are lar famines. Many agricultural practices, such produced by small farmers who simultaneously as diversification to decrease the risk of total

PAGE 16

9 crop failure, cassava production, bush collection of wild foods, as well as social means to share food, buffer against these periods of hunger. For example, cassava is known as a poor persons crop: it is a highly productive staple that grows in low-fertility soils, requires little labor, and can be stored in the ground until hard times come between harvests. Problems in the Face of Mounting Pressure African agriculture has continuously and, for the most part, effectively adapted to meet changing conditions. But never before has it had to respond to the level of pressures it currently faces. Paramount is the pressure created by rapidly growing populations and the consequent demands on the land. The African continent has the most rapidly growing population in the world: 2.9 percent per year in 1988. Even if this rate slows slightly as expected, the continent will have triple its current population to feed within just 40 years. Resulting intensified land use is evident in most regions in reduced fallow periods and, in some areas, falling yields and natural resource degradation. Fallow periods have dropped from 12 years to 2 years or less in Burkina Faso and from 20 years to 5 years in Angola. The shorter fallow periods can reduce yields by as much as 25 to 75 percent, and can increase weeds, soil acidity, and erosion. Many experts anticipate further yield decreases due to land degradation, continued deforestation, especially along the West African coast, and greater fuelwood scarcity. Per capita food production and income, as well as nutritional levels, are dropping in most areas. From the late 1960s to the late 1970s, Africa changed from a net exporter of staple foods to a net importer. In 1986, the value of exports in 22 countries was not sufficient to pay for imports. Not only is the overall trend to decreasing incomes, it is also one of increasing disparity of income between rich and poor farmers and herders. Under normal circumstances, low-resource agriculture provides most countries in SubSaharan Africa with adequate nourishment. At the same time, its ability to meet Africans food needs is declining. This is the only region of the world where the average energy in peoples daily diet decreased in the past decade. Although malnutrition generally is not perceived as a pervasive problem except during famine, a significant level of chronic malnutrition exists and as many as 90 percent of the malnourished people are resource-poor agriculturalists. No doubt low-resource agriculture can do better, but a number of biophysical and socioeconomic constraints exist that retard progress. Generally, African soils are low in fertility and rainfall is unpredictable in many areas and low throughout much of the continent. Consequently, only 16 percent of the total land area is without serious biophysical limitations to agriculture. Also, competition for land between farmers and pastoralists; limitations of labor and capital to invest in agricultural improvements; and infrastructural weaknesses make it difficult to take advantage of new technologies and other improvements. In addition, many national policies have been unsupportive of lowresource agriculture, including the lack of investment in agricultural development and research and development policies that have not addressed the needs of resource-poor farmers and herders. Lack of investment in agricultural research is among the serious constraints to agricultural intensification. Research expenditures by national governments decreased $80 million between 1980 and 1984, from $465 million to $385 million. Research priorities and methods often do not reflect African realities, for example, women do not receive extension services in proportion to their agricultural contributions, and crops such as cassava are researched less than their prominence in poor peoples lives would justify. Many research organizations are plagued by lack of operating funds, low quality facilities, high staff turnover, and few incentives to work with poor farmers and herders.

PAGE 17

10 A RESOURCE-ENHANCIN6 APPROACH TO AFRICAN AGRICULTURE Despite its constraints, low-resource agriculture is the major food producer and the major employer in most African countries. It is impractical to abandon traditional systems when so many people stand to be adversely affected and when the systems have an untapped potential to be enhanced. This optimism is based on: the central role this type of agriculture already plays, the vast number of people already involved, the economic efficiency apparent on the small-farm sector in Africa, and the significant capacity seen for technical improvements in current agricultural systems. In addition, if low-resource agriculture is ignored it is likely that food security will decrease, bringing unknown social impacts, and environmental degradation will continue, perhaps irreversibly. No viable alternative to low-resource agriculture exists in much of Africa today. Low-resource agriculture can be enhanced using an approach that builds on the best of existing African agriculture while taking advantage of external inputs, information, and improved techniques (see box 1-3). This, however, presents a great challenge for development assistancehow to pursue an approach that builds on the potential strengths of low-resource agriculture while alleviating the constraints. From its analysis of low-resource agricuhure and how it is practiced in Africa, OTA found four fundamental concepts that provide insight into why low-resource agriculture has been successful in the past and how these potentials might be enhanced in the future. Using these concepts as crucial starting points, OTA developed guidelines that could be used to redirect development assistance to improve its effectiveness: Concept 1: Most African agricultural systems, although once sustainable, are no longer keeping pace with the increased demands being placed on them. Thus, development assistance should be designed to: l place a high priority on environmental, economic, social, and institutional sustainability; Box 1-3.Bui1ding on Low-Resource Agriculture In the 19th century, in the Zinder region of Niger, there was a kind of tree so valuable that the sultan decreed that people found cutting it would lose their heads. Later, in Senegal, the same trees were carefully nurtured as part of a balanced system of crops and livestock. The tree helped maintain continuous cropping of millet in the Sudan for 15 to 20 years in areas where the norm was 3 to 5 years. In each case, the species involved was Acacia albidaa fastgrowing, leguminous tree native to Africa. It is a species that today is receiving renewed attention from the development assistance community as a way to benefit people and the land. First, Acacia trees are legumes and so fix nitrogen from the air, thus, enriching the soil and improving crop yields. Another advantage is that at the onset of the rainy season the species drops its leaves, providing a leaf mulch that further enriches the topsoil. During this wet season, which is when sorghum and millet are produced, the defoliated canopy permits enough light to penetrate for cereal growth, yet provides enough shading to reduce the effects of the intense heat. During the dry season, the Acacia's long taproot draws nutrients from beyond the reach of other plants and stores these in its fruits and leaves. The leaves drop to the ground with the onset of the next rainy season, providing a highly nutritious forage for livestock. The livestock dung, as an added benefit, helps enrich the soil even further. Each of these benefits is important in places where few alternatives exist for improving soil fertility and crop yields. l acknowledge the importance of sound natural resource management as a basis for improved and stable agricultural production; Q acknowledge that resource-poor agriculturalists are the primary custodians of their environment and, therefore, ensure that they benefit from development assis-

PAGE 18

11 tance to manage natural resources better; and l focus on enhancing the capability of Africans to assume primary responsibility for their development as the surest route to sustainability. Concept 2: Africas heterogeneous mixture of resource-poor farmers, herders, and fishers have responded to a high degree of uncertainty and vulnerability with diverse and flexible strategies. Often these strategies minimize risk while seeking optimum stable yields, commonly at the expense of maximum yields. Thus, development assistance should be designed to: l accommodate the diverse and flexible approaches typical of resource-poor agriculturalists: this would include enhancing their ability to manage risk, retaining their flexible household organizations, encouraging diversification of incomegenerating activities, and supporting indigenous experimentation and innovation in the agricultural system; l design, implement, monitor, and evaluate policies, economic strategies, and technologies for their differing effects on people of different ages, genders, ethnic groups, and economic status; and l have available a variety of interventions (policies, programs, projects, and institutions) so that the ones most appropriate to the varied and changing needs of resource-poor agriculturalists can be selected. Long-term monitoring and feedback should be used to adjust development activities so they remain useful and relevant as peoples needs and conditions change. Concept 3: Local resourcessuch as local peoples skills, knowledge, practices, and institutions, plus indigenous plants and animals reflect adaptations to the diverse local conditions found in Sub-Saharan Africa. Thus, development assistance should be designed to: l make local participation an integral part of the initiation, design, implementation, l l l monitoring, and evaluation of development assistance projects; ensure that African women, who in the past have not received the share of development assistance that their role in agriculture warrants, become full participants in the development process; make increased use of local organizations, including assistance to improve existing organizations; and build on local resources, such as indigenous plants and animals and peoples knowledge of how to use them. These resources have been largely untapped by development assistance agencies and they often can be improved. Concept 4: Low-resource agriculture in Africa is based on farming systems that have interacting ecological, social, and economic components, and these farming systems are linked, in turn, to other, larger systems beyond the farm. Thus, development assistance should be designed to: l account for the integrated nature of lowresource agriculture and how these interrelationships affect the success or failure of interventions; and l improve the links between farms and external systems such as markets, extension systems, and transportation networks. The guidelines above reflect the need for development assistance to be long-term, dynamic, flexible, and to incorporate a mixture of approaches. They build on the strengths inherent in African agriculture, and are meant to direct development assistance so it supports the ongoing evolution of how low-resource agriculture is practiced. This resource-enhancing approach alone will not be sufficient for agricultural development in Africa, but it could be carried out in conjunction with other development assistance approaches such as increasing non-farm employment and improving rural peoples health and education. The resource-enhancing approach described here shares some common elements with other agricultural development strategies promoted by donors, but some significant differences also

PAGE 19

12 exist. For instance, many development strategies seek to improve agriculture as the primary mechanism to further overall national economic development. And within this agricultural sector, a number of approaches focus on small-scale farmers and not commercial or state-run farms. The approaches differ, however, on how best to implement this agricultural assistance. A resource-enhancing approach seeks growth with equityone hallmark of the New Directions/basic human needs approach to U.S. development assistance in the 1970s. Also, it draws upon approaches that were developed to respond to significant faults in the New Directions approach. The need for appropriate policy changes to spur national economic growth is drawn from the Policy Reform approach of the 1980s: the need to establish appropriate trade policy and exchange rates, to increase the efficiency of the public sector, and to develop supportive agricultural policies. Also, agriculture has specific technical and institutional needs that can be met by strengthening Africans capabilities, as elaborated by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Also, OTA finds that enhancing low-resource agriculture requires that significant attention be paid to the specific needs of resource-poor farmer, herders, and fishers. That is, policy reform must: l l l assess the effects of policy changes on the poor and include measures to protect them from adverse effects; build African capacity to implement needed policy changes; and explore links between micro-level activities and macro-level reform. Current implementation of the Policy Reform approach does not emphasize these factors. More technically oriented a preaches, such as IFPRIs, that aim to aid resource-poor farmers and herders also need to focus on specific needs: l choosing technology for its suitability to low-resource conditions; l giving high priority to areas where natural resource degradation is serious; l linking research to identified needs; and l providing farmers and herders with a broader role in agricultural development. A resource-enhancing approach would emphasize these areas more than current technical approaches do. These approaches are ones primarily developed by donors, with varying degrees of input from individual Africans and African governments. While donors have the responsibility to tailor work to their own goals, the lack of African involvement in determining development strategies has been a weakness of most foreign assistance. OTA surveyed some 40 African researchers and policymakers for their specific evaluation of OTAs approach for enhancing low-resource agriculture and to gather their suggestions about ways to improve the effectiveness of U.S. development assistance. These experts stessed the diversity of African agriculturehow problems and thus solutions can vary significantly from country to country. As a result, no single approach should be used to the exclusion of others. Most found OTAs analysis generally consistent with their perceptions of agricultural needs, but they did not want it to be the sole strategy of U.S. development assistance. Nor should it be perceived to maintain subsistence agriculture instead of contributing to its transformation. Africans also emphasized the importance of increasing African capacity to deal with problems, whether by supporting education and training, institutional development (especially research), or local organizations. The starting point, many believe, is working with the technology and resources available to the majority of the people. They also expressed their hope that assistance would have a long-term focus, be free of undue political motivations, and have development as its goal. Is this possible? Some doubt that U.S. development assistance, because much of it focuses on top-down approaches and on providing food aid, can support a resourceenhancing approach without major changes in U.S. philosophy and implementation.

PAGE 20

13 THE ROLE OF TECHNOLOGY African agriculture faces a major challenge in the next few decadesit will need to double production to keep pace with a growing population and provide an adequate source of household income to purchase additional food. Although traditional, extensive, shifting agriculture will remain important in a few regions, the vast majority of the continents agriculturalists will have to move toward a more intensified, permanent agriculture where more inputs (including information and management) are used. Technology has always played an important role in this process throughout the world. Therefore, technological innovation to enhance low-resource agricultural systems will be a major factor in determining Africas ability to meet the challenges ahead. A Promising Technological Framework The technological framework with the most promise for promoting food security in Africa calls for an evolution of existing agricultural systems. More rapid improvements are possible in high-potential areas, but these areas are in a minority and changes there will not address the needs of the majority of farmers and herders who have few resources. Thus, few areas can expect rapid and widespread technological change like that which occurred in Asia. African soils are generally poorer, water and labor are often less available, human and institutional resources are less well-developed, and a number of major crops have been little researched. To be successful given the great diversity present in African farming systems, an equally diverse array of technologies adapted to local social, economic, and environmental conditions is needed. Although Africa will benefit from global agricultural research, African problems will require a greater emphasis on Africaspecific solutions. Three efforts could contribute to this process: increasing African research capacity through human and institutional development; improving links among researchers, extension agents, farmers and herders; and giving greater emphasis to on-farm adaptive research with a farming systems perspective. Technologies developed to support low-resource agriculture should reflect the high premium this approach places on risk aversion and the need to maintain flexibility in the face of uncertainty and limited access to resources. Farmers throughout the world are justifiably conservative when failure of technology could mean bankruptcy or even starvation. Therefore, many practices of low-resource agriculture ensure at least some production in bad periods, even at the expense of higher yields under more favorable conditions. To date, most agricultural research has emphasized maximum production Photo credit: Consortium for International Crop Protection Technology plays an important role in intensifying agricultural production. Crop breeding for millet and other African crops is likely to be one of the best investments in enhancing low-resource agriculture.

PAGE 21

14 even though other concerns face poor farmers, herders, and fishers. For example, intercropping, a practice in which crops are grown together in an intermixed fashion helps to reduce risk of one crops failure. Yet, only 20 percent of International Agricultural Research Center funding involves intercropping, although some 80 percent of African food is grown as intercrops. Technological flexibility is also needed because agricultural conditions will continue to change, and at different rates, throughout Africa. Development of technology needs to build in the flexibility to react to anticipated and unanticipated events. Rapidly growing populations, migration of young men to urban areas, and the growing number of femaleheaded households all have implications for the development and dissemination of technology. Currently, resource-poor farmers, herders, and fishers rely primarily on resources internal to the farm or their immediate environment. These include sunlight, rain, nutrients from plant and animal wastes, and local labor. Eventually additional external resources (purchased fertilizers, machinery, etc.) will be available but this shift to increased use of external resources is likely to be slow and gradual in many areas. Consequently, technologies that rely on local resources, labor, and institutions should be emphasized over the near term. Much development assistance has bypassed the majority of African farmers and herders because it emphasized external resource use instead. Thorough economic analysis is needed to determine the feasibility of all technological interventions, but especially to make sound choices between using external and internal inputs. Farmers and herders knowledge is among the internal resources available for developing useful, acceptable, and affordable technology. Their participation in identifying problems and solutions would enhance the effectiveness of technical assistance. Existing agricultural practices could be the starting point of a process combining the best of traditional and modern technologies. This requires, for example, that farmers and herders be part of research teams, that their nonformal experiments be incorporated into research plans, and that units of measure be meaningful to them. Promising Technologies Much uncertainty surrounds the issue of whether the technology exists to fit within such a framework and whether it can transform lowresource agriculture. It is clear, though, that some technologies and practices do exist that show high potential for wider application in the farming and herding systems of Africa (table 1-2). These promising technologies have often been overlooked and underused by development assistance agencies even though some have been developed with the agencies support. Table 1-2.promising Technologies and Practices by Agroecological Zone a Technology and practices Zone b Primary benefits Improved use of soil and water resources Soil and water management Recession farming . . A,S,H Labor-efficient method of growing crops using water from annual floods; expands area under cultivation Water harvesting microcatchments . . A,S Increase water available from rainfall Planting and building bunds on the contour . . . A,S,H,T Increase water available from rainfall; reduce soil erosion Tied ridges . . . . A,S Increase water available from rainfall Drainage practices . . H,T Enable production on land that would otherwise be waterlogged Terracing . . . . T Reduces water and soil runoff; enables cultivation on steep slopes Minimum tillage, mulching and other soil-conserving vegetation practices . S,H,T Prepare land without incurring costs of plowing (soil erosion, excessive leaching and compaction); organic residues and mulch help maintain fertility, reduce water and soil runoff

PAGE 22

15 Table 1-2.Promising Technologies and Practices by Agroecological Zone a Continued Technology and practices Zone b Primary benefits Improving soil fertility Biological nitrogen fixation Vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizae. . . . Manuring . . . . Phosphate rock . . . Commercial fertilizers . . Small-scale irrigation Gravity diversion: channeled systems . . Gravity diversion: poldered systems. . . Mechanically fed: water lifting. . . . Mechanically fed: water pumping . . Improved cropping practices Intercropping . . . . Home gardens . . . . Agroforestry Dispersed field tree intercropping . . Alley cropping . . . Windbreaks . . . . Live fencing and other linear planting. . . . Genetic improvements Crop breeding. . . . . Animal breeding . . . Improved use of animals Mixed crop/livestock systems using small ruminants . . Animal traction. . . . Aquaculture. . . . . A,S,H,T A,S,H,T S,H,T A,S,H,T A,S,H,T A,T A,S,H A,S A,S,H,T A,S,H,T A,S,H,T A,S S,H,T A,S,H,T A,S,H,T A,S,H,T A,S,H,T A,S,H,T A,S,H,T A,S,H,T improved systems to reduce pest-loss Integrated pest management Quarantines. . . . . A,S,H,T Host resistance . . . A,S,H,T Cultural controls . . . A,S,H,T Biological controls. . . A,S,H,T Pesticides . . . . A,S,H,T Post-harvest technologies . A,S,H,T Improving animal health Veterinary support . . A,S,H,T Animal nutrition . . . A,S,H,T Increases nitrogen availability Increase phosphorus availability Increases soil organic matter and soil fertility Increases phosphorus availability Increase soil fertility Increase water availability Increase water availability Increases water availability increases water availability Reduces risk of crop failure; increases seasonal availability of food; reduces pest and disease problems; improves efficiency of resource use increase seasonal availability of food; improves nutrition in the diet Increases soil organic matter; provides source of fodder, fuelwood, poles Increases soil organic matter; provides source of fodder, fuelwood, poles Decrease wind damage, especially to seedlings; decrease evapotranspiration; provide source of fodder, fuelwood, poles Provides source of fodder, fuelwood, poles, fencing Provides resistance to diseases and pests; tolerance to environmental stress; improves yield Provides resistance to diseases and pests; tolerance to environmental stress; improves yield increase income; improve diet; reduce risk through diversification Reduces drudgery; improves labor productivity; extends area of cultivation Provides source of protein; recycled nutrients; source of income Reduce risk of accidental introduction of pests improves resistance to pests and disease Reduce pest populations by manipulating farming practices, especially by intercropping and rotating crops Reduce pest populations by using natural enemies Reduce pest populations by using natural or synthetic biocides to kill pests, limit their fertility, or disrupt pest development Improve processing and storage of foods; improve nutrition; reduce labor Reduces animal mortality and morbidity Increases productivity; improves feed use efficiency; reduces susceptibility to disease aSee box 3.4 for a map of Africas agroecological zones. bKey to agroecological zones: A = Arid/Semi. Arid, S = Subhumid Tropical Uplands, H = Humid Lowlands, T = Tropical and subtropical Highlands SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1988

PAGE 23

16 An important consideration in choosing the technologies reviewed in this report was their likelihood of being adopted by resource-poor agriculturalists, including influences such as expense, accessibility, and cultural acceptability. Some technologies already are in use, but show potential to be improved (e.g., made more productive, easier to use, or less expensive). Others are relatively new, but agriculturalists are likely to accept them because the technologies are well-matched to their needs and resources. Accordingly, promising technologies are l l l l judged by their ability to be: Technically and environmentally sound. This means they are able at least to stabilize, if not increase, production while conserving natural resources. Socially desirable. This means promising technologies address farmer-identified problems and operate within the constraints faced by farmers, and that they attempt to minimize the disruption of existing farming systems. It also means technologies are designed so farmers can take additional steps toward modernization as such changes become feasible. Economically affordable. This means that resource-poor farmers, herders, and fishers are able to obtain and maintain the technologies. Within the context of lowresource agriculture, this will generally emphasize the use of internal resources over externally purchased inputs. Sustainable. This means that it is feasible environmentally, socially, economically, and institutionally to maintain the technologies over the long term. Also, the technologies discussed in the full report show potential in at least one of seven areas: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. improving the use of local natural resources, improving soil fertility, improving water availability, fostering genetic improvement in plants and animals, improving integration of animal and cropping systems, 6. reducing food losses, and 7. enabling farmers to modernize as it becomes feasible for them. Quantitative estimates of whether and how much these methods will increase agricultural production are difficult to make. Many past estimates have been misleading. The literature about experiments with crops and techniques is replete with examples that have not met expectations: a newly developed sweet potato that can yield at least six times the African average, and windbreaks that not only increase yields but supply valuable fodder and fuelwood. Yet adoption rates for improved varieties are low, freely supplied tree seedlings often go unplanted, and technologies developed under experimental settings are consistently less productive on-farm. Why? The answers range from farmers being unfamiliar with the practice to researchers being unfamiliar with the farmers, including the criteria used in accepting or rejecting new technology. Nevertheless, it seems that sizable on-farm gains are possible using the types of technologies discussed here. For example, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organizations (FAO) tests show that improved management practices alone can raise crop yields 20 to 80 percent. Full use of conservation measures could increase long-term productivity by 33 percent. Just as important are estimates of how much current production may be lost if resource degradation continues. Africa could lose 16.5 percent of its rainfed cropland if degradation goes unchecked. Estimates of overall productivity losses reach 25 percent. Also, however, qualitative benefits of many technologies can be as important as their potential to increase yields or prevent yield decreases. Stability of production from year to year is vital. And many practices can be used in combination, adopted piece by piece as farmers and herders can afford them. This suggests a general sequence for supporting technological development. Efforts should first be directed toward improving and making available technologies that maximize the

PAGE 24

17 use of available, low-cost, renewable resources since these are usually more accessible than purchased inputs. For instance, efforts to improve water use could first be directed at making more efficient use of freely supplied rainwater through improved management, then moving toward systems such as contour planting, water harvesting microcatchments, and tied ridges that require some structures or greater external inputs. These practices may produce only slight yield increases in average years, but their real advantages show during drought years, when technologically improved fields are able to maintain yields when other fields fail. A last step in this continuum would be the adoption of small-scale irrigation technology, which faces substantial obstacles because of its high costs and complexity. Although OTAs analysis sees an important role for technology in the future of African agriculture, it is only one factor among many that must be considered. Technologies do not operate in isolation. Research to develop and adapt low-resource technologies must be accompanied by attempts to address many influential, nontechnical factors that operate at the national and farm level. Agricultural prices, land tenure, conservation policy, household dynamics, and womens roles, for example, all affect use of technology. THE ROLE OF FOREIGN ASSISTANCE The United States has the potential to play a major role in enhancing low-resource agriculture in Africa, but whether this role will be pursued to its full extent has yet to be determined. The decisions made by Congress and executive branch agencies will be important in determining the U.S. role. Congress faces a number of critical decisions concerning development assistance to Africa, with conflicting pressures to take several different routes. Some urge continuing support for existing foreign aid legislation. Others, especially within the current Administration, advocate a new macroeconomic approach that focuses on policy reform and might suggest amending current legislation. A third possibilityone influenced by domestic budget concerns and the perception of the ineffectiveness of previous development assistancewould decrease overall foreign aid. Congress and a Resource-Enhancing Approach Many goals of existing legislation already support a resource-enhancing approach: they call for participation of the poor in their own development, they note the need for women to be included in development efforts, they stipulate that U.S. aid prevents environmental degradation, etc. Congress has not provided clear direction on priorities among different and sometimes conflicting goals, however. And food security, a critical need in Africa, has not been an explicit, high-priority goal. Making these clarifications would provide a stronger basis for enhancing low-resource agriculture in authorizing legislation. Long-term commitments are necessary for many key elements of a resource-enhancing approach, such as research, training, and institution-building. Stable, long-term levels of funding, with certain reduced restrictions on its use, are among the most supportive actions that Congress can take in its appropriations activities. Current funding mechanisms, such as authorizing and appropriating several different sources of funds administered by a number of different bureaus within the U.S. Agency for International Development (AID), and ongoing attempts to reduce the Federal budget may restrict Congress ability to provide long-term, stable funding, however, The Development Assistance (DA) fund, administered bilaterally by AID, maybe the most suitable funding source for supporting lowresource agriculture. Development is its major goal and its appropriations are less volatile than others (e.g., food aid and economic sup-

PAGE 25

18 port). But in the past, DA for Africa has not received attention equivalent to that of Economic Support Funds (ESF; also administered by AID) and food aid. Congress reversed the erosion of assistance to Africa in fiscal year 1988 with the creation of a special African development fund with a l-year appropriation of $500 million. Its impact cannot yet be determined but its success will depend on whether Congress maintains its commitment to a separate fund for Africa in the future, on how AID uses the funds provisions for increased flexibility, on whether AID and Congress ensure that funds are not diverted to other programs, and on whether the fund is used to support low-resource agriculture. AID, the World Bank, and other assistance agencies are often criticized for their inability to support resource-poor agriculturalists. Yet Congress already has mandated many elements of a resource-enhancing approach and has appropriated funding that could be used for this purpose. Therefore, perhaps the most crucial congressional responsibility is oversight to ensure that funds and policies intended to enhance low-resource agriculture are used effectively. Detailed oversight will be necessary to ensure that donor activities are indeed supportive of resource-poor farmers and herders but constraints on staff time and committee jurisdiction may make this difficult. Increased cooperation among the seven committees with direct jurisdiction over U.S. agricultural assistance, an improved database on AID expenditures in Africa, and AID/Congress development assistance working groups could save staff time and improve the quality of congressional oversight. With more effective oversight, some potentially burdensome congressional restrictions on AID might be reduced. These include requirements for notification regarding reprogramming funds, procurement requirements, restrictions on aid to specific countries and commodities, and earmarked funds. The legislation creating the new African development fund relaxed some of these congressional requirements. It provides an important test of the benefits of such an approach, including how well AID can implement congressional intent without detailed earmarking for guidance. Three Categories of Assistance To implement a resource-enhancing approach to African agriculture, development assistance must support three types of activities, involving a range of donor and African organizations with different strengths and weaknesses: l l l local-level work, where activities would include support for local institutions, households, and individual agriculturalists; support for formal agricultural institutions necessary for agricultural development, where activities would include research, education, extension, and marketing; and national-level work, where activities would include assistance for supportive national policies and national capabilities to create and implement them. Local organizations, often comprised in part of the resource-poor agriculturalists for whom assistance is intended, will play key roles in development assistance. These groups range from informal, self-help groups to more formal ones. Their participation is likely to increase the relevance of development activities to local conditions, increase its cost-effectiveness, and increase its sustainability over the long term. Major donors have been largely ineffective working at the local level. Many donors have failed to tap the potential of local organizations and sometimes have made overwhelming demands on local groups and thus, undermined the groups effectiveness. Yet the needs of local groups are large enough that they may require the resources available only from major donors. In that case, the Peace Corps, U.S. private voluntary organizations, and similar groups have the potential to act as intermediaries between the larger donors and local groups in addition to implementing their own sizable local-level programs. Other high priority activities will be developing and improving agricultural research and

PAGE 26

19training institutions. The major bilateral and multilateral donors are best able to provide the comparatively high levels of long-term funding needed for this type of development. AID, in particular, has a comparative advantage in tackling these activities. Special efforts will be needed, however, to ensure that training and research are responsive to the particular needs of resource-poor agriculturalists. For example, training will need to build understanding of how low-resource agriculture works, ensure that women receive adequate training, provide as much training as possible in Africa, ensure that curricula are relevent to African conditions, and combine U.S.-based work with support for research for Africans in Africa. Support for building institutions has had limited success in Africa, whether funded by U.S. AID or the World Bank. Recent improve-ments, however, suggest that both may be more effective in the future. AIDs 1985 Plan for Sup-porting Agricultural Research and Faculties of Agriculture in Africa is one element of AIDs institution-building approach. Many of its features are supportive of a resource-enhancing approach, for example, the need to build African technical capabilities and for long-term technology development. Questions remain, however, regarding the apparently minor role of farming systems research in this approach and whether its narrow geographic and commodity approach is suitable.National policies that support agriculture andresource-poor agriculturalists are necessary iflow-resource agriculture is to be enhanced. Ma-jor donors such as AID and the World BankPhoto credit: Donald Plucknett/Consultative Group on International Agricultural ResearchSupport for agricultural research is an appropriate priority for U.S. development assistance. U.S. contributions helped the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture and the Rwandan national research program provide these farmers with improved cassava varieties,

PAGE 27

20 have significantly increased funding in recent years to support reforms of national policies. These changes have had ambiguous results concerning their impact on increased food security for resource-poor farmers and herders. Therefore, support for sweeping reforms may be unwarranted until donors improve their understanding of these impacts and examine the actual policy needs of resource-poor farmers and herders. The World Bank has the analytical capabilities to lead such an effort. AID and a Resource-Enhancing Approach AID is the principle U.S. agency that would bear responsibility for implementing a resource-enhancing approach to development assistance in Africa. The Agencys current overall strategy for African development could be compatible with such an approach, but full implementation would require substantial changes in priorities, operations, and general philosophical approach. For instance, AID would have to ensure that strategy papers, such as ones supporting women in agriculture and addressing environmental sustainability, are implemented more effectively and that Africans assume a larger responsibility for carrying out U.S. aid. In addition, AIDs current emphasis on increased funding for policy reform might need to be lessened considering the impact such reforms have had on resource-poor agriculturalists. Over the past few years AID has made changes that could help the agency enhance low-resource agriculture, including more decentralized decisionmaking, increased attention to research, longer term support for projects, and an increased emphasis on projects sustainability. At the same time, the impact of these shifts may be offset by deep personnel cuts, a lack of appropriate technical personnel, inadequate language and cultural skills, a flawed reward system, and a project design system that is cumbersome, inflexible, and oriented to achieving short-term results. These latter constraints were identified long ago and have remained unresolved. Therefore, their remedy would require concerted effort on the part of the Administrator and all AID staff. The Road Ahead The decision to assist resource-poor African farmers and herders is not made in isolation within AID or within Congress. Broader U.S. policy concerns direct congressional decisionmaking and these reflect a variety of American concerns. For example, U.S. farm trade suffered an overall decline in the 1980s with some commodities losing market shares to foreign competition. Recent legislation, passed with the backing of some U.S. farm groups, curtails U.S. support for certain crops in developing countries due to concerns that such support helped those countries improve their competitiveness. Newer analyses, however, suggest that stimulating African development will have greater long-term benefits for U.S. agriculture than attempts to limit U.S. technical assistance to African farmers. They need higher incomes to buy American products and higher incomes will require greater agricultural production. Yet pressing concerns regarding the health of the U.S. farm sector and trade balance are likely to override longer term considerations. Also much of the American public has little awareness of the costs and benefits of U.S. development assistance and perceives that the United States spends too much money on foreign aid; some believe that as much as 40 percent of the U.S. budget goes to development aid. In fact, the correct figure is no more than 1 percent and has declined steadily since the 1940s. Almost inevitably, comparisons are made to the successes of the Marshall Plan to rebuild war-torn Europe when problems were simpler to solve and more resources were available. Whether the United States invests too much or too little in meeting its interests in Africa is a subject that will continue to be debated. Expectations that dramatic results are possible are misguided, though, even if increased funding was available. The road to African food

PAGE 28

21 security is a long and difficult one. Decisions States will be a partner in this process. And on how to address the challenges ahead are an approach that enhances low-resource agriAfrican ones. Clearly, however, U.S. foreign culture will be an essential component of an y assistance legislation states that the United effective U.S. development assistance effort, FINDINGS AND OPTIONS Congress can shape U.S. development assistance in a number of ways. This chapter addresses how Congress can use these methods to improve the effectiveness of U.S. aid and enhance African agriculture (table 1-3). Finding 1: Low-resource agriculturefarming, herding, and fishingis the predominant form of African agriculture, a largely untapped development resource, and a necessary starting point for meeting future food security needs. Agricultural development is recognized as key to African economic development, that is, meeting food needs, maintaining and increasing rural employment, and stimulating the internal economic markets necessary for nonagricultural growth. Low-resource agriculture is the predominant form of agriculture throughout Sub-Saharan Africa and experts believe that it will remain the mainstay of African agriculture at least for the short to medium term. But low-resource agriculture, as it now exists, is neither capable of meeting Africas food and employment needs nor of keeping up with growing populations and environmental degradation. Thus, any broadly based plan for African agricultural development must find ways to enhance low-resource agriculture. Resource-poor African agriculturalists are rich in local resources, such as skills, knowledge of indigenous plants and animals, understanding of the environment, and indigenous institutions. Agricultural development strategies have consistently bypassed these resources, sometimes contributing to their loss, often to the detriment of aids effectiveness. More successful agricultural development depends, in part, on tapping these resources by developing methods to identify and use them. However, the United States has no overall policy for enhancing low-resource agriculture in Africa despite the importance currently given to providing agricultural assistance. For instance, AIDs current strategy for Africa lacks many features necessary for such an approach. In practice, development assistance commonly either has not addressed low-resource agriculture or attempts have been made to improve it in inappropriate ways. Most donors have not developed the methods needed to improve lowresource agriculture. Developing a strategic plan for enhancing low-resource agriculture would bring proper focus to its current status and potential and contribute to development and implementation of needed methods. Many strategic questions regarding the U.S. role in development assistance are being debated now. For example, a significant number of organizations are taking part in a 1988 effort coordinated by Michigan State University. Its goal is to help shape U.S. development policy in the 1990s. Also, the U.S. foreign assistance legislation is under continuing scrutiny regarding its overall goals and their implementation. The appropriate role of macroeconomic policy reform, a major Administration focus, is one debated topic. Such efforts will affect any U.S. approach to enhancing low-resource agriculture, but they do not provide the detailed guidance for that work. Therefore, the U.S. development assistance community needs to give specific attention to the strategic aspects of work that focuses on resource-poor farmers, herders, and fishers. This need is most acute for AID, the primary provider of U.S. development assistance. But other organizations using U.S. funds for agricultural development, private groups, additional U.S. agencies whose work affects devel-

PAGE 29

22 Table 1-3.Findings and Congressional options for Enhancing Low. Resource Agriculture in Africa Findings Options 1. Low-resource agriculture is the predominant form of African agriculture, a largely untapped development resource, and a necessary starting point for meeting food security needs. 2. Strengthening African research, education, and training is one of the most effective and sustainable contributions that the United States can make. 3. Improving low-resource agriculture entails work at the local level. Supporting local African groups and intermediary organizations is one way of working at the local level. The Peace Corps and private voluntary organizations (PVOS) also can work locally and can act as intermediaries between large donors and local groups. These intermediaries could be strengthened by improved technical support and evaluations. 4. Congressional oversight will be crucial for implementing a resource-enhancing approach since legislation and funding mechanisms are already in place. Changes in oversight will be necessary to increase its quality while reducing the burden it places on AID. 5. Long-term commitments and stable funding levels are necessary. SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment l 1988. opment, and African groups at all levels need to be involved in developing this approach. Option 1a: Congress could assign the Agency for International Development (AID) the lead role in developing and coordinating a U.S. approach to enhancing low-resource agriculture in Africa. To help develop such an approach, Congress could support an internaI a, lb. 2a. 2b. 3a. 3b. 4a. 4b. 4c. 5a. 5b. Assign AID the lead role in developing and coordinating a U.S. approach to enhancing low-resource agriculture. Support an international/interagency conference to set out such a strategy and follow up with agency 5year action plans. Request that AID and the World Bank (through the U.S. Department of Treasury) evaluate how policy reform could best serve the needs of low-resource agriculture. Base continued support for and direction of reform on these evaluations. Support the long-term development of African agricultural institutions. Oversee AID and World Bank activities to ensure this work assists resource-poor agriculturalists. Support increased formal education and training of Africans in ways that enhance low-resource agriculture. Direct AID to develop technical support mechanisms for indigenous African organizations, PVOs, and the Peace Corps. These mechanisms could draw upon universities and research centers (African, U. S., international) and private organizations. Request that the Peace Corps develop and implement an ongoing evaluation system. Ensure that all funds provided for the new bilateral development fund for Africa are used for development purposes. Oversee that other types of agricultural funding support low-resource agriculture. Improve oversight activity and smooth the AID/Congress working relationship. Reduce the restrictions on the use of development assistance. Monitor the impacts of newly made reductions. Maintain stable appropriations for development assistance. Emphasize Development Assistance within bilateral assistance. Continue policies of appropriating a special development fund for Africa and significant U.S. contributions to the International Development Association of the World Bank. Encourage AID to address a set of internal constraints. AID could evaluate the impact of its operational structure and procedures on its development work, then begin institutional reforms. tional/interagency conference to assess the status of current programs and set out a general strategy, under the auspices of AID. Participating organizations could prepare and implement 5-year action plans subsequently Interagency approaches to facilitate a foreign assistance strategy have worked in the past. AID and the State Department, for example,

PAGE 30

23 led the development of U.S. foreign assistance strategies for tropical forests and maintaining biological diversity. Both plans included strategy conferences that brought together researchers, policymakers, and practitioners; highlighted the importance of an issue that had not received adequate attention; underscored major areas of concern; and identified avenues to address those areas. Interagency task forces then defined specific U.S. efforts and individual agencies developed action plans to implement the strategies developed by the conference and task forces. A similar strategy conference on how to enhance low-resource agriculture in Africa could bring a wide variety of organizations together to discuss U.S. priorities, compare successful methods, determine areas of collaboration, and identify important research topics. OTAs work suggests that several issues need to be addressed by such a group: l l l l l assessing the comparative advantages of different donor organizations; developing relevant technologies; supporting the development of formal African agricultural institutions (e. g., universities, research centers, markets, policymaking bodies) and the trained personnel to staff them; supporting the development abilities of local African organizations; and supporting the development and implementation-of relevant agricultural policies. These topics are not new and have been addressed before. Using a specific resourceenhancing framework would be essential to breaking new ground. To do so, conference planning and subsequent implementation should be based on analytical criteria of: l l l sustainabilityenvironmental, economic, institutional, and technical; diversity and flexibility-accommodating the diversity of resource-poor farmers and the conditions they face, and the flexible ways in which they respond; the use of local resources of the resourcepoor farmers, herders, and fishers which includes methods of fostering their participation in development; and l accounting for the ecological, social, and economic components of the farming systems and their off-farm links. AID should host this meeting because it is the agency ultimately responsible for carrying out most of U.S. development assistance. However, substantial efforts must be made to draw on other expertise, divergent views, and imaginative suggestions from a variety of groups and, as such, much of the conference planning should be assigned outside AID, Broad participation also could ensure that the meeting has an impact throughout the U.S. development assistance community. The Peace Corps, the African Development Foundation, the World Bank, private voluntary organizations, universities, and relevant executive agencies (the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and Treasury, etc.) should participate. Significant African representation would be crucial before and during the conference to ensure that the work addresses African conditions and that an expanded role for African organizations is included. Members of Congress and their staffs could participate to contribute a congressional perspective, And a significant number of women must be includedwhether they represent Africas large number of women farmers or are drawn from the community that serves women farmers. Task forces grouped around individual topics, like those associated with earlier strategy conferences, could be formed to continue working after the conference and to maintain communication among groups. Individual agencies could develop action plans to define their specific responsibilities and priorities, means for interagency cooperation, and funding requirements. These action plans could be incorporated into agency policy and planning documents. Congress could consider these plans as it both sets and oversees development priorities. Option 1b: Congress could request that AID and the World Bank (through the U.S. Department of Treasury) perform in-depth analyses of how policy reform could best serve the needs of African resource-poor farmers and herders. Continued support for and future

PAGE 31

24 directions of reform activities could be based on these evaluations. Support for policy reform quickly has become a large component of development assistance. By 1987, reform-related lending made up 35 percent of AID Africa Bureaus agricultural loans and 55 percent of the World Banks commitments to Africa. Needed reforms have been known for some time but evaluating the effects of donors activities to stimulate such reform is comparatively recent. Evaluations are incomplete and ambiguous concerning policy reforms effects on resourcepoor farmers and herders. However, evaluations have raised concerns regarding reforms: lack of grounding in actual, local agricultural conditions; its potential to harm large segments of the poor; and its lack of emphasis on building African capability to carry out and continue policy reform once donors efforts diminish. Also, evaluations have called for additional research addressing these concerns. For example, research is needed to identify methods that link macroeconomic reforms with conditions at the macroeconomic level. Without such methods, macro-level reforms may not match microlevel needs (e.g., for removing local technical or marketing obstacles) and adverse local effects of macro-level reforms may be difficult to identify. Congress could stabilize or decrease reform expenditures until such analyses have been completed and policy reform activities modified as needed. In addition, Congress could consider what role the United States should have in reform activity. The World Bank, because of its sizable staff of economists and its ability to marshall support from many donor countries, might be the most effective lead agency for researching and supporting policy reform. Such a lead agency could coordinate work and discourage individual donors from sending contradictory signals to recipient countries. But any lead agency must be sensitive to the policy needs of resource-poor agriculturalists and the representatives to the World Bank may need congressional encouragement to promote such work. In the past, Congress has examined substantive issues of World Bank work via the U.S. Treasury Department, which directs the vote of the U.S. Bank Representative. For example, congressional hearings on World Bank activities during 1983-84 led the Treasury Department to perform an extended review of the environmental aspects of the World Banks work. The Department actively promoted bank changes in this area as a result of its review. Congress could ask the Treasury Department to begin a similar extended review of the World Banks policy reform work and accompany such a request with oversight hearings. Congress could encourage AID to support a narrower set of policy-related activities that draw on AIDs particular strengths. For example, U.S. strengths in training and institutional support could be directed to developing African abilities to analyze and implement agricultural policies that support low-resource agriculture. With these skills, African nations would be better able to develop and continue reforms over the long term. Finding 2: Strengthening the abilities of Africans to respond to their agricultural needs through research, education, and training is one of the most effective and sustainable contributions that the United States can make to African development.

PAGE 32

25 Africans and donors alike increasingly see agricultural development as fundamental to overall African development. For agricultural development to occur, Africa will require its own strong agricultural institutions staffed by trained Africans, supported by its governments, and capable of responding to local concerns. For example, agricultural research institutions are necessary to develop, adapt, and improve technologies for resource-poor farmers, herders, and fishers; planning institutions are necessary to develop and implement supportive agricultural policies; and training institutions are necessary to prepare staff for these roles. Concurrently, governments must be ready to provide for recurrent and ongoing costs without which agricultural institutions cannot function: equitable salaries, upkeep, costs for travel, equipment, distributing reports, subscriptions to journals, etc. In each case, the diversity of African agricultural systems requires technologies, policies, and training adapted to local social and environmental conditions. International organizations and those in the developed countries have neither the expertise nor the resources to meet so many differing local needs. Nor is development led by external groups likely to be sustained. Donors do have a clear role to play in providing agricultural training for Africans and in supporting African institutions, however. The United States has a comparative advantage in these two areas and such work would be an appropriate U.S. priority, Past efforts in these areas often have not met the specific needs of resource-poor farmers, herders, and fishers and this problem must be addressed. Option 2a: Congress could support the longterm development of African agricultural institutions capable of assisting resource-poor agriculturalists. As part of this support, Congress could oversee AIDs 1985 research plan and the World Banks work. AID set out a coordinated approach in 1985 to support African research institutions and faculties working in agriculture. Known as the Plan for Supporting Agricultural Research and Facilities of Agriculture in Africa, AID envisioned a commitment of significant resources (at least $100 million per year) over a 15-year span for supporting African research systems and faculties of agriculture, and backing cooperative research work through the international agricultural research centers and U.S. universities. The Plan is an important step in U.S. support of African capabilities both in the level of resources to be committed to this work and in its long-term approacha departure from past, short-term efforts. Congress could support this work in several ways. First, institution-building takes time, so congressional authorization and appropriations should provide resources for extended time periods and avoid unnecessarily introducing non-development interests that would slow work. Also, congressional oversight is essential on a number of issues: l Is AID committed to implementing the Plan for its full term? l Are established levels of funding being met? l How is AID refining the Plan to meet African conditions? Also, oversight is needed to ensure that the Plan actually addresses the needs of resourcepoor agriculturalists, some of whom are now overlooked. For example, AID does not explain in detail how agricultural institutions can be linked to the needs of the farmer and herder, what their role in technology development should be, how to ensure the environmental sustainability of technology, how to address womens needs, nor how to make the best use of local resources. AID is currently reviewing the plan and a congressional oversight hearing could provide Congress with an update on its status while signaling to AID the need to address these points. Congressional examination of the World Banks support for agricuhural institutions also is justified. The Banks institutional support has been criticized as inadequate in quality and quantity. And a recently completed analysis of African research needs by the Bank highlights the importance of developing national research

PAGE 33

26 capabilities, but the Banks approach suffers from many of the same weaknesses as AIDs. Congress can make its concerns known via oversight and also could instruct the U.S. Treasury Department to advocate increased work by the Bank on building agricultural institutions. The international agricultural research centers (IARCs) have an important role supporting African institutions. While primarily concerned with research, the centers could expand their training and institutional support. Any such expansion will require AIDs continuing support to the centers. AID can also ensure that the centers gear more work to the needs of resource-poor farmers and herders. Option 2b: Congress could increase support for formal education and training of Africans in ways that would enhance low-resource agriculture. African countries will need increasing numbers of trained people (e.g., researchers and policymakers) to staff agricultural institutions. They will need training to assess the needs of resource-poor agriculturalists and to identify ways to meet those needs. Specific ways for the United States to be involved in this training could be determined at the strategy conference discussed earlier. New legislation or earmarked funds do not seem necessary but congressional oversight could ensure that education and training are priorities for U.S. development assistance. U.S. universities could play a major role in education and training and U.S. support for these institutions will be an important contribution. Undergraduate education should be the responsibility of African educational institutions primarily. However, increased opportunities for graduate training could be offered in the United States. Only certain U.S. institutions are equipped to address the particular needs of low-resource agriculture and a better match of African students and U.S. programs is necessary. Mechanisms to ensure the complementarily of training with the needs of African agriculture include tying U.S. graduate training to thesis research in Africa and providing increased training opportunities for African women. Also, AID could identify other appropriate programs that are particularly relevant to African conditions and tap those programs. AID-provided strengthening grants to U.S. universities could further the development of such programs where a commitment to low-resource work exists. Assistance for training and education should continue once Africans who were students assume responsibilities in Africa. Small grants to begin research, travel funds for collaboration with senior scientists, and longer term twinning efforts between African and other institutions (e.g., U.S. universities, private organizations, and the IARCs) could ensure that trained Africans are able to make use of and update their education. Finding 3: Enhancing the capabilities of resource-poor farmers, herders, and fishers will require support at the local level. Supporting local African groups and African intermediary organizations who provide services to these groups is one means of working at the local level. The Peace Corps and private voluntary organizations can work directly at the local level while also acting as intermediaries between larger donors (e.g., AID and the World Bank) and local groups. Improved evaluations and strengthened technical backup would increase the effectiveness of these intermediaries. Agricultural development will depend, in part, on developing technologies appropriate to the diverse local conditions of Africa and matching technologies with the social organizations necessary to make use of them. Development of formal agricultural institutions and agricultural policies need to be linked to the local level to ensure their relevance to actual conditions. However, local African organizations, whose membership includes resourcepoor agriculturalists, offer donors an additional means of reaching the local level directly. These organizations can initiate work appropriate to local conditions, mobilize local resources, and maintain work after outside assistance ends.

PAGE 34

27 The Peace Corps and many private voluntary organizations (PVOs) have experience working with local organizations and they, along with African intermediary groups, could become important sources of support for local organizations, This might entail a shift from their current focus on implementing projects. Often, however, PVOs are technically weak and do not carry out the evaluations necessary to identify their particular strengths and weaknesses. Correcting these two problems is a prerequisite for providing more effective U.S. aid at the local level. Larger donors such as AID and the World Bank commonly do not work well at the local level nor have they given much attention to the growing numbers of local African organizaPhoto credit: Watson/U.S. Peace Corps The Peace Corps, like many PVOs, works well with local groups such as this womens gardening cooperative in Mali. Better technical support and improved evaluations would ensure that this work is as effective as possible. tions. Their support of local groups maybe necessary because the Peace Corps and PVOs do not command enough resources to match the growing needs of African groups. The Peace Corps, U.S. PVOs, and African intermediary organizations could, however, become important intermediaries between large donors and local organizations. But, evaluations of individual groups abilities to carry out effective lowresource work must precede their selection for funding. Option 3a: Congress could direct AID to develop technical support mechanisms to help PVOs, the Peace Corps, and others (including indigenous African organizations) identify, adapt, and promote promising technologies. Such mechanisms could draw upon the expertise of universities and research centers (U.S. and African), the international agricultural centers, and private organizations (African and U.S.). The goal would be to have these services in place within 5 years. Members of the development assistance community, such as the Peace Corps, PVOs, and African organizations that have staff based in African communities, know the needs and abilities of resource-poor farmers and herders in ways that few others do. Often, however, these people lack the technical skills (including managerial and financial skills) needed to support agricultural development most effectively. The costs of developing and maintaining these skills for each group would be prohibitively high. Instead, a number of African and U.S. sources of technical expertise could be linked to local groups. This linkage should be two-way; for example, farmers research needs should be passed to research centers as these groups provide technical information to farmers. Some U.S. assistance has been effectively provided in this manner. For example, the AIDfunded Forestry Support Program provides technical support benefiting AID missions and PVO-funded projects. The importance of such efforts is likely to increase. African groups are increasingly able to assume direct responsibilities for implementing development programs. Some larger donors

PAGE 35

28 are cutting their field staff and relying more on PVOs. And Congress is reinforcing this pressure to channel significant amounts of U.S. development assistance through U.S. and African PVOs. Increasing the abilities of these groups to be technology brokers between technical experts (e.g., agricultural researchers) and groups of farmers and herders will improve their effectiveness. Support for groups that have demonstrably good results at the local level and for groups that focus on low-resource agriculture is important. Option 3b: Congress could request that the Peace Corps develop and implement an ongoing system for evaluating its work. The Peace Corps is considered effective in local-level work, providing skilled training for its volunteers. But the quality of its work varies across geographic regions and disciplines; its institutional memory is short; and long-term planning and implementation are difficult to carry out. The evidence for these strengths and weaknesses is largely anecdotal, however. As conditions in Africa change, it will be important for the Peace Corps, which seems particularly effective, to keep pace. An ongoing evaluation program could help the Peace Corps identify areas of proven effectiveness, and then enable the agency to concentrate its resources there. Also, many weaknesses listed above are inherent in short-term, volunteer-based work. Project and program evaluations could seek ways to compensate for these problems. Evaluations might also address how well the Peace Corps might function as a technology broker, linking resource-poor agriculturalists with agricultural researchers. Finding 4: Congressional oversight will be crucial for using development assistance to enhance low-resource agriculture. Appropriate legislation is already in place and many complementary changes in funding have been made. Changes in the way oversight is conducted may be necessary to increase its quality while reducing the burden it places on executive agencies, though. The current legislation governing U.S. development assistance provides a mandate for enhancing low-resource agriculture. In addition, the 1987 creation of a separate, bilateral African development fund and corresponding reductions of restrictions on its use have stabilized funding and increased flexibility. Thus, Congress already has provided the basis for AID to improve how it addresses low-resource agriculture. Criticism is likely to remain regarding AID and other donors abilities to meet the needs of low-resource agriculture, however. Many argue that the needs of resource-poor farmers and herders have not been the focus of U.S.-funded research, training, and institution-building programs. Oversight will be needed to ensure that U.S.-funded donors respond to this criticism and, where necessary, sharpen this focus. Current forms of oversight have not proven adequate to this task and evidence exists that oversight sometimes has impeded the work of donors due to its excessive demands. Thus, Congress could revise oversight procedures to increase the quality of information provided while reducing the burden on agencies providing it. In 1987, Congress made several such changes by reducing a number of restrictions on AIDs operations regarding procurement, earmarks, and program funding. These reductions will need to be monitored for their impact on AIDs efficiency and to evaluate how well AID carries out congressional intent with this more flexible guidance from Congress. Option 4a: Congress could oversee that all the funds provided in the new African development fund are used for development objectives and that agricultural funding supports the improvement of low-resource agriculture. Oversight for the latter also could be applied to other U.S.-supported organizations such as the World Bank. Congress created a separate development fund for Africa for fiscal year 1988 totaling $500 million. The fund provides more stable levels of African development assistance (and may continue to do so if maintained in the future), helps protect this funding from use for shortterm political objectives, and provides AID with increased programming flexibility since it contains few restrictions for the use of funds.

PAGE 36

29 If the funds potential benefits are to be realized, however, Congress will need to ensure that the monies appropriated are not diverted from development aid. In addition, the fund sets no levels for spending on agriculture. AID has made agriculture a focus of its assistance for Africa but Congress could monitor whether the percentage of funds used is adequate. The existence of this or any other fund is not adequate to ensure that U.S. assistance enhances low-resource agriculture. Donor agencies receiving the majority of U.S. development assistance funds undoubtedly have the capacity to support such development. Yet evaluations show that AID and the World Bank have weak records concerning the development of technology appropriate for resource-poor farmers and herders; that their track record is poor for supporting the development of African institutions able to address low-resource agriculture; that their training programs are missing important opportunities; and that links between their policy reform work and the local level are weak. In particular, questions exist whether the development assistance community is taking advantage of the opportunities offered by African organizations, including local ones. Therefore, congressional oversight of substantive issues such as these will be necessary to ensure that funds are provided for agricultural development and also used to address the needs and abilities of resource-poor agriculturalists. Option 4b: Congress could make improvements to its oversight activities and smooth the AID/Congress working relationship. A need exists for in-depth, long-term oversight on substantive matters. This need conflicts with the time available to Congress and with the more general expertise of Members of Congress and their staffs. Small staffs oversee large executive branch programs annually, often in conjunction with other duties. If inadequately prepared, oversight can provide little useful information to Congress and absorb development resources that could be spent on implementing programs. This problem is aggravated by the many congressional actors involved in oversight. For example, seven committees and additional subcommittees have direct jurisdiction over development assistance and Members often take part on an individual basis as well. As a result, AID (the agency most affected) often responds to a multitude of congressional requests which may be duplicative or contradictory. These problems are exacerbated by the somewhat adversarial relationship between Congress and AID. A number of methods are available to improve the substance of oversight, cut its undue costs, and reduce problems in communication. For example, an informal task force of authorizing and appropriations committee and subcommittee staff could help coordinate oversight and reduce redundancy. Such a task force might also be a forum for a detailed examination of development issues and new approaches. It could tap outside expertise in this process, especially that of Africans visiting the United States. Another means to provide specialized expertise to staff would be to form a group of experts in development work to help oversee U.S. multilateral and bilateral development assistance policy. Such a group could be constituted informally or more formally established as a Development Assistance Study Institute. Such an institute could provide a forum for congressional members and staff to meet with executive agency personnel and other groups to focus oversight and gain substantive input into the process. An institute such as this could be a new body or an addition to an existing one, such as the Energy and Environment Study Institute. An AID/Congress forum could be established under these or other auspices. An AID task force could identify congressional constraints on its work and a corresponding congressional group could identify high-priority oversight issues for AID to address. This forum could begin an ongoing process for resolving some of the underlying strains between AID and Congress. Oversight also could be improved by increasing the availability and relevance of specific information on U.S. assistance. For example, Congress could request AID to improve its data-

PAGE 37

30 base on its agricultural work in Africa. Currently, AID is unable to provide such information. At the same time, Congress needs to make its data needs clearer so as to reduce the amount of data generated by AID in anticipation of congressional needs that do not materialize. Option 4c: Congress could reduce restrictions on the use of development assistance funds in order to increase its efficient use, while monitoring the impact of newly granted flexibility. Congress has placed a variety of restrictions on how AID implements development assistance. In some cases, these restrictions have direct costs to AID, for example, it devotes money and staff time to notifying Congress regarding reprogramming of funds and to providing mandated reports. AID has testified that at least 200 annual staff-years are devoted to preparing materials for Congress and dealing with various congressional groups. In other cases, AIDs costs due to congressional limits are less direct, for example, procurement requirements may increase the cost of overseas purchases, appropriations earmarks may require more detailed accounting, and restrictions on aid to individual countries and commodities may decrease the overall effectiveness of AIDs program. Also, AID responds to more informal congressional pressure to achieve multiple (sometimes incompatible) goals and to use assistance for non-development purposes. Congress and AID could streamline this process so that more of these resources could be spent on development. Congress made several legislative changes in 1987 to reduce restrictions on AIDs assistance to Africa: reprogramming and procurement restrictions were reduced and the number of earmarks was significantly cut. If these changes prove effective, Congress could increase AIDs flexibility further by providing no-year money, reducing additional earmarks, etc. Also, complementary changes could be made to define priorities among the multiple mandates in the Foreign Assistance Act to reduce non-developmental pressures on the use of assistance. At the same time, Congress needs to monitor carefully how AID makes use of its inPhoto credit: F. Mattioli/U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization Improved management of land and water resources is an important part of enhancing low-resource agriculture. This is recognized in the new African Development Fund, an attempt by Congress to provide flexible guidance and fewer restrictions for AID while still specifying general priorities. creased flexibility. Granting increased flexibility to AID may enable more efficient and effective use of its resources. However, it also increases the risk that congressional priorities for development assistance may not be followed fully. AIDs past inability to address the needs of resource-poor farmers and herders contributes to concern over this issue. Again, this emphasizes the need for substantive and thorough oversight. Congress could ensure that continued flexibility depends, in part, on AIDs responsiveness to broad congressional direction for development assistance. Finding 5: Long-term commitments and stable funding levels are necessary for donor agencies to provide effective development assistance, especially for enhancing low-resource agriculture. Many development assistance goals identified by OTA as necessary for African agricultural development cannot be reached quickly nor if development assistance funding undergoes large and unpredictable swings. Research, agricultural institution-building, and supporting the development of local organizations are all long term in nature. Development assistance for these purposes must be correspondingly long term. And stable levels of aid are important for planning long-term work. Unantici-

PAGE 38

31 pated fluctuations in aid, whether caused by changes in overall assistance funding or by changes in political goals, reduce the effectiveness of aid. Such swings have stopped successful efforts and ended other work before results could be achieved. Option 5a: Congress could appropriate stable levels of bilateral and multilateral assistance for Africa. For bilateral assistance an emphasis on Development Assistance would best support such long-term stability, a continuation of the 1987 policy creating the development fund for Africa and increasing U.S. contributions to the International Development Association of the World Bank. U.S. bilateral agricultural assistance to Africa is provided primarily through three AIDadministered funding sources: Development Assistance, Economic Support Funds (ESF), and food aid. Of the three, Development Assistance is the most suited for providing stable levels of funding in support of a long-term approach. U.S. legislation regarding development generally supports enhancing low-resource agriculture. Also, Congress provided the means to maintain stable funding levels for AIDs African Development Assistance account by creating the new development fund for Africa. Previously, African funds were held with worldwide development funds and were vulnerable when discretionary funding was reduced due to earmarks for aid to other regions. The other funding sources continue to be held in common. They are less appropriate for providing long-term stable support for this and other reasons. ESF usually are provided to recipients for political and security reasons and tend to be volatile. Africas needs are seen as less pressing than those of other regions. Food aid can fluctuate substantially due to changing emergency needs in Africa and U.S. food surpluses. While Development Assistance may be the most appropriate form of aid for African social and economic development, the United States sometimes has not made it the primary source of African assistance. Between 1980 and 1985, ESF to Africa tripled thereby exceeding Development Assistance funding, which had increased by one-fourth. This decline in the relative importance of Development Assistance took place as worldwide U.S. foreign assistance doubled, primarily through increases in ESF and military aid. With declines in total foreign assistance in 1986 and 1987, ESF to Africa was severely cut and Development Assistance became the predominant source of funding to Africa. Yet the cuts in Development Assistance and ESF put 1987 funding to Africa close to 1980 levels. The $500 million appropriated for the development fund for Africa in fiscal year 1988 (and also an additional $50 million for projects of the Southern Africa Development Coordination Commission) halted the decline in Development Assistance for Africa. If maintained, the fund could provide the means for stabilizing Development Assistance to Africa for the long term, U.S. support of multilateral development organizations has also fluctuated, with some exceptions. The International Development Association (IDA) of the World Bank provides confessional loans to the poorest countries. United States IDA funding fluctuated from a high of $1 billion to a low of $520 million between 1980 and 1987. The U.S. agreement to provide $2.875 billion over the next 3 years, along with congressional appropriations of $915 million for fiscal year 1988, will help stabilize IDA funding to Africa, assuming that appropriations continue at agreed-upon levels. U.S. support for the African Development Fund, the confessional loan window of the African Development Bank, has had fairly stable funding since 1986. Funding for the United Nations development agencies that receive voluntary U.S. contributions (e.g., the United Nations Development Program and the International Fund for Agricultural Development) increased between 1980 and 1985 but declined significantly in 1986 and 1987. The U.N. Childrens Fund was an exception; its funding has remained relatively constant since 1984. Maintaining stable funding over the long term is made difficult by the annual congressional authorization and appropriations process. Longer term authorizations and appropriations (possibly 2 to 4 years) would help set stable fund-

PAGE 39

32 ing levels, allow agencies to do long-term planning, help protect development funding from shifts in funding or diversions to other uses, and free Congress to spend additional time conducting oversight. Option 5b: Congress could encourage AID to address a set of internal constraints that hinder effctive implementation of development assistance. First, AID could evaluate the effect its operational structure and procedures have on its development work. Then, Congress and other organizations could help AID develop and implement internal reforms. AID has made a number of positive operational changes that could increase the effectiveness of its development assistance activities overall, especially as they relate to resourcepoor farmers and herders. These include increased roles for field missions, funding longer projects, and strengthening its evaluation and information system. Past OTA work has identified a set of internal constraints that may undercut the benefits of these changes: c The numbers and skills of AIDs Africa staff are not commensurate with the U.S. commitment to Africa. Significant staff cuts in the 1980s have worsened the problem. Technical, local language, and cultural skills largely are lacking. High rates of turnover interrupt program continuity, make accountability difficult, and reduce institutional memory. Local staff are often underused. l Program and project design systems tend to be slow and inflexible, and they tend to reward the project designer and obligator of funds rather than the successful iml plementor. Obligating funds can be quick but project implementation can be held up by paper requirements and procurement bottlenecks. Program and project monitoring is constrained by a small staff. Evaluation results may be too narrowly focused and ineffectively incorporated into the design process. These constraints are well known. Some consider them to have worsened with time. Growing concern has led some observers to conclude that AID lacks the commitment to remedy these problems or is incapable of doing so and the best solution would be to restructure the provision of U.S. assistance substantially, to form a new development agency, or to transfer certain AID functions to other organizations. While OTA did not analyze the appropriateness of these options, current budget restrictions and difficulties in passing foreign assistance legislation suggest that such drastic changes are unlikely. Thus, resolving AIDs constraints depends primarily on AID/Administration action. Part of the problem is influence exerted by interests outside of AID (for example, political concerns of the U.S. Department of State, shortterm economic interests of American exporters) that sometimes hamper development work, and Congress may wish to examine these competing pressures. Notwithstanding such external influences, AID has not been effective in resolving well-recognized internal problems. Congress could focus AIDs attention on the need to address and provide support for internal reforms. If such reforms are not successful, then alternative, perhaps more extreme, options could be considered.

PAGE 40

Chapter 2

PAGE 41

CONTENTS Page The Critical Need for Food Security . . . . ... . . . 35 Issues Beyond the Scope of This Assessment . . . . . . 35 Toward Enhancing African Agriculture . . . . . . ,, 38 Chapter 2 References . . . . . . . . ..., . . 39 Box Box Page 2-1. AIDS in Africa: Will It Affect Agricultural Development? ., ., , 37

PAGE 42

Chapter 2 Prologue In view of two decades of acute and chronic food scarcities in much of Africa, and projections of a doubling of population in 25 years, the question arises whether Africa will ever be able to provide enough food for its people. The magnitude of the challenge ahead is reflected by one alarming trend: overall food production in Sub-Saharan Africa in the last decade has increased only about half as fast as population growth although the record is uneven, with food surpluses existing in some areas. Food selfsufficiency has deteriorated in virtually every country (13). Twenty years ago Sub-Saharan Africa was a net exporter of basic food staples, exporting an average of 1.3 million tons a year between 1966 and 1970. By the mid-1980s the region was importing some 10 million tons per year (9). Cereal self-sufficiency alone has dropped from 94 to 82 percent in the past 15 years (14). Lack of food self-sufficiency need not be a serious problem per se, so long as production of other goods and services provides adequate income to acquire food from elsewhere. Food security, not food self-sufficiency, becomes the key goal. Food security can be defined as access by all people at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life and it depends on both the availability of food and the ability to acquire it (16). Improving food security involves increasing food supplies in addition to increasing poor peoples real income, thus giving them access to food in national markets or through imports. Simply ensuring adequate national production contributes little to food security if people lack the ability to purchase what they cannot produce themselves. African economies are heavily dependent on agriculture. In most countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, 70 percent or more of the labor force is in agriculture. Under these circumstances declining food self-sufficiency, as a function of declining per capita food production, is reason for concern. Most disturbing is the prospect that Africas most vulnerable populations will become even more vulnerable and more Africans will be in this precarious position, This report focuses on promising technologies to enhance low-resource agriculture in Africa and how U.S. assistance, with the support and direction of the U.S. Congress, can support African initiatives to meet food security needs. However, several issues that are not covered by this assessment directly and indirectly affect the African governments ability to deal successfully with low-resource agriculture and other food security needs. ISSUES BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THIS ASSESSMENT Achieving food security requires solving a OTA finds strong agreement with the suggestwo-part equation, one of food production (the tion that: supply side) and one of the ability to buy food (the demand side). OTAs charge was to look More research is needed on the demand (food access) side of the equation in light of the coat technology in support of food production in Sub-Saharan Africa, and thus this report foexistence of malnutrition and food surpluses in the region. High priority food security recuses on the production side of the food secusearch priorities are: marketing, trade, exrity equation, Notwithstanding this emphasis, change rate policies, household food security 35

PAGE 43

36 in low rainfall areas, the effects of market liberalization on the food security of various groups in society and research on institutional innovations that increase access to food (12). Further, this report does not address many of the difficult challenges faced by African governments in balancing the needs of promoting food production with other development needs. Many governments face serious difficulties of providing basic city services under the pressure of the most rapidly growing urban populations of any region in the world (l). Many governments also will need to deal with concerns over an urban bias whereby food prices are kept artificially low in order to appease more politically vocal urban constituents, at the expense of rural food producers. Population and refugee problems are also serious in many areas. Degradation of the natural resource base as increasing numbers of Africans overwork the land or are forced to move onto increasingly marginal land is just one manifestation of these problems. Recent concerns of the potentially devastating impact of an AIDS epidemic in Africa (box 2-1) will also demand immediate attention and compete for scarce government resources. Progress in developing Africas low-resource agricultural sector will also be affected by international factors which African governments alone can do little to control. Countries in SubSaharan Africa suffered perhaps more than any other region as a result of global recession in the early 1980s. Beyond the obvious stress placed on funds for development assistance, was the serious impact of decreased international demand for Africas exports. Terms of trade have generally been declining for most African countries. Prices have fallen for most of Sub-Saharan Africas major export products while, on balance, prices have risen for imports. Countries in the region are particularly vulnerable because export earnings depend on one or two commodities (e.g., coffee, cocoa, or cotton). The high level of diversity manifest in traditional African agricultural systems has never translated into the export arena. In fact, over the last several decades African countries have become increasingly dependent on fewer commodities for export earnings (13). As with farming systems, one consequence of little diversity is increased vulnerability. Further, most of Sub-Saharan Africas agricultural export earnings are derived from commodities with low price elasticity of demand. For a number of the most important export commodities, including coffee and cocoa that together comprise nearly half of the regions agricultural export earnings, increased export volume may actually reduce earnings. Thus emphasis on expansion of African agricultural exports without diversification is unlikely to greatly improve African export earnings (5). Also troubling is that new biotechnological advances in industrialized countries could result in synthetically produced replacements for some of Africas most important export commodities (e.g., cocoa). This could have devastating consequences for some African economies. Synthetic substitutes for cotton and rubber, and especially jute and sisal, already have taken a heavy toll. These scenarios present issues that developed and developing countries alike need to address. Finally, serious concerns exist regarding Africas external debt problems. The combined debt of Sub-Saharan African countries pales in comparison to that of other developing regions, especially when compared to those of countries such as Brazil or Mexico. However, viewed as a percentage of gross domestic product or when considering what proportion debt servicing represents relative to total export earnings, the figures assume much greater dimensions. For example, Sub-Saharan Africas ratio of debt to total exports is significantly higher than that of developing countries as a whole (10). Particularly alarming are figures that show precipitous declines in the financial flows to the region and a net outflow of income (10). It is hard to envision how African economies can maintain the status quo, let alone progress, under such conditions. Considerable attention is now being directed to the situation but many proposals have yet to be acted upon (17).

PAGE 44

37 Box 2-1.AIDS in Africa: Will It Affect Agricultural Development? Imagine the AIDS epidemic if the disease were well entrenched in the heterosexual population, If the Red Cross didnt screen the blood supply. If condoms werent available. And if most hospitals couldnt test patients for the virus. Tragically, thats exactly the picture [some experts] paint of Africa today (2). World Health Organization (WHO) statistics as of June 1987 show that in Africa 27 countries have reported 4,570 cases of AIDS. But this figure is the tip of an iceberg, reflecting the continents limited health infrastructure. WHO estimates that 20-35 percent of all patients in some hospitals have AIDS or AIDS-related diseases (7). Central Africa is the most severely affected, although adjacent countries in east and southern Africa are also caught in the epidemic. In an 11 nation strip from the Congo to Tanzania, an estimated 50,000 people have died from AIDS since the first confirmed appearance of the virus in the late 1970s. Up to 5 million people may be infected. Although estimates are somewhat uncertain, up to 99 percent of the people exposed to the virus can be expected to develop AIDS (15). This translates into several million deaths from existing infections alone (6,8). Clinically, AIDS in Africa is no different than AIDS in developed countries: it is an invariably fatal disease, often characterized by a diarrhea-wasting syndrome, infections with organisms that normally do not cause disease, and cancer, such as Kaposis sarcoma. In Africa, one local name for the disease is slim disease, to describe the gaunt look of its victims. However, in Africa the male to female ratio of cases is 1:1. In developed countries, it is 13:1. In Africa the disease is transmitted predominantly by heterosexual activities, exposure to blood transfusions and unsterilized needles, and from mothers to newborns. Because sexual transmission is the dominant route of infection, the brunt of the illness is currently borne by people aged 20 to 49 (11). It is impossible to predict the long-term economic and political impacts of the AIDS epidemic, or the impacts on agricultural development, but the selective involvement of so many young and middleaged adults certainly opens the possibility for serious problems. One possibility in rural areas is that agricultural labor will shrink, and food production could suffer. As more of the economically productive members of society die, fewer resources will be provided for dependents such as young or very old people. This could create added burdens for governments and development assistance. In addition, Africa already lacks trained personnel in many fields, and AIDS could reduce the continents capabilities even further as it strikes the blueand white-collar work force (4). At a different level of impact, the disease could make personnel from development assistance organizations reluctant to work in Africa, harm tourism, and restrict training opportunities for Africans (3). Impacts may also be felt on public policy both in Africa and in the nations providing development assistance. AIDS is an expensive disease: the costs of caring for 10 AIDS patients in the United States (approximately $450,000) is greater than the entire budget of a large hospital in Zaire, where up to 25 percent of the pediatric and adult hospital admissions are infected. The approximately $60 million spent in the United States on blood bank screening in 1985 is many times greater than the entire health budgets of many African countries (11). As the costs mount, African governments may focus their limited resources on fighting the disease, and less maybe available to fund other priorities such as agricultural development. Similarly, donor assistance may increasingly be focused on AIDS, leaving less for other work. The impacts of AIDS will reach into all aspects of African society and for now the prospects for controlling the disease are limited. However, 45 African countries have developed plans to fight the disease. These include establishing a national AIDS committee, conducting an epidemiologic assessment, and instituting a surveillance system for AIDS and AIDS-related infections. Education is given a critical role. But many countries lack the resources needed to build and sustain these activities on a long-term basis, so assistance is likely to be required,

PAGE 45

38 TOWARD ENHANCING AFRICAN AGRICULTURE The general nature of the above discussion masks considerable variation in severity of these problems among African countries, as well as their potential for dealing with them. It does, however, provide a backdrop against which the challenge of promoting agricultural development in the region should be viewed. The intent is not to create an impression of hopelessness but rather to provide a broad perspective to the challenges ahead for Africa and stress the need to address many fronts when pursuing African food security needs. African farming systems need to be a focal point of progress, but factors operating at the national and international levels also have strong influence. The path toward improving food security will vary by country, by region, and even by household. Establishing blue-prints for how to meet food security needs is not realisticdiversity in Africa is too great, resources too variable, and objectives too personal. Africa will need assistance and support in meeting the challenges ahead. But solutions must come from within Africa because it is ultimately the onus of African governments, and more importantly the African people, to support the improvements in agricultural systems. OTAs analysis indicates that success is more likely if development assistance builds off existing agricultural systems instead of replacing them. The track record of development agencies in assisting rural communities in Africa is poor. This suggests a need for greater caution when suggesting what development assistance can offer. Perhaps even more important is the need for a greater appreciation for existing practices. These practices are an important source of information and material for future improvements, not simply obstacles to modern agriculture. Further, a careful understanding of the precarious livelihood of low-resource agriculturalists is needed. This suggests an approach to development assistance that does not expose them to even greater risk, given the tenuous base for survival on which many function. Their practices and institutions are a direct response to reducing their vulnerability yand understanding these responses should be a prerequisite to interfering with them. To help resource-poor farmers and herders thus requires an improved understanding of the environment in which these systems operate. To date, development assistance has overemphasized solutions from the outsidefailing to account for local conditions, perceptions, and resources. Increased attention will have to be paid to soliciting input and support from the people that development assistance is supposed to help. In a sense, the development process in support of low-resource agriculture will need to shift from a monolog, in which communication is one-way from development agent to farmer, to more of a dialog, where communication and exchange of ideas operate in both directions. Enlisting these resource-poor farmers and herders as full partners in the development process enhances the chances that development efforts are directed to the right set of problems and that they will be adopted and sustained, Further, low-resource agriculturalists have an intimate understanding of such basic, but poorly documented, factors as local soil types, indigenous plants and animals, pest control, and climatic patterns. For development assistance groups to ignore this important local information is at best wasteful and at worst a recipe for failure. In this assessment, OTA outlines approaches and technologies that show promise to help the African farmers and herders involved in lowresource agriculture. The goal is to provide options for Congress which, if pursued, can help African farmers, herders, and fishers enhance low-resource agriculture, increase their food security, and improve their lives.

PAGE 46

39 CHAPTER 2 REFERENCES I Adepoju, A. and J.I. Clarke, The Demographic Background to Development in Africa, J.I. Clarke, M. Khogali, and L.A. Kosinski (eds.) Po@ation and Development Projects in Africa (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985), pp. 1-19. 2. Anonymous, Johns Hopkins Magazine, vol. 39, No. 4, Pp. 15-16, August 1987. 3. Copson, Raymond W., AIDS in Africa: Background Issues for U.S. Policy, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, Library of Congress, Washington, DC, Sept. 15, 1987. 4. Dickson, David, Africa Begins to Face Up to AIDS, Science, vol. 238, pp. 605-607, Oct. 30, 1987. 5. Godfrey, Martin, Trade and Exchange Rate Policy: A Further Contribution to the Debate, Tore Rose (cd.), Crisis and Recovery in Sub-Saharan Africa, Development Centre of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (Paris: OECD, 1985), pp. 168-179. 6. Kingman, Sharon, How Africa Must Live With AIDS, New Scientist, No. 1595, pp. 34-35, Jan. 14, 1988. 7. Mann, Jonathan, AIDS Epidemiology, Impact, Prevention and Control: The World Health Organization Perspective, undated manuscript. 8. Nordland, R., R. Wilkinson, and R. Marshall, Africa in the Plague Years, ZVewsweek, pp. 44-47, Nov. 24, 1986. 9. Pauline, Leonardo A., The Evolving Food Situation, J.W. Mellor, C.L. Delgado, and M.J. Blackie (eds.), Accelerating Food Production in Sub-Saharan Africa (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987), pp. 23-38. 10. 11, 12 < 13 Perez de Cuellar, Javier, Africa: One Year Later, Report of the Secretary-General on the economic crisis in Africa a year after the U.N. Special Session, October 1987. Quinn, Thomas C., Jonathan M. Mann, James W. Curran, and Peter Piot, AIDS in Africa: An Epidemiologic Paradigm, Science, vol. 234, pp. 955-963, Nov. 21, 1986 Rukuni, M. and Eicher, C. K., The Food Security Equation in Southern Africa, M. Rukini, and C.K. Eicher (eds.), Food Security for Southern Africa, Harare, UZ/MSU Food Security Project, Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension, University of Zimbabwe, 1987. Sirwh. Shamsher. Sub-Saharan Africa: Svnthesis and 71a~eProspects, World Bank Staff Work&g Paper No. 608 1983 (Washington, DC: The World Bank, July 1983). 14. U.N, Food and Agriculture Organization U.N. (FAO), Atlas of African Agriculture (Rome: FAO, 1986). 15. Specter, Michael, AIDS Virus Likely Fatal to All Infected, Washington Post, June 3, 1988, pp. Al, A14. 16. World Bank, Poverty and Hunger: Issues and Options for Food Security in Developing Countries, A World Bank Policy Study (Washington, DC: The World Bank, February 1986). 17. World Bank, WorZd Dept ~ab)es, vol. I. Analysis and Summary Tables, 1987-1988 Edition (Washington, DC: The World Bank, 1988).

PAGE 47

Part I: Low-Resource Agriculture and Development Assistance

PAGE 48

Chapter 3 The Status of

PAGE 49

. ... CONTENTS Page Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 African Agriculture: Resourceful With Few Resources . . . . 45 A Characterization of Low-Resource Agriculture in Africa . . . 46 An Agroecological View of Low-Resource Food Production . . . 50 Arid and Semi-Arid Tropics . . . . . . . . . . 50 Subhumid Tropical Uplands . . . . . . . . . 53 Humid Lowlands . . . ........0 . ., . ........! . 53 Tropical and Subtropical Highlands . . . . . 8 . . 56 Contributions of Low-Resource Agriculture to African Food Security . 56 Producing Most of Africas Food . . . . . . . . 57 The Primary Employer and Major Source of Income . . . . 58 A Buffer Against Famine . . . . . . . . . . 59 Losing Ground: Concerns for African Agriculture . . . . . 60 Africas Population Challenge for Agriculture . . . . . . 60 Signs of Decline in African Agriculture. . . . . . . . 61 Obstacles To Improving Productivity and Food Security . . . . 64 Biophysical and Socioeconomic Constraints . . . . . . 64 Unsupportive Policies ....................00....0.. .. ... ... ..... $ 6 6 Infrastructural Weaknesses . . . . . . . . . . 67 Underdeveloped Technical Institutions . . . . . . . 68 Chapter 3 References . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Boxe s Box Page 3-1. Terms Used in Describing African Agriculture . . . . . 48 3-2. Profile: The Life of a Farmer . . . . . . . . . 51 3-3. Profile: The Life of a Nomadic Herder . . . . . . . 52 3-4. African Agroecological Zones and Primary Food Commodities. . 54 Figur e Figure Page 3-1. Womens Contributions to African Agriculture . . . . . 49 Tables Table Page 3-1 3-2 3-3 3-4 3-5 Importance of Agriculture to African Economies . . . . 46 Low-Resource Agriculture and African Staple Food Production . 57 Summary of the Most Serious Environmental Degradation Problems by Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Modern Input Use in Africa, Asia, and South America, 1977 . . 68 Level of Support for Agricultural Researching Different Regions . 69

PAGE 50

Chapter 3 The Status of Low-Resource Agriculture c l Q l HIGHLIGHTS Africas hallmark is its diversity. Its vast culClearly, then, it is risky to generalize about tural diversity is manifest in nearly 800 distinct ethnic groups, which account for about onethird of the worlds languages (23). The 45 countries of Sub-Saharan Africa show a wide array of political and economic systems, including numerous systems of tribal and modern law. The region also has wide ecological diversity ranging from desert to savannah to rainforest and broad soil and climate variations that can change over short distances. This diversity is mirrored in the nature of African agriculture. Having evolved under these differing biophysical and cultural influences, African agriculture encompasses a complex array of crop and livestock production systems. African-agriculture. There is no such thing as a typical African farm. Some common elements, however, can be identified. One consistent aspect of African agriculture is its prominent position in African economies (table 3-1). Agriculture employs about three-quarters of Sub-Saharan Africas labor force and accounts for about one-third the regions gross domestic product. Also, about one-half of the countries in the region derive at least 40 percent of their export earnings from agricultural products. Further, despite major increases of food imports, particularly grains and dairy products, the region still produces most of its own food at least 80 percent of its cereals, 95 percent of 45

PAGE 51

46 Table 3-1 .Importance of Agriculture to African Economies Population Labor force Agriculture Agricultural exports in millions in agriculture as 0 / 0 of GD P a Country as % of total (1985) (% in 1980) (1985) exports (1983) Angola ., . . . Benin . . . . Botswana. . . . Burkina Faso . . Burundi . . . . Cameroon . . . Cape Verde . . . Central African Republic (CAR). . Chad. . . . . Comoros . . . Congo . . . . Djibouti . . . . Equatorial Guinea . Ethiopia . . . . Gabon . . . . Gambia . . . . Ghana . . . . Guinea . . . . Guinea-Bissau . . Ivory Coast . . . Kenya . . . . Lesotho . . . . Liberia . . . . Madagascar. . . . Malawi . . . . Mali . . . . Mauritania . . . Mauritius . . . Mozambique . . . Niger . . . . Nigeria . . . . Principe and Sao Tome... Rwanda . . . . Senegal . . . . Seychelles. ..., . . Sierra Leone . . . Somalia . . . . Sudan . . . . Swaziland . . . Tanzania . . . Togo . . . . Uganda . . . . Zaire . . . . Zambia. . . . . Zimbabwe . . . its meat, 75 percent of its dairy products, and A Characterlzation of Low-Resource almost all roots and tubers (72). Although sigAgriculture in Africa nificant variations may exist from country to country or village to village, the overall imporAlthough it is difficult to generalize about tance of agricuhure to African economies is inAfrican agriculture, a close look at the majority disputable. of the farming systems used shows that many

PAGE 52

47 share important attributes. Despite the great variation in approaches, most of Africas agriculture can be categorized as low-resource agriculture. Low-resource agriculture is a form of agriculture conducted by a diverse group of poor farmers, herders, and fishers, based primarily on the use of local resources but may make modest use of external inputs, including information and technology. Local resources include the various renewable resources at hand, such as soil, water, and vegetation, etc., as well as local knowledge, labor, agricultural practices and management systems, and local institutions. External resources refer to those agricultural inputs and technologies (e. g., commercial fertilizer and pesticides, hybrid seeds, tractors, and irrigation systems) and information (e.g., management skills and data) that originate outside the local area and typically depend on continued external support. These external resources are commonly referred to as modern inputs because of how they have changed agriculture over the last 50 years, especially in developed countries. The distinction between local and external resources sometimes is not clear. Resources that came from outside of the local area in the past now maybe considered local because of adaptation and a long history of use. For example, most of Africas staple crops (e.g., corn) were introduced from outside the continent but have since evolved unique varieties in various regions. A Continuum of Resource Use The definition of low-resource agriculture is a conceptual one that is difficult to quantify, in part because the available aggregate data on African agricultural production do not distinguish the degree of modern input use, only whether or not farmers use them (64). Resource use in African agriculture is best viewed along a continuum, acknowledging that various kinds of inputs and outputs can change over time or according to what is being raised. African agricultural systems range from smallto large-scale, from using no modern inputs to using many modern inputs, from producing crops and livestock for subsistence to producing them for sale, and from providing low incomes to providing high incomes. However, the vast majority of Africas farmers, herders, and fishers operate on the lower to middle end of this range and these people are the focus of this report. The agriculturalists working on the lowest end of the resource use scale are relatively easy to identify: they use no modern inputs, earn little money, and produce goods primarily for their own familys consumption. These people are sometimes referred to as subsistence agriculturalists or low-input farmers (box 3-I). It is possible to estimate roughly how much food this subset of low-resource agriculture produces, which helps establish an idea of the contribution made by these low-end low-resource agriculturalists. These estimates are discussed later in this chapter. Moving up along the resource use continuum, the importance of external inputs increases; farmers may use small amounts of fertilizer and improved crop varieties and herders may have some access to veterinary services. The level of modern input use can vary among farms and herds and even on the same farm between crops and seasons. For example, a low-resource farm in Senegal may grow an improved rice variety using irrigation and low levels of fertilizer as well as an intercrop of local varieties of maize and cowpeas that receives no fertilizer or pesticides. On the highest end of the resource use continuum are the relatively few high-resource African farms. These include large-scale, privately owned commercial operations (e.g., plantations); large mechanized state-run farms; and large-scale cattle ranches. These agricultural systems rely on greater amounts of inputs, including information and technology and developed support services such as transportation infrastructures, established markets, and input supply. The contribution of these large-scale farms to Africas food production probably is no more than about 5 percent (47). These operations are not examined in this report.

PAGE 53

48 Box 3-1.Terms Used in Describing African Agriculture OTAs use of the term low-resource agriculture is not intended to coin a new phrase or suggest a radically different view of African agriculture. Instead, low-resource agriculture is used to emphasize the strong dependence of farmers, herders, and fishers on resources internal to agricultural systems, their poverty, and the existence of combined farming, herding, and fishing practices. Each of these is a defining feature of most African agriculture but not well captured in other terms. While the term low-resource stresses limited resource use, it does not mean no use of external inputs (i.e., no-resource). Input use varies among low-resource producers and within their operations. These points are emphasized to varying degrees in related terms used by the development assistance community, including: c Low-input agriculture: As used by FAO, the primary input in these systems is hand labor. No modern inputs (e.g., fertilizer and herbicides) or technologies (e.g., soil conservation techniques) are used (67). This definition is narrower than that of low-resource agriculture because lowinput agriculture includes only those systems at the lowest end of the input continuum where no modern, or external, inputs are available, l Smallholding/small farm: These terms are used frequently to describe African agriculture. They overlap considerably with low-resource agriculture, but differ in two respects: this definition connotes small farm size, a description which is inadequate when talking about pastoralists who use very large areas. Also, the level of external inputs used on small farms is not explicit in the definition. In some cases, smallholders may use high levels of external inputs. For example, smallholders in Kenyas highlands have established a dairy based on crossbred cows, including artificial insemination, input and extension services, and a marketing network. This operation would not be included in OTAs definition of low-resource agriculture because resourcepoor farmers use fewer external inputs, regardless of farm size. c Subsistence farm: Subsistence farms generally gear their production to meeting household needs. By most definitions, no more than 50 percent of the output is sold. While the precise proportion of sales is debatable, the low participation of producers in commercial markets and in cash cropping is the rule. Subsistence farms would exist at the lowest end of a resource use continuum. Low-resource agriculture is broaderfocusing on food production and rural purchasing power as integrated components of food security. Some high-input, highly commercialized, but focus of discussion here is on farmers and small-scale operations also exist in Africa. herders at a lower portion of the resource conThese enterprises generally operate in more climatically favorable regions within a select number of countries, tend to be well integrated into national economies, and have good access to national and export markets. Examples include certain smallholder operations heavily geared to export commodities (e.g., coffee and cocoa) that account for a high proportion of Africas fertilizer and pesticide use. Smallholder commercial dairy operations, such as those in parts of Kenya that rely heavily on input and output markets, might also be included in this category. Although this category provides some insights about how to enhance low-resource agriculture and may benefit from the sorts of technologies outlined in this report, the main tinuum. Describing Low-Resource Agriculture Low-resource agricultural systems are typically complex, diversified, and changing, but they generally share certain characteristics: l they strive to reduce risk, even if this means obtaining less than maximum yields; l they depend on local knowledge; l they depend on biological processes and renewable resources; l they involve low cash costs, but relatively high labor costs and low labor productivity; and l they are adapted to local cultures and envi-

PAGE 54

49 ronments, although social and ecological systems are showing increasing strains under growing pressures, The resource-poor agriculturalists who use these systems generally are poor and have limited access to and control over land, water, labor, capital, external sources of information and technology, and external inputs such as commercial fertilizer. Raising food, including livestock, is a major production activity but they may also engage in cash-crop production, fishing or fish-farming, forestry, food processing and marketing, and a host of other incomegenerating activities. The range of activities and how they are performed is a response to this groups great vulnerability to factors outside their control. Activities of resource-poor agriculturalists reflect a need to reduce the risks created by fluctuations in climate, the economy, and the political system. This tends to result in lower than optimal yields, but with the benefit of producing household food supplies throughout as much of the year as possible. This strategy has been characterized as a kind of adaptive diversity that, while not providing maximal returns under optimal conditions, is able to provide reasonable returns under a wide range of fluctuating and unpredictable environmental conditions (43). Poverty seriously constrains most farmers from investing in agricultural improvements. It is not unusual for a farmers total annual capital investment to be under $10 (9,42). Expenditures in the semi-arid tropics of West Africa, where labor commonly is hired, may reach $20 to $60 per hectare (42). Although expenditures other than labor appear to be small, in many cases they represent a high proportion of the capital actually available to a household for expenditures other than food (52). In low-resource agriculture, the family or household provides the critical source of labor. The division of labor in African agriculture varies across the continent. Men are primarily responsible for land preparation and planting in many areas, whereas women are primarily responsible for weeding and harvesting. In other areas, men are responsible for producing export crops, whereas women work in the production of the export crops as well as in separate fields to produce food for household consumption. Data from most African countries confirm that women play a major role in agriculture, especially in women-headed households (figure 3-1). Women contribute about two-thirds of all hours spent producing food in traditional agriculture, about 70 percent of the hours devoted to marketing, and at least 80 percent of the hours spent on food processing and storage (31). The elderly and young children of the household also make significant contributions to agricultural production, from scaring birds and harvesting crops to tending small livestock, The dependence on household labor can lead to seasonal labor shortages as well as periods of underemployment. The need for manual labor is especially high during seasonal activities such as land clearing, tilling, sowing, weeding, and harvesting. These periods represent Figure 3-1 .-Womens Contributions to African Agriculture Clearing land: Turning soil: Planting: Weeding & hoeing: Harvesting: Carrying crops home: Storing: Processing Marketing Carrying water & fuel: Domestic animal care: Hunting: Cooking & family care: 5 % 30 % 500/o 70 /0 600/0 800/0 800/0 900/0 600/0 90 /0 50 /0 10% 95 % SOURCE: U.N. Economic Commission for Africa, Women in Africa, 1975.

PAGE 55

50 peaks in labor demand and available household labor may be inadequate. The ability to meet this peak demand has been further constrained as many young men seeking jobs migrate from rural to urban areas or to distant rural regions for commercial jobs such as those on agricultural estates or in mines. On the other hand, however, seasonal underemployment occurs during times when little agricultural labor is needed, especially in the shorter growing season, semi-arid regions (50). Low-resource agriculture thus can be seen as a livelihood meeting multiple needs, and it involves balancing scarce endowments of land, labor, and capital. For the farmer or herder, this involves a complex decisionmaking process that regularly requires difficult trade-offs. This complexity also creates challenges for researchers trying to decipher the process. Analyses that focus narrowly on only one particular activity in low-resource systems can lead to misguided or inappropriate conclusions about how to improve that activity since the assistance may be inconsistent with the overall household production system. For example, new technologies that require increased labor, particularly during peak labor periods, may not be feasible for a farming household to adopt if it means drawing someones time away from other important activities. Although low-resource agriculture was once perceived as inefficient and somewhat haphazard, recent investigations have given rise to a far greater appreciation of the efficiency and logic of various systems and practicesgiven families available resources and multiple objectives. Further discussion of the features of low-resource agriculture and their implications for development assistance is provided in chapter 4. Boxes 3-2 and 3-3 illustrate two particular low-resource systems. AN AGROECOLOGICAL VIEW OF LOW-RESOURCE FOOD PRODUCTION Socio-economic factors are extremely important in defining the nature of low-resource agriculture. It is also essential, however, to evaluate how agroecological factors help define production in low-resource agricultural systems. The discussion that follows is organized around four broad agroecological zones (box 3-4). This organization provides an overview of African agriculture and is a simple way to address various management and development assistance issues. Reality, however, is rarely simple. Each zone on the map includes a wide range of agroecological conditions that reflect heterogeneity at the microlevel. Each zone is likely to produce some of each particular crop and kind of livestock and multiple crop and livestock varieties tend to be raised together. Home gardens are important in all zones, for example. Defining only the major food crop also masks the importance of the cash crops grown, as well as the importance of the many non-farm activities pursued by low-resource agriculturalists. Thus, the following regional sketches and the summaries inbox 3-4 are intended simply to illustrate the relative importance of major crops and livestock in each zone. Arid and Semi-Arid Tropics Millet is the predominant crop in Africas drier areas, where it is commonly the only cereal that can be grown under rainfed conditions. Sorghum replaces millet as the principal crop in wetter areas or on more moistureretaining soils. Maize, which is less drought tolerant than either of the other two cereals, is produced to a small extent in this zone. Whether grown separately or intercropped, millet and sorghum are typically grown under lowresource conditions using local varieties and little or no fertilizer or pesticides (1,42,48,75) (app. D). Rice is an important crop but its production is restricted to river basins. Although some improved varieties are used, less than 5

PAGE 56

51 Box 3-2.Profile: The Life of a Farmer* Malawi is a landlocked country in southern Africa, bordered by Tanzania, Zambia, and Mozambique. At least 80 percent of the people in Malawi are rural and make their livings farming. In the center of the country is a broad plateau called the Lilongwe Plain an area of good soils and adequate rainfall that is the granary for the country. It is here that Sindima lives on a farm of about 2 1/2 hectares that includes land she inherited from her mother and land that belongs to her husband. Sindima is in her late thirties and has five living children; two other children have died, and its likely that she will have two or three more children in time. She is head of her householdwhich is not unusual in Malawi, where at least one-third of all rural households are headed by women. Sindimas husband moved to Lilongwe, the capital, to find work. It takes 2 days for him to walk home, so she sees him infrequently. This means the traditional division of labor on their farm has shifted-in their grandparents time, the men did all the heavy work, like clearing new land, plowing, or building fences, and the women did all the planting, weeding, harvesting, and processing. In her family, decisionmaking was shared. Now, however, Sindima makes almost all the management decisions, and she and her children do all the work. Since most of the land is under continuous cultivation, there is little opportunity to clear new lands, which is one of the reasons her husband felt compelled to leave for the city. By local standards, Sindima is affluent. Because she and her husband belong to a local farmers club, she has access to the extension agent for information. A development assistance project supplies credit in the form of some fertilizer and improved seeds, which she will pay back when she sells the crops after the harvest. With this help, she plants a more complicated mix of crops than many of her neighborshybrid and local maize, groundnuts, beans, a variety of local vegetables, and a little tobacco. She uses the fertilizer and improved maize on about one-half hectare, but she continues to plant local maize even though it is less productive because it tastes better and is less susceptible to insect damage in storage. Sindima is quite knowledgeable about managing her fields, particularly the garden crops she grows near the house. Because she has a relatively good size farm, Sindima is able to grow some maize and tobacco as monocrops, which simplifies the labor and management required. Like most of her neighbors, however, most of her land is intercropped and she has a sophisticated understanding of crop rotation, planting times, weeding requirements, and allocation of labor. Sindima knows it is important not to overwork the land. But its more difficult now than ever to let a field lie fallow to regain fertility because of the pressure she feels to produce the most she can from her small farm. In the past, Sindima took some extension classes on nutrition and sewing, but only recently have they let women take the farming courses. She hopes to take a course about using the improved maize varieties soon, because she has been learning by trial and error so far. Of course, finding time for classes is hard when she almost always has something to do in the fields or her household. Just grinding maize enough for her own family takes hours; so does finding enough firewood. She keeps some chickens and goats, too, which have always been the womans responsibility. Her children help with many tasksthe two older girls walk to the community well twice each day to get water, and everyone helps with harvestbut she wants them to stay in school. With the money she makes at market (she not only sells crops, but also a little tobacco and home-brewed beer) and the money her husband sends, she can pay their school fees and sees education as a high priority. Sindima illustrates what can be accomplished on a small farm with few resourcesbut she has an advantage over many other women who farm alone. After all, she has a husband sending money, two parcels of land, and access to the agricultural extension system. Her cousin Nanthalo, on the other hand, is younger, divorced, with three small children. To make ends meet, she hires out to help others with planting and weeding, but this interferes with the time she has to devote to her own fields. (Since this is a matrilineal society, she kept her land when her husband left; in many other countries, she would be worse off because all land belongs to the men.) She does not have the money to keep her children in school, and her child care responsibilities keep her from taking an extension classes. With only one small parcel of land, her l k farm is too small to be e igible for credit pac ages or other help from extension. She gets by as she can, and depends on help from relatives like Sindima. While Sindima illustrates the potential of low-resource farming styles in Malawi, Nanthalo may well be more typical. l Sindima is fictional but this profile is a composite drawn from the lives of real people. SOURCES: Anita Spring, Associate Dean, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, persona] communication, 1987, and Profiles of Men and Women Smallholder Farmers in the Lilongwe Rural Development Project, Malawi, report to Office of Women in Development, U.S. Agency for International Development, Washington, DC, March 1984.

PAGE 57

52 Box 3-3.Profile: The Life of a Nomadic Herder* The Sahel region of West Africa is vast and dry, a seemingly inhospitable land. Yet for 6,000 years, nomadic herders have made productive use of what is, to many, a marginal environment, They have learned to use the ecosystem to their advantage, moving when they must seek water and forage to satisfy their livestock. Mossa is a herder, like his father and his fathers father, He is in his forties, the youngest of nine children, and has lived his life in an area north of Timbuktu, Mali. He and his wife have three sons and four daughters still alive; four other children have died. Mossas life is typical of that found in this large expanse of arid and semiarid land, although from a broader perspective he illustrates only the lifestyle of the 6 percent of Africas population that is nomadic. Animals are the core of life for Mossa and his family. Cattle, sheep, and goats provide milk, butter, cheese and, for special occasions, meat. The heavy tents Mossa and his family live instrong enough to withstand high winds, sand storms, and the driving rain of the wet seasonare made of hides, as are their sandals and many household goods. When the family needs grain or other goods, Mossa sells or trades what he must from the herd. His herd size is respectable by local standards; he has some cows, calves, and heifers, plus a number of goats and some sheep, Mossa, his father, and others before them have carefully applied their knowledge and management skills to these animals and their breeding. And while Western veterinary medicine is not generally available, he has a variety of traditional, and often effective, methods for treating his animals. The herd represents more than a source of income to Mossa and his family. It is a measure of their wealth, status, and security. This is not merely a matter of pride: livestock are their bank account, their way of saving resources for bad times in a land that has unpredictable but frequent droughts. Mossas nomadic community consists of about 10 related families who move together with their livestock following good pasture and water. During the dry season, they break camp before dawn and travel before the heat of noon. They camp near a particular well as long as the pasture holds outusually a matter of a few weeks. During the wet season, they move more frequently to take advantage of the better forage. They must always camp within about 10 km of water because their small livestock must be watered every day. Life is changing rapidly for Mossa now. He has far more contact with urban people than his father did, and this has changed his and his familys expectations. They buy more household goods and eat some different foods. Young men from the community are far more likely to leave now and go to the city in search of work, which changes the family structure for those that remain. Mossas ability to make a living from the land is changing too. Some productive lands he once grazed have deteriorated, like the area around the government-dug deep well. It was a good idea gone awry: water is always needed, but too many animals concentrated around one water source stripped the land of its vegetation, starting in motion a chain of erosion and degradation. In other places, crop farmers have taken over land where he and his family once grazed their livestock. In particular, one area he traditionally used during dry periods has become part of a large landholding owned by an absentee civil servant, and he can no longer go there. His risk has increased: during the next severe drought, Mossa will probably lose a large part of the herd. Mossa still has yet to recover from the last drought when, like most other herders, he lost half his animals. During this recent drought, for the first time Mossa was unable to feed his family. International assistance organizations provided food aid to Mossas community, but little else. Indeed, Mossa sees fewer donor-supported livestock projects than he did a decade ago, and he wonders whether his own government or any of the many other groups that attempt to help really know how to help him improve his life, l Mossa is fictional but this profile is a composite drawn from the lives of real people. SOURCES: American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), Tin Aicha Nomad Village (Philadelphia, PA: AFSC, 1982); Michael M. Horowitz, The Sociology of Pastoralism and African Livestock Projects, AID Program Evolution Discussion Paper No. 6. (Washington, DC: Bureau for Program and Policy Coordination, AID, May 1979); George S. Scharffenberger, Consultant, Washington, DC, personal communication, 1987.

PAGE 58

53 percent of the rice production in Africa consists of High Yielding Varieties, unlike most other parts of the world where these are used extensively (13). Food legumes, especially cowpeas, are often intercropped with cereals under low-resource conditions. Root and tuber crops are less important in the arid and semi-arid zone than in others, but they provide a small percentage of the dietary energy supply (72). About 60 percent of tropical Africas ruminant livestock and virtually all of the continents estimated 11 million camel live in the arid and semi-arid zone (30,60). The region is characterized by a low livestock/land ratio, but a high livestock/human ratio. Pastoralist systems of various kinds prevail. For example, nomadic systems, which occupy the drier regions of the Sahel that are unsuitable for crop production (i.e., rainfall less than 300 mm/yr), use nutrientrich natural vegetation produced during the short rainy season. These people then move south during the dry season. Transhumant pastoraliststhose who are mobile around a fixed baseare most common in the semi-arid zone receiving 300 to 600 mm/yr of rainfall. Sedentary agropastoraliststhose who remain in one place have become increasingly common in more favorable areas within this zone. An estimated 40 percent of Sahelian cattle and even larger percentages of small ruminants are being raised under this system (82). Virtually all of the rangeland livestock production in the arid and semi-arid zone can be considered low-resource agriculture. In Sudan, for example, an estimated 90 percent of livestock is produced with virtually no outside inputs (app. D, 75). The exceptions are ranching activities that are important in a few southern African countries, such as Botswana and Zimbabwe. Overall, however, ranching activities in Sub-Saharan Africa probably account for only about 6 percent of Africas livestock production (7]. Subhumid Tropical Uplands Sorghum and maize are the predominant cereals in Africas subhumid tropical uplands. In this zone, sorghum is the preferred cereal for drier conditions and whereas maize is more common in wetter areas. Maize commonly receives some modern inputs. Compared to millet and sorghum, it is not clear how much of the maize production should actually be considered low-resource. For example, in the leading maize-producing countriesZimbabwe and Kenyamost land is planted with hybrids (15). Yet most countries across all agroecological zones report low national productivity averages (e.g., Ivory Coast: 660 kg/ha, Zaire: 780 kg/ha, Angola: 510 kg/ha-compared to 1,940 kg/ha average in Zimbabwe) (72), an indication that most maize is produced under low-resource conditions. Roots, tubers, and plantains are also prevalent in subhumid areas, although less so here than in the humid lowlands. As in the arid and semi-arid zone, food legumes and rice are also produced. NDama and Zebu cattle are the most economically important livestock in the subhumid zone, followed by goats and sheep (30). Grazing densities are low, on par with the arid zone and less than one-quarter of that in the highland regions. Low productivity is the result of nutritionally deficient forage (i.e., inadequate protein and minerals), despite the generally favorable quantity of forage growth (28). Also trypanosomiasis prohibits livestock production in about two-thirds of the subhumid zone (63). Livestock and crop production are not well integrated in mixed farming systems, although close links often exist between pastoralists and farmers, especially in West Africa. Examples of links include exchanges of food crops for livestock products, exchanges of post-harvest fodder for organic fertilizer (manure), and reciprocal labor arrangements (40). Increasingly, however, these complementar y relationships seem to be overshadowed by competition for land and resources (40). Humid Lowlands Roots, tubers (e.g., cassava, yams, sweet potatoes, and cocoyams), and plantains are the predominant crops and major sources of calories

PAGE 59

54 Box 3-4.African Agroecological Zones and Primary Food Commodities Length of growing Agroecological zone period a (days) Annual rainfall Primary food commodities Arid and Semi-Arid 1-74 (arid) 100-1,000 m m Tropics 75-180 (semi-arid) Subhumid Tropical 180-270 900-1,500 mm Uplands Bimodal rainfall in East Africa Humid Lowlands 270 + 1,500+ mm Bimodal rainfall Tropical and Subtropical Variable Highlands Variable Little cultivation in arid areas. Millet and sorghum predominant, with millet grown in drier areas. Maize in wetter areas and rice in river basins. Food legumes (e.g., cowpeas and groundnuts) important and some roots and tubers grown in wetter areas. Approximately 60/0 of Africas ruminant livestock (goats, sheep, cattle, and camels) raised here by both nomadic and settled pastoralists. Sorghum and maize are the most important cereals, with sorghum preferred in drier areas. Roots, tubers, and plantains are important. Food legumes and rice also produced. Two-thirds of the zone are affected by trypanosomiasis (spread by the tsetse fly) which inhibits livestock production. NDama and Zebu cattle are the economically most important livestock followed by goats and sheep, Roots, tubers, and plantains predominate (e.g., cassava, yams, etc.) Some maize, rice, and sorghum. Trypanosomiasis exists throughout the zone precluding almost all but the small trypano-tolerant NDama cattle and tolerant goats and sheep. Some poultry and swine production. Mixed farming (livestock and crops raised on same farm) prevails. Predominant cereals are maize and sorghum, Roots and tubers (especially sweet potatoes) are important in specific countries. Plantains and food legumes are also grown. The absence of trypanosomiasis and availability of good fodder allow a stocking density four times the average. a Length of growing period IS the period when both moisture and temperature permit crop growth. SOURCES: U.S. Agency for International Development, Bureau for Africa, Plan for Supporting Natural Resources Management in Sub-Saharan Africa, (Washington, DC: USAID, February 1986), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, African Agriculture: The Next 25 Years Atlas of African Africulture (Rome, FAO: 1986]. International Livestock Center for Africa, ILCA Annual Report 1983 (Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: ILCA, 1984],

PAGE 60

55 Algeria

PAGE 61

56 throughout the humid lowlands (72). These are grown almost completely under low-resource conditions (27,74,75) (app. D). While most of these crops can be grown under widely ranging rainfall and soil conditions and therefore are produced in all agroecological zones, cocoyams are restricted to the humid lowlands (25). Maize, rice, and sorghum are grown in various parts of this zone, as are a wide range of food legumes and vegetables. Although the humid zone comprises almost 20 percent of Sub-Saharan Africa, it accounts for only about 7 percent of the ruminant livestock production. Virtually the entire humid zone is infested with tsetse fly, precluding almost all but the small trypano-tolerant NDama breeds of cattle. Goats and sheep, which are more tolerant of trypanosomiasis, assume greater importance in this zone, although other diseases (e.g., Peste de Petit Ruminant) and parasites can restrict their production. However, women manage a few small ruminants in most areas in conjunction with their home gardens. Poultry and swine production are of particular importance in the humid zone, particularly near population centers. Swine production, restricted in many areas because of disease and religious taboos, is most common in humid coastal regions. Rapidly increasing demand for poultry, and to a lesser extent swine, has promoted intensification in traditional production systems. A significant share of these production increases are possible because of imported large-scale commercial production technology being developed near urban centers (82). Tropical and Subtropical Highlands Even though the highlands contain no more than 5 percent of Africas land area, generally favorable agroclimatic factors enable it to support nearly 20 percent of the regions rural population. The zone produces a wide range of crops. Cereals, primarily maize and sorghum, predominate in most countries. However, root and tuber crops, especially sweet potatoes, are more important in such countries as Rwanda and Burundi (72). Plantains and food legumes also contribute to the diet. Livestock production, especially cattle, is an important activity, with almost 20 percent of Africas ruminant livestock production occurring in the highlands (22). Generally fertile soils, moderate temperatures, and ample rainfall result in relatively high fodder production. These factors, combined with the absence of trypanosomiasis and the use of high-yield imported breeds and cross-breeds, allow a stocking density almost four times the average for Africa. Most farming in the highlands, consists of mixed systems where crops and livestock are raised in the same management units (22). This is the only zone where such integration is well developed. High human population densities, relatively well-established distribution systems, and numerous markets have led to progressively greater use of purchased inputs. In the most favorable highland regions, many smallscale farmers have established highly commercialized operations, using predominantly highyielding crop varieties and modern inputs such as artificial insemination services for livestock. CONTRIBUTIONS OF LOW-RESOURCE AGRICULTURE TO AFRICAN FOOD SECURITY Low-resource agriculture makes a crucial it is significant to household food production contribution to African food security 1 because and income generation. Low-resource agriculture is the source of most of Africas food, a *Food security can be defined as access by all people at all times to enough food for an active, health life; food security deprimary income and employment source for the pends on both the availability of food and the ability to acquire majority of Africans and African governments, it (79). and a strategy used by many of Africas most

PAGE 62

57 vulnerable people to buffer themselves against food shortfalls and famine. Producing Most of Africa's Food The majority of food production across Africa, is by low-resource agriculture. Lowresource agriculture produces the majority of grain, except wheat and perhaps maize. Almost all root, tuber, and plantain crops, and the majority of food legumes are produced on lowresource farms (table 3-2). In addition, a great variety of secondary crops such as fruits and vegetables are grown under low-resource conditions to supplement these staples (app. D, 75). An estimated 75 percent of all livestock in Sub-Saharan Africa is raised on farms where crop production is the principle source of subsistence, and livestock are an important source of cash income. Most of these livestock receive little supplementary feed or health care (7) and their production can be considered lowresource. Approximately 20 percent of liveTable 3-2.Low-Resource Agriculture and African Staple Food Production a Minimum estimate of low-resource Crop/livestock/fish External input use b production Millet Sorghum Maize Rice Food legumes (e.g., cowpeas, pigeon peas, beans, and groundnuts) Roots, tubers, and plaintain (e.g., cassava, yam, cocoyam, and sweet potato) Cattle Small ruminants and other livestock (e.g., sheep, goats, poultry, and swine) Fish Virtually no use of fertilizers and very little use of improved seed. Basically the same situation as millet, but hybrids and commercial inputs are becoming more important in some areas. At least 75 percent produced without hybrid seeds and with less than recommended fertilizer levels; but probably as much as two-thirds produced with non-hybrid improved seed and moderate levels of fertilizer. At least 75 percent produced using less than recommended levels of fertilizer and receiving inadequate irrigation (and no more than 5 percent using High-Yielding Varieties). Most crops of this diverse group receive virtually no commercial inputs, but some production is under higher-resource conditions (e.g., up to 50 percent of groundnut production). Virtually no use of fertilizers or improved seed. Some high-resource banana production for exports. Six percent produced on ranches, generally considered high-resource; 20 percent produced by pastoralists, virtually all under low-resource conditions except for occasional veterinary care; 74 percent produced in mixed farms, a minority of this under higher-resource conditions, such as dairy farming in some highland areas. Almost all sheep, goats, and camels raised under low-resource conditions; most swine and poultry produced under low-resource conditions, but increasingly more produced under higher-resource conditions, especially near some urban areas. As much as 85 to 95 percent caught in small-scale artisanal fisheries mostly under low-resource conditions, though increasingly fishers are using outboard motors; the remainder is harvested by large-scale offshore operations mainly by foreign-owned vessels. 720/o 61 % 37 % 760/o 55/0 groundnuts 49/0 beans 93% cassava 100% yams 100% cocoyam aAggregate agricultural data for Africa usually do not detail levels of external input use but only whether Or not such inputs are used. Table 3-2 shows the importance of low-resource production in two ways. First, it describes the type of input use for the Production of specific commodities and second, it sets a minimum boundary on the volume of low-resource production of specific crops, based on estimates on low-input agriculture production in eight African countries. bColumn 2 provides descriptions of the types and levels of external inputs used for specific products. These descriptions help to locate where the majority of production takes place along the range of modern in Put use. The descriptions were compiled from a set of technology papers written for OTA (app. A) and additional outside publications. cColumn 3 represents an effort to establish quantitative estimates of the minimum contributions of low-resource agriculture. The data show production under conditions of no modern input use for eight sample countries. These eight countries account for at least 50 percent of African production of maize, sorghum, millet, cocoyam; and no less than 30 percent of cassava, groundnut, and rice production. The data were compiled by the Economic Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture for OTA. (See app. E) SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1988,

PAGE 63

58 stock production occurs in pastoral systems, where animals are the major source of income and food (milk is often more important than meat) (63). Pastoralist systems, by their nature, are low-resource enterprises, although some use of veterinary services is becoming more common. Just over 5 percent of Africas livestock is raised on higher resource ranches (7). Fish are a principal source of animal protein in many parts of Sub-Saharan Africa (17). An estimated 85 to 95 percent of African fish harvest is from traditional artesanal fisheries small-scale operations that do not use expensive equipment or inputs (44,53) and fall within a definition of low-resource agriculture. The Primary Employer and Major Source of income An estimated three-quarters of Africas labor force are involved in agriculture, and a large majority of these workers are engaged in lowresource farming and herding. For them, farming and herding systems represent their primary source of income as well as food. The sale of food and other agricultural products accounts for between 60 and 80 percent of the income of most rural producers in Africa (21, 24). Other non-farm activities also represent important sources of income but are most often pursued in conjunction with, rather than in place of, on-farm activities. Low-resource agriculture is of particular importance for African women, who constitute the major food producers in most African countries and account for about one-half the agricultural labor force (3). Women also earn a significant portion of household agricultural income because of their predominant role in marketing activities selling agricultural products (e.g., peanuts, vegetables, or grain) and generating income from processing activities (e.g., cheese, beer, or soap-making). The role of women as farm managers is also growing in importance. Although women typically engage in some autonomous activities within maleheaded farming households (e.g., managing separate fields), the number of female-headed households is increasing as growing numbers of men seek work away from the farm. Low-resource agriculture contributes to national as well as household income. Agricultures share of the gross domestic product of African nations averaged approximately 41 percent between 1982 and 1984 (81). In addition, agricultural production contributed significantly to the export earnings of many countries. Agricultural exports in 18 countries, provided at least 50 percent of the value of total exports in 1983. In another 12 countries, they provided at least 20 percent (72). The exact contribution of low-resource agriculture to exports is difficult to estimate. Data show that low-resource agriculturalists produce more food crops than cash or export crops such Photo credit: U.S. Agency for International Development Low-resource agriculture provides income for a large proportion of Africans. Women play a large and growing role in the continents farming systems.

PAGE 64

59 as coffee, cocoa, cotton, and rubber (app. D, 75). The latter crops tend to receive the highest input levels, and in this sense are less likely to be considered low-resource. However, there are important links between the production of these exports and food crops. A sizable proportion of export crops, perhaps even a majority, are produced by small farmers who are also producing food crops under lowresource conditions. USDA data show, for example, that in Kenya 64 percent of coffee exports, 40 percent of tea exports, and nearly 100 percent of cotton exports are produced by smallholders, Even in Malawi, with its large tea, sugar, and tobacco estates, smallholders accounted for an estimated 64 percent of the value of agricultural exports in 1979/80 (64). If local markets cannot provide a dependable food supply for these farmers, they will devote more of their resources to growing food, thereby constraining their export crop production and consequently reducing national exports (64). The result can be a decline in foreign exchange earnings and fewer resources for governments to devote to economic development, including the agricultural sector. In turn, the use of modern inputs and other investments in agricultural improvements, made affordable by growing cash or export crops, can have a direct or residual benefit on food crop production. For example, fertilizer remaining in the soil after its application for a cotton crop benefits the subsequent, unfertilized, rotation of millet (64). A Buffer Against Famine Resource-poor agriculturalists commonly face periods of inadequate food availability. Seasonal shortfalls can occur annually when food from past harvests is exhausted but before new crops can be harvested. For herders, inadequate access to suitable dry-season fodder generally results in shortfalls in milk production, the major source of nutrition for pastoralists. These seasonal shortages are sometimes called the hungry period. Famine, on the other hand, is a more extreme incidence of food shortfall with no set period. The practices of resource-poor farmers and herders have evolved as responses to reduce the impacts of these periods of acute hunger, which are too common events in many parts of Africa. These include diversification of crop and animal production, root crop production, collecting wild foods in the bush, as well as many social mechanisms. Other responses such as seeking non-farm employment or migrationare not examined here. One characteristic of low-resource production systems that reflects a concerted effort to buffer against famine is the raising of different crop and livestock species and varieties (56). This diversification minimizes the risk of total crop failure. In addition, it reduces the incidence of food shortages by ensuring some production during year-to-year fluctuations in climatic conditions, increasing expected returns by fitting various types of crops to particular micro-environments, and by spreading food production throughout the year. Herders achieve similar goals by raising several livestock species. Multi-species herds make better use of available pasture and offer a more continuous supply of food because of differences in periodicity of growth, milk production, and reproductive cycles (16,20). Another buffer against famine is the common practice of growing roots and tubers. Because most roots and tubers in Africa are grown under low-resource conditions they are sometimes referred to as poor peoples crops. Cassava, for example, is a highly productive staple that grows in low-fertility soils where few other crops can. It requires little labor to produce, and can be storedsimply left unharvested in the grounduntil the hungry period between harvests. The fact that cassava is a staple crop among the poor has been partially responsible for its neglect among agricultural researchers (51). Resource-poor farmers may also make extended use of undomesticated plants and animals during hungry periods. Farmers and herders often have a wealth of information on various wild resources, and may directly or indirectly promote their growth in surrounding

PAGE 65

60 Photo credit: Consortium for International Crop Protection Cassava is a poor peoples crop because it grows where little else can, requires little labor to produce, and can be stored in the ground until seasonal food shortages strike. areas. Although collecting wild foods and products can be important to household nutrition and income throughout the year, the collection of wild foods increases during hungry periods and certain wild foods are used only during these times (8,18,44). Resource-poor farmers also have established a variety of social mechanisms to help seriously affected households survive periods of food shortfalls. These social mechanisms may be based on relationships such as kinship, affinity, or patron-client relations. For example, reciprocal food sharing is sometimes used to minimize starvation in a community while food supplies last (51). Livestock may be loaned to a household that has suffered serious losses of their herd. The loan arrangement economically benefits the lender by increasing the labor available to tend the herds, while the borrower receives milk, manure, and perhaps, rights to the progeny (62). Most low-resource farmers and herders are relatively isolated from national markets and this is a major reason why these individual efforts to provide buffers against famine are so important for African food security. This was vividly illustrated during the mid-1980s drought: serious food shortages occurred in countries that actually had excess food, but governments were unable to transport and market it in the drought-affected areas. Also, smallscale farmers without other sources of income and pastoralists who depend on selling animals for cash must use their crops and animals themselves during a famine. As a result, they, along with landless agricultural workers, often lack the purchasing power to buy food even if it is available during a famine (79). Therefore, an important aspect of dealing with food security issues in Africa is not simply the availability of food within the country, but also whether the vulnerable populations have access to it. For much of Africa this means promoting improvements among low-resource agriculturalists and, at the same time, not disrupting those mechanisms used to buffer against famine. LOSING GROUND: CONCERNS FOR AFRICAN AGRICULTURE African agriculture has continuously, and for the most part effectively, adapted to meet changing conditions. But never before has it had to respond to the level of pressures it currently faces. Paramount is the pressure created by rapidly growing populations and the consequent demands on the land. The resulting negative changes in agricultural land use are evident in most regionsreduced fallow, falling yields, and natural resource degradation. Per capita food production and income, as well as nutritional levels, are dropping. Although the severity of the problems varies greatly among countries, the overall threat is serious and likely to get worse before it gets better. Africa's Population Challenge for Agriculture The African continent has the most rapidly growing population in the world. The estimated rate of population growth is 3 percent per year, a rate that increases Africas population by 1 million people every 3 weeks. Although the

PAGE 66

61 United Nations and the World Bank project that population growth will drop to 1 percent by the year 2045, at current rates of growth Africa will have three times its current population to feed in just 40 years (83). Population density in Africa, however, is relatively low, with an average of about 60 people per 100 hectares of cultivable land. This is about one-third the average for the developing world (79). These averages, however, hide the severe consequences of high population growth in those areas where population concentrations are already great, and in areas lacking the resources to support dense populations. For example, resource scarcity and intense population concentration are already acute in countries such as Rwanda and Burundi where the population densities are the greatest in Africa. Farm size in some parts of Kenya, where population is growing at an estimated 4 percent per year, now averages no more than 1 hectare. In the past, the widely used practice of shifting cultivation was an effective traditional agricultural system in most parts of Africa. This is a form of production where farmers use simple tools to clear the land, then burn the debris so the ash serves as fertilizer. They leave or prune useful shrubs and trees. Then they plant seeds or other material, cultivate the site for a few years, and move to another area when yields fall and weeds begin to suppress crops. The previously cultivated site regenerates naturally during a fallow period until the cycle begins again (54). Although scientists formerly viewed shifting cultivation as a primitive and inefficient form of farming, they increasingly recognize it as a culturally integrated, economically rational, and ecologically viable practice. This holds true, however, only as long as population densities are low enough to ensure adequate fallow periods to regenerate soil fertility and a new vegetative cover (61). In many parts of Africa today fallow periods are too short. For example; fallow periods have been reduced from 12 to 2 years in Burkina Faso and from 20 to 5 years in Angola [4). When the average fallow period dropped from 5.3 to 1.4 years in Nigeria, cassava yields fell significantly (35). This raises a fundamental problem for African farmers: can local innovations and adaptations in their current farming practices ensure their food security while facing the pressures of increasing population densities? Quantitative study of this issue is largely lacking. However, one study in Nigeria raises serious concerns by concluding that: (Farmer) adaptations were obviously able to slow the process of diminishing yields (resulting from reduced fallows], but they are insufficient to stop the process. without additional income from off-farm employment, the households in high population density areas could not provide their daily food requirements (35, p. 116). Although this conclusion relates specifically to a Nigerian case study, the general conclusions regarding the declining sustainability of many low-resource food production systems can confidently be extended to numerous other regions. One study, for example, concludes that 22 countries in Africa (including North Africa) were unable to feed their populations from their own land resources with existing practices as early as 1975. The number of countries unable to meet their needs with their own land resources is projected to reach 29 by the year 2000 (representing 60 percent of the regions total population) in the absence of significant increases in inputs and conservation measures (68). Signs of Decline in African Agriculture A number of additional signs indicate serious problems ahead for Africas low-resource farmers and herders. For instance, declining per capita food production and income are making it more difficult for Africans to grow or acquire enough food to meet adequate nutritional standards. Perhaps the most insidious aspect of the problem is the inter-locking and self-reinforcing nature of these negative trendsnamely poverty, malnutrition, poor

PAGE 67

62 agricultural performance, and environmental degradation. Declining Per Capita Food Production Africas food problems are not caused by decreasing food productionthe production of many food crops has actually increasedbut rather by increasing population growth (72). Although total food production increased 1.8 percent annually for Africa as a whole between 1980 and 1984, population growth outpaced these increases. Therefore, per capita food production fell 1.3 percent annually between 1971 and 1984. Some exceptions exist, however, where specific countries have had significantly lower per capita declines and, in a few cases, increases (72). Lags between food production and demand have caused a need for increased food imports. The changing balance between exports and imports of basic foodstuffs in Africa (including wheat, rice, coarse grains, and dairy products) reflects the negative effects of Africas declining food production and increasing demand. From the late 1960s to the late 1970s, Africa changed from a net exporter of staple foods to a net importer, with food imports rising by 140 percent and exports declining by 52 percent (59). The value of exports in 22 countries in 1986 was not sufficient to pay for imports (72). In this way, low-resource agricultures failure to keep pace with population growth also has contributed to the problems of trade scarcity of foreign exchange. Declining Per Capita Income deficits and Although low-resource agriculture has been a primary source of income in Africa, the income provided has not been adequate to ensure food security. Per capita income in Africas lowand middle-income countries decreased by an average of 0.4 percent per year during the 1970s. For comparison, low-income countries in Asia saw increases in per capita income of 1.1 percent per year, and middle income countries saw a 5.7 percent increase during the same period (36). Not only is the overall trend in Africa toward decreasing incomes, it is also one of increasing maldistribution of incomes and income-producing resources, such as land and livestock. For example, in Nigeria the share of land owned by the poorest farmers has decreased while the share owned by the richest farmers has increased. In Botswana and Somalia, the higher economic groups among the pastoralists increasingly control most of the livestock (21). Declines and fluctuations in income have particularly severe effects on Africans because a greater percentage of their income is spent on food than in other parts of the world. For instance, Tanzanians spent about 60 percent of their total income on food in 1975; in Niger, people spent almost 65 percent. This can be compared to Hondurans who spent about 45 percent; Japanese, approximately 20 percent; and Americans and Canadians, who spent 1015 percent of their incomes on food (41). This trend particularly affects the urban and rural poor, who spend a greater proportion of their income on food than the wealthy (21). Increasing Malnutrition Under normal circumstances, low-resource agriculture provides most countries in SubSaharan Africa with adequate dietary energy supplies (DES, a measure in kilocalories/per capita/per day). Dietary energy supplies in 31 African countries are near or above the average recommended requirement of 2,100 kcal per day. Ten countries, however, have DES levels that do not reach the recommended level and four of these are near or below the critical requirement of 1,800 kcal/day (72). Even within countries with acceptable DES levels, some people eat less than an adequate level. These dietary trends provide further evidence that low-resource agricultures ability to meet Africas food needs is declining. Sub-Saharan Africa is the only region in the world where the dietary energy supply has declined over the past decade (72). In 1980, an estimated 150 million people in 37 African countries did not receive enough calories to support an active work-

PAGE 68

63 ing life and, of these, 90 million did not receive enough to prevent serious health risks (79). As many as 90 percent of the malnourished people in Sub-Saharan Africa are poor agriculturalists (39). Their malnutrition is chronic but periods of acute food shortage occur during the planting season, just when people most need their strength to continue farming (76). Deteriorating Natural Resource Base Resource degradation problems vary by region, but almost all of Africa is affected (table 3-3). Approximately 35 percent of non- desertified land in Africa currently is at risk of future desertification (73). At risk are such important resources as soil quality and vegetative cover, including trees. Soil erosion, salinization, and drainage problems are causing physical and chemical degradation of African soils, and reducing land productivity, Water erosion is the major cause of soil loss in Africa. Wind erosion is also a problem, particularly in more arid regions. Compaction or crusting of the soil caused by shortened fallow periods, reduction of soil organic matter, and improper mechanical tillage are sources of serious degradation of the soils physical properties. Crusting can reduce the amount of water entering the soil, increase water runoff and erosion, and make it difficult for farmers to till the soil and for seedlings to emerge (72). Agriculture is mining the soil in many areasremoving more nutrients than it is putting back into the system through fallows, organic and mineral fertilizers, and rotations with nitrogen-fixing species. These factors can significantly impair soil productivity and agricultural yields. The nature and extent of the impact varies by soil type and cultivation practices. FAO has estimated that without adequate conservation measures, the area of rainfed cropland in Africa will decline by 16.5 percent by the year 2000 because of land degradation. The loss of this land, plus the loss of soil quality on the remaining cropland, would lead to a loss of about 25 percent of Africas land productivity (68). Africas three main types of vegetative covertropical rainforest, savannah woodland (or open forest), and rangelandare all being Table 3_3.Summary of the Most Serious Environmental Degradation Problems by Region Region Arable Land Grazing Land Forest Land Sudano-Sahelian Africa Decline in nutrient General degradation of Degradation of vegetation levels in the soils vegetations quality Decline in soil physical and quantity properties Wind erosion in sub-humid Wind and water erosion areas Humid and Sub-Humid Decline in nutrient Degradation of vegetation Degradation of vegetation West Africa levels in the soil Wind erosion in sub-humid Decline in soil physical areas properties Water erosion Humid Central Africa Degraded soil physical properties Degraded soil chemical properties Sub-Humid and Water erosion Degradation in quality and Degradation of vegetation Mountain East Africa Degradation of soil quantity of vegetation Water erosion physical properties Water erosion Degradation of soil chemical properties Sub-humid and Semi-Arid Water erosion Degradation in quality and Degradation of vegetation Southern Africa Degradation of soil quantity of vegetation Erosion physical properties Wind erosion Degradation of soil Water erosion chemical properties SOURCE U N Food and Agriculture Organization, African Agriculture: The Next 25 Years, Annex II, The Land Resource Base (Rome, Italy FAO, 1986).

PAGE 69

64 degraded or lost (4). Reliable data on deforestation is lacking for much of Africa, but an estimated 3.7 million hectares of forest are cleared every year (71). Tropical rainforests are being cleared primarily for agriculture and commercial logging, and the highest rates occur in the West African coastal countries. Savannah woodlands are being cleared for fuelwood, livestock grazing, farming, and construction materials. Rangelands are being cleared by overgrazing and the expansion of farming (4). Significant resources are lost when land clearing is rapid and unmanaged. Trees, shrubs, and grasses help control erosion and maintain soil fertility. Trees are capable of recycling nutrients and reaching moisture at soil depths beyond the reach of most crop roots. In addition, trees and shrubs are essential to meet the fuelwood needs of low-resource agriculturalists. Wood is the primary fuel in Africa and deforestation is creating shortages. Data show that all of Sub-Saharan Africa, with the exception of the humid central region, will suffer a fuelwood deficit by 2010 (72). Fuelwood scarcity affects low-resource producers by increasing the time they must spend collecting it or the money they spend to purchase it. For example, the radius of fuelwood collection around Nouakchott, Mauritania expanded from 10 to 70 kilometers between 1970 and 1980 (4). Between 1970 to 1978, the price of fuelwood increased almost 10 percent per year in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso (80). Wood deficits also can harm soil fertility because when wood is lacking farmers will use crop residues and animal manure for fuel instead of fertilizer (80). OBSTACLES TO IMPROVING PRODUCTIVITY AND FOOD SECURITY Low-resource agriculture currently is not meeting Africas food security and agricultural development needs and productivity in lowresource agriculture is loosing a race with population growth. Most experts agree, however, that low-resource agriculture can be improved. This will require greater efforts by African governments, development assistance agencies, and the agriculturalists themselves in dealing with obstacles to enhancing low-resource agriculture. These obstacles are internal to the farming system, such as biophysical and socioeconomic constraints, as well as external to the farming systems. These latter factors include unsupportive policies, infrastructural weaknesses, and underdeveloped technical institutions. Blophysical and Socioeconomic Constraints One problem that confronts planners in Subsaharan Africa is that the average level of agricultural productivity is generally much lower than in other regions of the world. For example, cereal yields in Sub-Saharan Africa are about 50 percent less than yields in Latin America, and yields of roots, tubers, and pulses are 30 percent lower than yields in Asia and Latin America (9). This poor performance can be attributed primarily to biophysical and socioeconomic constraints within the farming systems. Generally, African soils are low in fertility; rainfall is unpredictable in many areas and low across much of the continent. At least 44 percent of Africa is subject to drought conditions, 18 percent of the area has soil affected by mineral stress (toxicities and deficiencies), 13 percent of the soil is shallow, and 9 percent is affected by water stress. This accounting, while hampered by uncertain and sparse data, suggests that only 16 percent of Africas total land area is without serious biophysical limitations for agriculture (65). Over the past two decades, at least two-thirds of Africas food production increases have been gained by expanding the area cultivated (55, 59]. Only one-third of the gains have come by increasing the output per hectare through intensification. Yield increases range from about 50 percent in eastern and southern Africa to virtually none in West Africa (59). The role of expansion onto uncultivated lands is decreas-

PAGE 70

65ing since cultivation is extending into increas-ingly marginal lands with lower production po-tential (42). For Africa to meet its future food needs and avert serious environmental problems, a far greater proportion of its food production gains must come from intensification and yield improvements, and a smaller proportion from expanding the cropping area. Estimates by FAO,for example, suggest that by the year 2000 aboutone-half quarter of the necessary food production gains should come from yield increases, about one-quarter from increased cropping intensity, and about one-quarter from expanding the amount of arable land (66). This would re-quire a dramatic shift in approach and presentsnumerous difficult challenges, although considerable regional variation exists in how rapid and how urgent such shifts need be (68). For example, agriculture in Rwanda has little room to expand in area, whereas in other countries, particularly in central Africa, population den-sity and consequent pressure on land is still low (4,45). Intensifying agricultural production in Africapresents many difficulties, particularly for Africas resource-poor farmers and herders. First, agroecological factors can restrict the extent to which intensification is possible (5). For example, in low rainfall zones, opportunities to develop more intensive farming systems can be severely restricted by slow vegetativegrowth. Developing permanent cultivation sys-tems in these regions, where possible, can seri-.Photo credit: Jerry Frank/U.N. Food and Agriculture OrganizationThis rice field is an experiment in agricultural intensification. The Liberian government, with assistance from the United Nations, is carrying out research and training personnel at the College of Agriculture and Forestry.

PAGE 71

66 ously undermine the viability of pastoralist production systems in surrounding areas by denying herders access to essential dry season fodder. At the other climatic extremehigh rainfall areasproblems of soil leaching and acidification, as well as high incidence of pests and pathogens, can seriously limit more intensive cultivation and livestock rearing. Medium rainfall areas (i.e., 750 to 1,200 mm per year) and some areas of the humid highlands offer the highest potential for permanent intensified cultivation (5). More intensive agriculture also generally involves a greater investment of labor and capital. This raises problems for resource-poor farmers who rely on household labor and have little money to invest in intensive practices. For example, more intensive production such as increasing the growing period relative to the fallow period can greatly increase the need for weeding and place excessive demand on household labor. Maintaining adequate soil fertility under conditions of intensified production may also require supplemental fertilizer use, requiring either an additional labor investment (e.g., rearing animals for manure) or additional cash to purchase fertilizer. Adopting conservation practices to maintain soil fertility, such as building terraces, can also require considerable investment from the resource-poor farmer. Land tenure problems also complicate matters in low-resource agricultural systems. Farmers are generally unwilling to invest in the long-term benefits of conservation practices unless they know they will reap the future benefits. Finding sustainable technical and institutional answers that encourage the intensification of farming systems and yet are economically feasible and socially acceptable to resouce-poor farmers is a central challenge for development assistance in Africa. Unsupportive Policies National and donor policies often have not been designed to benefit low-resource agriculturalists; in some cases, policies have harmed resource-poor producers. Three types of these policies are discussed here: national policies regarding expenditures on agricultural development, agricultural pricing policies, and policies concerning the development of technology. Expenditures on agricultural development in Africa reflect the relatively low importance agriculture has as an economic development strategy in the eyes of policymakers (2,58,64). Many African governments spend no more than 10 percent of their national budgets on agriculture even though an average of at least 50 percent of Africas gross domestic product, employment, and foreign exchange depends on the agricultural sector (69). For example, while 70 percent of Botswanas labor force works primarily in agriculture, the government spends only 1 to 3 percent of its gross fixed investment in the sector. About 80 percent of Kenyas labor force works in agriculture, yet the government invests about 8 percent. Zimbabwe has the highest investment percent in a country where 57 percent of its labor force works in agriculture (39). National pricing policies have been criticized for their disincentive effects on agricultural production and rural income. Government marketing agencies that buy commodities from farmers regularly establish prices below their true market values. In this way they collect socalled hidden taxes from farmers, especially for export crops. This practice also enables governments to provide cheap food to urban populations (34, 78). Such policies can provide serious disincentives for production and make it unprofitable for producers to buy agricultural inputs. The institutions used to carry out such policies have also been criticized as ineffective, primarily the parastatal organizations that often control agricultural supplies and crop marketing. The relative importance of pricing policy as a constraint on the enhancement of lowresource agriculture is not yet clear. Experts who believe pricing reforms are important argue that positive changes already have led to some significant increases in production and income (26). Other experts, however, are less convinced of the importance of pricing policies

PAGE 72

67 relative to other development needs. These critics also contend that the benefits of pricing reforms have often gone to the minority of better-off farmers while bypassing, or in some cases hurting, the resource-poor agriculturalist (21) 0 Research and technical development policies have been criticized for being misguided and resulting in technological interventions that have failed to significantly improve lowresource agricultural systems. In some cases, interventions have actually upset the equilibrium of the old methods of land use without producing equally balanced new systems of farming (14). These problems arise because introduced technologies are often inappropriate for resource-poor farmers and herders (12) whether for economic, social, managerial, or environmental reasons. Too often research efforts have focused on export crops or sophisticated systems that are out of reach for most farmers and herders and they have failed to account for the restricted access to and affordability of agricultural inputs (e.g., hybrid varieties, irrigation, and fertilizer). Another problem has been that introduced technologies often ignore the reality of how African agriculture is actually practiced. For instance, farmers seeking to improve their intercropping systems necessarily suspect techniques designed for monocropping systems (19). The role of women in agricultural production, postharvest food processing, and household chores often has been neglected and technical interventions have been inappropriate, and thus unused, because they do not meet womens needs and priorities (33). Low-resource agricuhure suffers from infrastructural weaknesses that make it difficult to take advantage of improved technologies. These include inadequate rural institutions for saving and lending money, lack of rural transportation networks, and poorly developed distribution systems for providing agricultural inputs. The official rural financial systems of Africa function poorly, at best (37) and are nonexistent in many isolated areas. Existing institutions often do not provide credit for producers to grow staple foods. They also deny credit to most women because usually women lack collateral. Official interest rates are often subsidized, making credit a bargain that is often monopolized by economic and political elites (49). Local investment opportunities are lost, then, because appropriate ways to promote rural-based savings and lending among resource-poor farmers, herders, and fishers are missing (38). The costs of providing formal credit to resource-poor farmers are often a disincentive for formal financial institutions (70). While formal credit opportunities are few for resourcepoor producers, informal sources do exist. Informal savings and loan associations, which are locally managed, socially regulated, and knowledgeable about the creditworthiness and financial needs of the rural poor, often serve rural populations not addressed by the formal sector. Given adequate incentives, many of these could grow to reach a larger population while providing credit at lower cost than formal banks (37, 49). The lack of adequate transportation such as roads and rail systems throughout Africa is a major constraint to the delivery of inputs to farms and the transportation of food or other commodities to markets. The primary means of transporting agricultural products today is headloading carrying them on ones head. In 1982, only 206,177 kilometers of roads existed in Africas 14 landlocked countries. Among these countries, Zimbabwe had almost one-third of all roads and about 8,000 of the total 19,850 kilometers of paved roads (11). Most of Africas railroads were designed during the colonial period to link areas producing agricultural exports and minerals with the ports that would distribute them for the colonial powers. Lusaka, Zambia, is therefore linked by rail with Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania; Uganda, Burundi, and Rwanda are linked with Mombasa, Kenya; and Bamako, Mali is linked with Dakar, Senegal, etc. Central Africa, because of

PAGE 73

68 vast distances from a port, has no major rail links in spite of its agricultural potential. Because of low population densities in central Africa and other regions, the costs per capita to provide roads and other services are much greater than in other regions of the world (36). The inadequacy of the systems for distributing and marketing external inputs is another constraint on low-resource agriculture. When external commercial inputs do arrive in rural Africa, they are often labeled and packaged improperly (36). Seed and fertilizer deliveries may not be synchronized and delays in the arrival of pesticides may make them less than effective (57). Africa ranks last in developing regions in the percentage of irrigated land, tractors per 10,000 hectares, and fertilizer use per hectare (table 3-4). If commercial inputs are to be used by more agriculturalists in Africa, better delivery organizations and a better transport infrastructure are essential. Underdeveloped TechnicaI Institutions Low-resource agriculture in general, will need to become more intensive to meet the food security needs while balancing the need to maintain the natural resource base. This change will, in part, depend on technical developments and the spread of their use among agriculturalists. Total funding for agricultural research has been declining in Sub-Saharan Africa. Expenditures by national governments for agricultural research decreased $80 million between 1980 and 1984, from $465 million to $385 million (46). Table 3-4.Modern Input Use in Africa, Asia, and South America, 1977 Percentage of Tractors per Fertilizer used Area irrigated land 10,000 hectares per hectare Percent Number Kilograms Africa . . 1,8 7 4,4 Asia ... 28.0 45 45.4 South America . 6.1 57 38.8 SOURCES: U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, Production Yearbook, and Fertilizer Yearbook (Rome: 1978). Cheryl Christensen, et al., Food Problems and Prospects in Sub-Saharan Africa: The Decade of the 1980s, Foreign Agricultural Research Report No. 166 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, August 1981), Also, research priorities often do not reflect food security needs. For example, in 1983 British foreign aid funding for tobacco research in Malawi was about twice as much as it was for millet research (77). Cassava is a staple food in many parts of Africa but only Nigeria (with a $2.7 million investment) and Ghana (with a $0.9 million investment) spent at least $50,000 on cassava research in 1976. Although the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) has made some advances in cassava research, national programs primarily are responsible for developing varieties adapted to and accepted by local farmers (39). These programs often do not have adequate budgets or rank high enough in national governments priorities to have a major impact on food security needs. Extension systems in African countries also face many problems. They generally lack staff, supplies, and technical support, and inadequate communication exists between researchers, extensionists, and farmers. They also suffer from a lack of appropriate and profitable technologies to transfer. Some critics argue, then, that extensions problems originate with the lack of research and that, under existing agricultural budgets, research deserves a higher priority (32). Another problem with most extension services is that they focus on providing information and inputs for export crops rather than food crops. In addition, the approaches used are generally topdown, with the information flow in one directionfrom the researcher through the extension agent to the male farmer (69). Women, the major food producers in many regions, often are not provided with relevant services. Non-formal education for African women most often covers their non-income generating activities, including home economics and nutrition (6), but they have limited access to training activities dealing with income-related activities such as cooperatives, agricultural production, and animal husbandry. Considering the major role of women as food producers and caretakers of livestock, this is a serious failure of the system. Ensuring good staff for extension, research, and other agricultural services is another prob-

PAGE 74

69 lem (36). Low-quality facilities, low salaries, undesirable living conditions, and the lack of status associated with working for traditional farmers are not attractive to trained personnel (36). Research staff turnover rates are high: at the Nigerian Institute for Agricuhure, for example, staff turnover was about 80 percent between the 1960s and 1970s (46). In addition, governments spent three to ten times more for skilled staff such as researchers in Africa than in Asia in part because of a reliance on highersalaried foreign scientists. These high costs make it difficult for African countries to expand national research systems. A substantial increase in funding for research and personnel occurred between 1970 and 1980 (table 3-5). However, since 1980 a general decline in research expenditures has occurred (29). At the same time the number of scientists involved has grown, compounding the impact of recent budget declines in terms of level of support per scientist. In many African countries, a high proportion of budgets cover salaries versus operations. This can be a serious obstacle to producing needed high-quality research and technology development. For example, some institutions allocate only 5 percent of their budgets to operations and maintenance, compared to a desirable figure of at least 30 percent (29). This places serious limitations on the funds available to get researchers into the field. As long as researchers are isolated from agriculturalists, questions will arise regarding their ability to address the on-farm problems of low-resource agriculture effectively. Removing these all-too familiar obstacles will not be easy. The process is likely to take at least a generation, even if significant increases in resources were available today. Heightening the challenge is the realization that African countries will have double the number of people to feed and employ within the next several decades. The industrial and urban sectors cannot effectively absorb or provide for large portions of these people. The continuing dependence on rural employment and local food production by large numbers of Africans is thus inevitable. However, signs of decline in African agriculture underscore the urgency of better addressing the problems and potential of Africas largest group of farmers, herders, and fishers. The following chapters outline one approach to enhancing low-resource agriculture in Africa. Table 3-5.Level of Support for Agricultural Research in Different Regions Expenditures (in millions of constant 1980 U.S. dollars) Scientist Years 1959 1970 1980 1959 1970 1980 Western Europe ............275.0 918.6 1,489.6 6,251 12,547 19,540 North America. ............668.9 1,221.0 1,335.6 6,690 8,575 10,305 Oceania . . . . . 91.6 264.0 386.8 1,759 3,113 3,302 Latin America . . . 79.6 216.0 462.6 1,425 4,880 8,534 Africa . . . . . ..119.1 251.6 424.8 1,919 3,849 8,086 North Africa. . . . 20.8 49.7 62.0 590 1,122 2,340 West Africa . . . 44.3 91.9 205.7 412 952 2,466 East Africa . . . . 12.7 49.2 75.2 221 684 1,632 Southern Africa. . . 41.3 60.8 81.8 698 1,091 1,650 Asia. . . . . . .. .261.1 1,205.1 1,797.9 11,418 31,837 46,656 SOURCES: U.N. Food and Agriculture organization, African Agriculture: The Next 25 Years, Annex Ill: Raising Productivity (Rome: ltaIy, FAO, 1986). M. Judd J. Boyce and R. Evenson, Investing in Agricultural Supply: The Determinants of Agricultural Research and Extension Investment, Economic and Cultural Change, vol. 75, October 1986, pp. 77-113. (Courtesy of the University of Chicago Press).

PAGE 75

70 CHAPTER 3 REFERENCES 1. Andrews, David J., Millet Breeding for LowResource Agriculture in Africa, contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, December 1987). 2. Asante, S. K. B., Food as a Focus of National and Regional Policies in Contemporary Africa, Arthur Hansen and Della E. McMillan (eds.), Food in Sub-Saharan Africa (Boulder, CO: Lynne Riener Publishers, Inc., 1986), pp. 11-24. 3, Bamela-Engo, Ruth, Food Security: How To Ensure That Famine Wont Recur in Africa, VITA A/ews, January 1987, pp. 9-11. 4. Berry, Leonard, Africa: An Environmental Case Study (Worcester, MA: Clark University/ SARSA, 1986). 5. Binswanger, H. P., and Pingali, P, L., The Evolution of Farming Systems and Agricultural Technology in Sub-Saharan Africa, Vernon W. Ruttan and C.E. Pray (eds.), Policy for Agricultural Research (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1987), Pp. 283-318. 6. Blumberg, Rae Lesser, Females, Farming and Food: Rural Development and Womens Participation in Agricultural Production Systems, Barbara Lewis (cd.), Invisible Farmers: Women and the Crisis in Agriculture (Washington, DC: Women in Development Office, Agency for International Development, 1981). 7. Brumby, P. J., and Trail, J. C. M., Animal Breeding and Productivity Studies in Africa, L5CA lh.d]etin, No. 23, January 1986, pp. 23-27. 8. Campbell, B., The Use of Wild Fruits in Zimbabwe, Economic Botany, vol. 41, No. 3, JulySeptember 1987, pp. 375-386. 9. Christensen, Cheryl; Dommen, Arthur; Horenstein, Nadine; Pryor, Shirley; Riley, Peter; Shapouri, Shahla; and Steiner, Herb, Food Problems and Prospects in Sub-Saharan Africa: The Decade of the 1980s, Foreign Agricultural Economic Report No. 166 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, August 1981). 10. Cleave, John, African Farmers: Labor Use in the Development of Smallholder Agriculture (Washington, DC: Praeger Publishers, 1974). 11. Clute, Robert E., The Role of Agriculture in African Development, African Studies Review, vol. 25, No, 4,. December 1982, pp. 1-20. 12. Collinson, M., Eastern and Southern Africa, John W. Mellor, Christopher L. Delgado, and Malcolm J. Blackie (eds.), Accelerating Food Production in Sub-Saharan Africa (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987), PP. 78-96. 13. Dalrymple, Dana, Development and Spread of High-yielding Rice Varieties in Developing Countries (Washington, DC: Bureau for Science and Technology, U.S. Agency for International Development, 1986), 14. De Wilde, John, et al., Experiences With Agricultural Development in Tropical Agriculture, vol. 1 (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1967), p. 25. 15. Doswell, Christopher, unpublished estimates compiled from U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, International Institute for Tropical Agriculture, and International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center sources, April 1986. 16. Dyson-Hudson, N. Adaptive Resource Use Strategies of African Pastoralists, In F. DiCastri, F.W.G. Baker, and M. Hadley (eds.), EcoZogy in Practice Part I: Ecosystem Maintenance (Dublin: Tycooly International Publishing Limited, 1984), pp. 262-273. 17. Eicher, C, K,, and Baker, D., Research on Agricultural Development in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Critical Survey, MSU International Development Paper No. 1 (East Lansing, MI: Agricultural Economics Department, Michigan State University, 1982). 18. Fleuret, Anne, The Role of wild Foliage Plants in the Diet: A Case Study From Lushoto, Tanzania, Ecology of Food and Nutrition, vol. 8, 1979, Pp. 87-93. 19. Francis, Charles, Challenges of Intercropping: Policy Issues, contractor paper prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, December 1987), 20. Galaty, J, G., and Aronson, D. R., Research Priorities and Pastoralist Development: What Is To Be Done? J.G. Galaty, D. Aronson, P,C. Salzman, and A. Chouinard (eds.), The Future of Pastoral Peoples (Ottawa: International Development Research Centre, 1981), pp. 16-26. 21. Ghai, Dharam, and Smith, Lawrence, Food Price Policy and Equity, J. Mellor, C. Delgado, and M. Blackie (eds.), Accelerating Food Production in Sub-Saharan Africa (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987), pp. 278-289. 22. Gryseels, G., and Anderson, F. M,, Research on Farm and Livestock productivity in Central Ethiopian Highlands: Initial Results, 1977-1980,

PAGE 76

71 23. 24. 25< 26. 27. 28. 29. 30, 31. 32. ILCA Research Report No. 4 (Addis Ababa: International Livestock Centre for Africa, December 1983). Guthrie, C., The African Environment, Arthur Hansen and Della E. McMillan (eds.), Food in Sub-Saharan Africa (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc., 1986), pp. 82-106. Haggblade, Steve, Hazell, Peter, and Brown, James, Farm/Non-Farm Linkages in Rural SubSaharan Africa: Empirical Evidence and Policy Implications, World Bank Discussion Paper, Report No. ARU 67 (Washington, DC: World Bank, May 1987). Hahn, S. K., Tropical Root Crops: Their Improvement and Utilization, presented at a conference organized by the Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau on Advancing Agricultural Production in Africa, held Feb. 13-17, 1984, Arusha, Tanzania, IITA Conference Paper 2 (Ibadan, Nigeria: International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, 1984). Haykin, Stephen, PoZicy Reform Programs in Africa: A Preliminary Assessment of Impacts (Washington, DC: Africa Bureau, U.S. Agency for International Development, March 1987}. Hill, Walter A., and Bonsi, Conrad, Root Crop Breeding, contractor paper prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, December 1987). International] Livestock Center for Africa (ILCA), ILCA Annuai Report 1983: Improving Livestock and Crop-Livestock Systems in Africa, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 1983. International Service for National Agricultural Research and SPAAR Working Group for Preparation of Guidelines for National Agricultural Research Strategies in Sub-Saharan Africa, Guidelines for Strengthening National Agricultural Research Systems in Sub-Saharan Africa, Special Program for African Agricultural Research (SPAAR) (Washington, DC: The World Bank, May 1987). Jahnke, H. E., Livestock Production Systems and Livestock Development in Tropical Africa (Kiel, FRG: Kieler Wissenschaftsverlag Vauk, 1982). Jiggins, Janice, Vrouwen en Voedselstra-tegiecn [Women in Food Strategy), unpublished report, November 1985. Judd, M., Boyce, James, and Evenson, Robert, Investing Agricultural Supply: The Determinants of Agricultural Research and Extension Investment, Economic Development and Cultural Change, vol. 35, No. 1, October 1986, pp. l-l n / /-l la. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37, 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. Kumar, Shubh K,, Womens Role and Agricultural Technology, John W. Mellor, Christopher L. Delgado, and Malcolm J. Blackie (eds.), Accelerating Food Production in Sub-Saharan Africa (Baltirriore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987), pp. 135-147. Lancaster, Carol, Existing Models of Development Assistance to Low-Resource Agriculture in Africa, contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield VA: National Technical Information Service, December 1987). Langemann, J., Traditional African Farming Systems in Eastern Nigeria: An Analysis of Reaction to Increasing Population Density (Munich, FRG: Weltforum Verlag, 1977). Lele, Urea, Rural Africa: Modernization, Equity, and Long-Term Development, Science, Feb. 6, 1981, pp. 547-53. Leonard, David, Putting the Farmer in Control: Building Agricultural Institutions, Robert J. Berg and Jennifer Seymour Whitaker (eds.), Strategies for African Development (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1986), pp. 184-24. Leonard, David, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, University of California, Berkeley, personal communication, 1987, Lipton, Michael, Research and the Design of a Policy Frame for Agriculture, Tore Rose (cd.), Crisis and Recovery in Sub-Saharan Africa (Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1985), pp. 78-95. Little, Peter, Land Use Conflicts in the Agricultural Pastoral Borderlands: The Case of Kenya, Peter Little, et al, (eds.), Lands at Risk in the Third World (Boulder, CO: Westview press, 1987), pp. 195-212. Mackie, Arthur B., The U.S. Farmer and World N4arket Development (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, October 1983). Matlon, Peter J., The West African Semiarid Tropics, John W. Mellor, Christopher L. Delgado, and Malcolm J. Blackie (eds.), Accelerating Food Production in Sub-Saharan Africa (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987), pp. 59-77. McGee, Daniel, Subsistence Strategies and Systems of Land Use in Africa, Art Hansen and Della E. McMillan (eds.), Food in Sub-Saharan Africa (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc., 1986), pp. 129-135. McGlothlen, Michael E,, Goldsmith, Paul, and Fox, Charles, Undomesticated Animals and Plants, Art Hansen and Della E. McMillan

PAGE 77

72 45. 46, 47. 48. 49. 50. 51, 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. [eds.), Food in Sub-Saharan Africa (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc., 1986), pp. 222-238. McMillan, Della, Government Assisted Land Settlement: Status and Potential in African LowResource Agriculture, contractor report to the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, December 1987). Mellor, John, IFPRI Notes: Accelerating Food Production in Sub-Saharan Africa (Washington, DC: IFPRI, 1986). Mellor, J., Delgado, C., and Blackie, M., Priorities for Accelerating Food Production in SubSaharan Africa, John W. Mellor, Christopher L. Delgado, and Malcolm J. Blackie (eds.), Accelerating Food Production in Sub-Saharan Africa (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins university Press, 1987), pp. 353-375, Miller, F., and Mann, J., Technical and Policy Papers Series: Sorghum Breeding, contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, December 1987). Miracle, Marvin, Miracle, Diane, and Cohen, Laurie, Informal Savings and Mobilizations in Africa, Economic Development and Cultural Change, vol. 28, No. 4, July 1980, pp. 701-724. Moock, J.L. (cd.), Understanding Africas RuraZ Households and Farming Systems (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1986). Moris, Jon, Indigenous Versus Introduced Solutions to Food Stress, IFPRIIFAOIAID Workshop on Seasonal Causes of Household Food Insecurity, Policy Implications and Research Needs, 1985. Mukwonye, Uzo, International Fertilizer Development Center-Africa, Lome, Togo, personal communication to the Office of Technology Assessment, May 1987, National Research Council, Fisheries Technologies for Developing Countries (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1988). Okigbo, Bede, Alternatives to Shifting Agriculture, Ceres, vol. 14, November-December 1981, pp. 41-45. Okigbo, Bede, Deputy Director, International Institute for Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria, personal communication, 1987. Okigbo, B.N. and Greenland, D. J., Intercropping Systems in Tropical Africa, R.I. Papendick, P,A. Sanchez, and G.B. Triplett (eds.), MuZtip]e Cropping, ASA Publication No 27 57. 58, 59, 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. (Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy, 1976), pp. 63-101. Olayide, S.0., and Idachaba, Francis S., Input and Output Marketing Systems: A Nigerian Case, John W. Mellor, Christopher L. Delgado, and Malcolm J. Blackie (eds.), Accelerating Food Production in Sub-Saharan Africa (Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins Univ. Press, 1987), pp. 173-198. Pallangyo, E. P., and Odero-Ogwel, L. A., The Persistence of the Food and Agriculture Crisis in Africa, Adedeji, Adebayo and Timothy M, Shaw (eds.), Economic Crisis in Africa: African Perspectives on Development Problems and Potentials (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc., 1985), pp. 169-200. Pauline, Leonardo, The Evolving Food Situation, John W. Mellor, Christopher L, Delgado, and Malcolm J. Blackie (eds.), Accelerating Food Production in Sub-Saharan Africa (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987), Pp. 23-38, Pratt, D. J,, Ecology and Livestock, J.R. Simpson and P, Evangelou (eds.), Livestock Development in Sub-Saharan Africa (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1984), pp. 21-41. Raintree, J, B., and Warner, K., Agroforestry Pathways for the Intensification of Shifting Cultivation, Agroforestry Systems, vol. 4, 1986, pp. 39-54. Schneider, H., Livestock as Food and Money, J. Galaty, D. Aronson, P. Salzman, and A, Chouinard (eds.), The Futures of Pastoral Peoples (Ottawa, Canada: International Development Research Centre, 1981). Simpson, James R., and McDowell, Robert E,, Livestock in the Economies of Sub-Saharan Africa, Art Hansen and Della E. McMillan (eds.), Food in Sub-Saharan Africa (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc., 1986), pp. 207-221. Staatz, John, Low-Resource Agriculture in SubSaharan Africa: The Potential of Low-Resource Agriculture in African Development, contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, December 1987). Swaminathan, M. S., Sustainable Nutrition Security for Africa: Lessons From India, The Hunger Project Papers, No, 5, October 1986. U,N. Food and Agriculture Organization, Agriczdture: Toward 2000 fRome: 1981].

PAGE 78

73 67. U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, Potential Population-Supporting Capacities of Lands in the Developing World, Rome, 1982. 68. U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, Land, Food and PeopZe, Rome, 1984. 69. U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, African Agriculture: the Next 25 Years, Main Document, Rome, 1986. 70. U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, African Agriculture: the Next 25 Years. Annex I. Socio-Economic and Political Dimensions, Rome, 1986. 71. U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, African Agriculture: the Next 25 years. Annex II. The Land Resource Base, Rome, 1986, 72. U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, African Agriculture: the Next 25 years. Atlas of African Agriczdture, Rome, 1986. 73. U,N. Food and Agriculture Organization, Natural Resources and the Human Environment for Food and Agriculture in Africa, FAO Environment and Energy Paper, No. 6, Rome, 1986. 74. U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, Role 75 of Roots, Tubers and Plantains in Food Security in Sub-Saharan Africa, Committee on World Food Security, Eleventh Session, Rome, Apr. 9-16, 1986. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, The Role of Low-Resource Agriculture in Africa, contractor reports pre76. 77. 78, 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. pared for the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, December 1987). Varmoer, Alexander P., Commentary on Defining the Problem, John W. Mellor, Christopher L. Delgado and Malcolm J. Blackie (eds), Accelerating Food Production in Sub-Saharan Africa (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987), pp. 53-56. Walker, Brian, Authentic Development, Headline Series, No. 274 (New York, NY: Foreign Policy Association, 1985), World Bank, Accelerated Development in SubSaharan Africa: An Agenda for Action, Washington, DC, October 1981. World Bank, Poverty and Hunger: Issues and Options for Food Security in Developing Countries, Washington, DC, February 1986. World Bank, Population Growth and PoZicies in Sub-Saharan Africa, World Bank Policy Study, Washington, DC, August 1986, World Bank, World Development Report 1986 [New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1986), World Bank, West Africa Agricultural Research Review: World Bank 1985-86 (Washington, DC: World Bank Western Africa Projects Department, Feb. 28, 1987). World Resources Institute, WorZd Resources 1986 (New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc., 1986).

PAGE 79

Chapter 4 A Resource-Enhancing Approach to African Agriculture

PAGE 80

CONTENTS Page Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Why Focus on Low-Resource Agriculture? . . . . . . . 77 A Resource-Enhancing Approach to Development Assistance . . . 78 Agricultural Systems for Africas Future . . . . . . . 79 Diversity and Flexibility in the Face of Adversity . . . . . 80 Untapped Resources for Development . . . . . . . ..84 A Complex Web of Connections. . . . . . . . . . 86 A Resource-Enhancing Approach: A Comparative Assessment . .......88 African Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Chapter 4 References . . . . . . . . . . .......94 Boxes Box Page 4-1. Turning the Tide at Guesselbodi . . . . . . . . 81 4-2. Diversity in the African Home Garden . . . . . . . 82 4-3. Acacia albida: An Indigenous Resource for Development . . . 85 4-4. Changing Farming Systems of the Nyiha of Tanzania. . . . 87

PAGE 81

Chapter 4 A Resource-Enhancing Approach to African Agriculture l Meeting future food security needs in Africa will require that increased attention be directed toward assisting African low-resource agriculture. This conclusion is based on low-resource agricultures central position in African economies today, its economic and technical potential to contribute to national and local development tomorrow, and the serious implications of continued neglect of this sector. l Understanding the diversity and complexity of low-resource agricultural systems provides essential guidance on how development assistance can contribute most effectively to sustainable agricultural development. l A proposed resource-enhancing approach is complementary to, and in some respects overlaps with, other defined African agricultural development strategies that focus on: 1) basic human needs, Z ) the need for policy reform, and 3)targeted development of high-potential, small farms. Differences also exist, however, that have other implications for development assistance. l A resource-enhancing approach generally is consistent with the views of African scientists and policymakers expressed to OTA. WHY FOCUS ON LOW-RESOURCE AGRICULTURE? Assistance to Africas resource-poor farmers, herders, and fishers could have a substantial impact on African food security and agricultural development. Thus, low-resource agriculture deserves increased attention from development agencies and African governments [1, 17,27,33,35,37). This conclusion is based on four factors: 1 0 2. 3. Low-resource agriculture already plays a central, though largely neglected, role in African economies. Economic advantages and widespread benefits can be achieved through focusing agricultural development efforts o n Africas small-farm sector, Low-resource agriculture in Africa generally is efficient, given current availability and dependability of resources and information. Known and promising technological opportunities exist to improve efficiency, however. 4. Failing to provide increased support to this sector will likely mean a continued deterioration of Africas food security, and accelerating degradation of its natural resource base. Low-resource agriculture, as shown in chapter 3, produces the majority of Africas food and employs the majority of its people. Historically, however, agricultural development efforts have focused on large-scale farms and ranches, in part to take advantage of potential economies of scale. However, under conditions that prevail in most African countries, the benefits of pursuing small farm development 77

PAGE 82

78 strategies involving labor-intensive, capitalsaving technologies are now generally recognized as a more economically viable approach (17). Also, efforts to promote agricultural development in Africa must look beyond simply elevating aggregate agricultural production and seek the balanced economic growth and social development that will only be provided through increased attention to resource-poor agriculturalists: In brief, the economic advantages of achieving widespread increases in productivity among a countrys small-farm units derive from the fact that they are the most feasible and cost-effective means of attaining the multiple objectives of developmentthe growth of output, expansion of opportunities for productive employment, narrowing income differentials, reducing malnutrition and excessively high rates of infant and child mortality, and slowing the rate of population growth (17). The economic advantages of focusing on a broad-based effort to promote small-farm development derive, in large part, from the heavy dependence on family labor in most African farming systems. Small farms that depend primarily on household labor are more economically efficient than larger scale state or private operations (16,33). Also, practices of low-resource farmers and herders are increasingly being recognized as I Economic analyses are often framed in terms of small farms and do not address explicitly the effects of such approaches on herders. Some economic arguments apear to apply to the broader group OTA terms low-resource (which includes herders) but a definitive conclusion awaits further analysis. efficient ways to balance scarce resources and meet multiple objectives. However, the existence of compatible technologies and th e prospects of providing improved access to inputs and information suggest significant improvements are possible. For example, crop yields probably could be doubled within a decade if improved management practices and varieties that already exist were employed widely (see ch. 5). Because low-resource agriculturalists are in many cases the principal agents causing the deterioration of the African natural resource base, this group truly needs options to encourage sustainable production. The problem is most acute in regions where farmers and herders are, for lack of alternatives, overworking the land or are forced onto increasingly marginal lands, in many cases leading to serious environmental degradation. Perhaps the strongest arguments for focusing development assistance efforts on the resource-poor agriculturalists are rooted in humanitarian concerns. Simply stated, failing to direct attention to this group will, in large measure, shut a majority of Africans out of the development process. The threat arises that this group, in terms of production and consumption, may become relegated to insignificant elements of national economies that mainly receive attention within the context of famine relief (13). To avoid such a scenario necessarily will require efforts by development assistance agencies, but especially African governments, to more effectively integrate the needs and contributions of resource-poor agriculturalists into national development efforts. A RESOURCE-ENHANCING APPROACH TO DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE The following discussion focuses on four conformers, herders, and fishers in Africa. Each cepts that are central to a resource-enhancing concept, in turn, suggests the applicability of approach that might be undertaken with poor particular guidelines for development assis-

PAGE 83

79 tance in support of low-resource agriculture and each is illustrated by a box. 2 These guidelines for development assistance are derived from a review of development successes and failures. They reflect the need for development assistance to be long-term, dynamic, and well matched to existing conditions. Also, these guidelines stress that to enhance low-resource agriculture, understanding existing systems must precede interventions. Most importantly, the development and application of African skills are crucial for reaching the goal of eventually eliminating the need for most development assistance. The guidelines outlined here reflect a generally well-accepted view of low-resource agriculture in Africa. In fact, many of the guidelines are already reflected to some degree in existing legislation and official development assistance policy (see ch. 6) and are largely consistent with the views expressed by African experts surveyed by OTA (1; app. D). The guidelines are general because they are intended to respond to the diversity of low-resource agricultural systems and no attempt has been made to list all the ways in which the four concepts could be turned into guidelines. Basically, these guidelines are simple ideas, perhaps obvious ones. However, too often they have been ignored and development assistance has suffered as a consequence. What the guidelines imply for development assistance is addressed in general terms here; chapters 5 and 6 provide additional detail. 2 The material in this chapter comes from several sources. OTAS Contractor Reports were used to develop an overview of the fundamental concepts underlying low-resource agricultures management of natural resources, household productivity, and the effectiveness of institutions (10,11,18). OTA also held a workshop to integrate the findings from these papers (app. B) and supplemented this information with an additional contractor report and a workshop summary (app. A), Many other experts participated in the review of the information, but the final synthesis and conclusions are OTAS. Agricultural Systems for Africa's Future Concept 1: Most African agricultural systems, although once sustainable, are no longer keeping pace with the increased demands being placed on them. Thus, development assistance should be designed to: l l l l place a high priority on environmental, technological, economic, social, and institutional sustainability; acknowledge the importance of sound natural resource management as a basis for improved and stable agricultural production; and acknowledge that resource-poor agriculturalists are the primary custodians of their resources, and therefore ensure that they benefit from development assistance to manage natural resources better; and focus on enhancing the capability of Africans to assume primary responsibility for their development as the surest route to sustainability. Sustainability of agricultural production systems should be a paramount objective for African agricultural development. Sustainable agriculture is a concept that has received considerable attention in recent years, but one whose criteria remain inadequately defined. Agreement on some fundamentals of the concept is growing, however. Sustainability of agriculture should be approached from various perspectives-environmental, technological, economic, social, and institutional. It is generally recognized that for agricultural development to be sustainable it must consider all these dimensions as well as their interaction (22,23). Sustainability is fundamentally a temporal considerationa condition of viability over time. It means, for example, not only that a technology is affordable today, but that costs and upkeep remain affordable tomorrow, or until replacement or upgrading becomes cost-effective. Institutional support services (e.g., for repair, distribution, or financing of inputsas

PAGE 84

80 Box 4-1.Turning the Tide at Guesselbodi The Sahel is not an easy place to make a living, but people have been doing so for as long as 600,000 years. The region is characterized by sparse, erratic rainfall and what some scientists suggest is a cyclical pattern of drought every 30 years or so. Farming and especially herding activities are closely aligned to these fluctuations. With sufficient rainfall, farmers have extended their activities into drier areas and herders increased herd size and altered herd structures (e.g., increasing numbers of cattle relative to more drought-tolerant camels and goats). When drought set in, the pattern has historically meant a retreat to wetter areas and a shift to more drought-resistant crops and livestock. However, population growth in the region, among other factors, has made it increasingly difficult to revert back to the areas of higher and more dependable rainfall. The consequences are increasingly severe. After almost three decades of below-normal precipitation, a once gradual process of declining productivity and loss of biological diversity has now accelerated in many regions to the point of disrupting ecological processes essential to sustainable development in the region (29). The impacts can be readily seen around the Guesselbodi Forest in eastern Niger. Guesselbodi was designated a national forest reserve in 1948. But authorities have been unable to prevent local populations from overexploiting the forest and land, through deforestation, overgrazing, and unsustainable farming practices. An estimated 40 to 60 percent of the forest cover was lost between 1950 and 1979, leaving behind barren land largely denuded of topsoil (15). Strong pressures also emanate from Niamey, Nigers capital, about 25 kilometers away. Niameys population grew from 7,000 in 1945 to 300,000 in just 25 years; and with its growth came demands for food and fuel from surrounding areas. The result has been an ever-widening ring of degraded land around the city, as once viable pasture and farmland are left crusted and barren. It has become increasingly apparent that in order to meet the needs of existing residents, let alone the projected increased population, a more sustainable approach to exploiting the regions natural resource base is needed. Further, greater effort also must be directed to reclaiming land already degraded. Guesselbodi is one place where development focuses on turning back the tide of environmental degradation. It is the most advanced of a number of similar pilot projects in Nigers Forestry and Land Use Planning Project currently funded by AID. A research and management plan was developed in 1983, based on soil and topographic surveys and inventories of vegetation and forest resources. The aim is to promote systems whereby multiple uses of the forest resources could provide sustainable benefits to the surrounding communities e.g., fuelwood, poles, forage, honey, medicine, food, and income: The idea was to test simple, small-scale, low-cost rehabilitation measures that could be carried out by villagers, The first plots were covered with water harvesting and water spreading structures: microbasins, earth banks, stone lines, rock dams to divert flash floods from gullies onto slopes. The earth banks and lines are already collecting soil, leaves, and seeds and local tree species are regenerating spontaneously. Perhaps the simplest and most spectacular regeneration technique on crusted areas is a mulch of twigs and small branches-of the kind that would be left over after extraction of saleable branches for firewood. The brushwood accumulates soil, sand, organic materials, and seeds, but also lowers soil temperature, protects against raindrop impact, and attracts termites, which aerate the soil. In the first year, 1983, when control plots of untreated crusted land produced no vegetation, the mulched plots yielded 440 kilograms. But in 1984a drought year(nearby) plowed plots had recrusted and produced only 30 kilograms of vegetation; the twigmulched plots yielded five times as much. The success of Guesselbodi and similar initiatives ultimately will depend on the willingness of the local people to support them. Initial economic evaluations seemed encouraging (15). Early field results, however, showed problems. Some modifications resulting from farmer participation, and support from national authorities (primarily the granting of tax exemptions for forest products) seem to have resolved the major problems and the project is now showing promising results. Some 5,000 hectares of formerly degraded land have been reforested and are providing income and other services to villages and individuals, primarily through wood products and grasses. Although wood was initially envisioned by planners as the principal benefit, access to fodder has emerged as an equally important product as identified by local participants. Thus, the lessons of Guesselbodi also illustrate the importance of long-term support, local participation, and flexibility in project development (25).

PAGE 85

81 well as markets for outputs) should be available to support innovations at the outset, but should also be able to evolve to meet continued needs as development occurs. Further, the ability of the natural resource base to support a particular activity should be evaluated using a longterm view, using the basic tenet of keeping renewable resources renewable (7,18,20). In effect, the concept of sustainability must also be viewed in dynamic terms, given the changing demands placed on farming systems in Africa. It must be recognized that change, in many cases rapid change, will be the norm. In these circumstances sustainable agriculture means continued modification of agricultural practices, and in most cases intensification, in order to accommodate growing demands (7). In the face of these growing demands, increased attention must also move beyond simply ensuring sustainability of existing systems, and begin to restore productivity of already degraded systems (box 4-1). Diversity and Flexibility in the Face of Adversity Concept 2: Africas heterogeneous mixture of resource-poor farmers, herders, and fishers have responded to a high degree of environmental uncertainty and economic vulnerability with diverse and flexible strategies. Often these strategies minimize risk while seeking optimum stable yields, commonly at the expense of maximizing yield. Thus, development assistance should be designed to: l l Accommodate the diverse and flexible approaches typical of resource-poor agriculturalists. This would include enhancing their ability to manage risk, retaining their flexible household organizations, encouraging diversification of income-generating activities, and supporting indigenous experimentation and innovation in agricultural systems. Design; implement; monitor; and evaluate policies, economic strategies, and technologies for their differing effects on people of different ages, gender, ethnicity, and ecol nomic status since all practice low-resource agriculture. Have available a variety of interventions (policies, programs, projects, and institutions) so that the ones most appropriate to the varied and changing needs of resourcepoor agriculturalists can be met. Long-term monitoring and feedback should be used to adjust development activities so they remain useful and relevant as peoples needs and conditions change. poverty and a heavy dependence on local resources, including household labor, give rise to certain common strategies among African farmers and herders. Among these strategies are planting numerous crop species, as well as multiple varieties of a particular crop. In the Congo basin, for example, it is not unusual to find as many as 30 or more different crops on a single farm (6; box 4-2). Equivalent strategies within pastoralist systems include mobility, maintaining large and diverse herds, and establishing social arrangements to gain access to increased resources during bad times (9). Chapter 3 outlines rationales for these various responses, but basically they represent strategies to: l l l l l l l promote diversity of diet and income; stabilize production; minimize risk; reduce insect and disease incidence; use labor efficiently; intensify production within the constraints of scarce resources; and maximize returns under low levels of technology (2,14]. Heavy reliance on family labor sometimes creates surplus labor during parts of the year and labor shortages during other parts. African farmers accordingly have developed various practices that help moderate fluctuations in labor demands by, for example, cropping practices and sequences that spread labor demand, or reserving most nonagricultural activities for slack seasons. The high degree of household and community self-reliance inherent in low-resource agri-

PAGE 86

82 Box 4-2.Diversity in the African Home Garden The home garden (also known as a compound farm) represents one important means by which farmers have diversified the form of agricultural production and the types of commodities produced, Occurring wherever cultivation is possible, home gardens are cultivated across the agro-ecological zones of Africa though they differ considerably in size, shape, intensity of cultivation, and in type and number of species grown (30). Unlike the U.S. conception of a garden as a source primarily of vegetables, African gardens also include staples (e.g., maize, yams, cassava, and legumes), tree crops, oil crops, spices, and condiments. They may also provide a variety of non-food products, including animal browse, fuel, fiber, medicine, and ornamental (30). They are important for direct household consumption and provision of cash income, Home gardens are managed differently from other fields. They are commonly located on land closest to the homes of the farm families. Unlike the outlying fields which are extensively cultivated, home gardens are intensively farmed often on a permanent basis or with extremely short fallows, This intensive permanent cultivation is made possible by the application of animal manure, crop residues, and household refuse which help maintain soil fertility. Home gardens also differ from other fields in the number of different crops grown, often in a multistoried structure. The number of stories and species decreases as one moves from humid to less humid areas. For example, gardens in the humid zone of Nigeria may have four stories of growth and up to 84 species of plants. The lowest story has such crops as sweet potato and melon growing along the ground. The next layer includes vegetables such as tomatoes and eggplant along with grain legumes and the seedlings of trees and shrubs, Cereals, such as maize, and small trees and shrubs make up the third layer and include citrus fruits, yams on stakes, and cassava. The topmost layer includes tall trees such as African breadfruit, oil palm, and wild figs. Besides these better known crops, a host of plants less well-known and less researched is grown, Several benefits derive from the diversity of the home garden. Nutritionally, products of the garden provide essential nutrients that complement the crops and vegetables grown in outlying fields. In some cases, no other source for these nutrients exists, In addition, the garden supports production throughout as much of the year as possible thereby minimizing seasonal periods of food shortage. Agronomically, the multistoried and intercropped structure of the garden creates favorable microclimates for production, and plants are arranged accordingly, Solar energy is used at the various levels, weeds are crowded out, the impacts of pests and diseases are reduced, and the roots of the different crops reach different depths and take better advantage of soil moisture and fertility. Labor productivity on established gardens is high and is well distributed over the year, The garden is also used as an experimental area where new species and varieties may be tried (5,19,30). Home gardens have received little study concerning their agronomic functioning and actual importance to nutrition and household economy (including the roles of mens and womens labor). Improved understanding of both of these areas could support improvements in gardening. Identified areas of possible improvement include: breeding varieties which fit into garden structures, identification and extension of underutilized useful species, improved management techniques, integration of animals, improved food processing and utilization practices and access to the needed resources necessary (e.g., water and land) (5,19,30). culture also makes flexibility, such as the abilrainfall or high pest incidence. As one reity to reallocate resources in response to searcher expresses it: changing and unanticipated circumstances, an Farmers allocate their inputs under an interimportant aspect of African farming systems. Flexibility also is a function of the unpredictasecting matrix of constraintssoil moisture stability and risk commonly associated with Afritus, pest outbreaks, an unexpected illness, lack of ready cash, etc. which can rapidly change can agriculture, particularly in areas of erratic In the short run attention is concentrated

PAGE 87

83on the varying mix of constraints and events, associations or savings associations, for examwhich can have quite different implications de-ple, maybe pooling resources or reducing risks pending upon the stage of crop maturity (28). of individual investments through joint purMany ways exist for development assistance to accommodate the diversity and flexibility needed in low-resource agricultural systems. For example, increased attention could be directed toward research in multiple crop farming systems (see ch. 8). It is also important to understand social structures currently operating in support of low-resource farming systems. It can be important, for example, to understand social mechanisms (within the household or community) that determine access to and control over onor off-farm resources. It may be valuable to investigate how womens farming chasing. Helping diversify local and regional economies can increase the availability of incomegenerating activities (e.g., labor for hire, small trade, carpentry, crafts) while bringing stable markets for the sale of produce and the purchase of external inputs such as tools or fertilizer. Promoting indigenous experimentation and innovation with diversified production systems should be encouraged because it brings about adaptations to existing conditions and can serve as a basis for improvements in agronomic practices, seeds, or other features (11).Photo credit: F. Botts/U.N. Food and Agriculture OrganizationWomen in Burundi diversified their activities by raising chickens cooperatively. The Burundi Department of Rural Development received support from the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization to train farmers.

PAGE 88

84 Development assistance must be aware of the existing division of labor common in Africa (i.e., by age or sex). Responsibilities for various tasks are allocated among household members to help balance labor demands in ways that reduce labor bottlenecks. Introducing technologies can disrupt the balance and undermine anticipated improvements. For example, introducing tractors to facilitate or increase land clearing (often mens work) creates increased, even excessive, demands for weeding the field (primarily womens activity). It should also be recognized that some mechanisms used by resource-poor households [e.g., remittances from male migrant laborers, seasonal hiring of shortterm labor by female-headed households) may enhance onand off-farm opportunities. Institutionalized inequality of households and communities in Africa can create problems for development assistance. Agricultural extension, for instance, commonly fails to reach the largest group of farmerswomenbecause it is run by men and directed to mens needs. Development assistance practitioners must be sensitive to the diverse and complex cultural systems of Sub-Saharan Africa for their work to be accepted. But they should strive to remove obstacles to the equitable introduction of new technologies in order to ensure its effectiveness (11). Development assistance must support technological change while recognizing the uniqueness and diversity of African agriculture and agriculturalists (18). Each production unit will respond differently to the introduction of new methods and ideas and development interventions will be successful only if they address the varied situations present (24). In addition, development assistance should recognize that a variety of public and private sector institutions potentially are available to serve resource-poor farmers. None of these institutions should enjoy a monopoly; none should be overlooked; each should be used where it will be most effective. In particular, development assistance should recognize that local, often small, informal institutions-not just larger or more formal institutionsare important to development activities since they are directly in touch with and accountable to local publics. Local institutions constitute an indispensable resource that governments and donors should encourage. Development assistance agencies also should promote institutions and activities that emerge from specific local needs, not from blueprints, and they should help them evolve to accommodate technological, social, economic, and other changes (10). Untapped Resources for Development Concept 3: Local resourcessuch as local peoples skills, knowledge, practices, and institutions, plus indigenous plants and animals reflect adaptations to the diverse local conditions found in Sub-Saharan Africa. Thus, development assistance should be designed to: l l l l Make local participation an integral part of the initiation, design, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of development assistance projects. Ensure that African women, who in the past have not received the share of development assistance that their role in agriculture warrants, become full participants in the development process. Make increased use of local organizations, including assistance to improve existing organizations. Build on local resources, such as indigenous plants and animals and peoples knowledge of how to use them. These resources have been largely untapped by development assistance agencies and they often can be improved. Experts in agricultural development assistance increasingly view many traditional agricultural systems and the products they produce as valuable resources for Africas development. In part, this change toward increased appreciation of these resources is a function of the poor track record development assistance organizations have had so far in finding alternatives. It also reflects, however, a greater effort now being directed toward understanding practices and research that shows that these practices represent efficient responses to meeting multiple objectives with often meager resources.

PAGE 89

85 In investigations of African pastoralists, for ex(box 4-3). Evidence of their value is reinforced ample, a conclusion has emerged that: by the poor record of improving on their performance under resource-poor conditions and More and more often the livestock developer has come to realize that the practices of paspeoples continued use of traditional cultivars toralists make sense: animal breeds well-suited in conjunction with improved varieties. to multiple goals, herd management techniques Local knowledge may also provide resources adapted to local conditions, husbandry as upfor agricultural development beyond those to-date as the flow of information and technolmanifest in existing production systems. Eviogy permits, land-use management carefully dence exists, for example, to show that popuadjusted to long-term social and subsistence inlations have information on a range of producsurance (12). tion systems that may provide important Much the same argument is made for crop sources for innovation and agricultural intenand mixed crop-livestock production systems. sification. One researcher notes, for example, Of particular interest are the genetic resources that have emerged to fit the particular needs of African farming systems. The varieties that have evolved over the course of hundreds of years of human and natural selection are inherently well suited to local conditions and, despite what are commonly viewed as low yields, are of critical value to low-resource systems that: African ecological research suggests a continuum from extensive to intensive cultivation, with shifting cultivators not unaware of the costs and benefits of permanent field cultivation. From time to time cultivators may adjust their position back and forth along this continuum (32). Box 4-3.Acacia albida: An Indigenous Resource for Development Traditional African agriculture has long used existing resources to provide sustainable benefits. For instance, the use of Acacia albidaa fast-growing, leguminous tree native to Africais one of many practices that have been used for centuries. Historically, the tree was considered so valuable that in the Zinder region of Niger, a 19th century Sultan decreed that people found cutting Acacia trees would be beheaded. In Senegal, highly productive agrosilvipastoral systems have continued to evolve using the multiple benefits provided by these trees. The species has several characteristics that are valuable in agricultural systems. For instance, at the onset of the rainy season the species drops its leaves. These leaves provide a leaf litter mulch that enriches the topsoil. During this wet season, which is when sorghum and millet are produced, the defoliated canopy permits enough light to reach the ground for cereal growth and provides enough shading to reduce the effects of intense heat. During the dry season, the Acacias long taproot draws nutrients from beyond the reach of other plants and stores these in its fruits and leaves. These drop to the ground at the beginning of the next rainy season and are consumed by livestock. Because the fodder has more nutritive value per unit weight than many other fodder crops, more livestock can be supported than without the Acacia. In addition, the livestock manure helps enrich the soil further. Thus, crop yields are greater when an Acacia is in a field than when it is not (26), Using the tree with a proper balance of crop and livestock can also considerably extend the length of cropping without loss of productivity. For example, using the Acacia helped maintain continuous cropping of millet in the Sudan for 15 to 20 years in areas where the norm was 3 to 5 years. Today, the Acacia is being promoted by some development groups in an attempt to provide sustainable benefits to low-resource agriculturalists. Nevertheless, many Africans were well aware of the importance of the tree as a productive resource long before the Western researchers who now tout its qualities. It provides just one of many examples of indigenous resources and production systems once overlooked or denigrated, but now commonly recognized as valuable.

PAGE 90

86 The implications of this are that farmers and herders tend to have a reservoir of latent knowledge of agricultural systems and local resources, This suggests that local farmers already may have done considerable research of their own on different forms of production. This information could provide valuable information on development options, but requires a concerted effort to tap it. Despite the considerable wealth of knowledge and resources in low-resource agricultural systems, this alone will not be adequate for meeting Africas future needs. Outside resources will be essential, in particular the application of modern science to African agricultural problems. Along these lines, however, a far greater investment needs to be made in bolstering the scientific capacity within Africa itself. In this way, African scientistsbetter placed to understand agriculture in their own countriesmay be able to draw on knowledge and technology selectively from abroad and apply it to their own settings. Enlisting the participation of resource-poor farmers and herders is essential in defining effective approaches to assist them. Local participation can come in many forms, including one-on-one approaches, communication with community leaders, community meetings, interaction with local and multi-village organizations or their representatives, and interactions with regional-level organizations or their representatives. Efforts to engage local participation are not without additional costs to donors and participants themselves. Therefore, effective participation depends upon identifying key places where local decision-making will most improve assistance (36). A Complex Web of Concoctions Concept 4: Low-resource agriculture in Africa is based on farming systems that have interacting ecological, social, and economic components, and these farming systems are linked, in turn, to other larger systems beyond the farm. Thus, development assistance should be designed to: l Account for the integrated nature of lowresource agriculture and how these interrelationships affect the success or failure of interventions. l Improve the links between farms and external systems such as markets, extension systems, and transportation networks. The farming systems of Africa are complex and changing. Many interacting internal and external factors affect who uses the land, how it is used, with what techniques, and for what objectives. One way to view the integrated nature of farming systems is to use a hierarchical perspective, where ecological, economic, social, and institutional factors operate and interact at different levels (22). At one level, for example, are various factors operating within fields, for example, agronomic considerations of soil quality and water availability, or social factors such as division of labor in field activities. On a broader level are activities taking place within the entire farming enterprise, including non-farming activities. Therefore, understanding how resources are used within farming systems requires looking beyond the household, given the importance of links among households: Investigations of numerous systems of rural production in Africa have demonstrated that viable production by individual farm households depends on their being embedded in supra-household networks. These suprahousehold linkages may take the form of mutual aid or have the character of patron-client relations. Whatever the form, it is clear that access to key resources or to basic factors of production lies outside the household as often as it lies within it (31). It is also important to consider agricultural development using a broader ecological framework that incorporates, for example, the environmental services (reducing run-off, controlling wind erosion, etc.) provided by natural areas beyond the farm. Disturbing these systems, as reflected in such processes as desertification and deforestation, increasingly undermines the viability of development in Africa. But protecting these resources depends on the area (e.g., the consequence of decisions made by many individual farmers given land tenure patterns) and beyond (e.g., the commitment of

PAGE 91

87 national government to resource planning and management). At the national or regional level a variety of macroeconomic and national policy issues, although seemingly removed from the day-today operations of resource-poor farmers, can have major impacts. How a government structures its agricultural policies (e.g., pricing, credit, and extension) and such factors as monetary or fiscal policies can significantly influence the low-resource farmer, Even international factors, such as international commodity prices and international commodity agreements, can influence agricultural activities. For example, establishing access to international markets for particular cash crops can result in fundamental restructuring in local farming systems (box 4-4) Enhancing the links between on-farm and external systems (e.g., markets, rural financial institutions, transportation networks, research and extenion systems, and off-farm income) will require the use of different institutions and combinations of institutions. Development assistance agencies should support a wide range of institutionspublic and private, governmental and nongovernmental, local and regional depending on their comparative advantages for specific activities. Their choice should serve rural publics and help people reduce their vulnerability to external influences such as unstable markets and inadequate extension systems. The ways in which interventions will change the relative weight of available production factors, and modes of access to those factors, require careful tracing, including both prior tracing of likely effects, based on available knowledge of linkages, and post hoc tracing, as part of the monitoring, evaluative, and directed feed-back processes of research (31). Development assistance agencies can encourage these many layers of institutions to share Box 4-4.Changing Farming Systems of the Nyiha of Tanzania Farming systems of the Nyiha people of Tanzania serve as an example of the complexity of lowresource agricultural systems and their changing links to external and internal factors. The rainy season usually lasts for 5 to 6 months in the Mbozi area, with annual precipitation averaging 40 to 50 inches (1,000 to 1,250 mm). This environment is suitable to produce the Nyihas major staples maize, millet, sorghum, legumes, and cassava using a variety of traditional shifting cultivation techniques. These typically include several crop sequences followed by a fallow period. Internal and external factorse.g., increasing population pressure, the introduction of Europeanstyle coffee estates, and increased coffee production by resource-poor farmershave caused major changes in local farming systems and their links with the export crop economy. As the areas population grew and as coffee production expanded, less land was available for food production. Some farmers migrated to less densely populated regions within the Mbozi area. Others intensified their food production systems, and still others incorporated coffee into their own annuaI labor cycle and household economy. The people who migrated continued traditional shifting cultivation. Those who intensified their food production began to replace shifting cultivation with various grassland-fallow management techniques, such as ridging, mounding, intercropping, legume/grain rotations, and production of cassava on marginal lands. Those who incorporated coffee into their household production systems mobilized male labor which was not typically involved in food production. Each of these three groups requires a different form of development assistance. Shifting cultivators will need assistance in the transition to permanent agriculture as this becomes necessary in response to growing populations. Those that have already begun this transition can be assisted with technologies that promote sustainable production systems using their particular mix of resource endowments. Farmers growing some coffee might be assisted through efforts to adapt scaled-down techniques from larger coffee plantations. They use more inputs such as fertilizers and modern management techniques, and are able to rely on external institutional arrangements and marketing systems to obtain their inputs. On these farms, traditional food production meets most subsistence needs and provides some income, while coffee production provides additional income from exports (18).

PAGE 92

88 information and coordinate their efforts. Debe given to encourage maintenance of diverse velopment assistance agencies also can work social connections between households, groups, with national governments to reform bureauother cooperative groups, and communities becratic structures and procedures as necessary cause these networks help reduce risk and serve so they serve low-resource farmers more effecthe varied needs of low-resource agricultively (10). In addition, special attention should turalists. A RESOURCE-ENHANCING APPROACH: A COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT A variety of approaches to development assistance exist and donors often use mutually supportive elements from several. A resourceenhancing approach would have elements in common with other strategies addressing agricultural development and some significant differences. To illustrate these similarities and differences, three donor approaches are compared and contrasted with a resource-enhancing l l l A approach. The three approaches are: The New Directions/basic human needs approach which sought to provide such basic human needs as food, education, and health care for the poor. The Accelerated Development/policy reform approach which has come to focus on reforming national policies that constrain economic development, including development of the agricultural sector. An approach promoting accelerated growth in food production, primarily in the highest potential regions, detailed by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), 3 through increases in use of commercial inputs, infrastructure, and African institutional capabilities. resource-enhancing approach shares a common overall emphasis with these three strategies. All seek to develop agriculture as the primary means to support national development. Within agriculture, all four focus on the sResearchers associated with the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), 1 of 13 centers of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, have recently detailed this approach in ]. Mellor, C. Delgado, and M. Blackie (eds.), Accelerating Food Production in Sub-Saharan Africa (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987). For this section, this approach is called the IFPRI approach. small farmer and not larger, commercial, or state run farms. The four strategies differ significantly, however, on how best to support the development of this group, and on what portion of this broad group should be addressed. The United States development strategy was redirected toward improving the lives of the poor by the 1973 New Directions legislation amending the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. This change stemmed from criticisms that previous U.S. aid to developing countries was supporting inequitable economic growth and that it was not helping the poor who made up a significant and growing percentage of recipients (2 I). With this approach, the purpose of development assistance shifted to increasing the poors access to food, health care, and education. The poor were to benefit through the direct provision of these basic human needs and by increased access to factors such as credit, extension, and improved infrastructure that could increase their productivity and income. Increases in income would then enable the poor to supply their own needs. Assistance was also intended to increase the poors participation in and control over development. Because the majority of Africas poor are agriculturalists, agriculture became a central focus of the strategy although attention was also given to the urban poor. Project aid was an important means of providing for basic human needs (16). The impact of the New Directions strategy was limited both by conditions in Africa and by its actual implementation. These problems included: l a lack of trained Africans to program development assistance funds and to run the projects;

PAGE 93

89 l l l l l l l a lack of improved agricultural technology to be transferred to poor farmers, inhibiting the potential for increases in agricultural production and income and thereby leading to a greater emphasis on the direct provision of basic human needs; a lack of indigenous institutions and trained personnel capable of generating agricultural technology and supporting the development of agriculture; the existence of national policies which discouraged increased agricultural production; projects failure to generate the revenues needed to be self-sustaining; overly complex attempts to deliver different services and goods, combined with the unfilled need to coordinate differing bureaucracies; projects failure to address local environmental and social conditions; and projects failure to ensure beneficiaries participation (16,21). These constraints became evident as projects were implemented to carry out the New Directions strategy. Their identification was a key reason for the design of the other three approaches, which have responded to these shortcomings in different ways, and for modifying the New Directions approach itself. Lack of national economic growth in Africa and the identification of the important role of national policy in this problem led to the more macro-economic approach of Accelerated Development, first detailed in a 1981 World Bank report, Accelerated Development in SubSaharan Africa: An Agenda for Action, prepared at the request of the African Governors of the World Bank. According to the Accelerated Development approach, changes in national policies (known as policy reforms) are key to national economic growth and three types of policies are of primary importance: suitable trade and exchange-rates; increased efficiency of the public sector; and supportive agricultural policies. Agriculture is seen as the most important determinant of economic growth. Means to support agriculture would include: a focus on smallholders with greatest attention paid to the highest potential regions, increased prices for agricultural products, more competitive markets, increased rural availability of consumer goods, improved transport and marketing infrastructure, increased research, and increased attention to export crops where a comparative advantage exists (38). Over time, donors have come to focus primarily on the policy reform aspects of Accelerated Development, giving less attention to those nonpolicy factors also identified in the approach; hence, the increased use of the term Policy Reform as a donor approach. Donors have also focused more on changing actual policies than building African support and capability to do so. They have concentrated on supporting a set of reforms which address such current policies as: l l l l below-market prices paid to farmers for their commodities, set by the government as a way to increase government revenue (especially from export crops) and to provide cheap food to political y important urban populations; overvalued exchange rates combined with import restrictions used to conserve foreign exchange, make food imports cheaper, and make food exports less remunerative for the farmer, imported agricultural technology more expensive, and consumer goods more expensive; a failure by the government to invest adequately in agricultural development; and an overreliance on parastatals for marketing agricultural inputs and outputs, which has led to inefficient marketing, high marketing and transport costs, and locking out the indigenous private sector (21,34,38). In addition to the benefits incurred by changing such policies, Policy Reform is attractive because of how it can be implemented. Donors can move large amounts of assistance quickly in return for promises of policy change and thus meet their own budget timetables and react to domestic political needs. Measurable goals can be set, such as changes in exchange rates or prices, and can be reached relatively quickly thus meeting demands for documentable, fast results. In addition, expatriate personnel requirements are seen as lower than those necessary for New Directions type project assis76-578 0 88 3 : QL 3

PAGE 94

9-0 tance and macro-level data analysis can occur at central locations. These justifications have been challenged, however, because some see reform as a slow process and note that personnel requirements are not reduced only shifted (3,4). Policy Reforms approach and its implementation have raised several concerns over its impact. Its emphasis on national-level economic growth and, for agriculture, national production increases may overlook the goal of equitable growth and an emphasis on the poor majority. This concern is partly based on a lack of data conclusively showing links between policy reforms and increases in production and income among resource-poor agriculturalists. It is also a function of growing evidence of negative impacts that structural adjustment policies can have on the poorer segments of society. Assumptions that policy reforms can be effective in bolstering production without, among other things, addressing technical or infrastructural bottlenecks are also being challenged. In sum, questions are increasingly being raised regarding the wisdom of pursuing macro-level reforms on a broad scale without adequately understanding their impact at the micro-level (see ch. 6). Another criticism of current implementation of Policy Reform is that it is not creating African capacity to implement and maintain such reform. This lack of attention to African capability contradicts the original conception of the Accelerated Development approach, with its stress on donor support for such activities (38). The failure of the New Directions and Policy Reform approaches to address the technical and institutional needs of African agricultural development led to an approach to accelerate food production growth, detailed by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). The IFPRI approach is based on the theory that increases in food production will lead to increases in farmer income which will in turn lead to increases in production and employment in other sectors of the economy. Improved technology is seen as the driving force for speeding growth in food production. And national economic growth will depend on the commercialization of smallholder production, needed for the adoption of improved technology. According to this strategy, resources should be directed to: 1) fertilizer distribution, 2] agricultural research, 3) education and training, and 4) infrastructure development. Policy reform is an important but not primary goal and reforms emphasized are those that address these four areas. The IFPRI strategy seeks to build African capability necessary to carry out development as it supports the implementation of these four factors. For example, indigenous fertilizer distribution systems and African analytical ability to set regional fertilizer priorities and import/ distribution policies would be improved along with increases in the distribution of fertilizer. To support agricultural research, the approach emphasizes building and improving African research institutions. Increasing and improving human resources is part of building these African research institutions as staff must be trained to use and manage them. In addition, formal education for farmers would be increased so farmers could avail themselves of the services of agricultural institutions. Finally, improved rural infrastructure would benefit African transport and marketing capability and would require the involvement of local governments and rural organizations because of construction costs and maintenance needs. The IFPRI strategy argues that donor assistance should be aimed at better-off areas that can take most advantage of the scarce development resources available. This means focusing on higher income small farmers who can invest in new technology and on geographic areas with favorable rainfall and soils or where soil problems can be solved. For commodities, this means limiting the majority of internationally supported research to a small set of widely grown, staple crops, such as maize, rice, sorghum, and cassava, that have the possibility for major improvement, especially in the higher potential geographic areas. For many, the IFPRI approach, like Policy Reform, raises concerns over equity. Focusing

PAGE 95

91 assistance on the better endowed regions will bypass large numbers of Africans and contribute to increasing inequalities in income. Bypassing large numbers of persons also reduces the positive impact better-off agriculturalists have on stimulating economic growth since fewer people will be in this group (8). In addition, ignoring the less well-off regions will lead to ignoring the unsustainable production now taking place there and degradation of the natural resource base will continue. These three approaches have been developed to address constraints to agricultural development: New Directions with lack of equity; Policy Reform with unsupportive national policies for agriculture; and IFPRI with a lack of technology and institutional support. A resourceenhancing approach combines parts of each of these three strategies to address the needs and abilities of resource-poor agriculturalists. For this reason, a resource-enhancing approach overlaps with each on specific points but also has significant differences. A resource-enhancing approach shares New Directions emphasis on equity because both address development of the majority of the poor although New Directions is broader because it also addresses the urban poor. Also, a resource-enhancing approach concentrates on increasing the productivity of the poor, versus New Directions provision of basic needsgiving the former a more technical and institutional orientation. Provision of basic education, health care, and food, while complementary to a resource-enhancing approach, is peripheral to it. Policy Reforms identification of the importance of supportive national policies is built into this resource-enhancing approach. Technologies and institutions effectiveness can be greatly reduced by discriminatory policies. Unlike Policy Reform, though, a resource-enhancing approach would link reforms in policies primarily to the development of resource-poor agriculturalists. Therefore, action on such reforms would stress: links to the on-the-ground working of the agricultural sector, ensuring that benefits are received by a majority of resourcepoor agriculturalists; providing safety nets for the poor significantly hurt by reforms; and providing significant attention to building African capacity to create and implement such reforms in order to ensure the two above points and the sustainability of the reforms. Policy reforms remain important in a resource-enhancing approach but less so than in a Policy Reform approach as resources must be used to support technical and institutional needs as well. A resource-enhancing approach incorporates many of the components of the IFPRI approach. Both place strong emphasis on the need for improved technology, and both include the need for ensuring that technologies address the real constraints faced by farmers and herders through means such as on-farm testing of technology and farming systems research. In addition, both emphasize the need for institutional development to develop and support improved technology. This leads to a common emphasis on building African capability to carry out this work. However, significant differences exist between the two approaches. A resource-enhancing approach would not direct assistance to only those agricuhuralists and areas with high potential for improvement. It would address wider populations and geographic areas for reasons of equity and to prevent a large majority of resource-poor agriculturalists from being bypassed by development, This leads to different technological choices because the appropriateness of a technology depends, in part, on the resources available to an agriculturalist. For example, a resource-enhancing strategy would support the use of commercial fertilizers where applicable. However, it would not give them the same overall emphasis as the IFPRI strategy because significantly expanded use of purchased fertilizers is not affordable nor available to a large proportion of resource-poor farmers. Also, a resource-enhancing approach would support research on a broader range of agricultural commodities. Although some of these make up a comparatively small percentage of total agricultural production, they are often essential to household nutrition and in-

PAGE 96

92 come, and existing technologies could be adapted to improve their production. Addressing this concern would stretch research resources; therefore, greater emphasis is placed on developing national research capability and linking researchers, extension services, and agriculturalists in the most productive way. At the same time, a resource-enhancing approach places greater emphasis on slowing degradation of the natural resource base, much of which is occurring outside higher potential areas. A resource-enhancing approach is apt to support small, evolutionary gains in production, placing greater emphasis on using available resources (e. g., technologies and local organizations). Where favorable factors of production (e.g., climate, soil, markets, research capabilities) exist, the IFPRI approach may be more relevant for local agricultural development. Although both approaches stress the formal training and development of institutions necessary for agricultural development, a resourceenhancing approach gives greater emphasis to linking this training and institution-building to the needs of low-resource agriculture. Resourcepoor farmers and herders themselves play a larger role in a resource-enhancing approach via contributing knowledge, taking part in research, and working through their own organizations. AFRICAN PERSPECTIVES OTA solicited the thoughts of individual African colleagues concerning the relevance of its work on low-resource agriculture to African agricultural development. 4 The overall response was that OTAs approach to enhancing low-resource agriculture fit within their own conceptions of African agricultural development and this approach would be a realistic one for solving African food deficits. Several points were stressed: First, the importance of the diversity of African agriculture was reiterated. All of the countries have problems but some face an agricultural crisis. The causes of these problems vary from country to country; and solutions also will vary. For this reason, development assistance needs to be flexible so that it can address local problems and develop an appropriate mix of responses. Promoting a single technique, such as adjusting pricing policies, with equal vigor across the continent was seen as a mistake. In @TA surveyed some 40 African researchers and policymakers (app. C) for their views on: the state of agriculture in their region, how their views differ from those of donor agency personnel, how appropriate is OTAS model of low-resource agriculture, and what would be a constructive U.S. foreign assistance program for Africa. Their views were synthesized in: Hussein Adam, African Perspectives of Low-Resource Agriculture, contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, December 1987). order to have the necessary flexibility, donors would need to increase the decision making authority of their in-country personnel. Second, increasing African capability was seen as essential. This could be carried out by increasing support for education and training, institutional support including core funding especially for research, and support for local organizations. In addition, donors should reduce their dependence on expatriates; increase their use of Africans; and give Africans more control and participation in project and program design, management, and evaluation. Third, a need exists to work with the resources and technology available to the majority of the agriculturalists. Making use of traditional knowledge will be part of this work and technologies and institutions that can support traditional systems of farming are necessary. Farmers knowledge and participation should be incorporated into the work and women should be actively involved. Technologies will need to support sustainable productivity. Fourth, the nature of this approach means that assistance must be long term and have development as its goal. Levels and types of assistance should not be decided along political lines.

PAGE 97

93Photo credit: F. Mattioli, U./V. Food and Agriculture Organization Photo credit: F. Botts, U.N. Food and Agriculture OrganizationAfricans stressed the need for U.S. development assistance to match Africas diversity, to ensure that Africans capabilities are increased, to build on the resources that the majority of agriculturalists have available to them, and to be committed to a long-term effort with development its most important goal.

PAGE 98

94 Included with their general agreement with the approach of enhancing low-resource agriculture were several caveats. There was concern that any approach not become the sole strategy for agricultural development. Instead it should be carried out in conjunction with other approaches, such as increasing non-farm employment and improving rural peoples health and education. The approach should not become subsistence-oriented but aim toward increasing the practice of science-based agriculture. Also, when carrying out the approach it should be remembered that some traditional practices will restrain agricultural development and should be discarded. A small minority of responses strongly disagreed with an approach to enhance lowresource agriculture. Fears were expressed that it would lead to a class of farmers trapped at the subsistence level. In some cases, traditional systems were seen as impediments to develop1, 2. CHAPTER 4 Adam, Hussein M., African Perspectives of Low-Resource Agriculture, contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, December 1987). Altieri, M.A. and L.C. Merrick, In Situ Conservation of Crop Genetic Resources Through Maintenance of Traditional Farming Systems, ECOnOn2ic BOtaZly, vol. 41, No. 1, 1987, pp. 86-96. 3. Atherton, Joan, Bureau for Program and Policy Coordination, U.S. Agency for International Development, Washington, DC, personal communication, 1987. 4. Berg, Elliot, testimony at hearings before the House Subcommittee on International Development Institutions and Finance, Multilateral Development Bank Lending for Africa, 1986, Serial No. 99-95. 5. Brownrigg, Leslie, Home Gardening in International Development: What the Literature Shows (Washington, DC: League for International Food Education, 1985). 6, Clawson, David L., Harvest Security and Intraspecific Diversity in Traditional Tropical Agriculture, Economic Botany, vol. 39, No. 1, 1985, PP. 56-67. 7. Consultative Group on International Agriculment. And concern existed that the United States was incapable of carrying out a resourceenhancing approach because of U.S. emphasis on topdown approaches and providing food aid. An additional issue raised by the respondents was the need to address corruption and the misuse of assistance. Where corruption is prevalent, the need to ensure the use of funds for development purposes should override the need for African management of funding and donor agencies should retain spending control. Throughout the responses ran the call to consult with Africans before carrying out development assistance. This was expressed directly in respondents specific comments and indirectly in the tone of their letters. Many expressed surprise and pleasure that the United States Congress had sought their opinions. 8 tural Research, Technical Advisory Committee, Sustainable Agricultural Production: Implications for International Agricultural Research (Progress ReportCSC II), TAC Secretariat (Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, October, 1987). Dommen, Arthur, Accelerating Food Production in Sub-Saharan Africa, ?he Journal of Agricultural Economics Research, vol. 38, No. 3, Summer 1987, pp. 37-38. 9. Dyson-Hudson, N. Adaptive Resource Use Strategies of African Pastoralists, in F. DiCastri, F.W.G. Baker, and M. Hadley (eds.), ECOL ogy in Practice (Part I: Ecosystem Maintenance) (Dublin: Tycooly International Publishing Limited, 1984), pp. 262-273. 10. Esman, Milton, Principles and Concepts of Effective Institutions, contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, December 1987). 11. Fleuret, Anne, Principles and Concepts of Productive Human Resource Systems, contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, December 1987). 12. Galaty, J. G,, and Aronson, D. R., Research Pri-

PAGE 99

95 13. 14. 15. 16. 17, 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. orities and Pastoralist Development: What Is To Be Done? J.G Galaty et al. (eds.), The Future of Pastoral PeopZes (Ottawa: International Development Research Centre, 1981), pp.16-26, George, Susan, Rejoinder: On the Need for a Broader Approach, Food Pohcy, February 1985, pp. 75-79. Harwood, R. R., SmaZl Farmer Development: Understanding and Improving Farming Systems: The Humid Tropics (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1979). International Institute for Environment and Development and The World Resources Institute, Elements of Success: Sustainable Development in Sub-Saharan Africa, WorZd Resources 1987 (New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc., 1987), pp. 221-238. Johnston, B., Hoben, A., Dijkeerman, D, W., and Jaeger, W. K., An Assessment of AID Activities to Promote Agricultural and Rural Development in Sub-Saharan Africa, Managing Agricultural Development in Africa (MADIA) Research Project#12 (Washington, DC: The World Bank, 1987), Johnston, Bruce F., Governmental Strategies for Agricultural Development, Berg, R. J., and Whittaker, J. S., Strategies for African Development (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1986), pp. 155-183. Knight, Gregory, and Child, Dennis, Principles and Concepts for Managing Natural Resources, contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, December 1987). Lagemann, Johannes, Traditional African Farming Systems in Eastern Nigeria (Munchen, Germany: Weltforum-Verlag, 1977). La], R,, Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resource Management for Sub-Saharan Africa, l?0S7ID Developments, vol. 7, No. 3, Fall 1987, pp. 6-9, Lancaster, Carol, Existing Models of Development Assistance to Low-Resource Agriculture in Africa, contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, December 1987), Lowrance, R,, Hendrix, P, F,, and Odum, E, P,, A Hierarchical Approach to Sustainable Agriculture, American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, vol. 1, No. 4, Fall 1986, pp. 169-173. Madden, P., Can Sustainable Agriculture Be Profitable? Environment, vol. 29, No. 4, May 1987, pp. 18-20, 28-34. Matlon, Peter, The West African Semiarid 25. 26. 27. 28. 29, 30. 31 0 32, 33, 34. Tropics, in J.W. Mellor, C.L. Delgado, and M,J. Blackie (eds.), Accelerating Food Production in Sub-Saharan Africa (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987), pp. 59-77. McGahuey, Michael, Africa Bureau, U.S. Agency for International Development, Washington, DC, personal communication, 1987. McGahuey, Michael, Impact of Forestry Initiatives in the Sahel: Effect of Acacia albida Tree on Millet Production in Chad (Washington, DC: Chemonics International, January 1986). Mellor, J. W., Delgado, C. L., Blackie, M.J. (eds.), Accelerating Food Production in Sub-Saharan Africa (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987). Moris, Jon, Indigenous Versus Introduced Solutions to Food Stress, IFPRI/FAO/AID Workshop on Seasonal Causes of Household Food Insecurity, Policy Implications and Research Needs, draft paper, 1985. National Research Council, Board on Science and Technology for International Development, Environmental Change in the West African Sahel (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1984). Okigbo, Bede, Home Gardens in Tropical Africa, paper presented at an International Conference on Home Gardens, Bandung, Indonesia, Dec. 2-9, 1985. Peters, Pauline E., Household Management in Botswana: Cattle, Crops, and Wage Labor, Joyce L. Moock (cd.), Understanding Africas Rural Households and Farming Systems (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1986), pp. 133-154. Richards, Paul, Ecological Change and the Politics of African Land Use, African Studies Review, vol. 26, No, 2, 1983, pp. 1-72. Staatz, John, The Potential of Low-Resource Agriculture in African Development, contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, December, 1987). U.S. Agency for International Development, Bureau for Africa, U.S. Assistance Strategy for Africa 1987-1990, Washington, DC, June 1986. 35. U.S. Agency for International Development, Africa Bureau Strategic Plan, Washington, DC, April 1984. 36. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Grassroots Development: The African Development Foundation, OTA-F-378 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, June 1988). 37, U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-

PAGE 100

96 ment, Africa Tomorrow: Issues in Technology, Agriculture, and U.S. Foreign AidA Technical Memorandum, OTA-TM-F-31 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, December 1984), 38. World Bank, Accelerated Development in SubSaharan Africa: An Agenda for Action (Washington, DC: The World Bank, October 1981).

PAGE 101

Chapter 5 The Role of Technology in Enhancing Low-Resource Agriculture

PAGE 102

Page Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Technologys Place in a Changing Africa .............................10 0 What Is a Promising Technology? . . . . . . . . ..103 Improving the Effectiveness of Technical Assistance to Resource-Poor Farmers, Herders, and Fishers .......................10 5 Technical Potential for Enhancing Low-Resource Agriculture ....,......111 Difficulties in Evaluating Technical Potential . . .................111 High Potential for Adoption . . . . . . . . . ...111 Potential To Modernize Gradually . . . . ..................112 Technology-Specific Potentials . . . . . . . ....,.112 Chapter 5 References . . . . . . . ..............,....117 Boxes Box Page 5-1. The Green Revolution and Africa . . . . . ., . . ...101 5-2. Farming Systems Research. . . . . ., . . . . .108 Tables Table Page 5-1. 5-2. 5-3. 5-4. Promising Technologies and Practices by Agroecological Zone . . . . . . . .. .. .,. .., .., .-103 Economic Analysis of Farmer-Managed Trials of Sorghum With Fertilizer and Tied Ridges at Nedogo and Diapangou, Burkina Faso in 1983 and 1984 . . . . . . ..................,,.,.113 Effect of Improved Practices, With and Without Fertilizers, on Crop Yields. . . . . . . .................,...,,,.,.114 Gains From Improved Management Practices . . . ..,,..114

PAGE 103

Chapter 5 The Role of Technology in Enhancing Low-Resource Agriculture 99

PAGE 104

100 TBCHNOLOGY'S PLACE IN A CHANGIN6 AFRICA Technological innovation in low-resource agricultural systems will be a major factor contributing to Africas ability to meet the challenges ahead. However, technical solutions alone will not solve Africas food security problems. Throughout the world, agricultural systems have met increasing food needs by intensification, and technology has always played an important role in this process. Through more active management and application of technology and other inputs, it becomes possible to expand and accelerate agricultural production beyond that possible by relying on natural processes alone. However, much crop and livestock production in Africa is extensive rather than intensive. A small percentage of African food production is likely to remain extensive where population densities are still low, or where people have settled in new lands opened by disease control, for example. In areas like these, shifting agriculture historically has been an ecologically sound and labor-efficient means of producing food. In fact, until recently, shifting agriculture was sustainable in much of Africa because fields could be cultivated for perhaps 5 years in semi-arid zones or 1 to 3 years in more humid areas, and then allowed to lie fallow for 10 to 15 years to restore the land (42,47,50). As populations increased and as land became more scarce, however, this ageold agricultural method began failing. As fallow periods shortened, yields have declined, additional marginal land has been put into production, and environmental degradation has accelerated (45). Livestock production faces a similar situation, particularly on Africas rangelands. Indigenous systems have developed to use scarce, often unreliable, natural resources efficiently. Recent studies show these systems to be much more efficient than previously believed (3,15). Yet it is evident that in more and more cases, traditional practices are no longer sustainable. One contributing factor is the increased numbers of pastoralists and livestock. Perhaps more detrimental, however, is the increasing conflict over land and resources as farmers extend further into rangelands and as pastoralists are forced onto rangeland of marginal productivity and lose access to critical dry-season forage (27). Declining per capita food production and income, as well as serious degradation of the resource base on which African development depends, provide compelling evidence that resource-poor farmers, herders, and fishers will require additional technology and technical assistance to intensify their agriculture. The rate at which intensification will need to take place, or even the extent to which intensification is possible, obviously varies greatly in a region as diverse as Sub-Saharan Africa. But what form should technical assistance take? A review of the disappointing results to date suggests that technological interventions often overemphasize solutions imposed from the outside. These commonly fail to consider local perceptions and social and environmental conditions, and tend to underemphasize more integrated approaches to problem-solving (51,52). The prospect that Africa will need to double its agricultural production over the next few decades to keep pace with population growth is daunting. It also has given rise to the notion that nothing short of a Green Revolution approach for Africa, such as the one that transformed much of Asias agriculture, will meet this challenge. Certainly a few areas of Africa, notably the regions with high agronomic potential and well-developed infrastructure, have benefited from technology developed in Asia, but it seems unwise to expect a Green Revolution strategy to be widely applicable to Africa in the foreseeable future (box 5-1). In comparison to those parts of Asia that benefited from the Green Revolution, Africa has poorer soils and less water available for agriculture; lower labor/land ratios; less developed human and institutional infrastructure; and it relies on not one but several staple crops, most of which have short research histories (4).

PAGE 105

101 Box 5-1.The Green Revolution and Africa When people talk about African agriculture, they often compare the continent and its problems to India in the mid-1960s, when that country faced massive food problems, was heavily dependent on emergency food aid, and was often written off as a basket case. If India can make the progress it hasand today India is exporting food, including food aid to Africawhy cant Africa? The answer is simple, although the context is complex: Africa and India are two very different places and some of the most useful lessons from the Indian experience are drawn from highlighting those differences. Climatic and Physical Differences The dramatic gains in Indian agricultural output occurred largely in the Punjab, an area with relatively fertile soils, a geology that permitted the widespread adoption of irrigation, and few pest problems. The high-yielding varieties of the Green Revolution were bred to perform best under such conditions. In contrast, African soils are generally low in fertility. They tend to be shallower, have poorer texture, are more inert, and have lower water-holding capacities than comparable Indian soils (32). Also, African geography is less conducive to irrigation, especially large-scale projects. In Africa, only 3 to 5 percent of cultivated areas are irrigated whereas at least 20 percent of Indians cropland is (11,55), In Africas high-rainfall areas, agricultural production is limited by low sunlight, rapid leaching of soil nutrients, soil degradation when crops are removed, and the rapid spread of pests and diseases. Production in semi-arid areas is limited by lack of rainfall. West Africas semi-arid areas tend to have shorter growing seasons with greater risk of drought than the semi-arid areas in India with similar levels of rainfall. This suggests that shorter growing-cycle crop varieties are needed and these are generally more risky, Crop Differences Rice and wheat, the predominant Green Revolution staples in India, have a long history of scientific research. Also, the environmental conditions of the Punjab allowed India to introduce improved varieties and adapt them quickly to local conditions, The successes with rice and wheat were partly a function of plant breeders ability to develop photo-period insensitive varieties that could be adopted over a wide geographic area. No such varieties seem to be on the horizon for millet, sorghum, or the other 10 main staple crops in Africa. For example, there has been little success in introducing improved Indian sorghum and millet varieties into West Africa because of disease and pest problems, and water control problems have prevented the introduction of dwarf rice varieties. Only 2 imported rice varieties of 2,000 tested performed as well as local varieties in 10 years of experiments. Modern crop breeding research has begun only recently for other African staples, such as roots and tubers. Economic Differences The spread of new varieties in India was fostered by a better transportation network and more highly integrated markets for inputs and crops than exist in Africa (21). Another important difference is that while India is a large, relatively closed economy, African economies are typically small and depend heavily on foreign trade. Indian political leaders could make the decision to concentrate agricultural research on one high-potential region (the Punjab). This type of decision is politically difficult if several countries are involved. Moreover, small countries may not have the critical mass of scientists to support agricultural research, but multi-country regional research is often difficult to coordinate. Open economies are more susceptible to fluctuations in international prices, especially for their main export prices. Government revenues, and hence, agricultural research budgets, depend on export earnings and are highly unstable as a result. The relative prices of land and labor are also quite different between Africa and India. In India, land is scarce, while labor is abundant. Consequently, agricultural technologies were developed to be land-augmenting and labor-using. In Africa, seasonal labor bottlenecks and highly variable rainfall are major constraints, while labor is abundant at other times of the year. Hence, Africas pressing agricultural needs include technologies to relax these constraints, such as selective mechanization and plant varieties that are bred for yield stability. As population pressures increase, however, the need for more land-augmenting, labor-using technologies will increase. (continued on next page)

PAGE 106

102 Differences in Human Resources A key factor in Indias success in agricultural research was the heavy prior investment that the country had made in human capital and in developing the research and training institutions that then generated both trained scientists and knowledge about the countrys agriculture. India began building colleges of agriculture in the 1920s under the British colonial government, so by the 1960s Indian policymakers and scientists were very knowledgeable about the nature of the problems facing agriculture in that country, where the highest payoffs to research were likely to be, and which parts of the country had the greatest agricultural potential. This knowledge was then used to focus domestic and foreign assistance research efforts. In contrast, African countries have until recently devoted little investment to training agricultural scientists or building research institutions. The lack of trained personnel and knowledge of local agricultural conditions in much of Africa severely limits the effectiveness of foreign assistance and places too much reliance on expatriates, Also, Africa has yet to develop an educated lobby for agricultural policymaking such as emerged in India in the 1960s. Lessons for Africa The Indian experience shows that progress in overcoming food problems in poor countries is possible, but that it is a long-term process that depends not so much on importing new technology from abroad, although that may be important, but on developing indigenous capacity in the agricultural sciences and in policy analysis. These skills allow a country to borrow judiciously from abroad and adapt foreign technologies to local conditions, as well as to develop new technologies locally. Developing this knowledge and scientific capacity in Africa is a long-term process; without such capabilities the effectiveness of foreign technical assistance is likely to remain low, But Indias experience shows that technology itself is not enough. Supporting institutions are extremely important also. SOURCE: John M. Staatz, The Potential of Low-Resource Agriculture in African Development, contractor report to the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, December 1987). This is not to suggest that the situation in Africa is hopeless. Some technical progress is being made that justifies cautious optimism. However, rather than relying on the relatively homogeneous package of technologies and inputs that produced a dramatic Green Revolution in Asia, more viable approaches for promoting food security in Africa call for evolution of Africas existing farming systems. An approach suited to enhancing African lowresource agriculture involves sequential improvements in technology that provide incremental gains in productivity, as well as greater stability of production. The technological framework entails a more diversified approach whereby technologies are better suited to the needs and characteristics of Africas wide range of small-scale, resource-poor farming systems. Much uncertainty surrounds the issue of the availability of technologies for this task. Some experts feel that domestic and international researchers have not produced a large enough stock of technological innovation capable of ensuring sustainable growth in aggregate agricultural output (43). Others believe that the necessary technologies exist, and the problem is their poor adoption rates. This uncertainty reflects, in part, an imbalance between the emphasis given to research at the experiment stations and the relative neglect of on-farm, adaptive research. The people working more closely with farmers and herders seem less optimistic regarding availability of suitable technology. While OTAs analysis suggests that certain types of technical interventions can help improve food security significantly, it would be irresponsible for donors to place all their African agricultural development eggs in one basket. Successful approaches will be a thoughtful, integrated approacha mix of objectives and programs reflecting the diversity that exists in Africabut technical assistance certainly will need to address low-resource agriculture more than it has in the past. The following sections provide a general framework and present

PAGE 107

103 specific findings regarding technologys role of the overall potential of technology to proin improving low-resource agriculture. The mote improved productivity and sustainabilchapter concludes with a general discussion ity of low-resource agriculture. WHAT IS A PROMISING TECHNOLOGY? One of the most important lessons to arise from past development assistance failures is that to be successful, technical interventions must match the specific constraints shaped by local social and environmental conditions. How, then, can OTA speak of promising technologies for the whole continent of Africa? First, OTA classified Africa into four agroecological zones based on the U.S. Agency for International Developments refinement of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) work on Africas soils, climates, and crops. Then OTA consulted development experts familiar with each of these zones to identify technologies that they believed held the most promise for increasing the availability and stability of 1ocally produced food. These consultations included a telephone survey, Advisory Panel meetings, two workshops, and production of a series of background papers on individual technologies (app. A, B). Table 5-1 summarizes the specific promising technologies addressed in this report along with their geographic applicability and their primary benefits. Each of these technologies is appropriate for application in certain agroecosystems at particular times. An important criterion in choosing these technologies is their compatibility with the nature of low-resource agriculture and the guidelines for effective development assistance presented in chapter 4. A close match suggests a high probability that they will be accepted by low-resource farmers and herders and that they can be used effectively. Technologies that offer the most promise for contributing to the food security of resourcepoor farmers and herders share common characteristics, including: l l l Technical and environmental soundness: This means they are able to stabilize, if not increase, production while ensuring conservation of natural resources. Social desirability: This means technologies must address farmer-identified problems and constraints. In addition, they should attempt to minimize the disruption of existing farming systems. Economic affordability: This means that resource-poor farmers, herders, and fishers must be able to obtain and maintain the Table 5-1. Promising Technologies and Practices by Agroecological Zone a Technology and practices Zone b Primary benefits Improved use of soil and water resources Soil and water management Recession farming. . . A,S,H Labor-efficient method of growing crops using water from annual floods; expands area under cultivation Water harvesting microcatchments . . A,S Increase water available from rainfall Planting and building bunds on the contour . . . A,S,H,T Increase water available from rainfall; reduce soil erosion Tied ridges . . . . A,S Increase water available from rainfall Drainage practices . . H,T Enable production on land that would otherwise be waterlogged Terracing . . . . T Reduces water and soil runoff; enables cultivation on steep slopes Minimum tillage, mulching and other soil-conserving vegetation practices . S,H,T Prepare land without incurring costs of plowing (soil erosion, excessive leaching and compaction); organic residues and mulch help maintain fertility, reduce water and soil runoff

PAGE 108

104 Table 5-1 .Promising Technologies and Practices by Agroecological Zone a Continued Technology and practices Zone b Primary benefits Improving soil fertility Biological nitrogen fixation Vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizae. . . . Manuring . . . . Phosphate rock . . . Commercial fertilizers . . Small-scale irrigation Gravity diversion: channeled systems . . Gravity diversion: poldered systems. . . Mechanically fed: water lifting. . . . Mechanically fed: water pumping . . . Improved cropping practices Intercropping . . . . Home gardens . . . . Agroforestry Dispersed field tree intercropping ... . . Alley cropping . . . Windbreaks . . . . Live fencing and other linear planting. . . . Genetic improvements Crop breeding. . . . . Animal breeding . . . Improved use of animals Mixed crop/livestock systems using small ruminants . . Animal traction. . . . Aquiculture. . . . . A,S,H,T A,S,H,T S,H,T A,S,H,T A,S,H,T A,T A,S,H A,S A,S,H,T A,S,H,T A,S,H,T A,S S,H,T A,S,H,T A,S,H,T A,S,H,T A,S,H,T A,S,H,T A,S,H,T A,S,H, T improved systems to reduce pest-loss Integrated pest management Quarantines. . . . . A,S,H,T Host resistance . . . A,S,H,T Cultural controls . . . A,S,H,T Biological controls. . . A,S,H,T Pesticides . . . . A,S,H,T Post-harvest technologies . A,S,H,T Improving animal health Veterinary support . . A,S,H,T Animal nutrition . . . A,S,H,T Increases nitrogen availability Increase phosphorus availability Increases soil organic matter and soil fertility Increases phosphorus availability Increase soil fertility Increase water availability Increase water availability Increases water availability Increases water availability Reduces risk of crop failure; increases seasonal availability of food; reduces pest and disease problems; improves efficiency of resource use Increase seasonal availability of food; improves nutrition in the diet Increases soil organic matter; provides source of fodder, fuelwood, poles Increases soil organic matter; provides source of fodder, fuelwood, poles Decrease wind damage, especially to seedlings; decrease evapotranspiration; provide source of fodder, fuelwood, poles Provides source of fodder, fuelwood, poles, fencing Provides resistance to diseases and pests; tolerance to environmental stress; improves yield Provides resistance to diseases and pests; tolerance to environmental stress; improves yield increase income; improve diet; reduce risk through diversification Reduces drudgery; improves labor productivity; extends area of cultivation Provides source of protein; recycled nutrients; source of income Reduce risk of accidental introduction of pests improves resistance to pests and disease Reduce pest populations by manipulating farming practices, especially by intercropping and rotating crops Reduce pest populations by using natural enemies Reduce pest populations by using natural or synthetic biocides to kill pests, limit their fertility, or disrupt pest development Improve processing and storage of foods; improve nutrition; reduce labor Reduces animal mortality and morbidity Increases productivity; improves feed use efficiency; reduces susceptibility to disease a See box 3-4 for a map of Africas agroecological zones. bKey to agroecological zones : A `= Arid/Semi-Arid, S = Subhumid Tropical Uplands, H = Humid Lowlands, T = Tropical and Subtropical Highlands. SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1988.

PAGE 109

105 technologies. In Africa, this generally economically feasible to maintain in the means a need to use resources internal to long term. Especially given Africas rapthe farm rather than externally purchased idly increasing populations, this requires inputs. technologies that enable farmers to take adl Sustainability: This means that technolditional steps toward modernization as ogies are environmentally, socially, and they become feasible. IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO RESOURCE-POOR FARMERS, HERDERS, AND FISHERS Chapter 4 outlined four concepts important to enhancing low-resource agriculture. These concepts have implications for selecting, developing, and disseminating technology. Also, OTA derived findings from the detailed information on technologies in chapters 7 through 11 and the 16 contractor reports on technology on which those chapters are based (app. A.) These findings, then, represent common threads and conclusions gleaned from this various material. Finding 1; Technologies do not operate in isolation and they are affected by non-technical as well as technical factors. A systems approach to agricultural development would consider how national level decisions on issues such as fixed crop prices, land tenure, and incentives for conservation, affect farm level decisions, and it would consider potential interactions among social, economic, and environmental factors on the farm. A variety of national-level decisions affects low-resource agriculture. Technical assistance to low-resource agriculture will be more successful if national governments have the capacity and inclination to provide support for the process. Economic considerations such as ensuring adequate prices and affordable inputs for producers can act as important incentives in determining whether resource-poor farmers, herders, and fishers will find it in their interest to increase productivity by investing in new technology. In Zimbabwe, for example, the government set favorable grain prices and provided farmers with access to credit, extension, inputs, and markets. Small-holder farmers responded by tripling their maize production between 1980 and 1985, when it reached 1.6 million metric tonsso percent of Zimbabwes total production (41). Secure land tenure and conservation policies are two critical non-technical factors operating at the national level that affect the adoption of several technologies discussed in this report. For example, mulching and other soilconserving practices often have an immediate expense to the herder or farmer: foregone fodder and/or land that could have been used for crop production. These methods have little chance of success unless a commitment exists at the national level to conserve soil and water resources, and some assurance to the individuals who bear the costs that they will share in the long-term benefits. As it happens in developed countries, developing country governments will need to provide incentives encouraging conservation measures so the entire burden is not borne by individual farmers and herders (26). Social, cultural, and economic factors at the household level also determine the acceptability of a particular intervention. For example, developing crop varieties capable of dramatically increasing total yields serves little purpose if the varieties are not acceptable because of taste preferences, cooking quality, or storage requirements. The relative success of hybrid maize in Kenya and Zimbabwe, compared to the low adoption rate in Malawi, illustrates this need for a holistic view. Farmers in Kenya and Zimbabwe have taken advantage of the increased yields of hybrid maize to make it their major cash crop. In Malawi, however, women farmers prefer local varieties of maize because of easier production and better taste. Adapted hybrids with these traits are not yet available.

PAGE 110

106 Higher yields are advantageous, but secondary to these other considerations (36). An understanding of farming household dynamics and divisions of laborespecially the key role of womenis particularly necessary when developing and promoting technology for low-resource agriculture (2,34). An urgent need exists for technologies that address womens labor constraints, yet the topic remains underresearched (8). Many cases can be found where technological innovations for womens work have excluded women, instead channeling information through male household members to the detriment of the technologys effectiveness (5,23,44). Successful adoption of a specific technology normally will require changes throughout the farming system. For example, a small-scale irrigation scheme may only be economically feasible if there is an increase in the amount of land cultivated. This additional land could be prepared using animals, but introducing animal traction commonly requires prolonged extension efforts and may require credit that is not available. The cost of maintaining animals can be partially offset by recycling manure, but this may depend on developing improved ways of storing and transporting manure. Cultivating additional land may cause labor shortages when weeding must be done despite the use of animals; then judicious use of herbicides may be warranted. Likewise, the economic feasibility of an irrigation system could be increased by the development of farmer cooperatives. Collectivization of this sort involves its own set of repercussions. This scenario explores only a few of the many possible changes that could accompany the introduction of an irrigation scheme, but the example illustrates several points: l Technologies are often compatible with one anotherin fact, they may produce larger gains together than would be expected on the basis of the benefits of single methods. l To make adoption of a particular technology feasible, it must sometimes be packaged with other technologies. However, past development efforts often failed because they presented all or nothing packages. Farmers unable or unwilling to adopt the entire package were not able to take advantage of a single component. Alternative packages consisting of various combinations of technologies are promising, allowing enough flexibility for farmers to decide which technologies to combine. Furthermore, at least some of the benefits of the package must be available immediately; they can then be used to carry the costs of the longer-term components (6). The fact that any individual technical intervention affects, and is affected by, numerous outside factors suggests that a systems approach has the best chance of being successful. Development assistance could benefit by recognizing and planning for interactions among the various components of the agricultural system. At the same time, planners must be careful to avoid the weaknesses shown by past integrated rural development projects that attempted to be so all-encompassing that they became unmanageable. Finding 2: To be successful given the great diversity in African farming systems, an equally diverse array of technologies adapted to local social and environmental conditions needs to exist. Although Africa will benefit from the fruits of global agricultural research, African problems will require greater attempts to develop Africa-specific solutions. The tremendous diversity and variability in African agricultural systems is among the most challenging obstacles to technology development in Africa. Although some successes exist in promoting technologies developed outside Africa, such as the high-yielding varieties of corn that have been successfully introduced into East Africa (19), failures abound. Efforts to introduce Indian varieties of sorghum and millet into West Africa largely have failed, and after 10 years of testing at least 2,000 imported rice varieties in the mangrove swamps of West Africa only 2 have been found that perform as well as the best local varieties (29,43).

PAGE 111

107 On the positive side, the diversity of farming systems represents a set of practices and resources that have evolved to meet unique local opportunities and constraints. These adapted, local practices and varieties represent a wealth of resources and information. To draw on this wealth, however, requires increased local participation. Three approaches could contribute to increased local participation: 1. Increasing African Research Capacity Through Human and Institutional Development.Expatriate expertise may be necessary under certain circumstances, but replacing outside expertise with trained African professionals should be an explicit objective of development assistance. It costs several times more to fund a non-African v. an African scientist in Africa given similar salary levels. Also, non-Africans take much of the knowledge of the development process with them when they leave. Therefore providing counterpart training to ensure that host country capability is developed should be a prominent objective when outside technical expertise is used. while this is a stated goal of much development assistance, in fact, expatriates play a large role in many African countries (10). 2. Improving the Links Among Researchers, Extension Agents, Farmers, and Herders.-The traditional top-down approach where technologies are developed at research stations and distributed to farms has been largely unsuccessful in Africa. Part of the problem is due to inadequacies in the extension system, but much of the failure results from attempts to distribute technologies that are not appropriate for resource-poor farmers, herders, and fishers. Improving information flow from the people to extension agents and researchers increases the likelihood that development of technologies is suited to low-resource conditions. However, even these more acceptable technologies will require improved extension systems. The ratio of extension agents to farmers, reported to be 1:3,000 for the arid and semi-arid zone of West Africa, should be increased to 1:500 to 1:1,000 according to some estimates (19,53). One possibility would be to model an agricultural extension system after the pyramid training system used in Burkina Faso to improve health care dramatically. There, a few national experts train regional trainers, who train district trainers, and soon to the village level (19). Ensuring two-way dialog in this process, as in any other extension system, should be a priority. 3. Giving Increased Emphasis to On-Farm Adaptive Research With a Farming Systems Perspective. Initial development and preliminary field testing of a technology can benefit from the controlled conditions of a research station or closely supervised farm. However, resource-poor farmers face less than ideal conditions and adaptive research should be conducted on-farm as early as possible (box 5-2). The potential rewards available from on-farm research are substantial. Certain challenges will have to be faced, however, including: l l l The high variance in environment and management present on-farm require more detailed interviews and more frequent and timely visits by the researcher compared to on-station research. Efforts must be made to help farmers improve their understanding of the experimental nature of the work so that farmer bias, for example, putting more labor into the trials than traditional fields, will decrease. Field staff must be willing to live under the less favorable conditions-of the village and be able to operate with less supervision than at the research station. An incentive system that compensates for living and working conditions off-station may be necessary (31), Findings: Farmer and herder participation in identifying problems and acceptable solutions would enhance the effectiveness of technical assistance. Existing agricultural practices could be the starting point of a process combining the best of traditional and modern technologies. Encouraging agriculturalists to participate in the development of agricultural technology is a way to improve the chances that innovations

PAGE 112

108 Box 5-2.Farming Systems Research Farming Systems Research (FSR), as used in this report, refers to an approach to agricultural research and extension that emphasizes social and economic factors in addition to technical factors, including those that operate on the farm and those that are outside of, but affect the farm. FSR is an approach to, and not a substitute for, conventional agricultural research. It developed and continues to evolve in order to enhance the effectiveness of agricultural research, particularly in reaching resourcepoor farmers. Numerous factions exist that can be considered under the FSR rubric, but most practitioners agree that the approach relies heavily on farmer input into four stages of technology development and diffusion: (38) 1. an iterative process for diagnosing needs, problems, and constraints in the farming system; 2. identifying priority problems, analyzing proposed solutions, and developing field trials to test proposals; 3. farm-level experimentation, including monitoring, modification, and verification of proposed solutions; supportive on-station research; and evaluation of adoptability; and 4. dissemination of farmer-approved results to relevant groups of farmers. Agricultural research and extension is more effective when an FSR component is included, but there is a cost to using FSR to support conventional research. Sociological data, for example, on intrahousehold dynamics and gender issues, must be collected. Anthropologists, sociologists, and economists are hired to complement the agronomists, plant breeders, and others to form multi-disciplinary teams, Some of this expense maybe reduced in the future as agronomists and other natural scientists receive training to incorporate social science perspectives more effectively into their research methodologies, There are also expenses associated with farmer participation and on-farm trials. Meaningful cost/benefit analyses do not exist yet for FSR. This is not unusual for a relatively new discipline, especially given the time-lag for the effects of agricultural research. More problematic is that as an adjunct to conventional research, FSR is difficult to evaluate independently. Many of the benefits, such as greater sensitivity on the part of researchers to the disadvantaged members of a target group, are not easily quantified. OTAs analysis suggests that the principles embodied in FSR will be an essential component of any strategy to improve food security. This is especially true in Africa, where failure to take into account non-technical factors, such as labor bottlenecks and shortages, has repeatedly thwarted attempts to introduce technologies (33). An approach like that of FSR will be a valuable tool in helping to mitigate such factors, as well as in identifying gender, age, ethnic, and class differences that affect development assistance. Farm is used broadly to refer to the site of plant or animal production. will be useful and acceptable and minimize the local initiatives had not yet proven very succosts and time necessary for development of adapted technologies (31). Such a research partnership between scientists, farmers, and herders can be advantageous to all, as the following example illustrates. The Variegated Grasshopper (Zonocerus variegates) is a widespread crop pest of the wet areas of West and West Central Africa. Western entomologists undertook a study of the Zonocerus problem while parallel work was done to learn the extent of local knowledge concerning this pest. Farmers understood the pest well. In fact, several farmers interviewed had anticipated the main pest control recommendation of the research team: to mark and dig up sites where grasshoppers laid eggs. These cessful because they had not been coordinated community-wide. Grasshopper numbers were reduced 70 to 80 percent when the extension service provided coordination. Some discoveries made by the research team were beyond the scope of the farmers because they required laboratory facilities; for example, work on the role of the grasshoppers chemical attractants. On the other hand, information possessed by farmers in particular on egg-laying behavior and possible correlations between insect population and rainfallcould have sped the scientists initial efforts and made them more costeffective (39). Although researchers are becoming more convinced of the advantages gained from work-

PAGE 113

109 ing with farmers and herders, problems remain. The following guidelines can facilitate this process: l s l l Include farmers and herders as integral comembers of interdisciplinary teams. Use language and units of measure that are meaningful to them. Make use of their nonformal experimentation and local knowledge of soils, indigenous varieties, pests, etc. Encourage agriculturalists to take an active role in experiments, including making modifications and conducting evaluations. Reach agreement with cooperatin~ farmers about the responsibilities for, and opportunities of, each team member (31). Even successful traditional technologies can be improved and this approach is generally preferable to substituting foreign methods. Moreover, new technological interventions, such as fertilizers, stand a better chance of acceptance if extension plans call for their use with familiar practices, such as intercropping (growing different crops together), rather than requiring people to switch to an unfamiliar and more risky practice (e. g., monocultural farming) at the same time. Finding 4: Technologies in support of lowresource agriculture should reflect the high premium this approach places on risk aversion and the need to maintain flexibility in the face of environmental, social, and economic uncertainty and limited access to resources. Farmers throughout the world are justifiably conservative in adopting new technology when its failure could mean bankruptcy or even starvation. Resource-poor farmers and herders operate in an environment characterized by a high degree of self-reliance; they depend largely on local resources, local knowledge, and labor provided primarily by the household. Although few agricultural systems can be described as entirely subsistence, a large part of what is produced by most households is consumed by their members. The importance of ensuring adequate food supplies, especially during unfavorable periods such as during droughts, becomes of paramount importance. Many practices characteristic of low-resource agriculture ensure at least some production in bad periods, even at the expense of less than maximum yields under more favorable conditions. To date, most agricultural research and technology has emphasized maximum production even though numerous other concerns face poor farmers, herders, and fishers. Research priorities do not yet reflect diverse objectives such as minimizing risk, reducing drudgery, and matching labor demands with labor availability. For example, even though some 80 percent of African food is grown as intercrops, in part to reduce risk, only 20 percent of International Agricultural Research Center funding for crop research involves intercrops (1,54). Finding 5: Resource-poor farmers, herders, and fishers rely primarily on resources internal to the farm or their immediate environment. Consequently, technologies to support lowresource agriculture also should emphasize the use of internal resources as the first step in agricultural intensification. Thorough economic analysis is needed to determine the feasibility of all technological interventions, especially those requiring externally purchased inputs. One way to describe the resources used in agricultural systems is as internal and external (40). Those factors internal to the farm and immediate environment include sunlight, rain, nitrogen fixed from the atmosphere, nutrients cycled up from lower soil strata and down from plant and animal wastes, and labor. External resources include purchased fertilizers, pesticides, machinery, and fuel. Information becomes an internal resource even if it is originally supplied externally. Trade-offs between external and internal resources are possible. Scientifically designed agricultural systems that attempt to decrease dependence on purchased external inputs often substitute more intensive management based on information, for example, biological knowledge of soils, crops, and animals (14).

PAGE 114

110 Photo credit: Mike McGahuey Low-resource agriculture relies primarily on internal resources such as indigenous crops and locally adapted farming methods. For example, baobab and millet are native crops in Niger and growing them together is a common practice. Low-resource agricuhure relies largely on internal resourcesmany of which are renewable natural resources. By contrast, most agricultural development assistance to Africa has emphasized external resourcesmany of them costly and dependent on non-renewable fossil fuels. Strategies of technological intervention giving higher priority to internal resources would benefit the majority of farmers, herders, and fishers who cannot afford other options. Family labor is one of low-resource agricultures most valuable internal resources. Laborefficient technologies to reduce the drudgery and overall workload, and especially seasonal labor bottlenecks, could substantially improve the lives of resource-poor farmers, herders, and fishers. Demographic, economic, cultural, and environmental factors are responsible for seasonal labor shortages (18,37) that are particularly detrimental when they result in late planting and insufficient and untimely weeding (13). However, technologies that displace labor from the rural areas may have additional adverse impacts. Most African countries do not have the industrial or non-farm employment needed to absorb rural labor. The use of purchased inputs is feasible in several areas of Africa, and is an appropriate avenue for development assistance now. In the future, more farmers and herders can be expected to use purchased inputs, to have greater access to information, and to be better able to buy and sell their goods. While most farmers, herders, and fishers remain capital-poor, it is especially important that proposed interventions be submitted for careful cost/benefit analysis. More thorough economic analysis of all types of technologies should be an essential feature of assistance to people who already are living on the margin of survival. Finding 6: Development of technology with built-in flexibility and adaptability is likely to most benefit a changing Africa. African agriculture certainly will continue to change in the future. Strategies to improve low-resource agriculture should be designed to allow for these changes. Development of technology that is flexible and adaptable is likely to most benefit a changing Africa. The ability to continue enhancing production is necessary to avoid stagnation of African low-resource agriculture. Africas rapidly growing population is one factor that will affect the future of agriculture. Another demographic shift affecting low-resource agriculture results from the disproportionate urban migration of young men in search of work. This migration creates a general trend toward an older rural population with implications for the structure of the labor force and has led to increases in the number of femaleheaded households. The latter is particularly important in light of the gender-based discrimination evident in areas of technology extension and credit (16).

PAGE 115

111 TECHNICAL POTENTIAL FOR ENHANCINO LOW-RESOURCE AGRICULTURE Difficulties In Evaluating Techncal Potential The research literature on Africa is filled with promises of technological success. The International Institute of Tropical Agriculture has developed a sweet potato that can yield 40 mt/ha without fertilizers, at least six times the African average of 6.5 mt/ha (17). Windbreaks have been shown to increase crop yields, while supplying valued fodder and fuelwood. Yet the adoption rates for improved crops are very low, and freely supplied tree seedlings often go unplanted. Why? The answers range from farmer or herder unfamiliarity with the practice to researcher unfamiliarity with the farmer or herderincluding researchers failure to understand criteria used in rejecting the new technology. Increased yields of 20 to 40 percent are typical for moderate fertilizer doses, or for plowing, or for improved land management. Yield responses of 100 percent in on-station trials are not unusual with all these improvements. Even greater increments can be attained by adding more input-responsive crop varieties. However, only a small proportion of farmers who apply these innovations approach the performance levels of experimental stations. Average yield gaps of 40 to 60 percent are normal, resulting in high risks of financial loss and low adoption rates for farmers (30). Unlike the situation in the United States where experts can estimate increases in the national production of, for example, corn if fertilizer application is doubled, it is impossible to make a comparable continental or even national estimate for Africa. Africans access to this input, ability to purchase it, and capability of using it effectively, are much more variable than for farmers and ranchers in developed countries. Estimates based on such a high degree of uncertainty in so many variables are problematic at best. They can be misleading and have a tendency to assume a life of their own, divorced from the caveats and cautions that originally framed them. In some cases it is difficult, if not impossible, to use quantitative, rather than qualitative, criteria to evaluate a technology. Quarantines, for example, are intended to prevent accidental introductions of pests from outside the country. It is possible to estimate the costs incurred by a pest, such as the cassava mealybug introduced into Central and West Africa, when a quarantine fails. But methods do not exist to effectively quantify the savings that derive from successful quarantine programs. Therefore the estimates of potential used in this report, and even the choices of technologies, are meant only to be illustrative. The technologies are not the solutions to Africas problems, but are intended to suggest what might be accomplished using the approach to development assistance presented in this report. Where possible, technical benefits are evaluated based on actual use in fields, rather than at experiment stations. Rarely has OTA tried to extrapolate from these isolated examples to guessing the quantitative potential for an entire agroecological region. Benefits such as improving the stability of production have been given greater weight in this report than yield-increasing practices. Risk-aversion also has been used as an important criterion. Less emphasis has been placed on quantifying what the technology can accomplish in favor of discussing the logic of why that technology is an appropriate choice among the possible alternatives and what factors are involved in its success. High Potential for Adoption An important criterion in deciding which technologies can make significant contributions in Africas future is its high probability of being adopted by resource-poor farmers, herders, or fishers. For the transfer of technologies to be successful, people must be willing

PAGE 116

112 and able to adopt them. Some technologies discussed in this report already are in use but are capable of improvement (e.g., intercropping). Other technologies are new but their acceptability is enhanced by the fact that they are wellmatched to the needs and resources of low-resource agriculturalists. For example, many farmers recognize that declining soil fertility is a constraint but have found few alternatives to shifting cultivation for dealing with this problem. Many are learning the hard way that erosion hurts yields, dropping by 1 to 3 percent per year in some places (28). Alley cropping has shown potential for alleviating this farmeridentified problem. By combining scientifically based improvements for accelerating fallows with other benefits such as fuelwood and fodder production, alley cropping represents an affordable technology that addresses several farmer concerns. Too often technologies have been evaluated on the basis of their technical qualities, with too little attention paid to whether they will, or can, be used. Furthermore, even when a technology has been used successfully in one case, its feasibility under different locale-specific conditions must be evaluated. For example, animal traction has been shown to be advantageous in Africa and could receive increased attention from development assistance. However, many animal traction technology packages require that new kinds of cattle be purchased and kept well-nourished and disease-free. The low adoption rate of this technology among resource-poor farmers will persist unless prerequisites to adoption are addressede.g., availability of forage supplies, veterinary care, and extension information about the benefits of unfamiliar types of animals. Potential TO Modernize Gradually Another advantage of the technologies discussed in this report is that they do not lock people out of modern agriculture. For example, soil and water conservation practices can produce benefits alone, but they bring added benefits when commercial fertilizers are also used (30). Conservation practices can improve soil structure and increase soil organic matter. At the same time, they can slow water run-off and leaching below plant root zones and thus prevent fertilizers from being washed away. The mutually supportive effect of technologiesfor example, using tied ridges and fertilizercan be significant (table 5-2). The higher yields that result can offset the cost of introducing other technology (e.g., animal traction and irrigation) that allow the farmer to cultivate a larger area or extend the growing season. The time frame for adoption of technological innovations will vary considerably across Africa based on agroecological factors and on the differing rates at which transitions to more intensive systems are possible, given socioeconomic conditions. Sequential changes to farming and herding technology are likely to be important. For example, resource-poor farmers and herders in semi-arid regions maybe most able to adopt technologies in this sequence: 1. water-harvesting or run-off/erosion management systems, 2. increased use of organic fertilizer, 3. introduction of chemical fertilizers, then 4. introduction of improved cultivars (29b). Each stage provides its own benefits and reduces the risk and increases the returns to the changes involved in the next stage. This type of sequencing may provide the most practical and cost-effective means of introducing packages of inputs. Sequencing also allows researchers and extension agents to focus their efforts more narrowly and farmers may be more likely to adopt new methods for the same reason. In sum, the sequential introduction of technology in support of low-resource agriculture may best be viewed as a natural evolution toward increased input use, but at a pace consistent with the highly variable agroecological and socioeconomic conditions in the region (29b). Technology-Specific Potentials The technologies discussed here have additional benefits, depending upon their specific characteristics. The following sections highlight that potential, summarizing information presented in more detail later in this report.

PAGE 117

113 Table 5-2.Economic Analysis of Farmer-Managed Trials of Sorghum With Fertilizer and Tied Ridges at Nedogoand Diapangou, Burkina Faso in 1983 and 1984 Treatments a c TR F TR,F Nedogo: 1984, manual traction Grain yield, kg/ha b . . . . . ..............157 416 431 652 Yield gain above control, kg/ha . . . . . . 259 274 495 Gain in net revenue, FCFA/ha c . . . . . . 23,828 13,275 33,607 Return/hr of additional labor, FCFA d . . . . 238 140 172 0 / 0 farmers who would have lost cash . . . . o 27 9 Nedogo: 1983, manual traction Grain yield, kg/ha . . . . . ...............430 484 547 851 Yield gain above control, kg/ha . . . . . . 54 117 421 Gain in net revenue, FCFA/ha . . . . . . 3,510 ,285 17,475 Return/hr of additional labor, FCFA . . . . . 35 90 0 / 0 farmers who would have lost cash . . . . o 66 0 Diapangou: 1984, donkey traction Grain yield, kg/ha . . . . . ...............498 688 849 1,133 Yield gain above control, kg/ha . . . . . . 190 351 635 Gain in net revenue, FCFA/ha . . . . . . 17,480 20,359 46,487 Return/hr of additional labor, FCFA . . . . . 233 214 273 0 / 0 Farmers who would have lost cash . . . . o 21 0 Diapangou: 1983, donkey traction Grain yield, kg/ha . . . . . ...............481 522 837 871 Yield gain above control, kg/ha . . . . . . 71 356 390 Gain in net revenue, FCFA/ha . . . . . . 6,532 20,819 23,947 Return/hr of additional labor, FCFA . . . . . 87 219 141 0 / 0 farmers who would have lost cash . . . . o 16 12 aC = Control (no tied ridges or fertilizer); TR = tied ridges constructed at second weeding; F = fertilizer: 100 kg/ha; 14-23-15 applied in band 10-15 cm from row at first weeding plus 50 kg/ha urea applied in pockets 10-15 cm from seed pockets at second weeding. bThe standard error and coefficient of variation (in percent) (in parentheses) starting with Nedogo, 1964 and continuing through to Diapangou, 1983 are 75 (43), 121 (29), 46 (18), and 43 (22), respectively. CNet Revenue = yield gain x grain price (65 and 92 FCFA/kg in 1983 and 1984) minus fertilizer cost (62 and 78 FCFA/kg for 14-23-15, and 60 and 66 FCFA/kg for urea in 1983 and 1984-fertilizer prices are subsidized 40 to 50 percent). Includes interest rate charge for Six months at rate of 15 percent. 1 U.S. dollar = 381 FCFA in 1983 and 436 FCFA in 1964. dNet Revenueadditional labor of tied ridging and fertilizer application. Manual and donkey traction require 100 and 75 hours of additional labor/ha for tied ridging respectively Fertilizer application requires 95 additional hours/ha. SOURCE: Purdue University, International Programs in Agriculture, Cereal Technology Develpment-West African Semi-Arid Tropics: A Farming Systems Perspective, final project report for the U.S. Agency for International Development (West Lafayette, IN: 1987). Potential Based on Improved Use of Natural Resources Many experts believe that conserving and regenerating the natural resource base must become one of the highest priorities for the technical component of development assistance to Africa. Resource-poor farmers and herders depend on the land to supply lifes basic requirementsfood, fuel, fodder, and a safe and reliable water supply. Production can be increased and stabilized by more efficiently using existing resources. FAO has conducted some 55,000 technology demonstrations in Africa since 1961, covering improved management practices, improved crop varieties, and pest control. These trials show that improved management practices alone can raise yields 20 to 80 percent (tables 5-3 and 5-4). FAO estimates that full use of conservation measures, without changing crops or levels of inputs, could increase long-term land productivity for lowinput agriculture by 33 percent (46). Failing to undertake this work will have substantial costs. For example, soil erosion leads to loss of soil organic matter, which is necessary for plant growth because it improves soil structure, fertility and water availability. At least 25 mil1ion hectares in Africas humid lowlands, subhumid tropical uplands, and tropical and subtropical highlands are subject to

PAGE 118

114 Table 5-3.Effect of Improved Practices, With and Without Fertilizers, on Crop Yields a National Yield with Yield with average improved improved practices Country/zone Crop yield practices and fertilizer Burkina Faso (Sudano-Sahelian Africa) Millet 430 520 1160 Cameroon (humid Central Africa) . . Rice 840 1360 2500 Ethiopia (sub-humid and highland East Africa) . . . . Maize 1100 2010 4100 aYield in kilograms per hectare. bThese represent gains that can be achieved through improvements in management practices collectively. Table 5-4 shows the gains from the individual practices. SOURCE: U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, Africa Agriculture: The Next 25 Years, Annex ///: Raising Productivity (Rome: 1986). Table 5-4.Gains From Improved Management Practices Soil and water conservation . . .......10 to 50% Seed bed preparation . . . . . .. .10 to 25/0 Time of planting . . . . . .. .....10 to 50/0 Plant population density . . . . . 10 to 20/0 Seed treatment . . . . . . . 5 to 10% Weeding . . . . . . .......10 to 50/0 SOURCE: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Africa Agriculture: The Next 25 Years, Annex ///: Raising Productivity (Rome: FAO, 1986). extensive soil erosion, and even arid areas face serious risks during seasonal torrential rains (48). Long-term declines of agricultural productivity due to land degradation, mainly soil erosion, could be severe. FAO estimates that Africa could lose 16.5 percent of its rainfed cropland if degradation goes unchecked. Declines in land productivity could reach 25 percent due to losses in soil fertility, even accounting for some livestock production on degraded cropland (46). Many technologies discussed in chapter 7 can reduce this problem. For example, terraces are a well-documented method that can virtually eliminate soil erosion caused by water run-off. Increases of 50 percent in maize production have been attributed to their use in the Kenyan Highlands (25). Windbreaks can effectively reduce wind erosion of soils, as well as protect young crop seedlings from wind abrasion. In one of the largest coordinated projects of its kind, the Majjia Valley windbreak Project in Niger has resulted in average crop yield increases of some 20 percent on fields between windbreaks (9). Potential Based on Improving Soil Fertility Several technologiesminimum tillage, mulching, manuring, and agroforestry improve soil fertility not only by reducing soil erosion, but by directly adding organic matter to soil. These types of technologies that improve soil fertility merit attention because they maximize the contribution of renewable resources and because of their low cost and accessibility. For instance, a substantial amount of nitrogen is already supplied by legumes and this contribution can be increased significantly by increasing their use in agroforestry, intercrops, and crop rotations. Acacia albida, an indigenous leguminous tree commonly intercropped with millet, sorghum, or groundnut, consistently increases the yield of the annual crops. In one documented case, millet and groundnut yields on infertile soils rose from 500 kg/ha to 900 kg/ha when grown with Acacias (12). Maize yields stabilized at about 2 tons/ha after 6 years of continuous alley cropping with leguminous trees, compared to no more than 0.5 ton/ha without alley cropping (22). It is difficult to extrapolate legumes potential contribution to production in Africa from these research results, Legumes probably cannot suply all the nitrogen necessary to grow enough food to feed Africas current population, much less the additional people expected by the year 2000. But it is clear that legumes can make a significant, affordable contribution to Africas forage and soil nitrogen needs. No

PAGE 119

115 more than 100 years ago, crop rotation with legumes was the principal means of restoring soil fertility intemperate zone agriculture. Now, it is an effective source of nitrogen used on numerous low-input farms that have developed in the United States during the last two decades. Africans have not had to rely on this deliberate use of legumes because shifting cultivation was an equally effective method of restoring soil fertility. Legumes were often a naturally occurring component of this process. The reintroduction of legumes into African agricultural systems could partially compensate for shortened fallows now. Inorganic fertilizers will have an extremely important role in Africas agricultural future, but they are likely first to supplementnot substitute fororganic fertilizers. As has been the case wherever they have been introduced, inorganic fertilizers will be used as they become available. Availability includes not only that they be affordable, but that their access be dependable and timely. Where adequate roads and markets exist for distribution and trained people for research and extension, as in Zimbabwe, commercial fertilizers are widely adopted and the benefits are impressive. Until the rest of Africa reaches this stage of development, however, the whole range of other fertility-enhancing technologies is likely to have high potential in many areas. PotentiaI Based on Improving Water Availability Efforts to improve water use could first be directed at making more efficient use of freely supplied rainwater rather than relying on purchased inputs. For instance, recession farming (also called flood farming) is a high-productivity traditional practice used along major rivers of Africa. However, as dams become more common the traditional use of this technique is not possible unless special provisions are made. A proposal has been made to include a controlled, artificial flood as part of the plans for an irrigation project along the Senegal River. It remains to be seen whether such controlled flooding will allow farmers to reap the benefits of recession farming without interfering with dam operations. Contour planting, water harvesting microcatchments, and tied ridges are all methods shown to be effective for improving rainfed agriculture under appropriate conditions. In most years these practices bring only slight yield increases. Their biggest advantages are realized during drought years, when improved fields are able to maintain yield levels while other fields experience crop failures (7,35). FAO estimates that low-cost technologies such as these can significantly improve at least 50 million hectares of arable land in subhumid and semi-arid Africa (48). Unlike the technologies mentioned above, which in some ways are alternatives to irrigation, other practices exist that improve the efficiency of water use whether the source of the water is rain or irrigation. Technologies such as minimum tillage, mulching, and applying manure, increase infiltration rates as they improve soil quality, thereby increasing the amount of water that remains available for plant growth. Assistance to develop these practices is warranted even if they were evaluated simply for the contribution they can make to rainfed agriculture. But, in fact, they will be equally important in facilitating the transition to a more intensified agriculture that may include irrigation. The technical benefits from small-scale irrigation, especially water pumping, are substantial and offer hope for overcoming the vagaries of an African climate notorious for erratic and often insufficient water supply. However, serious obstacles exist to wider implementation of irrigation technologies, and FAO, among others, estimates that increases in irrigation largeor small-scale-will be minor for the foreseeable future (49). Adoption of small-scale irrigation technology will be a difficult and slow process. Potential Based on Genetic Improvements Crop and livestock breeding can be expected to make a larger contribution to agricultural

PAGE 120

116 development in the future than it has up to now. For example, new improved crop varieties exist that are able to yield more and do so on a more reliable basis because of their resistance to major pests and diseases and their greater tolerance to drought and other environmental stresses. Dramatic increases in milk production have been possible in some regions by crossing African cattle breeds with exotic dairy breeds. Based on agricultural developments outside of Africa, and preliminary accomplishments within Africa, research to improve crops through genetics represents one of the best investments for supporting low-resource agriculture. This is less true for livestock breeding, however, where improved management (e.g., attention to nutrition, disease, and climatic stress) is a prerequisite to gains through genetic improvement. Plant breeding, however, may increase animal productivity given the increasing use of crop residues as animal fodder. The yield increases obtained in plant and animal breeding research can be dramatic, but they seldom have been realized by farmers and herdPhoto credit: J. Van Acker/U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization Considerable potential exists to enhance low-resource agriculture by making genetic improvements in crops and livestock and by better integrating animal and cropping systems. ers when conditions are less favorable. The gap between results achieved on-station and onfarm will be reduced as decreased emphasis is placed on breeding materials suited for actual conditions. Potential Based on Improved Integration of Animal and Cropping Systems The integration of animals into cropping systems is expected to increase as techniques such as fodder banks and alley cropping enable farmers to maintain animals more readily. Livestock make numerous contributions to food security needs, including: providing milk and meat, and acting as food reserves; providing a source of income, savings for emergencies, and export earnings; and providing animal traction. Small ruminants (e.g., goats and sheep), in particular, have been neglected by development assistance but could become more important in the future. Animal traction allows more land to be cultivated and it becomes more cost-effective when crops can generate cash, which can then be used to repay loans for purchasing and maintaining the animals as well as purchasing other inputs. Present rates of return can be doubled and tripled as animal power becomes available for weeding and other farming activities, rather than just for plowing. For example, weeding, which is a major labor bottleneck for most farmers, can be performed six times faster with animal traction. Better adapted implements will assist in this process, but other constraints are farmer unfamiliarity and the initial expense of purchasing animals. Extension will be instrumental to enable farmers to take advantage of animal traction for a variety of farming activities (20). Aquiculture can contribute to food security by supplying high protein food and by generating income to purchase food. Farm by-products, such as animal manure and crop residues, can be used to stimulate fish production from aquiculture. Enriched pond water can be used to irrigate home gardens, completing the recycling process.

PAGE 121

117 Potential for Reducing Food Losses Integrated Pest Management (IPM), using the best mix of available pest control methods, can significantly reduce field losses in a cost-effective, sustainable, and safe manner. Human and environmental health is improved because 1PM emphasizes only judicious application of pesticides in conjunction with other pest control practices, rather than relying on pesticides alone, The objective of 1PM is to reduce pests to an acceptable level rather than trying to eradicate them altogether. Post-harvest losses also can be reduced, using technologies adapted to the socioeconomic and environmental features of the farming system. Perhaps more important than the food saved are the labor savings. Improved technologies exist that can reduce labor needs and make operations more efficient. Women, who have primary responsibility for post-harvest activities, are the main beneficiaries, with subsequent benefits accruing to the whole household, CHAPTER 5 REFERENCES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Andrews, David J., Intercropping in LowResource Agriculture in Africa, contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, December 1987). Adeyeri, C. L. K., Women, Food Production, and Technology: A Case Study From a Resettlement Village in Ibadan North, paper presented at the Conference on Womens Contribution to Food Production and Rural Development in Africa, Lome, Togo: June 1-5, 1981. Breman, H., and de Wit, C. T., Rangeland Productivity and Exploitation in the Sahel, Science, VO1. 221, No. 4618, Sept. 30,1983, pp. 1341-1347. Brown, L, R., and Wolf, E. C., Worldwatch Paper 65Reversing Africa Decline (Washington, DC: Worldwatch Institute, 1985). Cloud, K., Women Farmers and AID Agricultural Projects: How Efficient Are We? R.S. Gatlin and A. Spring (eds.), Women Creating Wealth: Transforming Economic Development, Selected Papers and Speeches from the Association for Women in Development Conference, Washington, DC, Apr. 25-27, 1985. Collinson, M., Eastern and Southern Africa, Accelerating Food Production in Sub-Saharan Africa, J.W. Mellor, C,L. Delgado, and M.J. Blackie (eds.) (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987), pp. 78-96. Constantinesco, I., SoiZ Conservation for Developing Countries, FAO Soils Bulletin 30 (Rome: FAO, 1976). Creevey, Lucy E. (cd.), Women Farmers in Africa: Rural Development in Mali and the Sa9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. he] (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1986). Dennison, Steve, The Majjia Valley Windbreak Evaluation StudyBrief, CARE, 1985. Eicher, C.K, Transforming African Agriculture, The Hunger Project Papers, No. 4 (New York, NY: The Hunger Project, January 1986). Eicher, Carl K., and Baker, Doyle C., Research on Agricultural Development in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Critical Survey, MSU International Development Paper No. 1 (East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, 1982). Felker, Peter, State of the Art: Acacia aZbida as a Complementary Permanent Intercrop With Annual Crops, Grant No. AIDlafr-C1361, University of California, Riverside, 1978. Francis, Charles (cd.), MuZtipZe Cropping Systems (New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Co. 1986). Francis, C., Harwood, R., and Parr, J., The Potential for Regenerative Agriculture in the Developing World, American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, vol. 1, No. 2, Spring 1986, pp. 65-75. Galaty, J. G., and Aronson, D. R., Research Priorities and Pastoralist Development: What Is To Be Done? J.G. Galaty, et al, (eds.) The Future of Pastoral Peoples, Proceedings of a conference held in Nairobi, Kenya, Aug. 4-8,1980 (Ottawa: International Development Research centre, 1981), pp. 16-26. Gallin, R. S., and Spring, Anita, Women Creating Wealth: Transforming Economic Development, Selected Papers and Speeches from the Association for Women in Development Conference. Washirwton. DC. ADr. 25-27, 1985. 1

PAGE 122

118 17. 18. 19 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28, Hahn, S. K., Tropical Root Crops: Their Improvement and Utilization, based on a paper presented at a conference organized by the Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau on Advancing Agricultural Production in Africa, held Feb. 13-17, 1984 at Arusha, Tanzania, IITA Conference Paper 2 (Ibadan, Nigeria: International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, 1984). Harrison, P., The Greening of Africa: Z3reaking Through the Battle for Land and Food, An International Institute for Environment and Development-Earthscan Study (Toronto: Paladin Grafton Books, 1987). International Institute for Environment and Development and The World Resources Institute, Elements of Success: Sustainable Development in Sub-Saharan Africa, World Resources 1987 (New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc., 1987), pp. 221-238. Jaeger, William K., Agricultural Mechanization: The Economics of Animal Draft Power in West Africa (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, Inc., 1986). Jones, William O., Economic Tasks From Food Marketing Boards in Tropical Africa, Food Research Institute Studies, vol. 19, No. 2, 1984, pp. 112-128. Kang, B. T., Wilson, G. F., and Lawson, T. L., Alley Cropping: A Stable Akernative to Shifting Cultivation (Ibadan, Nigeria: International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, 1984). Kumar, Shubh K., Womens Role and Agricultural Technology, Accelerating Food Production in Sub-Saharan Africa, J.W. Mellor, C.L. Delgado, and M.J. Blackie (eds.) (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987), pp. 135-147. Lal, Rattan, Managing the Soils of SubSaharan Africa, Science, vol. 236, May 29, 1987, pp. 1069-1076. Lewis, Lawrence A., Assessing Soil Loss in Kiambu and Muranga Districts, Kenya, Geografiska Anna]er, vol. 67A, pp. 273-284, 1985. Lewis, Lawrence A., Soil and Water Management in Humid and Highland Zones of Africa, contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, December 1987). Little, P., Land Use Conflicts in the Agricultural Pastoral Borderlands: The Case of Kenya, P, Little, et al. (eds.) Lands at Risk in the Third World (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1987), pp. 195-212. MacKenzie, Debora, A Hoof-uu for Africas 29, 29b. 30 0 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. Livestock, The New Scientist, vol. 114, No. 1566, June 25, 1987, pp. 38-39. Matlon, Peter, A Critical Review of Objectives, Methods and Progress to Date in Sorghum and Millet Improvement: A Case Study of ICRISAT/ Burkina Faso, H.W. Ohm and J.G. Nagy (eds.), Appropriate Technologies for Farmers in Semi-Arid West Africa (West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University, 1985), pp. 154-179. MatIon, Peter, Senior Economist, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Hyderabad, India, personal communication to the Office of Technology Assessment, 1987. Matlon, Peter, The West African Semiarid Tropics, J.W. Mellor, C.L. Delgado, and M.J. Blackie (eds,), Accelerating Food Production in Sub-Saharan Africa (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987), pp. 5977. MatIon, P., Cantrell, D. King, and BenoitCattin, M., Coming Full Circle: Farmers Participation in the Development of Technology (Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: International Development Research Centre, 1984). Matlon, Peter J., and Spencer, Dunstan S., increasing Food Production in Sub-Saharan Africa: Environmental Problems and Inadequate Technical Solutions, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol. 66, No, 5, December 1984, pp. 670-676. Mellor, J., Delgado, C., and Blackie, M. (eds.), Accelerating Food Production in Sub-Saharan Africa (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987). Mugabe, N,, Role of Women in Agriculture With Special Reference to SADCC Countries, paper presented at the 88th Fieragricola, Verona, Italy, Mar. 8-12, 1986. Pacey, Arnold, and Cullis, Adrian, Rainwater Harvesting: The Collection of Rainfall and Runoff in Rural Areas, Intermediate Technology Publications, London, UK, 1986. Pasley, Sherman F., Assistant Research Scientist, International Programs, University of Florida, Gainesville, personal communication, 1987, Pingali, P. L., Bigot, Y., and Binswanger, H. P., Agricultural Mechanization and the Evolution of Farming Systems in Sub-Saharan Africa, Discussion Paper, Report No. ARU 40, May 15, 1985, Agriculture and Rural Development Department (Washington, DC: The World Bank, Revised February 1986). Peats, S., Gait, D,, Andrew, C,, et al, Farming

PAGE 123

119 Systems Research and Extension: Status and Potential in Low-Resource Agriculture, contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, December 39. 40! 41 1987), Richards, Paul, Indigenous Agricultural Revolution: Ecology and Food Production in West Africa (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1985). Rodale, R., Internal Resources and External InputsThe Two Sources of all Production Needs, Workshop on Regenerative Farming Systems, Rodale Institute, presented to the U.S. Agency for International Development, Washington, DC, 1985. Rohrback, David, A Preliminary Assessment of Factors Underlying the Growth of Communal Maize Production in Zimbabwe, Mandivamba Rukuni and Carl Eicher (eds.), Food Security for Southern Africa (Harare, Zimbabwe: Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension, February 1987). 42. Ruthenberg, Hans, Farming Systems in the Tropics (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1980). 43. Spencer, Dunston, Agricultural Research: 44 a 45 46. Lessons of the Past, Strategies for the Future, R,J. Berg and J.S. Whitaker (eds.), Strategies for African Development (Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press, 1986), pp. 215-241. Spring, Anita, Using Male Research and Extension Personnel To Target Women Farmers, presented at Kansas State University Farming Systems Research Symposium, Manhattan, KS, Oct. 14, 1985. Swindale, L. D., Increasing Food Production in Semi-Arid West Africa, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics IICRISAT), Presented at International Centers Week, Washington, DC, Nov. 3-7, 1986. U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization 47. 48. 49. 50, 51. 52. 53. 54, 55, U,N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Changes in Shifting Cultivation in Africa, Unasy]va, vol. 37, No. 150, 1985, pp. 40-50 0 U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), African Agriculture: the next 25 Years. Annex 111, Raising Productivity (Rome: 1986). U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), African Agriculture: the Next 25 years. Annex IV. Irrigation and Water Control (Rome: 1986). U,N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Natural Resources and the Human Environment for Food and Agriculture in Africa, FAO Environment and Energy Paper, No. 6 (Rome: 1986). U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Africa Tomorrow: Issues in Technology, Agriculture, and U.S. Foreign AidA TechnicaZ Memorandum, OTA-TM-F-31 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, December 1984). U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Continuing the Commitment: Agricultural Development in the Sahel, Special Report, OTA-F-308 (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, August 1986). U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Economic Research Service, Food Problems and Prospects in Sub-Saharan Africa: The Decade of the 1980s, FAER Report No. 166, August 1981. Wolf, Edward C., Beyond the Green Revoh.ztion: New Approaches for Third World Agriculture, Worldwatch Paper 73 (Washington, DC: Worldwatch Institute, October, 1986). World Bank, (New York, 1982). World Development Report 1982 NY: Oxford University Press, (FAO), Land, Food, and People (Rome: 1984).

PAGE 124

Chapter 6 The Role of Foreign Assistance in a Resource-Enhancing Approach

PAGE 125

. CONTENTS Page Highlights . . . . . . . . .......................123 Congress and a Resource-Enhancing Approach ..... ..............12 4 Congressional Direction and a Resource-Enhancing Approach . ...124 Congressional Funding and a Resource-Enhancing Approach . ....125 Congressional Oversight and a Resource-Enhancing Approach.....+. ...132 Three Categories of Development Assistance for a Resource-Enhancing Approach . . . . . . . ....134 Development Assistance at the Local Level.... ......................13 4 Development Assistance in Support of Formal Agricultural Institutions. . . . . . . . .....................140 Development Assistance To Support National Level Policy Reform ... .,,l46 AID and a Resource-Enhancing Approach ............................14 8 AIDs Strategy . . . . . .........................,..148 AIDs Operations . . . . . . . ..................150 Chapter 6 References . . . . . . . ..............,.153 Boxes Box Page 6-1. The Language of Foreign Aid. . . . . . . . .. .,.128 6-2. Constraints on AIDs Operations: Lessons From the Sahel ........,.151 Table 6-1. 6-2. 6-3. 6-4. 6-5. 6-6. 6-7. 6-8. 6-9. 6-10. Tables Page U.S. Bilateral Economic and Military Assistance to Sub-Saharan Africa, 1980-87 . . . . . . ..........127 AID Economic Support Funds (ESF) as a Percent of the Africa Bureaus Agriculture Portfolio, 1979-87 ....................129 U.S. Support of Multilateral Development Institutions, 1980-88.......130 U.S. Contributions to Multilateral Development Banks Funding African Development, 1978-87 ..................,.131 The Peace Corps in Africa, 1980-87 ..............,...........,..13 6 AID Funding for Agricultural Education and Training in the Africa Bureaus Agriculture Portfolio, 1979-87 . ., ..., .141 AID Funding for Agricultural Research and Research Capacity in the Africa Bureaus Agriculture Portfolio, 1979-87 ., ., ....143 AID Funding for Policy Reform and Economic Stabilization in the Africa Bureaus Agricultural Portfolio, 1979-87 ................147 World Bank Policy Reform Lending to Sub-Saharan Africa, 1984-87 ..147 AID Funding for Agriculture in the Africa Bureaus Budget, 1979-87 . . . . . .....................,..149

PAGE 126

Chapter 6 The Role of Foreign Assistance in a Resource-Enhancing Approach 123

PAGE 127

124 CONGRESS AND A RESOURCE ENHANCIN6 APPROACH Congress stands at an important juncture concerning development assistance to Africa (62). The need to decide on a future direction for U.S. assistance stems from the convergence of several factors. First among these is frustration in Congress over the limited impact past assistance has had. Recurring famine and general economic decline, despite substantial U.S. assistance, have led to considerable doubts about the merits of past programs and to calls for different development approaches. Secondly, significant modifications in foreign assistance programs have been made since the last major legislative overhaul in 1973 introduced the human needs approach of the socalled New Directions legislation. Further changes have been proposed. The Administration has advocated a macroeconomic approach focusing heavily on policy reform in recipient countries. This change is seen by some as a sharp departure from the New Directions legislation. Others see it as complementary to the objective of providing basic human needs, but this depends on how it is implemented. A third factor is resistance on the part of many in Congress to increasing foreign assistance at a time of domestic budget tightening. While appropriations for fiscal year 1988 show increased congressional and Administration attention to Africas development needs, concerns remain over maintaining this commitment for the long term. Contributing to these concerns are the lack of deep political support and a constituency y for development assistance as compared with other forms of foreign assistance, for example, military or politically motivated aid (30). Support for social and economic development for resource-poor agriculturalists, as Congress responds to the challenges of this juncture, would require use of its powers of authorization, appropriation, and oversight: l Authorization; Congress could provide clearer direction on the use of development l l assistance, ensure flexibility to account for Africas diversity and reduce the impacts of contradictory nondevelopmental objectives. Appropriation: Congress could provide long-term, stable funding for development assistance at levels balanced with other foreign policy and security issues as well as domestic priorities. Oversight: Congress could improve the quality of oversight while reducing its disruptive effects on development agencies. Congressional Direction and a Resource-Enhancing Approach Most elements necessary in a development assistance approach designed to enhance lowresource agriculture are already included in existing foreign assistance legislation. l This legislation emphasizes: l l l l l l l development; long-term strategies; focus on the poor majority; equitable, self-sustaining economic growth; agricultural development and the role of the small farmer; leadership and participation by the developing nation and the indigenous people; and the role of women in development. Although these elements are included in legislation, their effect could be enhanced if Congress gave clearer direction, set explicit priorities, and sought to reduce the influence of other political and economic interests. Setting Clear Priorities The proliferation of cumulative congressional mandates concerning development assistance The congressional direction steering foreign assistance discussed here appears in the development assistance sections of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, and the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, as amended.

PAGE 128

125 has hindered the work of executive branch agencies, particularly AID, by providing an overabundance of priorities without clearly ranking them. This has reduced long-term consistency, and forced AID to use resources on mandates that may not be relevant in specific cases or whose goals may not be clear (63,64). In addition, Congress has not fully evaluated current Administration priorities (e.g., policy reform and private sector development) nor integrated them into existing legislative strategies. This lack of clarity has reduced Congress ability to maintain and modify the direction of U.S. assistance. Clarity in direction and prioritization do not, however, mean rigidity. Africas diversity and its rapid evolution require flexible direction and priorities from country to country and over time. Rigidity in direction can lead donors to abandon successful forms of support or to use inappropriate methods, as they did during the application of the New Directions legislation of 1973 (30). Making food security an overarching goal of development assistance offers one means t o integrate existing congressional directives and provide a framework for setting priorities. Having food security as a goal could enable AID and other U.S.-supported development agencies to adapt their work to local conditions whether it be increasing food or export crop production, stabilizing or diversifying agricultural production, or working with non-farm activities. Second, food security could be used to develop indicators of progress in reaching Congress goal of equitable, self-sustaining economic growth. If economic growth occurs but food security among the poor does not increase correspondingly then growth is not equitable. Reducing the Negative Impacts of Non-deveIopmetal Interests Many political and economic pressures cause Congress and the Administration to use development assistance in ways that maybe less than optimal for developmental goals such as ensuring food security (63,64). Foreign assistance to Africa is influenced by objectives including: l ensuring pro-U. S. political and strategic rel l l lations bilaterally and in international forums; ensuring access to strategic commodities; promoting U.S. exports including restricting assistance that may potentiall y cause competition for U.S. exports (e. g., restricting support for research on palm oil); and building U.S. domestic political support by directing development contracts to constituents. Development assistances weak political constituency and AIDs dependent status vis--vis the State Department, have allowed others (e.g., the Departments of State, and Agriculture, and Congress) to apply pressure successfully for the use of development assistance for non-developmental objectives. In some cases, non-developmental interests have taken precedence over developmental goals and even, some have argued, undermined overall U.S. foreign policy interests. Development and non-development goals, however, can be complementary, especially in the long term. For instance, increased African food security and agricultural development can contribute to political and economic stability and, in the long term, can offer the United States increased economic opportunities for trade. This convergence, the significant U.S. humanitarian interest in the region, and the desire to avoid any future need for large-scale famine relief, justify Congress stated priority on development as the primary U.S. goal in Africa. These factors provide a rationale for resisting the pressures of conflicting interests and for reducing certain program and procurement restrictions. Congressional Funding and a Resource-Enhancing Approach U.S. funding for agricultural development may go directly to African nations (as bilateral aid) or pass via multinational organizations (as multilateral aid). The implementation of a successful resource-enhancing approach would require long-term, stable funding to support agricultural development in both cases. As will be discussed, agricultural research, training, build-

PAGE 129

126 ing agricultural institutions, and supporting local organizations require long-term commitments and can be damaged by fluctuating support. The likelihood of long-term stable support is problematic, however, given that: l l l current mechanisms constrain Congress from ensuring stable levels of funding in support of African agricultural development, ongoing pressures to reduce the Federal budget are likely to continue, and current implicit priorities favor bilateral security assistance over development assistance. Bilateral Assistance Economic assistance (versus military aid) comprises the majority of U.S. bilateral aid to Africa (table 6-1) and AID provides the majority of this economic assistance. AID divides congressional appropriations for agricultural assistance primarily into three funding sources: Development Assistance accounts (DA), Economic Support Funds (ESF), and food aid (box 6-l). Of the three sources, DA seems best suited for providing stable levels of funding necessary for a long-term approach to support resourcepoor agriculturalists. This is because congressional direction guiding DA is the most compatible with the objectives of assisting lowresource agriculturalists, and because DA funding is the most likely to remain stable overtime. Congress has already shown interest in stabilizing and protecting DA levels for Africa. During the budget reductions of fiscal year 1987, Congress mandated that Africa receive the same percentage of DA as in the previous year (Public Law 99-500). Congress created a separate DA fund for Africa in fiscal year 1988 with an increased funding level (Public Law 100202). Constraints on the dependability and appropriateness of the other two sources (ESF and l food aid) include: ESF is allocated primarily for political and security purposes often leading to rapid and substantial changes in annual country allocations. l l l Congress normally has earmarked the majority of ESF for countries outside SubSaharan Africa. To protect these earmarks in times of budget reduction, Africa has received lower percentages of ESF. Food-aid levels can swing substantially due to changing recipient needs and the availability of U.S. grain. Significant questions remain concerning the effectiveness and possible negative impacts of using non-emergency food aid to support development. Military assistance, though not intended to have a developmental impact, may have negative impacts, nonetheless, by absorbing funds that could have gone to development and by fostering local economic distortions in the recipient nations. Military assistance traditionally has been a relatively small component of assistance to Africa, comprising no more than nine percent of total U.S. assistance over the last 40 years (62). However, military assistance doubled between 1980 and 1985 and correspondingly increased from 9.4 percent of the bilateral assistance budget to 13.4 percent. Military assistance is estimated to have declined to 6 percent in 1987. AID has cautioned that our military aid programs must be undertaken cautiously and with due regard for their possible negative impact on domestic resource allocation as well as on foreign exchange and debt servicing (51). Development Assistance (DA) to Africa has fluctuated since 1980 and did not keep pace with overall increases between 1980-1985 in total bilateral assistance worldwide and to Africa (table 6-l). U.S. foreign assistance worldwide increased dramatically over that period primarily due to increases in ESF ($4 billion increase) and military assistance ($5.4 billion increase). Africa received a relatively small portion of this increase, mainly through ESF, except for 1985 when high levels of food aid were provided. When measured in constant dollars, DA declined for Africa between 1980 and 1987. Fiscal year 1988 congressional appropriations of $500 million in DA for Africa plus $50 million for projects of the Southern African Develop-

PAGE 130

Table 6-1 .U.S. Bilateral a Economic and Military Assistance to Sub-Saharan Africa, 1980-87 Total Components of Economic Assistance Military plus Military Economic Assistance { African Economic Assistance Development Economic Support Public Law Development Assistance (MA) (EA) Assistance Fund 480 Peace Corps Foundation b Obligation Obligation Percent of Obligation Obligations Percent Obligations Percent Obligations Percent Obligations Percent Obligations Percent Year (millions $) (millions $) MA+EA (millions $) (millions $) of EA (millions $) of EA (millions $) of EA (millions $) of EA (millions $) of EA 1980 824.1 77.3 9.4 746.8 282.2 38.0 132.7 18.0 293.3 39.3 38.6 5.2 1981 908.9 84.7 9.3 824.2 300.3 36.4 163.0 19.8 322.1 39.1 38.8 4.7 1982 1,064.1 191.3 18.0 872.8 328.8 37.7 294.8 33.8 208.6 23.9 40.6 4.7 1983 1,015.6 134.0 13.2 881.6 315.3 35.8 286.1 32.5 239.3 27.1 40.9 4.6 1984 1,143.4 153.3 13.4 990.1 340.4 34.4 333.1 33.6 271.3 27.4 43.6 4.4 1.7 0.2 1985 1,679.0 168.0 10.0 1,510.9 352.2 23.3 417.8 27.7 689.4 45.6 47.0 3.1 4.5 0.2 1986 1,126.1 103.2 9.2 1,024.0 378.9 37.0 245.2 23.9 347.6 33.9 46.3 4.5 6.0 0.6 1987 836.4 52.3 6.3 784.0 328.1 41.8 162.8 20.8 237.7 30.3 48.8 6.2 6.6 0.8 aBilateral assistance does not include contributions to multilateral institutions nor obligations of central AID bureaus or the State Department. Figures have been rounded. bThe African Development Foundation became operational in 1984 to provide relatively small amounts Of assistance to local African groups. NOTE: For fiscal year 1988, $550 million in DA was appropriated for Africa along with $90 million earmarked for ESF. SOURCES U.S. Agency for International Development, Congressional Presentation, fiscal years 1981-87.

PAGE 131

128 Box 6-1.The Language of Foreign Aid Agricultural assistance: a generic term for any U.S. economic assistance funding used for supporting agricultural development. Agricultural Portfolio: activities in support of agricultural development funded through AIDs Africa Bureau using DA and ESF funds. It does not include activities funded by Public Law 480 nor by AIDs other bureaus. Bilateral assistance: assistance provided by the United States directly to African nations. For this report, bilateral assistance includes ESF, Public Law 480, DA provided by the Africa Bureau of AID, Peace Corp funding, and military aid. Economic assistance: used to refer to all non-military assistance. Development Assistance (DA): DA suffers from a multitude of definitions. For the purpose of this report, DA is the set of bilateral U.S. funds: 1. whose principle use is the support of development, 2. that are administered by AID, 3. whose funding levels are directly set by Congress, and 4. whose development goals are set by Congress in Chapter 1, Part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended. These funds include, the Private Enterprise Revolving Fund, the Science and Technology Fund, the Sahel Development Program, and six Functional Development Accounts: 1. Agriculture, Rural Development, and Nutrition; 2. Population Planning; 3. Health; 4. Child Survival; 5. Education and Human Resources Development; and 6. Private Sector, Environment, and Energy. Congress created a l-year separate African DA account of $500 million for fiscal year 1988 in addition to $50 million for projects supported by the Southern Africa Development Coordination Conference. This fund will replace the six Functional accounts and the Sahel Development Program as the primary source for African DA. Economic Support Fund (ESF]: Through ESF, AID supplies economic assistance to countries where the United States has political, economic, or security interests. ESF can be provided in cash transfers, U.S. commodities, or project aid (similar to DA-funded projects). Cash and commodities are quick ways to supply budgetary support, ESF is not governed by the same congressional mandates as DA and is authorized under Part II, chapter 4 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended. Congress sets the overall funding level for ESF and commonly earmarks a majority of it for specific countries (i.e., Congress mandates certain amounts of ESF for certain countries with the division of the remainder left to the Administrations discretion). Food Aid: Excess U.S. agricultural commodities may be provided as aid on a concessionary loan or grant basis primarily under three laws: 1. The Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (Public Law 480) a. Title I of Public Law 480: provides long-term credits [authorized on an annual basis) at low-interest to buy U.S. farm products. Local currencies generated by the in-country sale of the food can be used for development activities, b. Title II of Public Law 480: provides food aid grants during famine or other emergencies and supplements regular feeding programs. c. Title III of Public Law 480: known as Food for Development, Title 111 uses Title I funds but offers multiyear programs and loan forgiveness in return for undertaking specific development activities. 2. Section 416 of the Agricultural Act of 1949 offers a second source of grant food aid to support Title II-like programs. 3. Food for Progress, which is authorized under the Food Security Act of 1985, provides additional Title I and Section 416 resources in return for agricultural policy reforms.

PAGE 132

129 ment Coordination Committee halted the actual and relative decreases in DA. Questions remain, however, as to whether this reversal will be maintained in the longer term. Assistance provided for agricultural development in Africa also fluctuated between 1980 and 1987, first rising then falling. Obligations in the Africa Bureaus agricultural portfolio rose from $265 million in 1980 to a peak of $400 million in 1985 and then declined to an estimated $317 million for 1987. Changes in ESF funding have been responsible for much of the change in AIDs agricultural assistance (table 6-2). The use of ESF funds as a significant component of agricultural assistance poses two possible problems that could constrain agricultural development. First, as seen in table 6-1, yearto-year fluctuations in ESF levels for Africa are substantial, making it difficult to build a development program based on long-term ESF financial commitments. Second, ESF is used primarily for policy reform and budget support (58). Reliance on ESF as a major source of agricultural assistance could thus bias the overall U.S. strategy away from local-level agricultural development. The risk of such a bias has declined since 1985 due to reductions in ESF levels for Africa. Current bilateral funding mechanisms have made it difficult for Congress to direct funds towards agricultural development in Africa. AIDs agricultural funding is derived from several separate congressionally authorized and appropriated sources, primarily ESF, public Law 480, and two DA accounts (Agriculture, Rural Development and Nutrition, and the Sahel Development Program). All but the latter fund agricultural assistance worldwide and are not restricted to Africa. The Sahel Development Program, in addition to agriculture, includes all types of development programs for nine West African countries. z Neither Congress nor AID has expressed interest in creating additional earmarked African agricultural funds. The Administration and Congress in 1987 proposed a single fund for African DA to help maintain stable levels o f DA for Africa, provide AID with the opportunity for longer term planning, and allow AID increased programming flexibility. Congress funded such an African DA fund with a oneyear appropriation of $500 million in the Continuing Resolution for appropriations in fiscal year 1988 (Public Law 100-202). While it is too early to determine the funds impact, its success will in part depend on whether Congress maintains its commitment to the fund, on how AID uses the increased flexibility provided, and on whether AID and Congress ensure that the appropriations to the fund are not diverted to other programs. Like the earlier DA accounts, the new fund does not provide Congress with the means to set levels directly for agricultural assistance. The fund does contain target levels of spending for health, voluntary family planning, and maintaining the renewable natural resource base, but neither earmarks nor targets are included for agriculture. The 1987 authorization bill for the fund contained language directing support for agricultural development, but it did The issue of the amount of bilateral funds being spent on African agriculture is further clouded because of involvement of more than one AID Bureau. While a majority of funding for Africa goes through the Africa Bureau, other bureaus such as Science & Technology, Policy and Program Coordination, Private Enterprise, and Food for Peace and Voluntary Assistance, have programs concerning agriculture development in Africa. No single AID data system provides a breakdown of all AIDs agricultural funding to Africa for each of these bureaus (or for AID as a whole), Table 6-2.AID Economic Support Funds (ESF) as a Percent of the Africa Bureaus Agriculture Portfolio a 1979-87 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 (est.) Obligations . . 12.5 24.6 20.3 20.2 28.9 34.5 42.4 28.9 29.0 Expenditures. . 6.6 24.2 26.5 11.7 27.9 27.5 32.9 34.5 32.8 aThe agriculture portfolio Includes AIDs Africa Bureau funding for DA and ESF. It does not include Public Law 480 funding nor funds used by other AID Bureaus SOURCE U S Agency for International Development, Africa Bureau, Agriculture and Rural Development Functional Review FY 1978-1987, July 1986, updated 1987

PAGE 133

130 not pass. The Conference Report (Report 100498) concerning fiscal year 1988 foreign assistance appropriations includes only vague direction for agricultural uses of the fund. Congress difficulty in directing funds specifically to African agricultural development and the resulting increased flexibility for AID to determine the level and direction of its program indicate an increased importance for effective congressional oversight regarding AIDs support for resource-enhancing approaches to agricultural development. Multilateral Assistance U.S. multilateral development assistance makes up about 11 percent of the total U.S. foreign aid budget for fiscal year 1988 and is provided to several types of organizations (45). The multilateral development banks (MDBs) receive the majority of U.S. assistance and two of them, the World Bank and the African Development Bank, support agricultural development in Africa. The World Bank is the primary lender. A second set of organizations has been lumped under the funding category International Organizations and Programs which, like the MDBs, have their individual funding levels set by Congress. The United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), and the United Nations Childrens Fund (UNICEF), each with African agriculture-related programs, receive the majority of the funding under this category (at least 75 percent since 1981), A third category is organizations in which the United States participates and which assess the United States a membership fee, usually a percentage of the organizations budget (e.g., the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, which assesses the United States a fee equal to 25 percent of its annual budget). Other international organizations may receive funds directly from U.S. agencies. For example, the 13 international agricultural research centers of the Consultative Group on International Agriculture Research (CGIAR) system receive their U.S. contributions through AID. Funding to the first two groups, international organizations and multilateral development banks, has followed the general trend in bilateral assistance by increasing between 1980 and 1985 and then declining through 1987 (table 6-3). Although the following discussion focuses on multilateral development banks, the other or animations can also play important roles in the enhancement of low-resource agriculture. For example, a 1985 AID evaluation found that I FAD is making a significant contribution to improving the economic conditions of the rural poor in developing countries partly through the use of technologies adapted specifically for small, low-income farmers (52). The World Bank and the African Development Bank provide two types of loans. The Table 6-3.U.S. Support of Multilateral Development Institutions, 1980.88 Obligations (millions $) Organization 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 a (est.) International Organizations and Programs b . 208 C 210 215 270 315 362 266 237 245 Multilateral Development Banks . . . 1,478 986 1,262 1,487 1,324 1,548 1,143 1,207 1,206 Total . . . 1,686 1,196 1,476 1,757 1,639 1,910 1,408 1,444 1,450 a Congressional appropriation b Includes support for certain development, humanitarian, and scientific programs of the United Nations and the Organization of American States funded by voluntary government contributions, according to the AID Corrgressional Presentations, fiscal years 1980 through 1988. C 1980 data do not include $52 million for the U N Relief and Works Agency in order to provide consistent data. Funding for the U.N. Relief and Works Agency was switched from the international Program funding to the U.S. Department of States Migration and Refugee Account In the years following. SOURCES: U.S. Agency for International Development, Congressional Presentations, for fiscal years 1981 through 1988 (Washington, DC: AID). U.S. Department of State, United States Contributions to International Organizations: Report to the Congress for Fiscal Year 1985 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of State, 1986). Sanford, Jonathan, Multilateral Development Banks: Issues for the 100th Congress, IB8731B (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, Jan. 12, 1988).

PAGE 134

131 World Banks International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) and the African Development Bank (AfDB) borrow from world capital markets and provide loans to developing countries at near-market interest rates. The World Banks International Development Association (IDA) and the African Development Banks African Development Fund (AfDF) provide long-term, below market interest loans to the poorest developing countries (countries having per-capita GNP below $791 in 1984 dollars). IDA has provided the majority of World Bank lending for African agricultural development and is especially important in the poorest countries but, IBRD has also provided a significant portion of agricultural funding, especially for West Africa (75). U.S. funding of the World Bank has been erratic over the past decade (table 6-4). For IDA 8 (the 3-year replenishment beginning in 1988), the United States has pledged a total of $2.875 billion or approximately $960 million per year, subject to congressional appropriation. In the past, Congress has stretched some 3-year commitments to 4 years and thereby reduced the United States contribution. For fiscal year 1988, Congress has appropriated $915 million for IDA. Forty-five percent of all donors contributions to IDA 8 are earmarked for Africa and approximately 60 percent are intended for policy reform. U.S. contributions to AfDF have risen more predictably from $10 million in 1978 to $90 million in 1987. Contributions to AfDF have not been reduced by the current budget reductions in part because AfDF receives a comparatively small contribution and because its work is readily identifiable with African development. U.S. contributions to IBRD and AfDB are more difficult to assess because both banks borrow money on capital markets for their lending. Donors contribute to each in two ways: through direct capital contributions and via money held against potential defaults (callable capital). Part of the U.S. contribution (7 percent for the IBRD in 1987) is used to increase the financial stability of the bank, increase its borrowing ability, and act as a source of funds if recipients default (44). Table 6-4.U.S. Contributions to Muitilateral Development Banks Funding African Development, 1978.87 Year Congressional appropriations (millions $) a The World Bank AfDB b AfDF b Special Facility for IBRD C IDA d Sub-Saharan Africa e IFC f 1978 . . 38.0 800.0 38.0 10.0 1979 . . 16.3 1,258.0 40.1 25.0 1980 . . 16.3 1,072.0 19.0 25.0 1981 . . 32.8 520.0 18.0 41.7 1982 . . 146.9 700.0 14.5 58.3 1983 . . 126.0 945,0 50.0 1984 . . 79.7 945.0 18.0 50.0 1985 . . 139.7 900.0 18.0 50.0 1986 . . 105.0 669.9 71.8 27.8 15.5 60.0 1987 . . 55.8 1988 9 . . 830.1 64.8 7.2 20.5 90.4 40.2 915.0 20.3 9.0 75.0 a Data for IBRD and AfDB reflect paid in capital and do not include callable capital. b AfDB and AfDF : African Development Bank and African Development Fund. These are African equivalents to the IBRD and IDA, respectively, and provide near-market rate loans and confessional rate loans to the poorest countries in Africa. C IBRD: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. IBRD borrows from world capital markets and makes loans at near-commercial interest rates for productive purposes mainly to middle income countries. d IDA : international Development Association, IDA makes concessional (no interest) loans to the poorest countries for productive purposes, Funding is obtained from developed countries and IBRD earnings. e Special Facility for Sub-Saharan Africa, A special 3-year fund set up in 1985 to make loans in support of policy reform work in IDA-eligible African countries. Funding is obtained and supplied along IDA lines. f IFC : International Finance Corporation, The IFC makes loans and equity investments in local privatelY owned firms in developing countries g Data for 1988 do not include a $44.4 million, first-t~me contribution to the new Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency of the World Bank whose purpose is to provide noncommercial risk insurance for private investment in developing countries. SOURCES: Jonathan Sanford, Multilateral Development Banks: Legislation Affecting US. Participation (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, June 29, 1987). Jonathan Sanford, Multilateral Development Banks: Issues for the 100th Congress, IB8731 B (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, Jan. 12, 1988)

PAGE 135

132 Legislated congressional direction to multilateral banks working in Africa has recently stressed the need to ensure environmental sustainability of funded projects, increase attention to the poor and to women, and increase participation of indigenous organizations having grassroots connections to the poor (H. R. 3750 which was passed as part of the Continuing Resolution for fiscal year 1988). Congress has not given agricultural development the same attention. In fact, legislation reauthorizing U.S. participation in the multilateral development banks is concerned more with possible agricultural competition with the United States than the type of agricultural development the banks are supporting (H.R. 3750). Congress cannot set agricultural funding levels because these organizations are independent agencies. It can, however, direct the U.S. representative to each bank to lobby for making agricultural development even more of a priority. Twenty-seven percent of the World Banks assistance to Africa went to agriculture and rural development between 1981 and 1985, and in 1985 the AfDF allocated 38 percent of its funding to agriculture. Because appropriating money directly for development of African agriculture is not a possibility, congressional oversight, backed by appropriations activity, will remain an important way to influence these organizations. Congressional Oversight and a Resource-Enhancing Approach More effective congressional oversight is crucial to the implementation of an approach to enhance low-resource agriculture via bilateral and multilateral programs. Congress has legislated many elements of such an approach and appropriated funding for agricultural development. But concerns remain regarding AID and the World Banks apparent difficulties in carrying out programs which support resourcepoor farmers, herders, and fishers. Coordinating and Improving Oversight In-depth and long-term oversight is hampered by the time constraints and lack of relevant knowledge facing Members of Congress and f their staf Individual members and small staffs have little time to respond to complex long-term development issues when these are only one part of their wide and demanding responsibilities. Responding to inadequately prepared oversight activities may divert donor agency resources and can have adverse impacts on development programs. These problems are aggravated and others are created by the many congressional actors involved in development assistance oversight and the lack of coordination among them. In addition to individual member queries, seven committees (and additional subcommittees) have direct jurisdiction over U.S. agricultural assistance, and still others have oversight authority. This duplication of effort also at times results in contradictory directions from Congress. It could be reduced by increasing formal and informal cooperation among those currently involved in oversight. Such cooperation has the potential for increasing the quality of oversight without increasing the energy and money spent on it, helping maintain consistency in U.S. programs as individuals and issues change, and reducing the wasted resources involved in AID and others having to respond to similar requests from different sources. To improve the quality of information available, interested committees could improve their expertise in development by establishing groups of development experts to advise them on AID and other donors work. Congress could increase its consultation with persons having long-term AID experience in the field and in Washington, DC. This could be accomplished by increasing informal contacts, increasing the provision of congressional fellows from AID, and by having congressional staff attend meetings of AID mission directors and development officers in the field. Oversight could also be improved by increasing the availability of information concerning how and where assistance is used. The Congressional Research Services computerized foreign assistance budget could be expanded to provide a better view of where money is be-

PAGE 136

133 ing spent. AIDs own ability to provide information on its agricultural work in Africa is severely constrained by the lack of a central disaggregated database. Reducing the Burden of Oversight Congress has placed a series of reporting and procurement requirements and restrictions on AIDs work. According to AID, these have used up large amounts of resources while reducing their ability to respond to the diverse conditions in Africa. Though a detailed analysis of AIDs operations was not included in this assessment, other OTA work indicates cause for concern (64). AID has testified that at least 200 personyears are necessary to respond to congressional reporting requirements and information requests regarding AIDs work worldwide (67). These requirements and restrictions include: l l l l l l l l notification of reprogramming of funds; responses to information requests by multiple committees and individual members; mandated reports; procurement requirements (e.g., buying only U.S. products unless a time-consuming waiver can be obtained); restrictions on aid to individual countries; restrictions on aid aimed at increasing production of specific commodities; informal earmarking of funds; and formal earmarking of funds. Direction on the use of funds and effective congressional oversight are crucial responsibilities of the U.S. legislative branch of government. But opportunities clearly exist for Congress to reduce the unnecessary burden of its demands and restrictions on AID. Previously discussed steps to improve the quality and depth of oversight such as clarifying priorities, coordinating oversight, and reducing pressures to use aid for non-developmental purposes would be likely to also decrease oversights burden. Other congressional actions that could increase AIDs effectiveness include reducing the need to buy only U.S. equipment and commodities. These restrictions often result in the acquisition of goods which are more expensive and often inappropriate to African conditions. Alternatively, they require substantial paperwork to qualify for an exemption. For fiscal year 1988 Congress addressed this concern by exempting the new African DA fund from the restriction to buy only U.S. products. Another way to reduce AIDs reporting burden would be to modify the requirement that AID notify Congress of funding changes. AID has argued that since only about 3 percent of such notifications are of interest to congressional committees, notification of low-level changes in funding, perhaps of 10 percent or less of a projects budget, could be eliminated (67). Congress did reduce reprogramming notifications for DA in the fiscal year 1988 appropriations. Evaluating the impacts of this reduction and the buy-American exemption for Africa will be important for considering their extension and possible expansion. The issue of congressional earmarking for the use of funds is more controversial. Disposing of formal earmarks and reducing pressures for informal earmarks would increase AIDs flexibility, but it is uncertain that AID would use that flexibility to carry out Congress intentions, AIDs failure to address the needs of resourcepoor agriculturalists, despite congressional direction to do so, raises concerns about the effects of providing AID with additional flexibility. Earmarks are a visible means (though not necessarily always an effective one) for Congress to ensure that assistance funds are spent in accordance with congressional direction. Congress has done away with the majority of earmarks for African DA for fiscal year 1988. While three spending targets (each one 10 percent of the fund) are set for health, voluntary family planning, and renewable resources, the fund provides AID with increased flexibility to program remaining money. A successful outcome for this greater flexibility will depend on more responsiveness on AIDs part, and on more effective, less burdensome oversight. Continuing and increased flexibility can then be based on AIDs carefully monitored per formance. Congress can also increase the effectiveness of its albeit less direct oversight of multilateral

PAGE 137

134 development agencies receiving U.S. funding. in which the Bank is improving its capability For example, changes occurring at the World to do environmental analysis was partly thereBank offer Congress an opportunity to ensult of congressional pressure. courage reforms there. A major reorganization THREE CATEG0RIES OF DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE FOR A RESOURCE-ENHANCING APPROACH Three distinct though interrelated categories of aid or recipient groups offer substantial opportunities for development assistance to address the needs of resource-poor agriculturalists: 1. local level activities, including support for local institutions, households, and individual agriculturalists; 2. the formal agricultural institutions supporting agricultural development including those providing research, education, extension, and marketing; and 3. national policy formulation and implementation including assistance for the development of supportive national policies and of national capabilities to create, implement, and evaluate them. After evaluating the general lack of success of U.S. efforts to support African agricultural development, most experts agree on the need to refocus on the small farmer. General agreement also exists on the need to address all three categories listed above, but that U.S.-supported organizations have differing abilities to work with each of them. Development Assistance at the Local Level The common goal of most current assistance at the local level is to increase the food security of the farmer, herder, or fisher while setting the stage for further development (34,54). To do so it will be necessary to develop new technologies and make them available along with appropriate existing ones in order to increase agricultural production and income. This is a two-way process which allows agriculturalists to take advantage of opportunities offered by agricultural institutions and government policies while communicating their needs to make the institutions and policies more effective. However, in the majority of cases local level assistance provided by major donors has not been successful in supporting development because the assistance has not been appropriate to local conditions nor applied in a way that would be sustained by the resourcepoor farmer (1,30,65,72). Two lessons have been learned from this lack of success. One is that assistance activities must work with technologies that are appropriate to local environmental and socioeconomic conditions (discussed in ch. 5). The second lesson is the need for farmer participation to ensure that assistance is appropriate to local conditions and that development started with external assistance will be maintained (7,19,41). Major donor organizations (e.g., AID and the World Bank) have not been effective at working at the local level nor with local institutions whose membership includes resource-poor agriculturalists. But certain other U.S.-funded organizations have been more effective. These include: U.S. private and voluntary organizations and the Peace Corps. Both have become increasingly active in bridging the gap between local organizations and the major donors. At the same time, local African organizations and the rural non-farm private sector are also emerging as effective actors in their own right. U.S. Private and Voluntary Organizations An estimated 300 U.S. private and voluntary organizations (PVOs) had African programs and were carrying out 2,700 projects in 1985. About $460 million was spent by those PVOs, 60 percent of it from U.S. Government foreign

PAGE 138

135Photo credit: Redenius/U.S. Peace CorpsThe U.S. Peace Corps, like U.S. PVOs and local African groups, provides assistance with local level projects such as this vegetable garden in Burkina Faso.assistance (50 percent in emergency food aidand 10 percent in development assistance) (28).Under Section 123 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, a minimum of 13% percent of the funding for the six Development Assistance functional accounts, the Sahel De-velopment Program, and International DisasterAssistance are to be made available for the activities of private and voluntary organizations. PVOs received $62.8 million from AIDs Africa Bureau in fiscal year 1986, and in fiscal year 1987 they received an estimated $42 million (24). The decline in emergency needs andthe recognition that relief alone would not solvethe root causes of famine have led PVOs to increase their attention to long-term social and economic development, with agriculture being an important subset of that work. PVOs are commonly considered to have sev-eral significant advantages and strengths appro-priate to a resource-enhancing approach at thelocal level (18,28,47,55). These include their abil-ity to:l l l l l l l ll lwork with the poor under difficult condi-tions and help make public resources avail-able to them, work with indigenous organizations, understand local conditions, address equity issues, work in regions where development has been neglected, use a participatory process, use a long-term approach, be flexible, work in small projects, and extend a proven technology [when favorable policy and infrastructural conditionsexist). Caution is necessary, however, in assuming thatthese general strengths apply to each individ-ual PVO or PVO project given their tremendous

PAGE 139

136 diversity and differences from country to country and project to project even within a single organization. These strengths, AIDs difficulties in working with the resource-poor agriculturalists, and an increasingly politically active PVO community have motivated Congress to consider increasing the role of PVOs in U.S.-supported development in Africa. However, as their role is increased, certain common PVO weaknesses should be acknowledged and addressed (18,28,47). PVOs often: l l l l l l l l l are unable to reach the very poorest, lack technical expertise, fail to address the role of women, lack innovation, depend too much on the continued presence of individuals capable of mobilizing the population, lack project replicability and sustainability, have poor or nonexistent project evaluations, lack wide-scale impact, and are difficult to coordinate because of their large numbers. Some PVOs are making efforts to overcome these weaknesses. For instance, some are being linked with formal research organizations to overcome their lack of technical expertise. In this way, PVOs are involved in testing and extending technologies to farmers while transmitting needs and ideas back to the scientists. Also, AID has facilitated the work of PVOs in some countries by setting up quick-funding sources at the mission level, known as umbrella projects, that require less paperwork for small PVO projects. In conjunction with these efforts at increasing PVOs effectiveness, there remains the more difficult task of evaluating individual PVOs on their actual abilities to support development at the local level. A further challenge is present in the growing abilities of African indigenous organizations. PVOs may need to play a more supportive role by supplying resources, training, and other assistance to such organizations rather than directly implementing their own projects. The Peace corps The Peace Corps has volunteers and programs in 25 African countries (68). Its overall and Africa budgets have both increased steadily since 1980 (table 6-5). The Peace Corps mandate is to support the personnel needs of developing countries (especially for meeting the basic human needs of the poor) with trained Americans. Additionally, its goals are to promote a better understanding of the United States within the developing countries and a better understanding of developing countrys societies by the American people (Public Law 87-293 as amended). Its programs respond to locally identified needs, emphasizing individual training and strengthening local organizations (68). In Africa, the Peace Corps emphasizes agriculture, private sector development, health, and education. With 25 years of experience in people-topeople work, the Peace Corps has come to be Table 6-5.The Peace Corps in Africa, 1980-87 Obligations Obligations for worldwide Africa Volunteer years Year (millions $) (millions $) in Africa 1980 103.3 38.6 2,035 1981 104.7 38.8 2,048 1982 104.7 40.6 1,989 1983 108.5 40.9 2,1 14 a 1984 115.0 43.6 2,086 1985 129.5 47.0 2,124 1986 124.0 46.3 2,236 1987 b 130.0 48.8 2,175 a Estimate bData for 1987 are estimates and do not include data from the $7.2 million supplemental appropriation received in fiscal year 1987 SOURCES: Agency for International Development, Congressional Presentations, fiscal years 1982 through 1988; Peace Corps, Congressional Presentations, fiscal years 1982 through 1988.

PAGE 140

137 appreciated by the African governments seeking its help; many requests for volunteers remain unfilled. It has identified skills needed to work at the local level and developed the ability to train its volunteers in local languages and culture. Most volunteers work in conjunction with African government programs and are placed at the local level where they often provide links between national and local organizations. Recognizing the technological constraints facing agricultural development, the Peace Corps has made efforts to recruit an increased number of technically trained volunteers. Because of these abilities, the Peace Corps may have an even greater role to play in enhancing low-resource agriculture. In addition to its direct work with resource-poor farmers and herders, it also is in the position to be an important intermediary between the larger donors; formal agricultural organizations; local organizations; and individual farmers, herders, and fishers. For example, AID is providing small-project assistance funds for local groups associated with volunteers. Such an approach increases the resources available to the local groups but it has a potential disadvantage in that it could change the Peace Corps role (and the African perception of it) to a funder rather than a provider of skills and training. The quality of the Peace Corps agricultural work varies from country to country and program to program. The short-term nature of its 2-year volunteer tour and high volunteer attrition contribute to this unevenness as does the agencys lack of effective institutional memory. Short tours of service for staff add to these problems. High turnover rates, in part due to the short tours but also to other difficulties, have made long-term planning and implementation difficult. The overall impact of the Peace Corps work is difficult to judge because it lacks an internal formal evaluation process. African conditions are changing rapidly and it is not clear whether Peace Corps programs are keeping pace. Effective future work, based on actual strengths rather than anecdotal evidence, will require an improved evaluation system. The Peace Corps African Food Systems Initiative (AFSI) is an attempt to respond to some of these problems by developing long-term (5 to 10 years), localized approaches to food security in each country. The program includes collaboration with AID and PVOs. For example, AID has supported individual members of the Peace Corps AFSI programming teams. The Peace Corps has committed significant resources to AFSI and will need continued funding for its success. Currently, AFSI operates in Lesotho, Mali, Niger, and Zaire with a fiscal year 1987 budget of $1.9 million. During its first 2 years, fiscal years 1986-87, 162 volunteers were involved, with 99 of them beginning their tours in fiscal year 1987. The program is projected to expand to Guinea, Senegal, and the Central African Republic in fiscal year 1988. One potential weakness of AFSI, like that of the peace Corps generally, is that evaluation has not yet become a well-defined, integral component. Local African Organizations Many donors over the past decade, have come to recognize that indigenous groups can be effective at the local level. Most often local groups have received donor assistance to carry out donors activities. To some donors, however, local organizations are being seen as increasingly capable partners that can implement their own programs. Despite this growing awareness, however, these groups potential has been largely untapped, especially by the major donors who instead have focused on supporting more formal government agencies and institutions (7,18,19, 42). The African Development Foundation is not among the U.S. organizations included in these discussions since it is the subject of a separate OTA assessment. It is, however, one of the U.S. agencies attempting to maximize the role of indigenous organizations (66]. Local organizations (also known as local membership institutions or grassroots organizations) are diverse. Some are informal, self76-578 0 88 4 : QL 3

PAGE 141

138 help groups; others are formal and organized at the regional or national level. They may be organized along single interests lines to manage a common resource, such as water-use societies and pastoral associations. Or they may provide a single service as in the case of marketing cooperatives and rotating credit associations. They may be organized for multiple functions and act as indigenous voluntary development organizations comparable to nonAfrican PVOs (7,19). Approximately 100 such groups from 18 countries in May 1987 formed the pan-African Forum of African Voluntary Development Organizations (FAVDO). FAVDO hopes to link these organizations and to provide help in identifying development needs and mobilize African and non-African support. Local organizations can enhance the effectiveness of development assistance programs by increasing their relevance, cost-efficiency, and sustainability. These groups can be effective in transferring information on local needs and conditions to outside development agencies while also representing farmers to donors, the private sector, and government agencies. They can mobilize resources such as labor, management, and money for development work and thus reduce demands on overburdened government organizations and reduce the need for external support of recurrent costs. In addition, working through such groups allows donor assistance to reach more farmers. Sustainability can increase where group members are involved in the design and management of assistance activities since such involvement often leads to greater commitment to implementing the work and maintaining it once outside assistance ends (7,19,23,71). Certain conditions for successfully working with local organizations are being identified. Local organizations can best support development if: they are involved in project decisionmaking; they retain a high degree of selfreliance and autonomy; their members and beneficiaries maintain a degree of control over the organization; and the organization can shift project activities to meet the needs of its beneficiaries (71). They cannot be successfully forced into existence or managed by donor organizations or national governments because their success depends on membership commitment. Their effectiveness can be destroyed, moreover, by attempts to co-opt them into larger bodies, by pushing them to exceed their capacities, using them only as implementors of donor activities, or by overfunding. Large donors and national governments may find working directly with local and intermediary institutions discouragingly difficult (7). The formation and development of these groups is not predictable and takes time. Program funding needs are comparatively low, increasing the proportion of funding used in administration. It is often difficult for large donors working with local organizations to spend all their funds within a required timeframe (usually on an annual budget cycle). Also, significant donor resources are needed to identify and evaluate these groups. Despite these drawbacks, increased support for large donor organizations will be necessary as the number and abilities of these local groups increase and their needs outstrip the capabilities of smaller donors (e.g., PVOs) who presently support them (48). Large donors may also have a role in linking these organizations with formal agricultural institutions so that the formal institutions better address their needs. The African Rural Non-Farm Private Sector Though even more diverse and often more dispersed than local organizations, the rural non-farm private sector could have significant direct and indirect positive impacts on resource-poor agriculturalists. The non-farm sector can be defined as all economic activity apart from crop or livestock production. Data o n these activities are sparse and country-specific, but it appears that the majority of rural nonfarm enterprises are small (95 percent have fewer than five workers), have modest capital requirements and show seasonal fluctuations in output and labor demands (25). Typically, 10-20 percent of rural employment (with a range from 3-73 percent) and 25-30 percent of rural income are derived from rural non-

PAGE 142

139 farm activity, Because non-farm earnings are converted to money more often than agricultural products, they constitute a large share of cash income, often 50 percent. Surveys have shown that 15-65 percent of farmers also have secondary employment in non-farm enterprises and that farm households devote 15-40 percent of their working hours to income-generating non-farm activities. These activities also provide women, especially in poorer households, with opportunities to earn income (25). Besides offering rural employment and income, the non-farm private sector also provides the agriculturalist with agricultural inputs, markets for products, and consumer goods. The first forms a relatively weak market because of African agricultures relatively small use of inputs but could increase if more appropriate inputs were made available and if credit systems were improved (25,32). Providing a market for products is the most significant of the three roles. Local processors and particularly distributors purchase a major share of commercialized produce in many areas. The market for consumer goods and services provided to farmers by the private sector is seen as an important stimulus to the growth of the rural nonfarm economy both because of its potential high growth rate as farmers income rises and due to the large amount of labor it could absorb with such growth (25). Four means have been identified for supporting the development of non-farm enterprises. First, and most importantly, increasing agricultural productivity and income would increase agriculturalists demand for goods and services while also providing secure food supplies for non-agricultural workers. Second, national policies can be redesigned to avoid discrimination against non-farm enterprises in such areas as credit availability, tariff structures, access to foreign exchange, licensing requirements, and restrictions on the goods or services they can provide. Third, direct assistance to non-farm enterprises can be provided in forms such as credit, technical assistance, and training in marketing and management. Evaluations have shown these types of programs to be cost-effective if they focus on one major constraint to the enterprises instead of trying to address all at once. Fourth, rural infrastructure (e.g., roads, water, transportation, and electricity) can be improved, though it is not yet clear in what sequence the infrastructure should be provided (25). Controversy exists over the attention paid to infrastructural development. Some see it as essential for increasing the adoption of new technology (11), but others argue against significant assistance for infrastructure because it may divert capital from agricultural production and often benefits urban areas more than rural ones (36). Some do not consider AID to have a comparative advantage in infrastructural work even though such projects have been used as an effective means to absorb sudden increases in assistance to a country (30). The potential of the indigenous private sector in a resource-enhancing approach varies significantly across Africa and, therefore, the sectors needs for assistance vary as well. Much of the current private sector assistance provided by major donor organizations overlooks nonfarm rural enterprises and little national policy reform work has been geared toward their support. Major donor organizations have been directing most agricultural policy assistance at larger, more formal marketing and input supply services, such as government marketing boards and parastatals, sometimes with the purpose of turning them into private firms. Parastatals roles are decreasing in many countries because of increasing budget deficits and these efforts by donors (21). Such privatization has contributed, in some cases, to increases in agricultural production (43). Important to private sector assistance will be opening the marketplace to multiple private sector enterprises and not just the conversion of non-viable public monopolies and their replacement with private ones (2). In some cases the public sector may continue to be necessary to serve resource-poor farmers and herders in commercially unprofitable and geographically isolated locations. Private sector assistance needs to be monitored and evaluated as to

PAGE 143

140 whether benefits are being captured primarily by larger enterprises. Development Assistance in Support of Formal Agricultural lnstitutions The development and strengthening of African agricultural institutions (research, education, extension, credit, marketing organizations, etc.) is a second high priority category of assistance in a resource-enhancing approach. Supporting the development of agricultural institutions offers several general benefits. First, well-developed African institutions will be more efficient than external donors in providing direct services to agriculturalists. Second, development programs are more likely to continue after donor assistance ends if in-country institutions are capable of maintaining them. Third, sound national policies and good economic management can be encouraged and supported by donors, but their implementation and follow-through will primarily depend on the abilities of the African institutions. Fourth, the ability of recipient countries to absorb and use foreign assistance in part depends on the capacity of their institutions (7 I). Agricultural development will depend on strengthening African institutions in such areas as research, education and training, policy analysis, and administration (38,46). Equally important for the development of low-resource agriculture will be the ability of these institutions to address the specific needs and constraints of resource-poor agriculturalists. Support for staff training and other institutional development of agricultural institutions will require relatively high levels of long-term, stable funding usually available only from larger donor organizations. Cooperation and coordination among donors working with each individual institution and between institutions providing interlocking services to the same agriculturalists will also be essential. Training Training is a major focus of AIDs efforts to strengthen African agricultural institutions. It provides training to African professionals through numerous programs in the United States, in the recipient country, and in other developing countries. Data on the total number of people trained in-country or in third countries are sparse, but the numbers are considerable because most AID projects contain a training element. From 1980 to mid-1987, 3,523 Africans received shortand long-term agricultural training in the United States, primarily at universities (59). AID funds training in several ways. Individual bilateral projects programmed by the mission can have training components. Centrally funded programs overseen by AIDs Science and Technology Bureau (e.g., the African Graduate Fellowship Program, the African Manpower Development Project, and the Sahel Manpower Development Program) also provide training. Finally, AID supports agricultural schools in Africa that provide training for faculty and students. As part of its 1985 Plan for Supporting Agricultural Research and Faculties of Agriculture in Africa, AID is supporting seven schools of agriculture in Cameroon, Kenya, Zimbabwe, Uganda, Burkina Faso, Sierra Leone, and Lesotho (the first three receive high levels of support). In all seven cases, the actual training is being carried out by U.S. universities under contract to AID. The Africa Bureau spent between 4 and 7 percent of its agricultural portfolio on training (197987) (table 6-6). Data for overall AID African training expenditures are not available. Several factors are important for such training to enhance low-resource agriculture. Assistance for training needs to: c l l l build increased understanding of the specific features and needs of low-resource agriculture, ensure that women receive adequate training opportunities and that men are trained in working with womens needs, provide as much training as possible in Africa, support changes in African curricula to ensure their relevance to African lowresource conditions, and

PAGE 144

141 Table 6.6.AID Funding for Agricultural Education and Training a in the Africa Bureaus Agriculture Portfolio b 1979-87 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 (est.) Expenditures Total (millions $) . . 5.9 7.6 14.6 15.1 14.8 14.0 13.0 14.9 23.8 As a percent of total agriculture portfolio . 5.0 4.3 6.0 7,7 6.2 5.6 5.3 4.9 4.9 Obligations Total (millions $) .........14.1 14.4 14.6 20.4 17.4 12.7 14.5 16.6 21.1 As a percent of total agriculture portfolio . 6.4 5.4 5.2 6.5 5.5 3.7 3.6 4.7 6.7 aThese are funds for training individuals, A separate budgetary category contains funds for the infrastructural needs Of training institutions bThe agriculture portfolio includes Africa Bureau funding from DA and ESF, It does not include PL 480 funding nor funds used by other Bureaus SOURCE U.S Agency for International Development, Africa Bureau, Agriculture and Rural Development: functional Review FY 7978-1987, July 1986, updated 1987 l educate Africans at U.S. institutions able to provide suitable knowledge while supporting graduate and postgraduate research in Africa. Questions have been raised concerning the relevance of AID-supported training to African conditions. Although U.S. assistance has led to large numbers of trained Africans, it has not yet had a major impact on the rural sector (26). AID relies heavily on U.S. universities, especially State agricultural schools, for training. Although the existence and abilities of these universities is one of the strengths of U.S. development assistance (30), there are also drawbacks. The majority of U.S. schools operate in ways not necessarily relevant to African agricultural needs (4,56). For example: Low-resource agriculture is not a focus of most U.S. schools. African technical needs often require different technologies and often focus on different crops than those used by U.S. agriculture. The resources a student has available and comes to depend on at U.S. universities may not be available upon return to an African institution. U.S. agricultural disciplines tend to be narrow, with little opportunity to engage in broader problem-solving work. U.S. schools generally provide few incentives for doing international work or for supporting long-term efforts. Institution-Building Support for agricultural training will not have its full impact if African agricultural institutions are not developed concurrently. At present, many trained Africans find their skills unused or underused because they have no institutional base from which to work. Therefore, support for building African institutions themselves is an important adjunct to training. Experts agree that the provision of institutionbuilding assistance can be most effective if it: l l l l l l l provides long-term support (for 15-25 years) combined with steady levels of funding; provides core funds for institutions to cover costs not met by funds from individual projects; develops incentives and provides funds for policy makers, researchers, and extension agents to do field work; links research, extension, educational, and policymaking institutions with one another and with local institutions; uses flexible approaches that can match changing local needs; supplies newly trained Africans with startup funds and support for collaborating with senior scientists; and develops methods for institution-buildin g that promote links between agricultural institutions and resource-poor agriculturalists The results of past donor attempts at institution-building have been mixed. The World Bank is among the most active donors

PAGE 145

142 in this type of program but evaluations of its work have been critical of its methods and results. Only 50 percent of the World Banks agricultural projects achieved some degree of success in institution-building in 1985, a drop from the 63 percent success rate over the period 197984 (74). The Banks institution-building objectives have often been tacked onto agricultural projects, taking a backseat to production goals and the need for rapid disbursement of funds. The needs of recipient institutions have not been well analyzed and foreign technical assistance has been used to circumvent institutional problems instead of working to solve them. Overall, the World Bank has not been effective at supporting development of agricultural institutions such as universities, research institutions, and co-ops nor has it been successful at linking farmer organizations with supporting institutions (71). The World Bank recently completed a detailed analysis of ongoing African research and research needs which in part details the importance of long-term strengthening of African national research systems, universities, and training. Although this work makes it clear that research must address the actual conditions faced by the small farmers there is little recognition of the role farmers, their organizations, and their knowledge can play in supporting Photo credit: F. Botts/U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization A resource-enhancing approach to African agriculture places a high priority on supporting African research institutions. This is a laboratory of the Burundi Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. technology development and diffusion nor does it suggest a role for the World Bank in linking farmers, herders, and fishers to African national research institutions (77,78). Nevertheless, positive changes in the World Banks efforts can be seen in some of its work begun in the 1980s. A number of projects have begun with more thorough analyses of the recipient institutions needs, with institutional development their primary goal, and with longterm training programs (71). The World Bank also has increased lending for African agricultural institutions providing research, extension, training, credit, and marketing services (34,71, 79). Despite these improvements, evaluation of the World Banks East Africa portfolio found that promoting agricultural growth will require substantial additional investment in training, and in building and strengthening agricultural institutions. According to the study, major efforts are needed to increase institutions capacities to provide a full range of services, and perform the data collection and analysis on which to base critical decisions (35). AID is considered to have a comparative advantage in providing assistance for institutional development, although its work too has had only moderate success and its emphasis in this area is insufficient. For example, a recent evaluation of AIDs work in six African countries found that 13 percent of assistance was spent on education and training while only 2.3 percent was spent in support of agricultural research (30). AID has taken several steps to improve its ability to provide assistance for institutionbuilding, especially agricultural research. The agency estimates that $55 to $60 million are spent annually for these purposes by all bureaus. This increased emphasis is shown by Africa Bureau funding (table 6-7). AID released its Plan for Supporting Agricultural Research and Faculties of Agriculture in Africa in May 1985 as another part of this greater emphasis on training and research institution-building. The plan focuses U.S.-supported research by directing the majority of AIDs resources to 22 countries, 8 agricultural commodities, and a small set of

PAGE 146

143 Table 6-7.AID Funding for Agricultural Research and Research Capacity in the Africa Bureaus Agriculture Portfolio a 1979.87 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 (est.) Expenditures Total (millions $) . . 10.4 16.2 25.8 26.6 29.5 29.1 30.2 37.8 51.0 As a percent of total portfolio . . . 8.8 9.2 10.6 13.6 12.4 11.7 12.2 12.5 10.5 Obligations Total (millions $) .........31.3 32.5 46.0 45.9 39.8 40.1 34.3 44.1 45.6 As a percent of total portfolio . . . 14.3 12.3 16.4 14.7 12.7 11.6 8.6 12.5 14.4 aThe agriculture portfoilo includes Africa Bureau funding from DA and ESF. It does not include Public Law 480 funding nor funds used by other Bureaus. SOURCE Agency for International Development, Africa Bureau, Agriculture and Rural Development: Functional Review FY 1978-1987, July 1966, updated 1987 research problems. For example, the plan emphasizes mixed crop/animal farming instead of assistance to pastoralists due to past failures in range management. In 8 countries that have relatively strong research capacity, assistance will support increased capabilities to produce technologies. The 14 other countries with lower research capacity are to be supported in developing their ability to import and adapt technology. In addition, research networks are to be supported that address regional needs, that support countries with the weakest research systems, and that provide links with the International Agricultural Research Centers. Currently AID is supporting work on all 8 commodities, and is active in 7 of 8 technology generating countries, and 13 of 14 technology adapting countries. AIDs approach to institution-building is based on its understanding of the importance of improving African technical capabilities; that successful technology development requires a long-term approach; and that farming-systems research is one way to bridge the gap between researchers and farmers, herders, and fishers. Overall, AID has developed a strategy that emphasizes small farmers, food crops, and increased donor coordination. Many of the promising technologies identified in this report are being supported by AID (53). AIDs research plan is an important step in focusing attention on the technical needs of African agriculture. However, the plan may be too narrow in several respects. The AID Plan, much like the World Banks approach, does not address the role of the farmer in technology development. Farming systems research is presented less as a vehicle for farmer participation than as a means to ensure the acceptability of new technologies. Also, serious questions have been raised regarding AIDs commitment to farming systems research. Another concern is the reduced number of commodities to be researched. While this reduction can help focus resources it also means that regionally important minor crops playing a large role in African nutrition and making up an important component of many farming systems may be neglected. Also, too little effort has been given to research and development of technologies for processing well-adapted tropical crops into desired food products (5). Parallel attention to research for livestock systems, fisheries and forestry, upon which many low-resource agriculturalists depend, has also been lacking. A significant common weakness of much donor assistance to African agricultural institutions has been the failure to promote links to resource-poor agriculturalists. The lack of impact of agricultural assistance as a whole can be traced in part to a failure to develop technologies relevant to African agriculture, African extension agents find themselves with nothing to offer farmers and herders. Evaluations have shown that donor support for technology development has been inappropriate for resource-poor agriculturalists. Reasons for this inappropriateness include (6,14,40,72): l failure to analyze if the technology was tailored to the needs of resource-poor agriculturalists, for example, by avoiding expensive inputs or minimizing risk;

PAGE 147

144 l l l l l l l ignoring the importance of other farm operations, local cultural and ethnic factors, and the local environment; ignoring the effects of the new technology on recipients; ignoring gender differences and not ensuring female participation; a lack of farmer involvement and on-farm testing; an absence of multidisciplinary research; an emphasis on short-term projects; and failure to account for national policies. If future technology development by African institutions is to avoid repeating these mistakes, attention must be paid now to how institutionbuilding can be done in a way supportive of developing low-resource agriculture. Development organizations need to address this issue and draw together the expertise of the universities, the private sector, international agricultural research centers, and African institutions that have worked in this area. An important part of drawing together this expertise will be an increased coordination of efforts. Coordination of research activity is particularly necessary to prevent duplication of efforts by the large number of donors, national governments, and networks involved in research. An example of increased coordination in research is the Special Program for African Agricultural Research (SPAAR), established in 1985 by 15 major donors to support coordination and strengthen African national research institutions. It has a small secretariat located at the World Bank and six working groups: regional research networks; promising technologies; an information system on donor-funded research; guidelines and strategies for building national research capabilities; forestry; and education and training (77,78). In addition, SPAAR supplies small grants to African scientists through the International Foundation for Science in Stockholm. The International Agricultural Research Centers Thirteen International Agricultural Research Centers (IARCS) located worldwide, with a combined budget in 1986 of $235 million, are supported by 39 national, multinational, and private donors under the auspices of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Each has responsibility for certain food crops, animals, or farming systems and all have programs concerning Africa. They are internationally staffed and independent of their host governments. Four are located in Africa: the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture in Nigeria, the International Livestock Center for Africa in Ethiopia, the International Laboratory for Research on Animal Diseases in Kenya, and the West African Rice Development Association in Liberia. Seven other centers have personnel stationed in Africa and two centers research African policy and research management issues. With increasing international attention on Africa, the centers have increased their African work, and about 50 percent of the CGIAR systems resources are now devoted to Africa. Questions have been raised, however, about the propriety of an organization with worldwide responsibilites spending such a large percentage on one region (29). AID has funded the CGIAR system since its founding through contributions to core funding and through special projects. From 1978 to 1986, AID funded at least 25 percent of the systems annual core budget. U.S. core contributions peaked in 1986 at $46.25 million and declined to an estimated $40 million (21 percent of the core budget) in 1987 (60). The United States also supports specific projects at the centers. U.S. funding of such projects totaled $14 million in 1986 (10). In addition to the CGIAR system there are approximately one dozen other international agricultural research centers. Those with relevance for African agriculturalists include the International Fertilizer Development Center, and the International Soybean Program, both in the United States, and the International Council for Research on Agroforestry and the International Center for Insect Physiology and Ecology, both in Kenya. The CGIAR and non-CGIAR centers work in Africa have had less than their anticipated

PAGE 148

145 Photo credit: Donald Plucknett/Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research Scientists from the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) and the Rwandan national research system cooperate on bean research. Such collaborative work is important to increasing the benefits of research sponsored by the International Agricultural Research Centers. impact on agricultural development. Recently, CGIAR has reevaluated its goals and research methods and has determined ways in which to increase the impact of its work (8,11): l l l c including multiple new crop varieties, each adapted to different local conditions, instead of one or two single breakthrough varieties; addressing farming systems and moving the location of research away from research stations to do so; modifying research goals for new technologies which reduce the farmers risk in addition to increasing production; and strengthening African national research centers. These new attitudes are reflected in the centers increased outreach programs, increased work on farmers fields, attention to African crop and livestock varieties, research on African farming systems, and attention to environmental sustainability. The centers are working toward an improved balance between field work and work done at the experiment stations. The effects of these changes are important also because national research institutions often adopt approaches used by the international centers (31). While the CGIAR system claims to be increasing its attention to on-farm conditions, criticisms remain that centers have not fully implemented this shift. For example, concerns have been raised about the relevance of onstation work for the farmer. Some feel that too little effort has been made to grow diverse varieties in farmers field (or under simulated farmer conditions). Plant breeders have not focused on ensuring that improved varieties provide stable yields throughout the area where they are to be grown and on ensuring that their resistance to pests is durable (5). A further constraint is the lack of commitment to including the farmer as a partner in research and even to talking with farmers and consumers to guide the setting of objectives early in a crop or livestock breeding program. The issue of where to focus research is also unresolved. Arguments in favor of directing research to the most favored geographic areas to reap the quickest and most economical results contrast with arguments to increase research on the more marginal areas where large numbers of people live and raise their food (11,37). Disagreements between centers located inside and outside Africa over responsibility for specific commodity research, for example, maize, have also hampered the systems work and need to be resolved. Overall, the centers would benefit from stronger ties to African and nonAfrican scientists through better communication and joint projects (5). The CGIAR system has played an important educational role, providing training to about 6,200 Africans between 1962 and 1984 through short courses, degree programs, and postdoctoral work. This figure underestimates the actual number trained because it counts only those trained at the headquarters of each center (9). Training makes up about 12 percent of the funds CGIAR spends in Africa (29). However, training programs need to increase emphasis on training women who make up less than 10 percent of those trained by the system

PAGE 149

146 (8). Training impact also would be improved if the centers increased their collaboration with African universities (29). The CGIAR system has recognized the importance of supporting the development of national research systems but it spends only 1.6 percent of its operational budget on such support (11). In addition, only a small part of its training has been related to institution-building at the national level. The International Service for National Agricultural Research was established in 1980 as the lead center in support of national agricultural research systems. Although its impact has not been evaluated, demands for assistance have outrun its capacity to respond. Institution-building is seen as a high priority for future CGIAR work (11), but questions remain regarding how much the system is willing to divert from its primary focus on research. The centers will remain important sources of agricultural research and training and have potential for support and strengthening national research institutions. However, donors assistance to the international centers can complement but cannot substitute for directly supporting the development of national research systems. Development Assistance To Support National Level Policy Reform A third focus of development assistance in a resource-enhancing approach involves a wide range of programs that support African policy reforms at the national level. One lesson learned in the 1970s by donors was that assistance for local and institutional development can be offset by unsupportive and counterproductive national policies (33). Such policies have resulted from multiple factors but include a lack of attention to the needs of low-resource agriculture, over-investment in other sectors, and a dependence on export agriculture to finance other efforts. National governments and donors have contributed to these errors. AID and the World Bank have placed increasing importance over the past decade on the need to adjust national policies (tables 6-8 and 6-9), concentrating on a set of macroeconomic and agriculture-specific policies identified as constraints to broad economic development. They and other donors supply large amounts of nonproject lending, cash, and commodity aid to encourage national governments agreement to institute changes such as (76,57): l l l l l l l l reducing overvalued exchange rates and restrictions on imports, reducing government expenditures, removing biased tax and trade policies, increasing farmgate prices that are below national and world markets, reducing the monopolies of both state marketing boards that maintain low commodity prices and inefficient agricultural input distribution organizations, increasing opportunities for the private sector, cutting subsidies for costly agricultural inputs used primarily by the richest farmers, and cutting consumer food subsidies. Theoretically, these policy reforms could help resource-poor farmers significantly by ending policies that are favorable to large farms and encourage food imports, and by increasing farm prices, investment in infrastructure, and the efficiency of the market (30). It is not clear, however, if current policy reform efforts are having these impacts. Reform is often focused on broad macroeconomic changes and, in some cases, has not yet been tailored to adjust agricultural policies more specifically (16). Where changes have occurred in agricultural policy their impacts on resource-poor farmers are unclear. The swift rise in funding for policy reform has outpaced efforts to evaluate its impacts. Programs have been based on hypotheses regarding responses to policy changes rather than on data of actual responses. This lack of macroeconomic work in the agricultural sector has left macroeconomic analysis inadequately linked to actual farmer behavior (34). The deficiencies of macroeconomic analysis and lack of adequate evaluation of policy reforms impact on resource-poor farmers leads to concerns over how quickly reform has become a priority for de-

PAGE 150

147 Table 6.8.-AID Funding for Policy Reform and Economic Stabilization in the Africa Bureaus Agriculture Portfolio a ,1979-87 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 (est) Expenditures Total (millions $)....... 7.9 39.6 57.3 18.0 60.5 69.7 79.5 108.4 170.9 As a percent of agriculture portfolio . 6.7 22.5 23.6 9.2 25.4 27.7 32.1 35.9 35.2 Obligations Total (million $).... . 26.9 57.9 47.9 60.7 81.4 124.3 172.9 123.3 90.2 As percent of total agriculture portfolio . 12.3 21.9 17,1 19.5 25.8 36.0 43.2 34.9 28.5 aThe agriculture portfolio includes Africa Bureau funding from DA and ESF It does not Include Public Law 480 funding nor funds used by other Bureaus. SOURCE U S Agency for International Development, Africa Bureau, Agriculture and Rural Development: Functional Review FY 1978-1987, July 1986, updated 1987 Table 6.9.World Bank Policy Reform Lending to Sub-Saharan Africa, 1984-87 Fiscal Commitments to Reform Reform lending as a year Sub-Saharan Africa Iending a Percentage of commitments ($ millions) 1984 . . 2,338 819 35 /0 1985 . . 1,598 193 12 /0 1986 . . 2,582 1,210 470/0 1987 . . 2,285 1,261 550/0 alncludes IDA and I BRD lending. SOURCE World Bank, Special Office for African Affairs, 1987 velopment assistance. Results from initial evaluations have not yet confirmed the theoretical benefits for resource-poor agriculturalists and in some cases have proved that the initial assumptions used are wrong (17). While some evaluations show that policy reforms in conjunction with other conditions (e.g., good weather) can lead to increases in national crop production, it remains difficult to link reforms specifically with increases in resource-poor agriculturalists income and production. Where such links can be made, it appears that the minority of better-off small farmers are the primary beneficiaries (22,69,70]. Within policy reform activities, the basis for the current emphasis on pricing has also been questioned. Real prices for food and/or export crops were already increasing in many African countries in the 1970s and declining real food and export crop prices were not common (2o). Also, price reforms may have less impact on total production and food security in reality than they do in theory. Depending on the circumstances, farmers often sell commodities for a higher or lower than official price in private or informal markets, In response to raising the price of one commodity, farmers may grow more of that commodity but less of other important crops. Price policies are important but require careful macroeconomic analysis on a country-by-country and even local basis. Blanket pricing policy changes thus do not seem to be a wise strategy for the entire continent. Initial results show that reform may actually hurt segments of the rural population including resource-poor agriculturalists, Macroeconomic reforms have been encouraged by donors without full regard to the negative effects on poor peoples income and welfare (especially children) caused by deflationary effects on the economy and reduced government spending (12). In addition, increases in food prices also may have had adverse impacts on the poorest farmers. For example, about 40 percent of the farmers in Mali are net food buyers who perform non-farm work to be able to afford enough food. Increased food prices have forced them to spend more of their income on food (17). At-

PAGE 151

148 tention to how reform affects farmer income could help avoid such negative impacts. Reform needs to be more concerned with maintaining economic growth to provide increased jobs and incomes. It should also include provisions for supporting programs (e.g., nutrition or health) for vulnerable populations (12,73). An important component for the success of reform programs is the relationship between donors and national African governments. It is commonly believed that reforms require donor pressure and stringent conditions to ensure African governments compliance. However, such pressure can constrain actual reforms and replace real change with complex agreements and paper gains (3). Instead of this pressure, a more cooperative approach between donors and African governments could take advantage of African knowledge, and be based on the fact that governments will support reforms that are in their own interest, and that maintaining reform requires African support. Few African governments currently have the capacity to gather and analyze data necessary to plan reforms, to implement them, and then to modify them as conditions change. But the continued responsibility of expatriates for these tasks makes policy reform expensive, less sustainable, and sometimes inappropriate to local conditions. While donors have been increasing their support for policy reforms, their support to improve African capabilities to participate in these decisions has not kept pace (33, 38). For example, AIDs Africa Bureau expenditures for building African policy capabilities reached a high in 1981 and have declined since, although overall spending for reforms has continued to increase (58). The World Bank has come under strong criticism for failing to draw on and further develop the analytical capability of African governments as well (35). Opportunities exist to use policy reform programs to enhance low-resource agriculture. As noted earlier, reforms can help end discrimination against small, private, rural producers and enterprises. Donor assistance has already increased government attention to the agricultural sector in general. An example of positive donor assistance to reform programs is being carried out by the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) which has begun sending consultants to round-table discussions organized by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) where African governments and donors discuss policy reforms. UNIFEMs participation at those round tables has led to increased data collection on womens activities, promoted womens needs in policy decisions, and helped governments and donors find ways to include women in their work (39). AID AND A RESOURCE-ENHANCING APPROACH The U.S. Agency for International DevelopAtDs Strategy ment (AID), as the principle U.S. implementUnder AIDs current strategy 3 for African ing agency for economic assistance, would have lead responsibility for incorporating an apdevelopment, a resource-enhancing approach preach to enhance low-resource agriculture could be initiated, though its implementation into U.S. foreign assistance. The broad roles would require some changes and more clarity of AID in implementing such an approach are in AIDs activities. Agricultural development discussed in the first part of this chapter. Some AIDs strategy for development in general and specifically more specific questions regarding AIDs Africa for Africa is set out in three documents: strategy and the institutional factors that affect its ability to implement a resource-enhancing approach are raised here. the 1984 Africa Bureau Strategic Plan (51), the 1985 Blueprint for Development: The Strategic Plan of the Agency for International Development, (54) and the 1986 U.S. Assistance Strategy for Africa 1987-1990 (57).

PAGE 152

149 is one of AIDs top three priorities in its strategy for African aid (57) and support for agriculture comprises over 50 percent of the Africa Bureaus budget (table 6-10). With agricultural development a priority, several areas are already receiving attention that would be part of a resource-enhancing approach: l policy reforms favorable to farmers, Q agricultural research, l linking research to farmer needs through farming systems research, l training African researchers and providing support for African research organizations, and l attempting to relate natural resource and agricultural issues. But whether AID activities actually will support low-resource agriculture depends, in part, on how successfully AID can address certain specific issues, including: participation, sustainability, local institution building, support for women in agriculture, reducing risk, and the technical needs and labor constraints facing farmers, AID has identified the importance of these issues in several cases, but has been less effective in implementing its findings. For example, the 1984 Africa Bureau Strategic Plan highlights the importance of local participation in development activities, including agricultural research, but does not incorporate this conclusion into the reports agricultural objectives. The 1985 Blueprint for Development again identifies the need for local involvement to help ensure successful development but does not include it when discussing agricultural development specifics. The other issues are treated similarly; they are recognized as being important but information is lacking on how AID could make them integral parts of its development activities. AIDs strategy papers do not acknowledge that local resources can provide important opportunities. While AIDs overall strategy assumes that local resources can be used more productively (i.e., reforms in agricultural policies can stimulate increased production), it does not focus on direct support for developing and making improved use of those resources. Of additional concern, AIDs strategy documents have attributed less importance to certain of these issues over time. For example, local participation and sustainability, while mentioned in earlier reports are not included in the 1986 strategy. A 1978 agricultural development policy paper and a 1981 Africa Bureau food sector assistance paper address many of these issues but they are no longer explicitly contained in AIDs most recent strategies (49,50). To a large extent, these issues have been replaced by an emphasis on policy reform and economic stabilization. Central to AIDs current strategy is the concept that accelerating economic growth is the best means to support African development. Economic growth, accomplished by increasing income, is seen as the best means to eliminate the extremes of poverty and to meet basic human needs. The tactiTable 6-10.AID Funding for Agriculture in the Africa Bureaus Budget, 1979-87 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 (est.) Expenditures Total (millions $) .........118.2 175.7 242.8 195.9 237.8 251.5 246.9 302.1 485.7 Agriculture portfolio as percent of Bureau budget 69 63 63 50 47 52 53 54 56 Obligations Total (millions $) .........218.9 264.8 280.9 311.9 315.4 345.5 400.6 353.3 317.1 Agriculture portfolio a s percent of Bureau budget 69 64 60 50 51 50 48 50 59 SOURCE: Agency for International Development, Africa Bureau, Agriculture and Rural Development Functional Review FY 1978-1987; updated July 1987

PAGE 153

150 cal mechanisms to reach accelerated economic growth are primarily macroeconomic and sector-specific changes in African national policies. Under this view, U.S. development assistance principally should be used to support and encourage African policy reforms while helping to stabilize the economy (e.g., through balance of payments aid) so that reforms can be carried out. As policy reform has become central to AIDs strategy, other concerns have received less direct attention. Low-resource agriculture cannot develop without supportive policies, and failures in agricultural development have been due partly to flawed national policies. But, as already discussed, policy reform that is not welllinked to supporting low-resource agriculture may divert the benefits of development funding to other groups and may indeed be harmful to low-resource agriculturalists. AIDs Operations The ability of AID to implement a resourceenhancing approach will depend not only on the clarity and appropriateness of its strategy but also on its operational capabilities. Past OTA work has identified a set of well-known constraints affecting AID operations [box 6-2). Besides these constraints (which need to be dealt with by AID), several promising trends in AIDs operations may affect AIDs future ability to address low-resource agriculture. They include: c increased decentralization of decisionmaking to the field, l a shift to longer term support and greater flexibility, and l support for sustainability of activities and improved use of evaluations. Increased Decentralization AIDs recent moves towards decentralization have given field missions increased authority to make and implement decisions. AID field personnel give the agency a comparative advantage over donors who do not have permanent field offices (30). Field staff gain on-the-ground knowledge and can have the day-to-day interactions with African policy makers and implementors necessary for collaborative decisionmaking. AID has attempted to cut paperwork requirements by giving missions increased authority over project approval. At the same time, the number of new projects has been reduced. AID also has increased average staff tours by 8 to 9 months and increased the use of foreign nationals in an attempt to maintain continuity. Short tours of duty are still the norm in Africa, however, and increased rewards may be necessary to encourage staff to stay longer in the posts in Africa that they view as less desirable. Decentralizations potential contributions to a resource-enhancing approach are jeopardized, however, by concurrent personnel cuts and an attrition rate that exceeds hiring. Staff levels (including direct hire staff and foreign nationals) dropped 19 percent between 1981 and 1985 (61). Mission staff in the Sahel countries of Western Africa were cut by 25 percent in 1985 (67). Fewer personnel make it difficult for missions to carry out the detailed work necessary to address local conditions and to consider alternative programs (30). Technical staff have been cut the most and those remaining face the problem of being overworked and unable to make use of their technical skills or to update them. Evaluation activities have been particularly hard hit by staff reductions. Shift t O Longer Term Support and Greater Flexibility AID has stated that its activities need to be carried out over longer periods of time and has now provided for project commitments of up to 10 years as well as for multiple extensions of shorter projects. Longer project commitments will be necessary particularly for successful agricultural research and the development of African institutions. To a lesser extent, AID is also recognizing the need for more flexible implementation. Lessons learned from planning and implementing past projects and programs have led to calls for less pre-planning and more flexibility to change activities during project implementa-

PAGE 154

151 Box 6-2.Constraints on AIDs Operations:Lessons From the Sahel The challenge for future development efforts in Africa is to move to new modes of assistance that are more consistent with the nature of the region and the long-term goals of food security, environmental stabilization, and economic growth. The United States can continue to play a key role in this multinational development effort if it can incorporate the past decades experiences into a more effective strategy. However, the Agency for International Developments (AID) effectiveness in applying the lessons of the past decade face constraints in four areas: c the ambiguity of some AID policies and strategies, l internal institutional characteristics of AID, Q the sometimes adversarial nature of AIDs relationship with Congress, and l the lack of agreement about the role of development assistance in overall U.S. foreign policy. These constraints can be illustrated by examining AIDs role in the multinational development effort in the Sahel region of Africa. After 10 years of assistance, AIDs Sahel strategy has undergone much change in attempts to improve on failures. The most recent strategy statement incorporates many of the past decades lessons: it places high priority on agricultural research and production, policy reform, health and family planning, training, infrastructure, conservation, and environmental protection, In addition, it calls for coordination among all donors. However, AIDs strategy is at times ambiguous and its implementation sometimes is not consistent with the past decades lessons and existing congressional mandates for foreign assistance. For instance, the changing focus toward policy reform, institutional development, and infrastructure although consistent with the lessons learnedcould signal a retreat from direct assistance to the poor, depending on how that focus is implemented. Despite the high priority stated for agricultural research, AID has no Sahel-specific research strategy. AID has not seriously addressed the issues of effective farmer participation or given adequate attention to the specific role of women in Sahelian production, processing, and distribution systems. Although the United States is the largest single donor of food aid in the Sahel region, there is little effective integration of food aid into overall assistance strategies. AIDs effectiveness in implementing its strategy also is constrained by internal institutional characteristics. One basic problem is that the numbers and skill levels of AIDs staffing in the Sahel have not been commensurate with the level of U.S. commitment. Although French language and Sahelspecific technical skills have improved, they are still inadequate. The proportion of managers to technicians is high and too few personnel have appropriate skills in agricultural and environmental sciences, macroand micro-economic analysis, and human resource development. The use of outside contractors, particularly from U.S. universities, has increased the talent pool, but quality is still uneven, turnover is high, and institutional learning is limited. Sahelian staff are often underused and AID contact with beneficiaries and counterparts is often inadequate, Another problem is that AIDs program and project design systems are cumbersome, slow, inflexible, and often directed toward short-term, physical objectives rather than longer-term development goals. Sahelian input, be it governmental or local, is often pro forma. An additional institutional constraint affecting AIDs performance in the Sahel concerns AIDs relationship with Congress, Congress played an important role in the original U.S. commitment to the Sahel and has continued a high level of interest and support. Nonetheless, aspects of the CongressAID relationship actually constrain the attainment of foreign assistance goals. For instance, congressional policy mandates to AID under the Foreign Assistance Act and other legislation are cumulative and without priority. While each may be desirable in itself and the impact of many themes (e. g., basic human needs, the environment, women in development, child welfare) has been at least partially effective, their number and frequency of changes hamper the development of consistent, long-term strategies. Consequently, these mandates sometimes are not taken seriously. In another area of conI As part of the assessment of Low, -Resource Agriculture !n Africa, C5TA In I !)86 released a spclal report addressing U S assistance to the Sahel, Continuing the CommJfment ,4 r~cuhurd Dete/opment )n the Sahe/, 0T,4-F-308 (Spnngf]eld, \A: National Te[.hmcal I nformat]on Serwre, August 1986 ) This box summarizes the cnncluslons of ~at work (oncernlng AIDs operations

PAGE 155

152 Box 6-2.Constraints on AIDs Operations: Lessons From the Sahel l (Continuted) cern, procurement and financial controls are often unrealistic relative to African realities, and they do more to increase costs, create delays, and tie up AID and Sahelian management time than to accomplish their intended purposes. In addition, extensive congressional oversightand sometimes over-attention to management detail like requiring notification of minor project funding changes not only increases paperwork, it restricts the agencys flexibility to respond to evolving needs and opportunities. The role of foreign assistance within U.S. foreign policy creates a fourth set of constraints for development assistance goals. The Sahel Development Program, for example, was born of the U.S. commitment to humanitarian concerns and a vision of long-term social and economic development. Yet it is not uncommon for short-term foreign policy objectives (e.g., political or commercial objectives) to conflict with this long-term perspective. Increased bilateralism, the use of conditionality with respect to political stances rather than development performance, and assistance tied to U.S. commercial interests all act to reduce the effectiveness of U.S. commitments in the eyes of Africans and other international donors. tion. Critics argue that excessive pre-planning leads to problems because plans maybe over 4 years old before being initiated or there may be a reluctance to change pre-planned activities despite significantly changed circumstances (14). Rolling designs have been proposed as an alternative. In these, an activity, though still planned in advance, can be changed by its implementors to respond to local capabilities and constraints (41). Under a rolling design, on-going contact with recipients is used to monitor the need for changes and continuous reevaluation is used to modify the activity accordingly. In addition, the rolling design may help overcome problems caused by AIDs structural separation of design and implementation where implementors may be faced with activities designed by others and unsuitable for the evolving conditions in which they work. Support for Sustainability of Activities and Use of Evaluation AID has increased its attention to ensuring that development activities will continue once donor assistance ends. The prior AID Administrator, M. Peter McPherson, dubbed sustainability one of the twin engines of development, along with economic growth. AID, like other donors, has had difficulty in making its projects and programs sustainable (14). This is in part due to operational problems (e.g., African and U.S. staff turnover and the short time period of assistance) which interrupt building indigenous management ability, but it is also due to a failure to provide sustainable technologies for resource-poor agriculturalists. Increasing the sustainability of AIDs work will necessitate more effective support for institutionbuilding, coupled with a better linking of supported institutions with the needs of lowresource agriculture. AID has also been strengthening its information and evaluation systems since the early 1970s (30) and it can go farther in this direction. Two problems still plague this work. First, until an AID-wide data system is created that includes the Africa Bureau, the central bureaus, and the missions, it will not be possible to determine in full how much money is being spent to support agricultural development in Africa and how it is being spent. This problem is particularly acute for Public Law 480 local currency funding. Data currently available in different publications commonly are contradictory. Second, and more important, too little use is made of evaluations when designing new work. For example, a review of AIDs livestock program in Kenya between 1960 and 1984 found that the work failed to take advantage of lessons learned by the British and instead introduced technology without regard to the local environment or existing herding systems. When the AID projects began to fail, evaluations noted the need to address these two points. Yet this information was not used in the devel-

PAGE 156

153 opment of later livestock projects and these also failed, leading AID to drastically curtail its livestock work in Kenya. Part of the reason for poor design was the pressure to obligate an existing budget quickly, but more important was AIDs failure to draw on past evaluations to improve future work (16). AIDs moves towards decentralization; longer and more flexible support; and increased attention to sustainability, information systems, and the improved use of evaluation will all need to be reinforced if the agency is to play a more effective role in a resourceenhancing approach to African agricultural development. CHAPTER 6 REFERENCES 1. Baum, Warren and Stokes, Tolbert, Investing in Development: Lessons of World Bank Experience (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985). 2. Berg, Elliot, The Potentials for the Private Sector in Africa, Tony Rose (cd.), Crises and Recovery in Sub-Saharan Africa (Paris, France: Organization for Economic Cooperation, 1985). 3. Berg, Elliot, testimony at hearings before the House Subcommittee on International Development Institutions and Finance, Multilateral Development Bank Lending for Africa, 1986, Serial No. 99-95. 4. Blarcom, Bonni, Oweis, Jiryis, and Hansen, Dave, Staffing of University Contracts for Title XII Country Projects, Bureau for International Food and Agricultural Development Occasional Paper No. 8 (Washington, DC: U.S. Agency for International Development, May 1986). 5. Buddenhagen, Ivan W., Crop Breeding for Low-Resource Agriculture: Overview, Rice, Food Legumes, contractor report to the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, December 1987). 6. Carloni, Alice, Women in Development: AIDs Experience 1973-1985, Volume I, U.S. Agency for International Development Program Evaluation Report No. 18 (Washington, DC: U.S. Agency for International Development, April 1987). 7. Cernea, Michael, Farmer Organizations and Institution Building for Sustainable Development, Ted Davis and Isabelle Schirmer (eds.), Sustainability Issues in Agricultural Development, proceedings of the seventh Agriculture Sector Symposium (Washington, DC: The World Bank, 1987), pp. 116-137. 8. Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, International Agricultural Research Centers: Achievements and Potential, draft, August 1985. 9. Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, Technical Advisory Committee, Training in the CGIAR System (Rome, Italy: U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, 1986). 10. Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, Annual ReportConsultative Group on International Agricultural Research, 1986-1987 (Washington, DC: CGIAR Secretariat, September 1987). 11. Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, Technical Advisory Committee, CGIAR Priorities and Future Strategies (Rome, Italy: U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, 1987). 12. Cornia, Giovanni Andrea, Adjustment With a Human Face (Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1987). 13. Crawford, P,, and Barclay, A., Development Alternatives, Inc., AID Experience in Agricultural Research, A Review of Project Evaluations, U.S. AID Evaluation Discussion Paper No. 13 (Washington, DC: U.S. Agency for International Development, May 1982). 14. Culbertson, R., Sullivan, J., and Turner, H,, Development Associates, Inc., Arlington, VA, Lessons Learned from AID Program Experience in FY 1984, 1985. 15. Development Group for Alternative Policies, Aid for Just Development: Proposals for a New Development Assistance Structure, Washington, DC, 1987. 16, Dijkerman, Dirk, Agricultural Development in East Africa: An Assessment of AID Assistance to Kenya, MADIA Research Report No. 8 (Washington, DC: World Bank, December 1986), 17. Dione, Josue and Staatz, John, Market LiberaZi18 zation and Food Security in Mali, Michigan State University Agriucltural Economics Staff Paper No. 87-73 (East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, 1987). Donnelly-Roark, Paula and Hemmings-Gapihan, Grace, Incorporating Participatory Approaches in Institutions, contractor report pre-

PAGE 157

154 19. 20, 21 22. 23. 24. 25. 26, 27, pared for the Office of Technology Assessment [Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, December 1987). Esman, Milton, Principles and Concepts of Effective Institutions, contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, December 1987). Ghai, Dharam and Smith, Lawrence, Food Price Policy and Equity, John Mellor, Christopher Delgado, and Malcolm Blackie (eds.), Accelerating Food Production in SubSaharan Africa (Bahimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987). Gibb, Art, Links Between Private Enterprise and Low-Resource Agriculture in Africa, contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, December 1987). Goldensohn, Max, Harrison, Don, and Smith, John, Donor Influence and Rural Prosperity: The Impact of Policy Reform on Economic Growth and Equity in the Agricultural Sector in Somalia, U.S. Agency for International Development, Africa Bureau, Washington, DC, March 1987. Goodell, Grace, The Importance of Political Participation for Sustained Capitalist Development, Archives Europeennes de Sociologic, VO}. 26, No. 1, 1985, pp. 93-127. Gray, Harold, PVO Liaison, Office of Planning and Budget, Bureau of Program and Policy Coordination, U.S. Agency for International Development, personal communication, July 1987. Haggblade, Steve, Hazell, Peter, and Brown, James, Farm/Non-Farm Linkages in Rural SubSaharan Africa: Empirical Evidence and Policy Implications, World Bank Discussion Paper, Report No. ARU 67 (Washington, DC: World Bank, May 1987). Hansen, Gary, The AID Study of Impact on the Agricultural Sector by Institutions Created With Development Assistance Support: A Progress Report, 1986. Hoben, Allan, Director, African Studies Center, Boston University, Boston, MA, personnel communication, May 1987. 28, InterAction, Diversity in Development. U.S. VoZuntary Assistance to Africa (Turners Falls, MA: Pioneer Litho, Inc., 1985). 29. International Service for National Agricultural Research, Inventory of CGIAR Activities in 30. 31, 32. 33. 34. 35, 36. Sub-Saharan Africa (1986 ), draft (The Hague, Netherlands: The International Service for National Agricultural Research, April 1987). Johnston, Bruce, Hoben, Alan, Dijkerman, Dirk, and Jaeger, William, An Assessment of AID Activities to Promote Agricultural and Rural Development in Sub-Saharan Africa, Managing Agricultural Development in Africa Project Report 12 (VVashington, DC: The world Bank, 1987), Judd, M., Boyce, James, and Evenson, Robert, Investing Agricultural Supply: The Determinants of Agricultural Research and Extension Investment, Economic Development and Cultural Change vol. 35, No. 1, October 1986, pp. 77-113. Kilby, Peter and Liedholm, Carl, The RoZe of Nonfarm Activities in the Rural Economy, Employment and Enterprise Development Policy Analysis Discussion Paper No. 7 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Institute for International Development, 1986). Lancaster, Carol, Existing Models of Development Assistance to Low-Resource Agriculture in Africa, contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, December, 1987). Lele, Urea, Growth of Foreign Assistance and Its Impact on Agriculture, John Mellor, Christopher Delgado, and Malcolm Blackie [eds.) Accelerating Food Production in SubSaharan Africa (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987). Lele, Uma and Meyers, L., Growth and Structural Change in East Africa: Domestic Policies, Agricultural Performance and World Bank Assistance, 1963-1986: Part II, Activities of the World Bank in Kenya, Malawi, and Tanzania (Washington, DC: World Bank, 1987). Lipton, Michael, Agriculture and Central Physical Grid Infrastructure, John Mellor, Christopher Delgado, and Malcolm Blackie (eds,) Accelerating Food Production in SubSaharan Africa (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987). 37. MacKenzie, Debora, A Hoof-up for Africas Livestock, The New Scientist, No. 1566, June 25, 1987, pp. 38-39. 38. Mellor, John, Delgado, Christopher, and Blackie, Malcolm, Priorities for Accelerating Food Production in Sub-Saharan Africa, John Mellor, Christopher Delgado, and Malcolm Blackie

PAGE 158

155 39. 40. (eds.), Accelerating Food Production in SubSaharan Africa (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987). Murison, Sarah, UNIFEMS Activities in Connection with Round Tables, Country Programmed and RBAs NATCAP Exercise 1984 -1986, draft, February 1987. Murphy, Josette, Strengthening the Agricultural Research Capacity of the Less Developed Countries: Lessons From AID Experience, AID Program Evaluation Report No. 10 (Washington, DC: U.S. Agency for International Development, September 1983). 41. Rondinelli, Dennis, Development Management in Africa: Experience With Implementing Agricultural Development, AID Evaluation Special Study No. 44 (Washington, DC: U.S. Agency for International Development, July 1986. 42. Rosenthal, Irving, Tuthill, Janet, Bury, Robert, Frazier, Michael, Signposts in Development 43, 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. Management: A Computer-Based Analysis of 277 Projects in Africa, USAID Evaluation Occasional Paper No. 10 (Washington, DC: U.S. Agency for International Development, May 1986). Rukuni, M, and C. Eicher, (eds.), Food Security for Southern Africa (Harare, Zimbabwe: UZ/MSU Food Security Project, Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension, University of Zimbabwe, 1987), Sanford, Jonathan, Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, Washington, DC, Multilateral Development Banks: Legislation Affecting U.S. Participation, June 1987. Sanford, Jonathan, Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, Washington, DC, Multilateral Development Banks: Issues for the lot)th Congress, Issue Brief 87218, Jan. 12, 1988. Staatz, John and Eicher, Carl, Agricultural Development Ideas in Historical Perspective, Art Hansen and Della McMillan (eds,), Food in SubSaharan Africa (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc., 1986). Tendler, Judith, Turning Private Voluntary Organizations into Development Agencies: Questions for Evaluation, AID Program Evaluation Discussion Paper No. 12 (Washington, DC: U.S. Agency for International Development, April 1982. Timson, Sarah, United Nations Development Program, non-governmental organizations director, personal communication, July 1987. U.S. A~encv for International Develor)ment. 50 51 52 53, 54. 55. 56, 57. 58. 59. 60, 61, 62. Agricultural Development Policy Paper, Washington, DC, June 1978. U.S. Agency for International Development, Africa Bureau, Food Sector Assistance Strategy Paper, Washington, DC, October 1981. U.S. Agency for International Development, Bureau for Africa, Africa Bureau Strategic Plan, Washington, DC, April 1984. U.S. Agency for International Development, Center for Development Information and Evaluation, Program Review of the International Fund for Agricultural Development [IFAD), AID Evaluation Special Study No. 21 (Washington, DC: U.S. Agency for International Development, January 1985). U.S. Agency for International Development, Plan for Supporting Agricultural Research and Faculties of Agriculture in Africa, Washington, DC, May 1985. U.S. Agency for International Development, Blueprint for Development: The Strategic Plan of the Agency for International Development, Washington, DC, 1985. U.S. Agency for International Development, Development Effectiveness of Private Voluntary Organizations (PVOS), Washington, DC, February 1986. U.S. Agency for International Development, Board for International Food and Agricultural Development, Building CoZZeges of Agriculture in Africa: U.S. University Experiences and Implications for Future Projects, Occasional Paper No. 7, Washington, DC, May 1986. U.S. Agency for International Development, Bureau for Africa, U.S. Assistance Strategy for Africa 1987-1990, Washington, DC, June 1986. U.S. Agency for International Development, Bureau for Africa, Agriculture and Rural Development: Functional Review FY 1978-1987, Washington, DC, July 1986. U.S. Agency for International Development, Bureau of Science and Technology, Office of International] Training, Participant Training Information System Office, personal communication, Washington, DC, July 1987. U.S. Agency for International Development, Congressional presentation Fiscal year 1988, Washington, DC, 1987. U.S. Congress, House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on Africa, Foreign Assistance Legislation for Fiscai Years 1988-1989, part 6 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1987), U.S. Congress, Libary of Congress, Congres-

PAGE 159

156 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. sional Research Service, U.S. AID to Africa: The Record, The Rationales, and The Challenge, 1986. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Africa Tomorrow: Issues in Technology, Agriculture, and U.S. Foreign Aid, OTA-TM-F31 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, December 1984). U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Continuing the Commitment: AgricuL tural Development in the Sahel, OTA-F-308 (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, August 1986). U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Aid to Developing Countries: the Technology Ecology Fit, staff paper (Washington, DC, June 1987), U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Grassroots Development: The African Development Foundation, OTA-F-378 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, June 1988). U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, A.I.D. Oversight, hearings April 2124, 1986, Serial No. 99-782 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1986). U.S. Peace Corps, Congressional Presentation: Fiscal Year 1988, Washington, DC, 1987. Weidemann, Wesley, Koropecky, Orest, and Thomas, E., Zambian Agricultural Sector Policy Impact Assessment (Washington DC: U.S. Agency for International Development, March 1987). Wilcock, David, Roth, Alan, and Haykin, Stephen, U.S. Agency for International Development, Africa Bureau, Washington, DC, Cer71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. eals Marketing Liberalization in Mali: An Economic Policy Reform Assessment, March 1987. World Bank, Operations Evaluations Department, Institutional Development in Africa: A Re. view of World Bank Project Experience, Volumes I-II, Report No. 5085 (Washington, DC: ; The World Bank, May 1984). World Bank, Operations Evaluations Department, Tenth Annual Review of Project Perform> 1 ance Audit Results, vols. 1-111, Report No. 5248 [Washington, DC: The World Bank, August ~ 1984), zf, World Bank, Poverty and Hunger: Issues and Options for Food Security in Developing Countries (Washington, DC: The World Bank, February 1986). World Bank, Operations Evaluations Department, Annual Review of Project Performance ResuZts 1985, Report No. 6417 (Washington, DC: The World Bank, September 1986). World Bank, The WorZd Bank Annual Report 1986 (Washington, DC: The World Bank, 1986). World Bank, The World Bank Deve~opment Report (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986). World Bank, Western Africa Projects Department, West Africa Agricultural Research Review: WorZd Bank 1985-86 (Washington, DC: The World Bank, Feb. 28, 1987). World Bank, Eastern and Southern Agricultural Research Review (Washington, DC: The World Bank, April 1987), Yudelman, Montague, The World Bank and Agricultural DevelopmentAn Insiders View, WRI Paper No. 1 (Washington, DC: The World Resources Institute, December 1985).

PAGE 160

Part II: Promising Technologies Technology alone is not the answer to Africas need for food security, but it can play an important role in equipping the continent to meet the challenges ahead. Chapter 5 looked generally at the opportunities available to use technology to enhance low-resource agriculture in Africa. It concluded that the technologies offering the most promise for contributing to the food security of resource-poor farmers and herders share some common characteristics: they are technically and environmentally sound, socially desirable, economically affordable, and sustainable. By meeting this broad spectrum of conditions, a technology or technology package not only stands to be scientifically y successful (that is, it effectively increases production, reduces degradation, inhibits losses, or otherwise helps meet food production needs), but it is more apt to be socially acceptable. A technology cannot have a significant impact in the long term if it is not acceptable to and adopted by the people who must use it. Using the concepts outlined in this report, OTA identified a range of technologies that offer promise to improve food security in Africa. These technologies meet a variety of needs, from improving soil and water management to reducing post-harvest losses. The list is illustrative, not comprehensive. Chapters 7 through 11 examine these promising technologies, which fall into five general categories: l technologies to improve the use of soil and water resources, l technologies to improve cropping practices, l technologies to improve crop and livestock genetics, c technologies to improve the use of animals, and l technologies to reduce losses.

PAGE 161

Chapter 7 Improved Use of Soil

PAGE 162

CONTENTS Soil and Water Summary Technologies Technologies Potential Page Management. . . . . . . .........,.,..161 . . . . . . . . . . ,..,.$, .,.., 161 To Increase Water Availability .................,..,.,,16 2 To Deal With Excess Water. . . . . . ..,165 .,.,., ,,.,.$, ,,,..,. . . . . . . . ..,. O 168 Problems and Approaches . . . . . . . .,,.,.....169 Improving Soil Fertility . . . . . . . .. .. ... .,. ... .,170 Summary . . . . . . . . . ..................,170 Organic Fertilizers . . . . . . . . . . . ...171 Inorganic Fertilizers . . . . . . . ...............174 Potential for Improving Soil Fertility . . . . ................175 Problems and Solutions . . . . . . . ............177 Small-Scale Irrigation . . . . . . . ................178 Summary . . . . . . . . . ....................178 Gravity Diversion Systems . . . . . . . ..........180 Water-Lifting and Pumping Systems. .,,.,. ,,, ,, .,..,.,,...,,........181 Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..184 Problems and Approaches . . . . . . . ...,,,.,..185 Chapter 7 References . . . . . . . . . . . ..187 Box Box Page 7-1. Handpumps. . . . . . ., . . . . . .. ...183 Figures Figure Page 7-1. Contoured Microcatchments to Control Soil Erosion and Water Runoff. . . . . . . . . . . .. ....163 7-2. Three Types of Microcatchments . . . . . ..., . ..,164 7-3. Simple and Inexpensive Fanya juu Terraces. . . . . ....166 7-4. Increased Maize Yields in an Alley Cropping System Using Prunings From Leucaena ]eucocephala, a Nitrogen Fixing Tree, and varying Rates of Nitrogen Fertilization. . ., . ..., ., ., ., 7-5. Response of Maize to Nitrogen in Different Climatic Zones . Tables Table 7-1. 7-2. 7-3. 7-4. 7-5, 7-6. The Effects of Plowing and No Tillage on Soil and Water Loss The Effects of Mulching With Crop Residues on Water Runoff and Soil Erosion . . . . . . . Conservative Estimates of Biological Nitrogen Fixation Rates for Different Fixers . . ., . + . . . . ., .,..., 176 ..,,.. 177 Page ,,.,.. 168 ..,.,. 168 ,0,,,. 171 Effect of Manure and Commercial Fertilizer on Sorghum Yield at Saria, Burkina Faso . . . . . . ..................,176 Estimates of the Distribution of Small-Scale Irrigation Technologies in Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . .179 Distribution of Modern and Traditional Irrigation in Sub-Sahara Africa . . . . . , .184

PAGE 163

Chapter 7 Improved Use of Soil and Water Resources 161

PAGE 164

162 Technologies To Increase Water Availability Recession Farming In this traditional practice, crops are grown on saturated floodplains as the land becomes workable after annual floods. As the floodwater recedes, farmers use planting sticks to make shallow holes up to 1 meter apart as sites to plant seeds from several kinds of crops. The mixture of plants that emerge rely on flood water stored in the soil. The flood recession system works well for crops that have a short growing season such as many varieties of sorghum and millet. Only heavy clay-rich soils in low areas are suitable for this type of farming because they are flooded long enough to absorb sufficient water and have the physical conditions to retain it (48). Recession farming is used throughout Africa wherever possible because it is an efficient and productive system. It is common along major rivers as well as on the margins of temporary ponds and lakes that line tributaries (48). It is particularly important in West Africa, where the availability of water along the Senegal, the Volta, and Niger Rivers contrasts sharply with the otherwise arid conditions typical of the regions rainfed farming. Benefits of recession farming to resourcepoor farmers may be undermined by other development interventions to manage water. In particular, construction of large-scale dams that eliminate annual flooding downstream can seriously interfere with recession farming. These impacts seldom seem to be accounted for in calculating costs and benefits of large-scale programs. It may, however, be possible to reconcile these conflicts better and sustain future benefits of recession farming. For example, a controlled artificial flooding of the Senegal River is being attempted to enable farmers to continue recession farming in conjunction with developing new large-scale irrigation systems (21). Water Harvesting Microcatchment With these techniques a portion of land serves as a catchment area to produce runoff used for growing crops on the remaining land and for meeting human and animal water needs (11, 16,61,70). One approach uses modified furrows in which normal row spacing of crops is doubled, with the space between the rows sloped toward the plants. Excess runoff may be caught in a reservoir and used for supplemental irrigation. Microcatchments a few meters in size are also excellent conservation measures (75). They can be placed on the contour to form an overlapping network that conserves both water and soil (figure 7-1). Where it is difficult to determine the contour, small microcatchments in the form of Vs or half-circles can be positioned to catch runoff (figure 7-2). As with all technologies that concentrate rainfall, care must be taken to ensure that too much water does not collect during heavy rains. Provisions can be included to allow excess water to escape safely and thus provide protection against potentially severe erosion. Water harvesting microcatchments have been introduced into several places in Africa: Cape Verde, Burkina Faso, Kenya, and Niger (61,73). The Peace Corps and several private voluntary organizations (PVOs) have promoted their use

PAGE 165

163 Figure7-1 .Contoured Microcatchments to Control Soil Erosion and Water RunoffSOURCE J Tabor and B Djiby, Soil and Soil Management for Agriculture, Forestry, and Range in Mauritania, Mauritania Agricultural Research Project II, supported by the U S Agency for International Development (Tucson, AZ College of Agriculture, University of Arizona, April 1987).because the techniques are relatively inexpensive and individual farmers decide to use them.Building Bunds and Planting on the ContourPlanting crops in rows that follow the lands contour slows runoff and enhances infiltration (22). When ridges or bundsembankments of rock or soilare built to follow the contour of the land, the areas above and immediately be-low the barrier store more than normal amountsof soil moisture, Crops can be planted on the contour on gen-tle or steep slopes, although in steep terrain pro-visions must be made to allow excess water to escape during major storms to prevent the en-tire system or hillside from being washed out. For example, cross-dikes can be used to confine washout, or spillways can be included at regular intervals to carry away excess water (48). Bunds, on the other hand, are only feasible on gently sloping land. Large-scale, dirt bunding projects in Burkina Faso have increased crop yields and brought long-term soil conservation benefits (24). Stone-pile bunds used in the Yatenga plateau of Burkina Faso are even more promising. By introducing an inexpensive and simple device for determining the contoura transparent hose attached at both ends to poles marked at half-centimeter intervalsOxfam was able to improve on the tradi-

PAGE 166

164 Figure 7-2.Three Types of Microcatchments SOURCE: J. Tabor and B. Djiby, Soil and Soil Management for Agriculture, Forestry, and Range in Mauritania, Mauritania Agricultural Research Project II, supported by the U.S. Agency for International Development (Tucson, AZ: College of Agriculture, University of Arizona, April 1987), m = meter tional practice of using lines of rocks to slow runoff. The new bunds trap topsoil, organic matter, and seeds, and they have been successful in helping revegetate the barren, encrusted wasteland that now covers an estimated 15 percent of this area (26,89). Tied Ridges Tied ridges are a variation of the microcatchment approach for trapping and holding water. Again, ridges are built to follow the lands contour, but in addition, the furrows between ridges are linked by cross-ties (small dams) to create closed microbasins 1 to 5m long (see photo). The cross-ties are kept lower than the ridges so they act as spillways in the event of heavy rainfall. The small basins retard runoff so water has more time to infiltrate, and soil water storage is increased. This practice is particularly effective in areas not subject to highintensity rains, on freely drained soils, and on gentle slopes. Tied ridges often have been introduced in conjunction with fertilizers, resulting in significant yield increases. For example, research stations in Burkina Faso showed increases of 1,000 kg/ha for maize, 930 kg/ha for sorghum, and 570 kg/ha for millet using a tied ridge/fertilizer combination (23,68). However, on-farm trials in the same area only produced increases of 10 to 40 percent of research station results, and at these low levels the additional labor requirements discouraged use of the technology (49, 68). Recent work by the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) and the SemiArid Food Grains Research and Development (SAFGRAD) project suggests that a mechanical ridge-tier, using animal traction, adds little to farmers labor and can increase yields substantially (65). Purchasing and maintaining animals can be a problem, however. Animals must be strong enough to work at the beginning of the rainy season, yet most will be undernourished from having just endured the dry, hungry season. Even when built properly, tied ridges are susceptible to excess water buildup from heavy rainfalls. Rushing water can break over a succession of ridges causing deep rills or gullies. Under these circumstances, runoff control needs to be augmented with other practices such as drainage improvements or terracing. Tied-ridge technology was introduced into West Africa in the 1950s and is being actively researched (65). The technology is also present in the drier parts of eastern and southern Africa, including parts of Malawi, Botswana, and Tanzania (13,69). The techniques heavy labor demand has restricted its use in all of these areas, but this constraint should be lessened with the advent of the IITA/SAFGRAD mechanical ridgetier or similar devices. The increased soil moisture that results from tied ridges reduces the economic risks associated with purchase of commercial fertilizers, and fertilizer use, in turn, contributes to yield increases that can help pay for the cost of this combination of technologies.

PAGE 167

165 Tied ridges trap rainwater in this West African millet field.Technologies To Deal With are less expensive and easier to build. However, Excess Waterthey have many disadvantages including:Drainage PracticesSoils require drainage either because a high water table exists or because a relatively impermeable subsurface layer retards water infiltration, so the soil above the impermeablelayer becomes saturated. Saturated soil is poorlyoxygenated and prohibits root development for most crops. Subsurface drains, such as tile pipes, are an effective technique for lowering the water table. They are rarely used in Africa, however, because they are expensive and difficult to install. Open drains are common because theyl reducing the area available for production,l harboring weeds and rodents, requiring high maintenance, andl creating favorable conditions for numerous waterborne diseases if stagnant water remains in them, Open drains used on slopes can create an additional problem: if they are not lined or vegetated, or if poorly designed, they can be a cata-lyst for erosion and gully formation. In addition,problems worsen if the diversion channel is not large enough to handle major storms. In practice, most drains are underdesigned for a mul-

PAGE 168

166 titude of reasons, including: poor rainfall records, lack of space, high costs, and shortage of technical personnel to design and survey the drains properly. Therefore, erosion control using drainage is often ineffective. In fact, drains can aggravate problems because failed structures can allow sheet erosion to worsen into gully formation. Water-saturated soils also can be due to excessive rainfall which infiltrates the surface layer but is trapped by an impermeable layer below. Under these circumstances it is important to reduce the amount of incoming surface water. Diversion bunds or ditches, built on a slight diagonal to the contour, can be used to intercept runoff and divert it at a non-erosive velocity to a suitable disposaI point (74). Proper drainage can increase the availability of arable land substantially. In Rwanda, for example, where rural population densities arehigh, artificially drained lands along valley bot-toms are widespread and contribute signifi-cantly to the countrys food production. In addi-tion, because water tables remain close to the surface during the drier seasons, these zones often remain in production when adjacent lands are dry and idle (41).TerracingTerracing agricultural land is one approach to slowing water runoff. It is important in hu-mid areas to prevent excessive infiltration lead-ing to mass movements of saturated soil. Thus, adequate drainage must be provided in terrace design. Figure 7-3 shows an inexpensive and simple way to build a terrace:1. 2. 3.leave vegetated strips of noncultivated landspaced across the slope between cultivated areas; build a cutoff drain immediately along the lower edge of the noncultivated strip; and allow erosion on the upslope part of the field and deposition along the edge of the vegetated strips to create terraces over a 5to 6-year interval (86].Figure 7-3.Simple and Inexpensive Fanya juu TerracesOne place where terraces have reduced soil erosion is in the Kenyan Highlands, where they are termed fanya juu. More importantly from the farmers perspective, however, is that they also have increased crop yields. For instance,in Machakos, Kenya, maize production increased50 percent when terraces were installed. This increase probably resulted from the combination of soil saved and water and nutrients retained by terracing (40). Such substantial in-creases are essential to balance the construction

PAGE 169

167 costs of terraces and the planting space they take up. Fanya juu terraces are not new to Kenya. During the colonial period a large number of such terraces were built, often using forced labor. Largely as a backlash, the terraces were either destroyed or left to deteriorate by the people after Independence. However, encouraged by funding from a Swedish development agency, farmers have revitalized fanya juu terracing in certain areas and many farmers have continued these efforts after external funding ended. This suggests that the benefits now accruing to farmers are attractive enough to justify the labor needed to build and maintain the terraces. The Kenyan government has only needed to provide technical assistance to align the terraces, Unfortunately, fanya juu terraces can be built only where topsoil is abundant, and these areas are few. Labor requirements are considered too costly to construct and maintain these terraces in most areas (41). Minimum TiIlage, Mulching, and Other Soil-Conserving Vegetation Practices These practicesall of which achieve their benefits through the presence of an organic cover on the soilare among the most effective methods of conserving water and reducing soil erosion (36,37,39,41). In contrast to engineering methods, soil-conserving vegetation practices require minimal soil manipulation. Maintaining adequate cover is important particularly at the start of the rainy season in the humid tropics and always important in areas of steep slope ( >15 O ) (12). Where slopes exceed 15 degrees, vegetation and engineering methods, such as terracing, need to be integrated for effective soil erosion control (41). Some areas, however, are more valuable if left in natural vegetation. Steeply sloped watersheds, for example, may provide more important services than would be gained by converting them to agricultural land. Soil-conserving vegetation practices should be emphasized as the first approach for managing excess water given the general constraints on capital, labor, skills, institutions, and infrastructure existing for most resource-poor farmers, However, these practices inevitably involve trade-offs for the resource-poor farmer. Minimum tillage, sometimes called conservation tillage, involves seeding through crop residue or sod without plowing. Plowing and other forms of cultivation breakup the soil and temporarily increase water infiltration while lowering run-off. However, soon after being tilled, soil structure generally breaks down, decomposition of organic matter accelerates, and erosion potential increases(6). Minimum tillage is an effective tool against this erosion, By leaving a cover of vegetative material, the soil is less susceptible to wind and water. This technique also allows farming on steep slopes that are severely erosion-prone. For example, minimum tillage maize can be grown on a slope of 15 percent while allowing erosion of substantially less than 1 ret/ha (table 7-1) (27,36). Minimum tillage should be encouraged as a substitute for plowing throughout African humid areas. In addition to controlling soil erosion, the practice lowers the maximum soil temperature, helps maintain high levels of organic matter, and reduces the need for labor inputs during the planting season (36). Herbicide requirements for weed control are high, however, and these chemicals sometimes are not affordable or accessible to resource-poor farmers. Heavy herbicide use raises further concerns regarding environmental and human health, Plowing in arid areas sometimes is more appropriate than minimum tillage because plowing increases infiltration in compacted soils with low organic matter content (36,46,58). In minimum tillage systems, crop residues left behind from the previous seasons harvest act as a mulch and can reduce water run-off and soil erosion dramatically (table 7-2) (36). However, crop residues in Africa, such as cereal stalks, often are needed for fodder, cooking fuel, or building material. The amount of mulch can be increased by managing the crop sequences and combinations or growing a cover crop specifically for this purpose. Mulch material also can be brought in from elsewhere and added

PAGE 170

168 Table 7-1 .The Effects of Plowing and No Tillage on Soil and Water Loss a Water runoff (mm) b Soil erosion (ton/ha) b Maize grain yield (ton/ha) Slope No tillage Plowed No tillage Plowed No tillage Plowed 1% . . . . 11 55 0.0 4.5 3.6 50/0 . . . . 12 159 0.2 1 4.5 3.8 10% . . . . 20 52 0.1 4 4.0 3.6 15% . . . . 21 90 0.1 24 3.6 3.0 aMaize production at the international lnstitute of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria. The seasons rainfall (1973) was 526 mm. b mm = millimeters; ha = hectares SOURCE: Rattan Lal, Managing the Soils of Sub-Saharan Africa, Science, vol. 236, Mar. 29, 1987, table 6, p. 1073. Table 7-2.The Effects of Mulching With Crop Residues on Water Runoff and Soil Erosion a Water runoff (mm) b Soil erosion (ton/ha) b Slope No mulch Mulch No mulch Mulch 1% . . . . . 412 0 9 0.0 5% . . . . . 483 11 134 0.2 10% . . . . . 303 21 137 0.2 15% . . . . . 375 20 96 0.7 aResidues were applied 6 ton/hectare and the seasons rainfall was 1022 millimeters. b mm = millimeters; ha = hectares SOURCE: Rattan Lal, Managing the Soils of Sub-Saharan Africa, Science, vol. 236, Mar. 29, 1967, table 4, p. 1073. to the field. Alley farming (see ch. 8), for example, may serve as a source of tree prunings that can be used for mulch and other purposes (36). Animal manure is another source of mulch. Although obtaining and transporting large amounts of manure can be a serious obstacle, the benefits can be a key factor supporting a farmers decision to incorporate animals in the farming system. Potential The technologies discussed above could contribute to the sustainable use of soil and water resources. Although they commonly offer only a modest economic advantage in terms of increased production, especially during years with normal rainfall, they offer the great advantage of helping to stabilize production during years of too little or too much rainfall. Equally important is their long-term value in safeguarding the soil resources upon which future production will be based. Water availability can be increased and made more reliable in virtually all areas that suffer from inadequate or erratic water supply. A survey based on rainfall and soil data suggests that as much as one-half of the area in many arid and semi-arid countries could use water harvesting technology (l). During years of normal rainfall these practices will improve the soil but may not bring any significant increases in yield. However, in years with below average rainfall they can help stabilize production because they have improved the moisture retention capacity of the soil. Crop yields from a water harvesting scheme in Burkina Faso were little more than yields obtained from traditional farming methods in 1982 when rainfall was about 450 mm. But in 1983, a drought year, the yield from fields using the technology was 48 percent greater than on neighboring farms (61). In the Lake Region in Tanzania, results from 14 trials between 1939 and 1946 showed that cotton, maize, and sorghum yields in ridged plots were almost always higher than in flat cultivated plots. The only exceptions, 1942 and 1945, were years of above-average rainfall. Yields from ridged plots in the drier years were impressive, especially considering that the unridged plots suffered crop failure (6). These soil and water management technologies are relatively non-capital-intensive. Labor, for the most part, can be supplied by

PAGE 171

169 farmers during the off-season. Men, women, and children all can be involved in their construction, operation, and maintenance. These technologies also can be used to enhance the intensive production provided by small home gardens. For example, preliminary data collected in Cape Verde show that an intensive garden of only 500 square meters with adequate water for two crop seasons per year will provide all the food required for a family of six. Developing and storing water supplies to accomplish this is a realistic goal (48). Home gardens traditionally have been tended by women to produce vegetables, spices, and other specialty crops. Improved water management technologies will reduce the time spent carrying water from distant sources, and the surplus food and specialty crops produced can be sold in local markets, thus increasing the income available to women and their families. Problems and Approaches A major challenge facing agricultural development in Sub-Saharan Africa is the ability of poor rural populations to meet their immediate food needs without undermining the longterm sustainability of the resource base that supports them. The soil and water conservation technologies described above would involve investing resources today in order to provide continued benefits in the future. This trade-off could be very difficult for African farmers, as well as African governments, faced with immediate needs for short-term survival. While these problems are difficult to solve, some successes exist. For example, the Government of Rwanda and international conservation groups are cooperating to protect mountain gorillas and farmers water supplies despite pressure to clear forested park land for additional settlement. The Pare National des Volcans was Africas first national park, established in one of the poorest and most densely populated countries. One-half of the parks original area already had been cleared for agriculture by 1969 when deforestation was proposed for approximately one-half of the remaining area. Analysis suggested that clearing would provide land for only 3 months population growth under the most optimistic conditions. Further, studies showed that economic arguments existed for retaining the forested watershed, which provides clean water supplies for human and livestock consumption, keeps water tables high enough to enable local farmers to harvest multiple crops, even in the dry season, and which will be needed to ensure the full productivity y of a proposed hydroelectric dam downstream. Also, the park and the mountain gorillas have stimulated a major tourist industry, contributing approximately $1 million in annual revenue, Rwandas third largest source of foreign revenue and the fastest growing economic sector (50,87). The proposal to clear additional land was abandoned in 1979 and several steps were taken to ensure the parks protection. Guards were hired to stop wildlife poaching and gorillas were habituated to humans so that tourists could be assured of seeing them. Also, longterm education projects began to gain the support of local people. Thousands of Rwandans were educated regarding the significance of the park via posters, calendars, radio broadcasts, and slide and film presentations (87). Ultimately, the success of such projects depends both on ensuring that local people share in the benefits, as well as the costs, of conservation measures (e.g., by taking part in the tourist industry) and on providing alternatives for the people who would have gained land or income from other proposals. AIDs work in Latin America suggests that poorer farmers can successfully implement conservation projects when these factors are accounted for (85). Increased attention by development assistance agencies could speed development and implementation of small-scale water and soil management systems, but the approach would need to be long term. Site-specific adaptive research is needed to diffuse these practices successfully. One project entitled Technologies for Soil Moisture Management, funded by AIDs Science and Technology Bureau and implemented through the U.S. Department of Agricul76-578 0 88 5 : (JL 3

PAGE 172

170 tures Agricultural Research Service, is expanding its efforts in Africa and is planning on-farm trials to study the economic viability of several of these technologies (53). Pilot projects are needed in several locations to adapt the technologies to the different agroecological conditions of Africa. Newsletters, other publications, seminars, and workshops, for example, could link regional pilot projects and practitioners of the technologies (10). Improved and expanded extension efforts also will be required. Short courses could be provided in-country to increase the number of professionals and paraprofessionals skilled in using small-scale soil and water management methods (47). These conservation technologies stand to benefit from the more general research needs discussed in chapter 5. For example, farming systems research is needed to improve understanding of factors determining technology adoption rates. Another specific need is for a land classification system that can be used in tropical Africa. The Land Capability Classification developed for conditions in the United States (33) often has been applied to tropical areas (20), but generally is not suitable for African conditions. For example, the system classifies all lands with slopes greater than 7 degrees as unsuitable for cultivation. This is too restrictive for Africa, where manual cultivation is common and erosion potential is lower as a result. Other aspects of Africas farming systems, precipitation patterns, and soil attributes differ greatly from conditions for which the U.S. land classification system was devised (41). An applied land use classification system for Africa could build on the U.S. Department of Agricultures efforts to adapt the Soil Classification System and map Africas soils (8) but also should take advantage of indigenous methods of classifying the land according to its uses (75). 2This mate~ is ~~ Pdmfly on the OTA contractor report p~pared by P.L.G. l?iek, A.U. MOlwmYe, and Ms. MuA~Iw, international Fertilizer Development Center, Muscle $hoals, AL (app. A].

PAGE 173

171 arbuscular mycorrhizae, a group of naturally occurring fungi that live in association with plant roots, are not fertilizers per se but they are another biological means by which nutrient availability can be increased. These fungi improve plant roots ability to withstand drought and to absorb phosphorus from the nutrient-poor soils (82). The use of inorganic fertilizers, as well as organic fertilizers, will be necessary if Africa is to feed itself. Currently, inorganic fertilizers-phosphate rock and more highly processed commercial fertilizers-are used at very low levels in Africa (82). Numerous economic and institutional obstacles are responsible for the current low consumption rates and deter rapid increases in commercial fertilizer use. Development assistance could continue in its efforts to encourage increased use of commercial fertilizers, but it also could increase emphasis on organic fertilizer alternatives. These techniques are less capital-intensive than those that rely heavily on commercial fertilizers and substitute labor and management information for cash (15). An important long term benefit of these practices is that they increase soil organic matter-and soil organics act as sites to hold nutrientsthereby increasing investment returns from applying phosphate rock and more highly processed commercial fertilizers when available. Organic FertiIizers Biological Nitrogen Fixation Biological nitrogen fixation (BNF) is the process by which microbial organisms reduce or fix atmospheric nitrogen into a form usable to plants. Three categories of processes can be distinguished based on the biology of the microorganism: 1. 2, 3. Symbiotic: the micro-organism and the host plant form an intimate relationship beneficial to both partners; for example, Rhizobium-legume symbiosis and AzollaAnabaena symbiosis. Associative: the micro-organism is nonsymbiotically associated with root systems. Free-living: the micro-organism is completely independent; for-example, freeliving bacteria or blue-green algae. These processes are universal and their benefits accrue to farmers without active intervention. However, management decisions by the farmer concerning crop selection and farming practices affect the extent of these benefits. The quantities of nitrogen fixed vary widely, depending on crop and environmental conditions, but the benefits of biological nitrogen fixation in tropical regions can be substantial (table 73). It is generally accepted that nitrogen fixation of around 100 kg/ha/yr can be expected from the majority of grain and forage legumes. Higher levels are possible for Leucaena, other woody perennials, and forage legumes with a continuous growing season (18). In addition to the nitrogen provided through fixation, mulch from leguminous trees and shrubs returns accumulated nitrogen to the soil. Deep-rooted trees like Acacia extract nutrients that are otherwise beyond the reach of annual crops, while stabilizing the soil and reducing soil erosion (see ch. 9). These nutrients then enTable 7-3.Conservative a Estimates of Biological Nitrogen Fixation Rates for Different Fixers Nitrogen fixer Rate (kg N/ha/yr) b Grain legumes . . . . 50-150 Forage legumes and cover crops 100-250 Tree and shrub legumes . . 75-150 Anabaena-Azolla symbiosis . . 50-100 Non-symbiotic and associative nitrogen fixation . . . 10-30 Free-living fixers . . . . 5-15 aConsiderably higher rates than these have been reported in the literature, but OTA considers these rates more realistic for on-farm conditions. b kg N/ha/yr = kilograms nitrogen per hectare per year SOURCES: J. Halliday, Director, Batelle-Kettering Laboratory, Yellow Springs, OH, personal communication to OTA, 1987; P. Vlek, et al., Soil Fer tility Maintenance in Sub-Saharan Africa, contractor report to the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, December, 1987); J. Halliday and P. Somasegaran, Modulation, Nitrogen Fixation and Rhyzobium Strain Affinities in the Genus Leucaena, Leucaena Research in the Asia. Pacific Region, edited by the Canadian International Development Research Center (Ottawa: IDRC, 1983),

PAGE 174

172 rich the topsoil as fallen leaves decay and as manure from leaf-fed animals is recycled. The soil is also enriched indirectly when trees, rather than crop residues and manure, are used as the source of fuel for cooking and heating needs. The biologically fixed nitrogen available for crops may be less important than other benefits from BNF. When leguminous crops are harvested, between 60 and 90 percent of the accumulated nitrogen is taken from the system. In grain legumes, for example, the majority of fixed nitrogen is harvested with the seed, which on average contains twice the level of nitrogen than the plant as a whole (19) and makes a critical nutritional contribution to peoples diets. Probably no more than 60 percent of the nitrogen left in organic residues after harvesting is available for the next crop, or 6 to 24 percent of the total nitrogen accumulated by the plant (18). Thus, the principal benefit from legumes that are harvested arises from the fact that they can be grown without the addition of nitrogen fertilizer. Crops that are able to fix nitrogen are free in terms of outside nitrogen demand. The surplus they leave for the following crop is a small but significant bonus to the resource-poor farmer. In contrast, green manures nitrogenfixing plants specifically grown to be plowed or hoed into the soil rather than harvested can provide the majority of nitrogen needed for the subsequent crop. Leguminous trees and shrubs also can be used as a valuable tool in reforesting degraded lands (18). It would be difficult to find a farmer or herder in Africa who does not reap the benefits of BNF in one form or another. Scattered native leguminous plants grow on abandoned land, and many traditional farming systems include a leguminous crop in the rotation (e.g., millet/ cowpea and maize/cowpea in West Africa and maize/bean in East Africa). However, resourcepoor farmers and herders do not receive maximum benefits from BNF. The greatest potential seems to be in developing: l legume-based pastures for fodder production (see ch. 11); l increased use of leguminous trees in agroforestry systems, such as alley cropping (see ch. 8); legume-based cropping systems; and l increased use of Azolla in rice fields. Advanced research on related topics, such as gene transfers, primarily is occurring at institutions outside Africa and, if successful, may in time find its place in the African context. Current BNF technology is principally related to inoculating plants with effective strains of Rhizobium, selecting and multiplying the micro-organisms, and manufacturing and applying the inoculants. Little inoculant is used in sub-Saharan Africa. However, some inoculated legumes, such as soybeans, have been introduced from other areas and are routinely used by commercial farmers in Zambia, Kenya, Zimbabwe, and Rwanda (82). Azolla is a genus of small aquatic ferns that are capable of forming symbiotic relationships with a blue-green cyanobacteria, Anabaena azollae. The fern provides nutrients and a protective leaf cavity for the Anabaena, which provides fixed nitrogen for the fern. The Azolla/ Anabaena association thrives in the aquatic conditions present during rice production conditions that prohibit the growth of most legumes. The fern grows extremely quickly, doubling in weight every 3 to 5 days. When it is incorporated into the soil, this green manure is a rich source of organic matter, nitrogen, and other nutrients, many of which might otherwise have been washed away. In addition to acting as a soil amendment, Azolla suppresses weeds, can be used as fodder, and is even used to a limited extent for human consumption in Asia (45). The use of Azolla in rice production, a wellestablished practice in Vietnam and China, is only in an experimental stage in Africa. The West African Rice Development Association has led in the research and extension of this technology, but it still is only used by a few African farmers (81). Vesicular-Arbuscular Mycorrhizae Mycorrhizae are beneficial species of fungi that penetrate plant roots resulting in a symbi-

PAGE 175

173 otic relationship between these fungi and the host plant that can lead to increased crop yields. One typethe vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizae (VAM)are the most important group of these fungi for agronomic crops. Maize, cowpea, and onion, for example, cannot take up phosphorus from low-phosphorous soils unless their roots are infected with VAM. The VAM act as extensions of the plants root system, providing an increased surface area for absorbing nutrients. This is particularly useful for the more immobile nutrients such as phosphorus, zinc, and copper. Mycorrhizal activity is enhanced by the high temperatures, low moisture, and low phosphorus-conditions encountered in much of semi-arid and tropical Africa (34). VAM, like BNF, benefits farmers and herders in Africa through natural processes without deliberate management. Improvements in mycorrhizal technology will help farmers make efficient use of phosphorus from all sources in Africas phosphorus-poor soils, however. Unlike BNF, though, it has proven difficult to culture VAM on artificial media, and therefore it is best done using roots of susceptible plants (52). It is difficult, though, to obtain pathogenfree inoculum in quantity with these methods. Additional work needs to be done before VAM technology will find its entry into African agriculture. It seems that VAM is not likely to reduce the need for organic and inorganic fertilizer but is more likely to play a role in concert with those other inputs to improve efficiency of phosphorus use (82). Manure Manuring refers to the recycling of organic material so that the nutrients in animal and plant wastes are used to improve soil quality. Although this section focuses on the use of livestock wastes as manure, several other types exist. Night soil, human excrement, is an important source of soil nutrients in densely populated Asia, but its use is culturally unacceptable in much of Africa. Household litter containing organic wastes such as food byproducts also is a source of nutrients and its use in African gardens could be increased. Crop residues can improve soil fertility in addition to offering other benefits (ch. 7). Green manures are crops grown specifically to be plowed back into the soil. They sometimes consist of grasses, but since they more typically are legumes, they were discussed in the preceding section on biological nitrogen fixation. With the exception of green manures, which make inorganic minerals more accessible for plant growth, manuring does not, in itself, generate nutrients (57). The conversion of forage to manure (e.g., by cattle) results in a net loss of organic matter and minerals. For example, results from a study on a Rwandan farm show that 3.8 tons of dry forage containing 370 kg of minerals produces approximately 2 tons of dry animal manure containing only 300 kg of minerals (67). On the other hand, manuring is an important means of transferring nutrients from pastureland to cropland, or returning some of the nutrients that animals harvest to the field. The benefits are largely attributable to the increase in soil organic matter and include (5): l l l l l l l l improved soil macro-structure; increased water-holding capacity of the soil, particularly the topsoil; improved infiltration and erosion control; prevention of soil hardening; improved soil cation exchange capacity, of particular importance for the sandy soils of west and southern Africa; increased supply of slowly releasing inorganic nutrients; prevention of phosphate fixation by iron and aluminum oxides; and development of a favorable environment for microbial activity in the soil. Despite the relatively high number of animals per capita in Africa, the use of animal manure is not great. In arid areas where cattle husbandry is strictly nomadic, collecting dung is impractical and it would be uneconomical to transport this material to crop growing areas. Moreover, the wisdom of exporting nutrients from the low-fertility rangelands is highly questionable. Under semi-nomadic husbandry practices, however, an association can exist between herder and farmer, whereby cattle are

PAGE 176

174 allowed to graze crop stubble in exchange for their manure. This system has been shown to be more economical than if the farmers owned and managed the livestock (9). The practice can help maintain soil fertility, but is insufficient to allow sustained cultivation without additional nutrient input. Even on farms where crops and animals are produced, manuring sometimes is not common presumably because it is not economically viable (30,35). Manure requirements for crops are high (e.g., from 5 to 20 tons of fresh manure per hectare) (25), and managing manure is laborintensive and requires transport and tools. Therefore, manuring has more potential for use in vegetable plots and home gardens than in the larger, more distant fields used to grow cereals and other staples. The primary reasons for keeping animals are for security, traction, meat, or milk (see ch. 11), but manure can be a byproduct that makes the adoption of animals more attractive. The most effective means of collecting animal manure undoubtedly is by keeping animals stabled day and night. This yields about 8 times the animals weight in manure per year. Alternatively, the animal can be stabled only at night, in which case it produces 3.5 times its weight in manure per year (17). Inorganic Fertilizers Phosphate rock is not used abundantly in African agriculture, but can be a locally important fertilizer, especially on acid soils. It can either be applied directly or processed before use. Several factors affect plants ability to use phosphate rock. Some of these factors are related to the chemistry and mineralogy of the rock, others to the properties of the soil, or to the physiological makeup of the crop. The mineral can be used in several ways, in increasing order of the degree of processing required: 1. 2. 3. direct application of finely ground rock; development of granular forms of the rock to improve handling characteristics; combination of the finely ground rock with other materials such as elemental sulfur, manures, and compost; and Photo credit: Banoun & Caracciolo/U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization Farmers applying inorganic fertilizer to a yam field in Nigeria. 4. production of partially acidulated phosphate rock to improve volubility. The most processed forms involve substantial cost and energy to manufacture. The most highly processed forms of fertilizer, commercial fertilizers, are sometimes called conventional, chemical, petrochemical, or fossil fuel-based fertilizers. In addition to minerals found in rocks, commercial fertilizers use compounds present in fossil fuels as their raw materials. Fossil fuels are also used to supply the energy necessary to process the materials. Therefore, commercial fertilizers, especially those high in nitrogen, are comparatively expensive to produce. However, they can be an extremely convenient method of supplying minerals in forms very accessible for plant growth. Current commercial fertilizer use in SubSaharan Africa is the lowest in the world. The region contains approximately 7 percent of world population, but uses only 0.9 percent of world commercial fertilizer supplies. The average consumption rate is about 6.4 kg nutrients

PAGE 177

175 ha/year; by comparison, in 1983 the average consumption rate was 85 kg/ha/yr for the world, 33 kg/ha/yr for Latin America, and 81 kg/ha/yr for Asia (25). National consumption rates vary considerably in Africa, however. Three countriesNigeria, Zambia, and Zimbabweaccount for 50 percent of the total consumption in SubSaharan Africa. Much of this fertilizer is used on cash crops rather than on local food crops. With the exception of a few countries such as Nigeria and Niger, about one-half to two-thirds of the fertilizer is used on crops grown primarily for sale. All of the mineral resources needed to manufacture commercial fertilizers occur in varying amounts in Sub-Saharan Africa. Data suggest that adequate quantities of phosphate and nitrogen raw materials may exist, but potash and sulfur resources are inadequate to meet the regions needs (82). It is not known if exploitation of these resources is technically and economically feasible under present conditions. The advantages of using indigenous resources, even in times of adequate world supply, include supply security, foreign exchange savings, reduced transportation cost, and employment generation. Since phosphorus deficiency has been identified as a major soil constraint in Africa, national and international research organizations have shown interest in developing the deposits of phosphate rock that exist in 26 SubSaharan African countries (51). However, only two countries, Zimbabwe and Senegal, produce phosphate fertilizers in any significant quantity, and farmer use remains low despite efforts such as those in Senegal, Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger to provide farmers with phosphate rock at prices lower than imported fertilizer (82). Also, excluding deposits in eastern Senegal, Mali, and Niger, most of Africas known deposits are unreactive -their natural form is not conducive to plant uptake and therefore requires considerable processing. And in the dry, dusty, and windy environments of the Sahel, application of finely ground phosphate rockthe most effective formis too laborintensive. The full benefits of phosphate rock are realized for several years after application. This may mean that return to investment on the labor and capital costs is more favorable than initial calculations might suggest (53). However, farmers may find it difficult to capture these residual benefits unless they can develop appropriate crop rotations. Problems associated with farmer unwillingness to make such investments without secure land tenure can further undermine adoption of this practice (82). Potential for Improving Soil Fertility Organic Fetilizers Organic fertilizers can play an important role in ensuring that soil fertility is adequate for producing stable yields of African crops. One approach is BNF, which can be promoted through wider use of legumes in intercrops and rotations, agroforestry systems, and in fodder pastures, and greater use of Azolla in rice production. Even if a crop is not able to fix nitrogen, nutrient loss can be reduced by as much as 50 percent if crop residues are left in place or returned to the soil (82). Manures can increase yields substantially, but economic analyses have rarely been conducted. These analyses would be complicated because of the indirect effects of manuring on improving soil quality (29). Manuring can be expected to become more widespread in the future as animals become more fully integrated into farming systems. The decomposition of plant and animal wastes in soil has other important benefits: gradual release of nutrients and increased water retention. Furthermore, soil with adequate organic matter can take full advantage of phosphate rock and more highly processed chemical fertilizers, increasing yields beyond those obtained by adding organic matter or commercial fertilizer alone (table 7-4; figure 7-4). Inorganic Fertilizers The known reserves of phosphate rock that are economically accessible with current tech-

PAGE 178

176 Table 7-4.Effect of Manure and Commercial Fertilizer on Sorghum Yield at Saria, Burkina Faso Sorghum yield (kg/ha) a Treatment Without nitrogen With 80 kg/ha nitrogen Without manure. . . . . . . . 1,831 2,798 With 10 tons of manure per hectare . . 2,409 3,591 aKg/ha = kilogram per hectare. SOURCE: Christian Pieri, Food Crop Fertilization and Soil Fertility: The IRAT Experience, Approriate Technologies for Farmers in Semi-Arid West Africa, Herbert Ohm and Joseph Nagy (eds.) (West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University, 1985), table 11, p. 89. Figure 7-4.increased Maize Yields in an Alley Cropping System Using Prunings From Leucaena leucocephala, a Nitrogen-Fixing Tree, and Varying Rates of Nitrogen Fertilization Leucaena prunings and nitrogen fertilizer Nitrogen fertilizer without Leucaena prunings SOURCE: International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, IITA Research Highlights 1984 (Ibadan, Nigeria: IITA, 1985). nology are small in most sub-Saharan countries. However, these reserves are large enough to meet phosphate fertilizer requirements of some countries for decades. Significant yield increases are possible even using unprocessed phosphate rock. For example, the application of 30 kg P 2 O 5 /ha of indigenous rock in a trial in Niger almost doubled the yield of millet (from 300 kg/ha to almost 600 kg/ha). Similar results have been obtained in many coastal West African countries and in Kenya (2). Small-sized granulation of the fine rock powders (minigranules) using binders may be an effective way of avoiding the dust problems associated with using the fine powder. The adoption of this technology will depend on the cost of pelletizing. Reducing the amount of acid needed to digest the rocks fully (partial versus full acidulation) results in a product that is only slightly less reactive than the fully digested material. In several field trials in various parts of tropical Africa (2), partially acidulated products made from normally unreactive phosphate rocks produced similar yields as the fully acidulated superphosphate. Because savings exist in acid consumption during the production, products are expected to be cheaper than imported commercial fertilizers. Little question exists that Africa will have to increase its use of commercial fertilizers if it is to decrease the gap between food demand and supply. The ability of commercial fertilizers to increase yields is undeniable (figure 7-5), but two major concerns arise regarding their use in Africa. First, few economic analyses of fertilizer use under African conditions have been done, and those studies that do exist mostly reflect the ideal conditions found at agricultural research stations (e.g., deep plowing, complete weed control) (49). The high cost of commercial fertilizers and the variability of response under on-farm conditions, especially rainfed agriculture, argue for extreme caution when extending this technology to farmers with little margin for failure. Second, some studies of the long-term effects of continuous use of commercial fertilizer on the soil suggest that it can

PAGE 179

. 177 Figure 7-5. Response of Maize to Nitrogen in Different Climatic Zones 3,500 r SOURCE: Paul Vlek, A. Mokwunye, and M. Mudahar, Soil Fertility Maintenance in Sub-Saharan Africa, contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, December 1987). actually depress yields unless large amounts of organic material, such as animal manure, also are added to the soil. Trials in Burkina Faso showed steadily declining sorghum yields over 18 years due to soil acidification, potassium deficiencies, and aluminum toxicity (63). These findings tend to reinforce the need to view inorganic fertilizers as supplements to, and not replacements for, organic fertilizer. Low soil fertility is one of the principal obstacles to sustained crop production in Africa. Alleviating this constraint will require a concerted research and development effort. Current approaches to soil research are largely fragmentary and a coordinated effort is needed that addresses the problems and options of ensuring soil fertility maintenance in different agroecological zones. Increasing the use of organic fertilizers should bean integral part of this strategy. Optimizing the use of organic fertilizers is particularly important for those resource-poor farmers in isolated regions, where input delivery systems are problematic. Considerable opportunity exists to increase organic fertilizers use by expanding use of legumes in agroforestry and intercropping systems, and by better integrating crops and livestock in African farming systems (see chs. 8 and 10, respectively). Improving benefits of biological nitrogen fixation in African farming systems will require increased support for training African professionals and technicians, and increased research relevant to Africa, for example, on legumes in multiple-cropping systems. Such research and training could be supported through the funding of an international BNF Resource Center (18). Increased use of inorganic fertilizer also will be essential to meet Africas future soil fertility needs. The fertilizer sector in Africa is in its infancy. One constraint is the lack of consistent, long-term government and donor policies regarding fertilizer use. African governments are either ill-prepared or unwilling to create such policies. Donors sometimes exacerbate the situation. For example, until 1983, the policy in Rwanda was to reemphasize fertilizer use. FAO and the European Economic Community helped convince the government that fertilizers were an essential ingredient for the future and Rwanda proclaimed 1985 the year of the fertilizers. However, U.S. AID and its German counterpart, GTZ, adhered to the earlier policy that gave a low priority to fertilizer use. In the meantime, Rwanda still lacks a comprehensive, long-term plan for the development of the fertilizer sector (82). Most countries in Sub-Saharan Africa are facing fertilizer supply and demand problems (56, 90). Frequently, fertilizer is not available at the right time and place, and many countries are unable to meet even low fertilizer demands or reduce supply fluctuations. Factors contributing l l l l l l to low fertilizer demand include: low crop response; lack of knowledge on fertilizer practices; high fertilizer cost and lack of cash o r credit; high risk of losing money as a result of the variability in crop response and prices; low crop prices; and lack of complementary farm inputs such as fertilizer-responsive crop varieties, water, and insecticides.

PAGE 180

178 Successful fertilizer programs require soil fertility maps, geologic research on important mineral deposits, establishment of soil testing laboratories, formulation of soiland cropspecific fertilizer recommendations, and initiation of well-designed fertilizer demonstrations under farmers field conditions. At present, fertilizer recommendations for specific agroclimatic conditions, crops, farming practices, and soil conditions generally do not exist. Current government recommendations not only may be inappropriate but actually maybe counterproductive. Accomplishing these tasks would require a major commitment of resources. According to the International Fertilizer Development Center, an estimated 1,600 people per year are needed over the next 20 years to work in subSaharan Africas fertilizer sector, including fertilizer production, marketing, and use (82). Fertilizer research programs are likely to be more effective if they adopt a farming systems approach that emphasizes the economic feasibility of fertilizer use and includes on-farm trials. Effort should be directed at reducing variability in crops response to fertilizers, but economic analyses should not fail to include the risk associated with fertilizer use. Also, analyses should be realistic about portraying field not idealconditions. When farmers use fertilizers on their own fields, their financial returns typically are only one-half to two-thirds those gained under experimental conditions. In addition, farmers generally pay more for fertilizers than the official, government-sanctioned, price (49). In situations where economic analysis supports fertilizer use, credit may be needed. If so, providing credit at a market rate of interest should help reduce inefficient fertilizer use. As an alternate strategy, fertilizer sales on credit could be linked with crop marketing, that is, farmers could repay the fertilizer loan after harvest from receipts of crop sales. This idea has been used successfully by cooperatives in several Asian countries. Private traders, who are also fertilizer dealers, often practice such a sales strategy (82).

PAGE 181

179 Table 7-5.Estimates of the Distribution of Small-Scale Irrigation Technologies in Africa Type of system/location Number of users Area (in hectares) Number of schemes Channeled systems East African Highlands: Tanzania . . . . . . . N K a 117,000 NK Kenya. . . . . . . . NK 900 NK Malawi . . . . . . . NK 5,000 NK Madagascar Highlands . . . . NK 700,000 NK Middle & Lower Shabelle River (Somalia) NK 16,000 NK Poldered systems Upper Guinea coastal lowlands . . 700,000-900,000 NK NK South-east Lake Chad. . . . . NK 4,000 NK Water-lifting systems Sahel: Burkina Faso . . . . . . NK 6,200 600 + Chad . . . . . . . NK 2,500 NK Niger . . . . . . . NK 14,500 NK Coastal west Africa Gambia . . . . . . . NK 10,000 NK Southern Africa Zimbabwe . . . . . . NK 400 NK Mechanized water-pumping systems Zimbabwe . . . . . . . 7,000 4,700 67 Nigeria . . . . . . . . NK 800,000 NK Niger . . . . . . . . NK 36,500 500+ Sudan . . . . . . . . NK 140,000 NK Chad . . . . . . . . NK 8,000 NK a NK = not known SOURCES Compiled from a number of references in A.S. Waldsteln, Low-Resource, Small-Scale Irrigation In Africa: contractor report to the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA National Technical Information Service, December 1987) and AS. Waldstein, Personal communication, revisions to OTA contractor report, 1987 and less so of mechanized water pumping systems. To determine which technology to implement under given circumstances, planners and decisionmakers must take the following into account: l local ecology, hydrology, geology, and topography; l implementation and maintenance costs; l access to investment credits; l national pricing, import/export, and foreign exchange policies; l access to material, services, and inputs required to support the technology; l proximity and access to markets; l availability of and competition for labor; and l local systems of land and water rights. Small-scale irrigation could become an ing agricultural production throughout much of ing and stabilizing cropland productivity-are often sustainable for two terns generally are low, being more laborth the initiative to develop and maintain small-scale irrigation ment grows out of the users social system rather than being ects can avoid many of the health, environm scale projects {62,66,77). Development assistance can support small-scale irrigation through technical and socioeconomic research; training extensionists in management options and supporting their involvement in farming systems research; and fostering national and local credit programs for generating investment capital.

PAGE 182

180 Gravity Diversion Systems Channeled Systems Water is diverted into this type of irrigation system, from streams, springs, and lakes, by a network of channels. Individual fields are divided from each other and separated from the channels by low bunds. Fields are usually flooded by breaking the bund at one point to allow water to enter. The break is closed off with mud, wattle, or a sack filled with sediment at the end of watering. The water is being used, in effect, to extend the rainy season and reduce the risks of rain-fed agriculture. Irrigation, plus rainfall, typically allows more than one harvest per year. The system can be designed, built, operated, and maintained primarily with local labor, and the users can meet most institutional needs. Initial costs sometimes are not low, but operating costs typically are. The main locations using gravity diversion channeled irrigation systems are the highlands of East Africa and Madagascar, and the Middle and Lower Shabeelle Valley in Somalia. In Somalia, about half the land on the Middle and Lower Shabeelle is irrigated by gravity fed channels. The technique is used in Tanzania on an estimated 117,000 ha, or 82 percent of all irrigated land (55), and in Madagascar on 70 percent of the 1 million ha under irrigation (28). Gravity-fed channeled irrigation, by contrast, covers no more than 4 percent, 800 to 900 ha, of irrigated land in Kenya (31). Many of these systems, such as those along the Shabeelle River in Somalia, have been in existence at least since colonial times. They have fallen into disuse due to problems with water-borne disease, labor recruitment, migratory wage labor, land tenure problems, and unfavorable systems of justice and administration (14,31,60). The most important constraint to wider use, however, is that although investment requirements are small, returns on investment also are small. These systems do not include storage, so water is only available seasonally. Poldered systems are made up of an intersecting network of channels built on low-lying swampy plains to help conduct the inflow and outflow of water. The purpose of poldered systems of the Upper Guinea coast is to drain water to the sea in the rainy season and conduct saltwater inland, especially at high tides, during the dry season. Sea water is permitted to enter the polders in the dry season, after harvest, to maintain soil plasticity. Salts are leached from the soil by flooding the channels with fresh water at the beginning of the next rainy season. After the soil has been de-salted, the polders are closed and crops planted. Farmers use the residual moisture from the river water in conjunction with rainfall to produce their crops (42,43,44). The poldered systems around Lake Chad are managed differently, They are created by building dikes to trap water between two islands in the lake. Water infiltrates the lake bottom and people plant in the exposed moist, heavy clays. Later, they open the dike to flood the land again

PAGE 183

181 and wash out accumulated salt (3). As with the channeled systems, the poldered systems are technically and institutionally within the control of the users. The cost of technology is low in cash terms, although labor costs can be high. Most existing poldered systems support subsistence production. Just as with channeled systems, poldered systems date back to or even precede the colonial era. However, the Lake Chad polders have fallen out of production in recent years. A succession of drought years has caused a major recession of the lakes shores and empoldered areas now may be many kilometers from the waters edge. In addition, many polders in Guinea-Bissau were destroyed during the war for independence, which ended in 1974. Polder technology is feasible only in wellwatered, lowlands with rich soils. Because of their particular ecological requirements, little extension of these systems is possible. Rain often is critical: in coastal areas, lack of rain means that saltwater will not be flushed downstream and salts accumulate; and in the Lake Chad region, without rain the lake level cannot rise enough to flood the polders. Polder technology is used mainly for subsistence. However, some production is on a large enough scale to produce substantial surpluses for market. Since the polders are virtually surrounded by water, these areas tend to have relatively easy water access to markets in areas where market roads may be lacking. Water-Lifting and Pumping Systems Water-Lifting Systems Water-lifting technologies available to resourcepoor farmers and herders include calabashes, buckets and pails, tin cans of various sizes, paddles, waterwheels and shaddoufs (a traditional water-lifting device), and handpumps. All of these technologies depend on a relatively high water table since they use human or animal energy to lift water from hand-dug wells into the main channel of the irrigation system. As a general rule, because of the physical limits of human drawing power, one well can irrigate Photo credit: George Honadle Water pumped by hand, by small engines, or by windmills provides irrigation for vegetable gardens such as this one in Botswana. only 0.25 to 0.5 hectares this way. The scale of operations made possible by a single well is so small that this irrigation technology needs practically no institutional support. These water-lifting systems are usually operated seasonally to supplement rain-fed food production or livestock herding. Also, they may operate during the dry season to produce highvalue crops for market, such as vegetables. However, sometimes small water-lifting systems are operated year-round for additional uses. In Chad, for example, in addition to the usual dry season crop of vegetables, maize germinates with help from a water-lifting system, then matures under rainfed conditions. Thus, water-lifting systems make possible a second cropping season and effectively extend the rainy season for staple food crops (83). Irrigation technologies that rely on human or animal power to feed water into the system are scattered across Africa, concentrated in low-lying areas where the water table is rela-

PAGE 184

18 2 tively close to the surface. They are especially common across the Sahel from Senegal to Sudan. In addition, a number of systems exist in northern Togo, northern Ghana, and throughout Burkina Faso. These systems are fed from village barrages (small dams) that store rainwater runoff. Water-lifting systems are relatively scarce in eastern and southern Africa where the water table generally is deeper and soils rockier and more difficult to penetrate with wells. Although the technology is not new, most of the water-lifting systems in Africa are relatively recent. They have developed rapidly in the Sahel since the onset of the series of drought years starting in the late 1960s. Systems in southern Mauritania date from the mid-1970s, and use of the shaddouf water-lifting devices in the Lake Chad basin dates from the same period. These recent systems are being used by small, scattered groups. Herders in Chad from the north and east came to the shores of Lake Chad to practice shaddouf cultivation when they lost their herds. People in northern Burkina Faso and southern Mali are using water-lifting technologies to grow potatoes to compensate for the drop in millet and sorghum production caused by recent dry conditions. Rural farm families using these systems tend to be less welloff than average (with the exception of the Niayes area in Senegal and some parts of Niger). Better-off families either had resources to invest in pumping or managed to preserve their livestock. Water-lifting technologies can be profitable where markets are nearby because of their low costs for construction, operation, and maintenance. Recent advances in developing inexpensive and reliable handpumps, however, are particularly encouraging (box 7-1). Even under these conditions, though, handpumps are often used only in the off-season to produce a small crop or during droughts. People may try to expand their operation by investing in pumping as market and production opportunities develop. Therefore, water-lifting technology can be considered a transitional step toward more intensified, highly mechanized, agriculture using handpumps. Mechanized Water Pumping Mechanized water pumping makes it possible to draw relatively large quantities of water from wells or rivers. Pumping schemes are operated by a wide variety of users, such as private entrepreneurs, cooperatives, and village organizations. The cost of buying, operating, and servicing the pumps makes this practice more expensive than other low-cost irrigation technology. Typically, only a minority of the local population benefits from pumping schemes because of the rigorous implementation requirements (e.g., initial investment costs). However, in some cases, whole villages are involved. Despite the expense, pumps are capable of generating significant returns for their users. Mechanized pumps, because of fuel costs, usually are operated only during the dry season to grow high-value crops for market. Also, mechanized water pumping systems tend to be concentrated within convenient transport distance of large markets. More than other lowtechnology irrigation, they need support services, such as trained mechanics, to stay in operation. Water pumping using small diesel engines to power pumps is the most widespread and rapidly expanding low-resource technology used in African irrigation, and examples are scattered Africa-wide (84). Their presence is a function of three factors: availability of water, access to credit for the initial cash investment, and access to lucrative markets. Water pumping systems are common along Africas large rivers; for example, at least 400 such systems exist in Senegal, Mauritania, and Mali along the Senegal River. People also pump water from lakes and holding ponds. The International Irrigation Management Institute estimates that private pumping schemes in Sudan provide water to 134,000 ha (28). These schemes in general are so dispersed or isolated that it has been impossible to survey them, but thousands of pumping systems, no doubt, exist throughout tropical Africa. Constraints to their wider use include the expense of purchasing and operating pumps, lack

PAGE 185

183 Box 7-1.Handpumps Manual pumps have long been recognized as one of the most promising hardware options for village-level water supplies in most rural areas, but a variety of obstacles have hindered reliable handpump operation in many developing countries. Many imported models were simply too costly; spare parts were expensive and hard to get; breakdowns were frequent; and maintenance and repair systemswhere availablewere overly centralized and burdensome. As recently as a decade ago, the United Nations Childrens Fund (UNICEF) reported that at any given time 70 to 80 percent of handpumps installed in India were nonfunctional. The performance records for handpump projects in Africa were equally disappointing. However, handpumps do show promise. Through a network of field-testing activities in some 17 developing countries supported by a collaborative United Nations Development Program/World Bank project, a half-dozen countries across three continents are now producing handpumps locally. The handpumps project also has provided detailed information for a comprehensive manual which will aid in handpump selection, design, and use in countries throughout the developing world, From India to Malawi Beginning in the late 1970s, UNICEF supported local production of an innovative design called the Mark II which set new standards of reliability and cost-effectiveness at the village level. At least 150 million people in India are presently served with safe water supplies using almost half a million Mark II pumps. Soon, experiences and lessons learned in India were carried to a local production programme in Malawi under government and project sponsorship. The new Maldev design spread rapidly across the country. However, like the Mark II, the Maldev pumphead relied on fitted metal bearings which suffered rapid deterioration and were difficult to properly replace at the village level. From Malawi to Kenya A technical team in Nairobi, working with local manufacturers and the DuPont company, produced a modified Maldev design featuring injection molded plastic bearings. Working through other design problems with the Malawi pump, the Kenyan team began field-testing the Afridev pumphead, proving that the plastic bearing concept could be cheaper to maintain and easier to repair at the village level. The Kenya Water for Health Organization was enlisted to train rural women in proper use and maintenance of the prototype pumps. By the end of 1986, the first 200 Afridev pumps were rolling off the production lines, According to World Bank regional project officer, David Grey, the Afridev system represents a major conceptual breakthrough because: its designed to exploit the benefits of modern materials and technologies, especially plastics. It is suitable for local manufacture in developing countries. Its easily maintained using minimal skill and few tools. It features a universal small diameter, long stroke cylinder for all well depths, simplifying spare parts requirements and minimizing stress forces. The total cost of the complete pump assembly is no more than US$400, and most of the below ground components for the system are made of standard PVC plastic which is readily available in Kenya and other east African countries. The cost of locally-produced replacement bearings is only US$4 for a complete set. Back to Malawiand Beyond Through the collaborative network set up by the project, the improvements featured in the Afridev system were soon being carried back to Malawi. There they were integrated into the local manufacturing processes and taken to the village 1evel where women, once again, are becoming the central personnel for pump maintenance and repair. The Afridev design is also being adopted in Ethiopia and Tanzania where project officials feel confident that local production and use can begin in 1988. SOURCE: Anonymous, Handpumps Across the South, Cooperation South, No. 2, 1987, pp. 3, 17.

PAGE 186

184 of credit, shortage of spare parts, and local incapacity to repair equipment. Appropriate engineering is also a major shortcoming with many pumping schemes. The canal layout of many schemes is not well planned, and consequently, they distribute water inefficiently (84]. Potential FAO estimates that 5.3 million ha, or 4 percent of the land classified as arable and under permanent cultivation, are under irrigated cultivation in tropical Africa (77). From 43 to 50 percent of this could be considered low-resource agriculture (77,79) (table 7-6). The topography of Africa is not conducive to large-scale irrigation, in contrast to Asia, for example, which had at least 56 percent of the worlds irrigated cropland in 1981 (88). Other than the interior delta of the Niger River, no large alluvial plains exist in Africa with multiseason water supplies and soils with adequate clay content (84). Systems already exist in much of the limited area where large irrigation schemes are feasible. Therefore, the remaining opportunities for irrigation development in Africa are primarily of smaller scale (84). Small-scale irrigation can contribute to food security in a variety of ways: increasing crop or livestock production; l reducing risk of crop/animal failure by increasing dependability of water supply; l enabling the production of a second crop by lengthening the growing season; and l increasing income for the above reasons, including production of new crops, particularly vegetables. Small-scale irrigation projects commonly are less expensive than larger schemes (71,77), and may be less susceptible to health problems caused by disease-carrying organisms that flourish in standing water. Management needs for small-scale projects usually are easier to satisfy. Research organizations, development agencies, host governments, and users generally agree that these technologies have great potential under the right ecological and demographic conditions (84). FAO estimates expansion of irrigation through the year 2010 could average some 50,000 ha/yr. Rehabilitation of existing schemes would add 25,000 ha/yr and expansion of traditional and small-scale irrigation could reach 150,000 ha/yr (49,54,77). Among the low-cost irrigation technologies, diesel pumping has the greatest technical potential for increasing productivity and it can be used under the widest environmental conditions. However, it is also the most expensive and the most dependent on outside resources. Table 7-6.Distribution of Modern and Traditional Irrigation in Sub-Sahara Africa Modern and largeSmall-scale and & medium-scale traditional Total Regions* Million hectares Sudano-Sahelian Africa . . . 1,917 340 2,257 Humid and Sub-humid West Africa . 144 1,190 1,334 Humid Central Africa . . . . 18 60 78 Sub-humid & Mountainous East Africa. 282 910 1,192 Sub-humid & Semi-arid Southern Africa 308 150 458 Total . . . . . . . 2,669 2,650 5,319 Countries included in FAO regions. 1. Sudano-Sahelian Africa: Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Chad, Djibouti, The Gambia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Senegal, Somalia, Sudan. 2. Humid & Sub-humid West Africa: Benin, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Togo. 3. Humid Central Africa: Cameroon, Central African Republic, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Sao Tome & Principe, Zaire. 4. Sub-humid & Mountainous East Africa: Burundi, Comoros, Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Mauritius, Reunion, Rwanda, Seychelles, Uganda. 5. Sub-humid & Semi-arid Southern Africa: Angola, Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Nambia, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe. SOURCE: UN. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Afrlcan Agriculture: The Next 25 Years, Annex IV, Irrigation and Water Control, FAO, Rome, 1966, p, 16.

PAGE 187

185 The less expensive technologieschanneled, poldered, and water-lifting systemshave less potential for expansion, primarily because of environmental considerations, but all could be improved by technical assistance. Furthermore, these approaches can serve as first steps toward long-term intensification of food production. Access to markets for all these technologies would be an important incentive for users to incur the cash and labor costs of intensifying production (84). Small-scale irrigation could make a particularly important contribution in Africa because it decreases farmer vulnerability to droughtinduced crop failure by ensuring a more reliable water supply. However, increased costs and reliability of outside inputs have a strong bearing in defining the economic advantages of improved water supply schemes. Irrigation generally requires greater inputs of time, effort, and capital than rain-fed agriculture or livestock herding systems normally practiced in tropical Africa. Shortage of labor is cited as a major constraint to irrigation development in Africa, except in more densely populated areas where labor supply is readily available (84). Evaluating these sorts of considerations, as well as examining a range of water supply options that best accommodate local conditions, should precede efforts to extend irrigation technology. Caution is also needed when introducing small-scale irrigation to minimize problems of social inequities that irrigation technologies can create (4). Even under the best of conditions, low-resource irrigation will be possible only at particular sites that represent a relatively small part of the cultivable land. Pressures, tensions, and competition may develop around these sites for access to land. Avoiding such conflicts may require that local and national governments address complex and difficult land tenure issues. The impact and contributions to womens economic activities should also be specifically considered. Several factors have appeared in recent years to create a promising environment for the expansion of low-resource irrigation: l l l l l l African governments and development agencies are investing in it; the policy climate is becoming more favorable; production crises in many countries are motivating donors, host governments, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and local citizens to expand irrigation; the increasing priority of food self-sufficiency encourages expansion; the international research community has recently launched a series of research programs on it; and it is well-suited to diffusion through NGOs (84). Problems and Approaches Much agreement exists among African governments and development agencies over the necessity of developing the irrigation sector. The nature of this development is less clear, however. Many African nations envision new, large-scale irrigation projects (62). Yet, these types of projects are proportionately more costly and are associated with numerous health, environmental, and social problems (62,77). A growing consensus places increased emphasis on small-scale projects. However, development assistance has not given high priority to these low-cost irrigation technologies (84). The chief reasons are their locale-specific applicability and requirements and the high cost of administering the project relative to the other project costs and economic benefits. NGOs have an important role to play in the diffusion of low-resource irrigation technologies and can serve as intermediaries for AID and other large development agencies. NGOs are interested in, and well-suited to, assisting in the design and implementation of low-resource irrigation projects. Technical expertise varies greatly among NGOs, however, and many could benefit from technical assistance and support from the major development agencies (84). The potential for expanding low-resource irrigation systems in Africa stems in large meas-

PAGE 188

186 ure from the users ability to retain independence and flexibility in operating them. Keeping the costs of developing, operating, and maintaining the systems low is essential in this regard. Further, expanding the potential of lowresource irrigation technologies should enable adaptations to meet a diversity of conditions. This may mean devoting as much attention to human resource development as to construction activities themselves. Although small-scale irrigation is inexpensive locally, it will require significant levels of funding to reach its potential on a broad scale. The rough estimate provided by FAO for development of irrigation, largeand small-scale, calls for US$475 million per year, or a total of $12 billion through year 2010, while incremental operating costs of irrigation would amount to an additional US$130 million (77). Initiation of rural credit programs to underwrite individuals and groups to implement irrigation schemes is an important additional cost. Resources also will have to be allocated for research, training, extension, and policy support if small-scale irrigation is to have a large, beneficial impact. Rosearch Some research is underway. For example, the Club du Sahel is launching a study to update its research of almost a decade ago on irrigation in the Sahel, and this will treat low-resource irrigation for the first time. Funding levels will determine how quickly these other important topics will be addressed: l Farming Systems Research: To encourage wider adoption of low-resource irrigation technology, studies are needed of the role of irrigation in farming systems. Too often, studies are done on the management of irrigation systems, but not on the relation of this activity to other agricultural and non-farm activities. Such research could be a precondition for the design and implementation of an irrigation scheme. Farming system studies could catalog local resources, give a socioeconomic profile of beneficiaries, and evaluate their strategies for irrigation production in terms of risk aversion and long-term sustainability of production. Technical: More needs to be known about groundwater hydrology and surface water resources, including salinity levels and recharge rates. Frances Office of Overseas Scientific and Technical Research (ORSTOM, by its French acronym) carried out a series of hydrological studies in the Chad portion of the Lake Chad basin in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The U.S. Coastal and Geodetic Survey performed similar research in the mid-1960s in the Nigerian part of the basin. But reliable hydrological data are unavailable for much of Africa. Extension of low-resource irrigation will have to be pursued cautiously in the absence of information on water supplies. Training and Extension Services Beyond the lack of knowledge and technical training in groundwater hydrology, the potential of irrigation technology suffers from a shortage of Africans trained in agricultural engineering, Villages, small groups, and private individuals without this expertise will find it difficult to obtain assistance in laying out efficient irrigation systems. Training is also needed to help develop new or modified low-cost technologies to increase the performance of low-resource irrigation systems. For example, this could include ways to increase the efficiency of using the shaddouf, or low cost ways to reduce water infiltration in canals. Researchers and funding also are needed to develop baseline data on the evolution of these technologies and to estimate their potential with increased confidence. Most African extension services are poorly prepared to mobilize local groups to design, build, operate, and maintain low-resource irrigation schemes. Extension personnel, in general, have not been trained to see low-resource irrigation as a system with complex relations to other aspects of socioeconomic life. For example, extension staff commonly have narrow, technical backgrounds and may not be trained

PAGE 189

187 in community organization. Yet, in principle, extension services would be the key link between irrigation planners and organized groups of beneficiaries. Policy Reform Several areas of government policy, in particular, tax policy, land tenure issues, and decisions on private versus parastatal control, have major effects on irrigation. Issues for African governments include: l Ensuring that inputs needed to foster irrigation and agricultural intensification are not so heavily taxed that they become unaffordable. Many African governments now are concluding that it is counterproductive to heavily tax imports that support food production. However, many need support in analyzing their tax policy for its effects on the extension of low-resource irrigation. l l Problems of land title and tenure can b e serious constraints inhibiting the growth of small-scale irrigation (84). Without secure land tenure, farmers are unwilling to make necessary investments to develop and maintain irrigation systems. Changes in land tenure regimes, however, should account for those shifting cultivators and pastoralists dependent on traditional o r communal systems of property rights. Similarly, provisions could be made to discourage land speculation that displaces poor farmers or herders in the wake of increasing land values resulting from irrigation projects, Improving the efficiency of many parastatal organizations or backing privatization efforts to transfer control from parastatal organizations to local organizations and other users. Many low-resource systems in Niger, Mali, Sudan, and elsewhere are excellent candidates for privatization (84). CHAPTER 7 REFERENCES 1. Bassiri-rad, H., and Matlock, W. Gerald, Water Harvesting: Potential Uses and Applicability to Arid and Semi-Arid Farming Systems, paper prepared for seminar series on Farming Systems Research/Extension in Arid Lands, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, March 1985. 2. Bationo, A., Mughogho, S. K., and Mokwunye, A., Agronomic Evaluation of Phosphate Fertilizers in Tropical Africa, A.O. Mokwunye and P.L.G, Vlek (cd.), Management of Nitrogen and Phosphorus Fertilizers in Sub-Saharan Africa (Dordrecht, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publ., 1986), pp. 283-318. 3. Bouquet, C., L Homme et les Plaines Alluviales en Milieu Tropical, Iles et Rives du Sud-Kanem (Tchad), Etude de Geographic Regionale, Travaux et Documents de Geographic Tropicale No. 13 (Talence, France: Centre dEtudes de Geographic Tropicale, 1974). 4, Bromley, Daniel W., Improving Irrigated Agriculture: Institutional Reform and the Small Farmer, World Bank Staff Working Paper No. 531, Washington, DC, 1982. 5. Charreau, C., Organic Matter and Biochemical Properties of Soil in Dry Tropical Zone of West Africa, FAO Soils Bulletin 27, U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, 1975. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10, 11. 12. Constantinesco, I., SoiZ Conservation for Developing Countries, FAO Soils Bulletin 30, U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, 1976. Davies, H. R. J., Tropical Africa: An AtZas for Rural Development (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1973), Day, John, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, personal communication, 1987. Delgado, Christopher, Livestock versus Food Grain Production in Southeast Upper Volta: A Resource Allocation Analysis (Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Research on Economic Development, University of Michigan, March 1979). Dregne, Harold E., Desertification of Arid Lands, Advances in Desert and Arid Land Technology and Development, vol. 3 (New York: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1983), Dutt, G. R., Hutchinson, C. F., and Garduno, M.A. (eds.), Rainfall Collection for Agriculture in Arid and Semiarid Regions, proceedings of a workshop by the University of Arizona and the Chapingo Postgraduate College, Mexico (London: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, 1981), E1-Swaify, S. A., Dangler, E. W., and Armstrong,

PAGE 190

188 13. 14. 15. 16, 17, 18 19. 20. 21. 22, 23. 24. C, L., Sod Erosion in the Tropics (Honolulu: Hawaii Institute of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, University of Hawaii, 1982). Evett, Steve, Soil and Water Science Department, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, personal communication to W. Gerald Matlock, 1986. Fleuret, P., The Social Organization of Water Control in the Taita Hills, Kenya, American Ethnologist, vol. 12, No. 1, 1985, pp. 103-118. Francis, Charles, Harwood, Richard, and Parr, James, The Potential for Regenerative Agriculture in the Developing World, American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, vol. 1, No. 2, Spring 1986, pp. 65-75. Frasier, Gary W,, and Myers, Lloyd E., Handbook of Water Harvesting, Agricultural Research Service Handbook No. 600 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1984). Gros, A., Engrais-Guide Pratique de la Fertilisation (Paris: Maison Rustique, 1967). Halliday, Jake, Agrotechnologies Based on Symbiotic Systems that Fix Nitrogen, U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Innovative Biological Technologies for Lesser Developed Countries Workshop Proceedings (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1985), pp. 161-182. Henzell, E. F., and Vallis, 1., Transfer of Nitrogen Between Legumes and Other Crops, A. Ayanaba and P.J. Dart (eds.), Biological IVitrogen Fixation in Farming Systems of the Tropics (New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 197). Higgins, G. M., Land Classification, Soil Conservation and Management in Developing Countries, FAO Soils Bulletin 33, U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, 1977, pp. 59-75. Horowitz, Michael, President and Director, Institute for Development Anthropology, Binghamton, NY, personal communication, May 1986. Hudson, Norman, Soil Conservation (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1971). International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Rapport AnnueZ, 1982 (Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso: Programme Cooperatif, ICRISAT, 1982). International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropic;, Rapport Annue], 1983 (Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso: Programme Cooperatif, ICRISAT, 1983). 25. International Fertilizer Development Center, Fertilizer Situation: Africa, IFDC Special Publication, IFDC, Muscle Shoals, AL, 1986. 26. International Institute for Environment and Development (II ED) and the World Resources Institute (WRI), World Resources 1987 (New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc., 1987), 27. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, 1975 AnnuaZ Report, Ibadan, Nigeria, 1976. 28, International Irrigation Management Institute, Second Exploratory Mission to Africa, Final Report, Digana, Sri Lanka, 1986. 29. jahnke, H. E., Livestock Production Systems and 30 0 31 32 33 34, 35 4 36( 37, 38. Livestock Development in Tropical Africa (Kiel, FRG: Kieler Wissenschaftsverlag Vauk, 1982). Kassemba, J. M. R., Semoka, J. M. R., and Samki, J. K., Organic Farming in Tanzania, Resource Efficient Farming Methods for Tanzania, Faculty of Agriculture, Forestry and Veterinary Science, University of Dares Salaam, Morogoro, Tanzania (Emmaus, PA: Rodale Press, Inc., 1983). Kimani, J. K., Small-Holder Irrigation Schemes: The Kenyan Experience, Malcolm J. Blackie (cd.), African Regional Symposium on Smallholder Irrigation (Wallingford, UK: Hydraulics Research Ltd., 1984), pp. 259-272, King, S. S., New Plans in the Works to Save the Good Earth, IVew York Times, Oct. 11, 1981. Klingebiel, A. A,, and Montgomery, P. H., Land Capability Classification, SCS Agricultural Handbook 21o (Washington, DC: Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1966), Kwapata, M, B,, and Hall, A. E,, Effects of Moisture Regime and Phosphorus on Mycorrhizal Infection, Nutrient Uptake, and Growth of Cowpeas (Vigna unguiculata [L,] Walp,), FieZd Crops Research, vol. 12, 1985, pp. 241-250. Kyomo, M. L., and Chagula, A., Role of Livestock in Organic Farming, Resource Efficient Farming Methods for Tanzania (Morogoro, Tanzania: University of Dar es Salaam, 1983). Lal, Rattan, Managing the Soils of Sub-Saharan Africa, Science, vol. 236, May 29, 1987, pp. 1069-1076, Lal, Rattan, Crop Rotation and Residue Management, contractor report to the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, December 1987). Lee, L. K., Land Use and Soil Loss: A 1982 Update, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, VO1. 39, 1984, pp. 226-228. Leopold, L. B., and Maddock, T., Jr,, The FZood 39. Con-troZ Controversy (New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1954). 40. Lewis, L. A., Assessing Soil Loss in Kiambu and Muranga Districts, Kenya, Geografiska Annaler, vol. 67A, 1985, pp. 273-284. 41. Lewis, Laurence A., Soil and Water Manage-

PAGE 191

189 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49 50 51 ment in the Humid and Highland Zones of Africa, contractor report to the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, December 1987), Linares, O. F,, Agriculture and Diola Society, P. McLaughlin (cd.), African Food Production Systems (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1970), pp. 194-227. Linares, O, F., From Tidal Swamp to Inland Valley: On the Social Organization of Wet Rice Cultivation Among the Diola of Senegal, Africa vol. 52, 1981, Pp. 557-595. Linares, O. F., Cash Crops and Gender Constructs: The Jola of Senegal, EthnoZogy, vol. 24, 1985, pp. 83-93. Lumpkin, Thomas A., and Plucknett, Donald L., AzoZla, A Low Cost Aquatic Green Manure for Agricultural Crops, U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Innovative Biological Technologies for Lesser Developed Countries Workshop Proceedings (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1985), pp. 107-124. Macartney, J. C., Northwood, P. J., Dagg, M., and Dawson, R., The Effect of Different Cultivation Techniques on Soil Moisture Conservation and the Establishment and Yield of Maize at Kongwa, Central Tanzania, Tropical Agriculture, vol. 48, 1971, pp. 7-17. Matlock, W. Gerald, Training to Improve Productivity in Arid/Semi-Arid Lands, Presented at Meeting of U.S. Committee on Irrigation, Drainage, and Flood Control, Reno, NV, November 1985. Matlock, W. Gerald, Five Small-Scale Water Management Technologies, contractor report to the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, December 1987). MatIon, Peter J., The West African Semiarid Tropics, John W. Mellor, Christopher L. Delgado, and Malcolm J. Blackie (eds.), Accelerating Food Production in Sub-Saharan Africa [Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987), pp. 59-77. McBee, S., Great Apes Get New Lease on Life, U.S. News and World Report, vol. 100, June 9, 1986, p. 74. McClellan, G. H., and Notholt, A., Phosphate Deposits of Tropical Sub-Saharan Africa, Paul L,G. Vlek and A. Uzo Mokwunye (eds.), Management of Nitrogen and Phosphorus Fertilizers in Sub-Saharan Africa (Dordrecht, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publ., 1986), pp. 173-223. 52, 53, 54. 55. 56. 57 58< 59. 60. 61. 62, 63. Menge, John A., Mycorrhiza Agriculture Technologies, U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Innovative Biological Technologies for Lesser DeveZoped Countries (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1985), pp. 185-203. Meyer, Ray, Office of Agriculture, Science and Technology Bureau, U.S. Agency for International Development, Washington, DC, personal communications, 1986, 1987. Moris, J., Thorn, D. J., and Norman, R., Prospects for Small-Scale Irrigation Development in the Sahel, Water Management Synthesis 11 Project Report No. 26 (Logan, UT: Department of Agricultural and Irrigation Engineering, Utah State University, 1984), Mrema, G. C., Development of Small-Holder Irrigation in Tanzania, M.J. Blackie (cd.), African Regional Symposium on Small-Holder Irrigation (Wallingford, UK: Hydraulics Research Ltd., 1984), pp. 307-316, Mudahar, M. S., Principal Policy Issues Facing the Fertilizer Sector in Africa: A Perspective, Paper presented at the FAO/FIAC Regional Seminar on Fertilizer Pricing Policies and Subsidies, Dakar, Senegal, Oct. 8-13,1980, revised. Neel, H., Fertilisation des Terres au Rwanda, Ambassade de Belgique a Kijali, Rwanda, 1986, Nicou, R. and Charreau, C., Soil Tillage and Water Conservation in Semi-Arid West Africa, Herbert W. Ohm and Joseph G. Nagy (eds.), Appropriate Technologies for Farmers in SemiArid West Africa (West Lafayette, IN: International Programs in Agriculture, Purdue University, 1985), pp. 9-32. Nye, P. H,, and Greenland, D. J., The SoiZ Under Shifting Cultivation, Technical Communication No. 51 (Harpenden: Commonwealth Bureau of Soils, 1960). Obarra, D. A., Irrigation Schemes in Arid Environments of Kenya with Special Reference to Perkerra Irrigation Scheme, Malcolm J. Blackie [cd.), African Regional Symposium on SmallHolder Irrigation (Wallingford, UK: Hydraulics Research Ltd., 1984), pp. 201-208, Pacey, Arnold and Cullis, Adrian, Rainwater Harvesting: The Collection of Rainfall and Runoff in Rural Areas (London, UK: Intermediate Technology Publications, 1986). Pearce, Fred, A Watershed for the Third Worlds Irrigators, New Scientist, May 7, 1987, pp. 26-27. Pichot, J., Sedogo, M. P., Poulain, J. F,, and Arrivets, J., Evolution de la fertilite dun sol fer-

PAGE 192

190 64. 65, 66. 67. 68, 69. 70. 71. 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, rugineux tropical sous linfluence de fumures minerales et organiques, L Agronmnie Tropicide, vol 36, April-June, 1981. Pimentel, David, et al., World Agriculture and Soil Erosion, Bioscience, vol. 37, No. 4, April 1987, pp. 277-283. Purdue University, International Programs in Agriculture, Cereal Technology Deve]oprnent West African Semi-Arid Tropics: A Farming Systems Perspective, final project report for the U.S. Agency for International Development [West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University, 1987). Reppetto, R., Skimming the Water: Rent-Seeking and the Performance of Public Irrigation Systems (Washington, DC: World Resources Institute, 1986). Richard, D., Etude de lAlimentation de la Vache en Stabulation a lEchelle de lExploitation Familial, Pro jet Kigali Est., Rwanda, 1984. Rodriguez, M., Rapport Annuel 1982: Programme dAgronomic du Mais du SAFGRAD/IITA (Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso: Semi-Arid Food Grain Research and Development Project with International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, 1982). Ruthenberg, Hans, Farming Systems in the Tropics (Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 3rd cd., 1980). Shanan, L., and Tadmor, N. H., Micro-catchment Systems for Arid Zone Development, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, and Center of International Agricultural Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture, Rehovot, Israel, 1979. Sparling, E. W., A Survey and Analysis of ExPost Cost-Benefit Studies of Sahelian irrigation Projects (Ft. Collins, CO: Dept. of Economics, Colorado State University, 1981). Swindale, L. D., Increasing Food Production in Semi-Arid West Africa, paper presented at International Centers Week, Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, Washington, DC, Nov. 3-7, 1986. Tabor, J. A., Soils and Soil Management for Agriculture, Forestry and Range in Niger, Pro jet Planification et Utilisation des Sols et Forets (PUSF), Republique du Niger, Niamey, March 1986. Tabor, Joseph A., Silver Spring, MD, personal communication, 1987. Tabor, J.A. and Djiby, B., Soil and Soil Management for Agriculture, Forestry, and Range in Mauritania, Mauritania Agricultural Research Project II, College of Agriculture, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, April 1987. U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 77. 78. 79. 80, 81 82, 83, African Agriculture: The Next 25 Years, Annex II, The Land Resource Base, ARC/86/3, FAO, Rome, 1986. UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), African Agriculture: The Next 25 Years, Annex IV, Irrigation and Water Control, ARC/86/3, FAO, Rome, 1986. U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Atlas of African Agriculture. African Agriculture: The Next 25 Years, ARC/86/3, FAO, Rome, 1986. U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Irrigation in Africa South of the Sahara, FAO Investment Center Paper No. 5, FAO, Rome, 1986), U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), Impacts of Technology on U.S. Cropland and Rangeland Productivity, OTA-F166 (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, August 1982). Van Hove, C., Diara, H. F., and Godard, P., Azolla in West Africa, Azolla Project, West Africa Rice Development Association (Court-St. Etienne: E. Oleffe, October 1983). Vlek, Paul L. G., Mokwunye, A. U., and Mudahar, M. S., Soil Fertility Maintenance in SubSaharan Africa, contractor report to the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, December, 1987). Waldstein, Alfred S,, A Hydro-Agricultural Zone in the Global Economic System-: The Constraints on Development in the Senegal River Delta, Ph,D Dissertation, Columbia University, New York, NY, 1984. 84. Waldstein, Alfred S., Low-Resource, SmallScale Irrigation in Africa, contractor report to the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, December, 1987). 85. Walter, Robert, Science and Technology Bureau, U.S. Agency for International Development, personal communication, 1986. 86, Wenner, C. G., Soil Conservation in Kenya (Nairobi, Kenya: Land and Management Division, Ministry of Agriculture, 1977). 87. World Resources Institute (WRI), The World Bank, and the U.N. Development Programme, Tropical Forests: A Call for Action, Part II, Case Studies, WRI, Washington, DC, October 1985. 88. World Resources Institute and the International Institute for Environment and Development, World Resources 1986 (New York, NY: Basic Books, 1986). 89. Wright, Peter, Water and Soil Conservation by

PAGE 193

191 Farmers, Herbert W. Ohm and Joseph G. Nagy 90, (eds.), Appropriate Technologies for Farmers in Semi-Arid West Africa (West Lafayette, IN: International Programs in Agriculture, Purdue University, 1985), pp. 54-60. Zalla, T., Diamond, R. B., and Mudahar, M. S., Economic and Technical Aspects of Fertilizer Production and Use in West Africa, Working Paper No. 22, International Fertilizer Development Center, Muscle Shoals, AL, 1977.

PAGE 194

Chapter 8

PAGE 195

CONTENTS Page Intercropping. $ . . . 00 . . . . ....................195 Summary . . . . . . . . .....................195 Various Types of Intercropping . . . . . . . .. ....196 Benefits of Intercropping . . . . . . . . ..........196 High Adoption Potential of Improvements ..........................19 8 Research Needs and Constraints for Intercropping ...................19 8 Agroforestry . . . . . . . . .....................200 Summary . .. .. .. .. .. .. $ . . . . ...................200 The Role and Nature of Agroforestry. . . . . . . . .201 Potential for Adoption. . . . . . . . .............204 Problems and Approaches . . . . . . . ..........205 Chapter 8 References . . . . . . . ................208 Box Box Page 8-1. Community Agroforestry in Somalia . . . . . .........207 Figure Figure Page 8-1. Growing Thirteen Crop Species on and Between Raised Mounds in Nigeria . . . . . . . . . . .............197 Tables Table Page 8-1. Examples of Common Intercrops in the Agroecological Zones in Sub-Saharan Africa . . . . . . . ..............196 8-2. Intercropping of cereals in Africa . . . . . ...........197 8-3. Possible Effects of Intercropping on Insect Pest Populations. ........199 8-4. Grain Yields Under the Crown of Acacia albida Compared to Grain Yields Outside the Crown. . . . . . ..................202

PAGE 196

Chapter 8 Improved Cropping Practices l l l l l 195

PAGE 197

196 Various Types of Intercropping Intercropping, as discussed in this chapter, is the growing of two or more crop species or varieties simultaneously in the same field. (This can include agroforestrythe use of trees in intercrops, which is discussed in the following section). Various types of intercropping systems exist: Mixed intercropping: a variety of crops are planted with no distinct row arrangement. l Row intercropping: crops are planted in rows, either adjacent rows of different crops, or mixed within the row. l Strip cropping: several rows of a crop are grown together forming a strip. Strips, each having a different crop or variety, are wide enough to permit independent cultivation, but close enough to interact agronomically. l Relay intercropping: growing two or more crops simultaneously during part of the life cycle of each. A second crop is planted after the first crop has reached its reproductive stage of growth but before it is ready for harvest. If crops are planted successively in the same year, but with no significant overlap in time, the system is called sequential cropping (7) 0 Food and export crops are grown as intercrops throughout all agroecological zones of Africa (table 8-l). National statistics rarely identify the production system, but studies clearly indicate that intercropping accounts for the majority of Africas agricultural production (table 8-2). In arid areas, two or three species commonly are mixed, but in wetter zones the systems become increasingly more diverse (47). The diversity of crops produced in the humid lowlands is illustrated in Zaire, where farmers sometimes grow 80 varieties of 30 different species. In one study, this included 27 varieties of banana and plantain and 22 varieties of yams and other root crops (13). In another example, Nigerian farmers designed a system of mounds which allowed them to plant crops with differing soil moisTable 8-1 .Examples of Common Intercrops in the Agroecological Zones in Sub-Saharan Africa Zone Crop mix Arid and semiarid millet/sorghum millet or sorghum/cowpea Subhumid uplands maize or sorghum/beans or cowpea rice/cassava Humid lowlands root crops/maize/food Iegumes/perennial crops Tropical and subtropical maize or sorghum/beans or highlands other food legumes bananas/coffee SOURCES: David J. Andrews, lntercropping in Low-Resource Agriculture in Africa, contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, December 1987); B.N. Okigbo and D.J. Greenland, Intercropping Systems in Tropical Africa, Multiple Cropping, R.I. Papendick, P.A. Sanchez, and G.B. Triplett (ads.), American Society of Agronomy PubIi. No 27 (Madison, Wl: American Society of Agronomy, 1976), pp. 63-101; D.R. Harris, Traditional Systems of Plant Food Production and the Origins of Agriculture in West Africa, Origins of African Plant Domestication, J.R. Harlan, J.M.J. De Wet, and A.B.L. Stemler (eds.) (Mouton, The Hague, 1976); Charles Francis (cd.), Multiple Cropping Systems (New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1966); K.G. Steiner, Intercropping in Tropical Smallholder Agriculture with Special Reference to West Africa, Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), Bonn, West Germany, 1982. ture requirements and thus greatly diversify their production (figure 8-l). Benefits of Intercropping Reduces Risk and Improves Production Stability A principal reason why farmers have adopted intercropping is that it reduces risk, i.e., it increases the reliability or stability of production (1,16,30,36,41). Millet, for example, is less susceptible to drought than sorghum, with which it is often intercropped. The two crops also differ in their susceptibility to diseases, pests, and weeds. Thus, growing both increases the likelihood that there will be some harvest regardless of the damage of that seasons pests or weather. If one crop dies, the remaining crop can help compensate for the loss by using some of the water and other resources that become available. Moreover, since different species usually are not planted at the same time, the farmer can compensate for the failure of the first crop by increasing the density of subsequent crops.

PAGE 198

797 Table 8-2.intercropping of Cereals in Africa (percent intercropped) Cereal Ghana Ivory Coast Nigeria Sierra Leone Uganda Maize . . . . . . 84 80 76 NA 84 Millet . . . . . . 87 81 90 NA NA Rice . . . . . . . 29 75 58 91 NA Sorghum . . . . . . 95 72 80 NA 46 NA=not available SOURCES: David J. Andrews, lntercropping in Low-Resource Agriculture in Africa: contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, December 1967). M. Rae, Cereals in Multiple Cropping, Mu/tip/e Cropping Systems, Charles Francis, (cd.) (New York, NY: Collier Macmillan, 1966). D.S.C. Spencer, Rice Production and Marketing in Sierre Leone, I.M. Ofori (cd,) Factors of Agricultural Growth in West Africa, Procedure of Internal Confer. ence, Accra, Ghana, 1973. Figure 8-1 .Growing Thirteen Crop Species on and Between Raised Mounds in Nigeria CaCassava PkPumpkin G Groundnut RRice LLagenaria D1Dioscorea rotundata PpPigeon pea D2D. alata VVoandzeia D3D. bulbifera CuMelon D4D. cayenensis MMaize SOURCE B. Okigbo and C. Greenland, Intercropping Systems in Tropical Agriculture, Multiple Cropping, R. Papendick, P. Sanchez, and G. Triplett (ads.), American Society of Agronomy Special Publication Number 27 (Madison, Wisconsin: American Society of Agronomy, 1976) pp. 63-101 Increases Yields Per Unit of Land by More Efficiently Using Natural Resources Intercropping also provides yield benefits over monocropping, usually measured as nutritional or economic gains, that can average 15 to 20 percent or in some cases more (51). One explanation for increased yields is that species and varieties differ to some extent in the resources that they need and how they obtain them (23). Differences among crops in their shoot and root geometry can allow mixtures of crops to exploit more of their environment than is possible in monocropping (48). Competition between crops in the same field can have a negative impact on production but this problem is reduced when the selected plants differ in their life cycles and critical growth periods. For example, pearl millet and a traditional cowpea variety are often intercropped in the West African Sahel. Millet is planted with the first rains, and cowpeas planted only when the millet is well established. As a result, cowpeas offer little competition to the millet. The cowpeas are at first suppressed by the millet but this is of little consequence since cowpeas can only begin to flower after the rains end. By then, the millet is ready to harvest. The cowpeas continue to grow and flower after millet harvest so long as stored soil moisture is available. If rainfall is below average, cowpea pod yields will be low, but there will be hay for animals. In good rainfall years, the system has the flexibility to use the extra moisture efficiently with repeated harvests of

PAGE 199

198 cowpeas. Thus, the total growing season, whether short or long, is used more fully. Intercrops containing legumes can help restore nitrogen to the soil. unless the legume is earlier maturing than the cereal, there is no immediate transfer of fixed nitrogen from the legume to the cereal, but there is the beneficial residual effect of the legume on the next years cereal crop. Legumes grown alone would also be able to add nitrogen to the soil, but the higher risk of increased damage by pests and disease can prohibit resource-poor farmers from raising them as monocrops. Increases Return s to Labor and Spreads Labor Requirememts, Thereby Reducing Labor Bottlenecks Another important advantage of intercropping is that it reduces labor bottlenecks and gives a higher return on the labor invested (35). Labor requirements are spread out because planting, weeding, and harvesting schedules are different for each crop. Furthermore, intercropping can reduce weed problems (6,13,20). In Nigeria, for example, a native legume has been intercropped with maize to suppress weeds. Since farmers in this part of Africa devote nearly half of their time to weeding and the amount of land a family can cultivate is normally controlled by how much family members can weed, intercropping can be very advantageous (3,21,35). Improves Control of Diseases and Insects Intercropped crops typically suffer less insect and disease loss than monocropped ones (5). Pest populations remain lower and they inflict less damage in intercropped systems (9, 43) (table 8-3). One reason for this is that the diverse crop environment provides shelter and necessary food sources for predators and parasites of the pest insects (42). In addition, pests and diseases damaging one crop may not be able to survive on other crops and intercropping decreases the number of plants on which they can live and makes those plants harder to find. Reduces Erosion and Runoff Intercrops can reduce water runoff and soil erosion where they provide more continuous coverage of the soil than occurs in monocropping. Also, the deeper layers of vegetation can reduce the impact of heavy rains and allow more water to infiltrate the soil (28,45). In one study, intercropping maize in cassava on a 15 percent slope reduced runoff and soil erosion relative to cassava alone by 38 percent (2). Windinduced soil erosion and damage also can be reduced with intercrops. For example, on sandy soils in western Sudan sesame is planted with sorghum or millet when the cereals are large enough to shield the sesame seedlings from abrasion by windborne sand. High Adoption PotentiaI of lmprovements The long history and widespread acceptance of intercropping by resource-poor farmers makes it an excellent candidate for development assistance. Unlike many other technologies, the potential of intercropping can be realized without many of the typical constraints involved in transferring technology from the research station to the farmer. Perhaps the strongest argument for improving existing intercropping practices rather than trying to substitute monocrops is that all interventions e.g., new varieties, fertilizer, pest and disease management, animal tractionhave a good chance of success when they build on an already familiar base (17). Research Needs and Constraints for Intercropping Despite increased attention to intercropping over the last 20 years, it remains inadequately researched. Currently, only an estimated 10 percent of AIDs research and extension efforts in agriculture involve intercropping (12). The knowledge base, research investment, and extension efforts for intercropping are insufficient given its prevalence and importance to food production as compared to monocropping. The low level of attention and funding derives from the negative attitudes concerning in-

PAGE 200

199 Table 8-3.Possible Effects of Intercropping on Insect Pest Populations Factor Explanation Example Interference with host-seeking behavior: Camouflage Crop background Masking or dilution attractant stimuli Repellent chemical of stimuli Interference with population Mechanical barriers Lack of arrestant stimuli Microclimatic influences Biotic influences A host plant may be protected from insect Bean seedlings camouflaged by pests by the physical presence of other standing rice stubble helps limit overlapping plants. damage from beanflies. Certain pests prefer a crop background of a Aphids, flea beetle, and Pieris rapae particular color and/or texture. are more attracted to crops, (e. g., cabbage) with a background of bare soil than to plants with a weedy background. Presence of nonhost plants can mask or Phyllotreta cruciferae (flea beetle) can dilute the attractant stimuli of host plants be diverted from collards to leading to a breakdown of orientation, intercropped wild mustard. feeding, and reproduction processes. Aromatic odors of certain plants can disrupt Grass borders repel leafhoppers in host-finding behavior. beans. development and survival: Companion crops can block the dispersal of pests across the intercrop. Restricted dispersal can also result from mixing resistant and susceptible cultivars of one crop. The presence of different host and nonhost pIants in a field may affect colonization by pests. If a pest descends on a nonhost it may leave the plot more quickly than if it descends on a host plant. In an intercropping system favorable aspects of microclimate conditions are highly fractioned, therefore insects may experience difficulty in locating and remaining in suitable microhabitats. Shade derived from denser canopies may affect feeding of certain insects and/or increase relative humidity which may favor entomophagous fungi which feed on pests. Crop mixtures may enhance natural enemy complexes leading to a greater abundance of natural enemies of pests in intercropping than in monocropping. SOURCE Compiled by M. Altieri and M Liebmann, Insect, Weed, and Plant Disease Management in Multiple Cropping Systems, Multiple Cropping Systems, Charles Francis (cd.) (New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1986), p. 186. Data from: V. Hasse and J.A. Litsinger, The Influence of Vegetational Diversity on Host Finding and Larval Survivorship of the Asian Corn Borer, Ostrinia furnacalis, IRRI Saturday Seminar, Entomology Department, International Rice Research Institute (lRRI), Los Banes Philippines, 1981 tercropping and the difficulty in researching it. Negative attitudes include the belief that intercropping is a primitive technology and the notion that intercropping can only absorb technical changes specifically researched for it. Such attitudes are inconsistent with research results however. A number of areas exist where intercropping can benefit from research designed for monocrops. For example, the responses of cereals to low levels of fertilizers are similar whether they are monocropped or intercropped. Row intercrops can also make use of advances in monocropping in such realms as new plant varieties, fertilizer and pesticide applications, and animal traction. Research on intercropping can encounter unique difficulties. In some cases this is simply a function of having been neglected. Intercropping is a relatively new research area and, therefore, a smaller knowledge base exists. In other cases it is more a function of understanding the complexity of intercropping and the multiple interactions of crop species. Addressing this complexity is difficult because the majority of plant interactions probably takes place below ground. The complexity is further increased as specific types of intercrops are often adjusted to meet social needs (e.g., labor constraints), therefore, efforts to understand intercropping as an agricultural system must also draw on social science research. As long as the majority of farms remain small, production per unit of land and labor will remain important and will favor the retention and improvement of intercropping. Specific intercrop combinations (though not the practice of intercropping itself) are relatively site-specific. Thus, improvements must necessarily come

PAGE 201

200 from research at the farm level. Areas for sitespecific research include: determining optimum plant densities, crop combinations, and relative planting dates, and the best means to provide plant nutrition through use of organic and inorganic fertilizer. l Notwithstanding the need to emphasize local research, the following general research areas are also important to the improvement of intercropping. Testing improved varieties for intercropping: Although the best approach would be to breed varieties specifically for an intercrop situation, this is a long-term solution (12). For now, improvements can be achieved by testing and selecting for the best combinations from the existing range of varieties (52). Incorporating animal traction with intercropping: This is important for cultivation, weeding, transportation, and manure production. It will lead to an emphasis on row cropping. Other problems associated with the incorporation of animals into farming systems also will have to be resolved (see ch. 11). Basic research: Apart from on-farm research designed to give results for quick use by extension services, a need exists to understand more clearly how intercropping workswhat is the nature of competition between species over the season, and what are the long-term environmental effects. An important research need is to understand competition for soil moisture and plant nutrients and resultant soil changes. Support could be given to institutions capable of using advanced research technologies such as neutron probes and isotopelabeled fertilizers needed to study belowground interactions (7).

PAGE 202

201 and hedgerows to mark field or garden boundaries, to control livestock movement, and to produce fuelwood and building material when they are pruned (53). Also, trees and shrubs can be planted on contour lines on sloping fields as a soil and water conservation practice. Linear plantings commonly are sited along roads, trails, and waterways (18). In addition to these benefits, which lead to higher and more stable crop yields because of improvements in soil and water use, trees in agroforestry systems supply several products to resource-poor farmers and herders. An important product for livestock production is fodder. The protein-rich prunings can improve animal nutrition, which is considered a major constraint to improving the health of African livestock (see ch. 11), Agroforestry can supply numerous other products that may be consumed directly by a household or sold to generate income (18,53). Agroforestrys contribution to the food security of resource-poor farmers and herders can be improved substantially. Development assistance for efforts to integrate agriculture, forestry, and livestock will be essential if this is to occur. Agroforestry programs have shown enough success to justify expanding such efforts, Key factors contributing to the potential importance of agroforestry systems are: 1) they fit well into existing African farming systems, 2) they meet numerous needs of resource-poor farmers and herders, and 3) these techniques are less capital-intensive than many other technologies. The Role and Nature of Agroforestry Agroforestry systems can help alleviate three of the most important constraints in African agriculturelow-fertility soils; insufficient, erratic water availability; and lack of animal fodder. Leaves from trees and shrubs, and to a lesser extent branches and roots, increase soil organic matter as they decompose. This organic matter improves soil structure, soil fertility, and soil water-holding capacity. The deep root systems of trees enable them to use nutrients in the deep soil layers. Some of these nutrients have leached down from the topsoil, a problem that is especially severe in degraded soils. The recycling mechanism of trees and shrubs brings these nutrients back to the soil surface where they again can become available to shallow-rooted annual crops (34,5 o), Trees and shrubs used in windbreaks can increase water availability y by reducing wind and thereby reducing evapotranspiration. Also, their vegetative canopies reduce the impact of heavy rainfalls, cut run-off, and thus increase infiltration of water into the soil. Also, more water remains available for plant growth because the shade provided by trees lowers soil temperature, which in turn acts to slow decomposition of organic matter (32). By improving soils and increasing water availability, agroforestry systems contribute to higher and more stable yields of crops and forage. Tree and shrub prunings also contribute to livestock nutrition. Since poor nutrition is considered a major constraint to improving animal health, the protein-rich browse possible from agroforestry is an important consideration in promoting its use. Agroforestry systems provide many of the products resource-poor farmers and herders formerly obtained from forests: firewood and charcoal; posts, poles, and construction wood; fruits, nuts and edible leaves; fiber for mats, baskets, and ropes; and plant materials for medicines, dyes, and cosmetics (18,53). These goods may either be used by the household or sold. These benefits of agroforestry will continue to grow in importance as remaining forested areas of Africa continue to succumb to human population pressures. Dispersed Field-Tree Intercropping Dispersed field-tree intercropping is the second most widely practiced general agroforestry technique in Africa, (Traditional shifting agriculture that relies on trees to restore soil fertility, is the most common,) Numerous vari-

PAGE 203

202 ations exist on the mixture of species and the patterns in which they are planted. The practice is used extensively by resourcepoor farmers in semiarid regions, particularly in West Africa, farm trees are grown within and adjacent to crop fields. When natural regeneration is relied on, the trees appear to have a random arrangement. When clearing the bush for a new field, certain species are preserved. These most commonly are food-producing trees (fruits, nuts, leaves, etc.) such as the shea tree (Butyrospermum parkii) or the locust bean (Parkia biglobosa). Such savanna species, however, commonly do not regenerate well under natural field conditions (18). Acacia albida is a particularly beneficial tree used widely in the semiarid areas of the Sahel. The most unusual feature of this nitrogen-fixing tree is that it loses its leaves during the rainy season, making it possible to raise crops, such as sorghum and millet, directly under the canopy of the tree with little competition for light. Crop yields are much higher under the tree than outside the canopy (table 8-4). Acacia albida also benefits livestock production. Its pods and leaves provide more fodder per unit weight than meadow hay, rice straw, or groundnut tops (11), and Acacia fodder is produced during the dry season when annual grasses have disappeared (32). In addition, livestock concentrate near the trees and their manure further enriches the soil (32). Where the proper balance has existed between Acacia albida, crops, and livestock, the system has been able to support several times Table 8-4.Grain Yields Under the Crown of Acacia albida Compared to Grain Yields Outside the Crown a (kilograms per hectare) Yield without Yield with Grain Acacia albida Acacia albida b Millet . . 810 1,110 Millet . . 457 934 Millet . . 820 1,250 Sorghum . . 457 934 aData is from Senegal and Burkina Faso. bTwenty-five to forty mature trees per hectare. SOURCE: Michael McGahuey, Impact of Forestry Initiatives in the Sahel: Effect of Acacia albida on Millet Production in Chad (Washington, DC: Chemonics International, January 1986). the average human population for Sahelian West Africa (39). For instance, millet was continuously cropped in Sudan for 15 to 20 years in association with Acacia albida, compared to only 3 to 5 years without the tree (32). Natural regeneration of Acacia is erratic and has declined over the past 20 to 30 years because of extended drought and grazing pressures. Few Acacia albida still exist in areas recently cleared for farming, but their number is slowly increasing in existing farm fields because some farmers are protecting the seedlings. It may take about 10 years before the new trees have much effect on crop yields, but the benefits last the remaining 70 to 90 years of the trees lifespan (25). Even on old fields where the tree is common, the tree cover is often far below that which would give optimum yields (18). The list of useful trees, however, does not end with Acacia albiba. For example, one investigation of trees and shrubs in the Sahel identifies some 114 multipurpose species. The use of Balanites aegyptica in agrosilvopastoral systems (i.e., that combine crops, trees, and livestock), or Acacia senegal in bush fallow systems, provides two more examples o f traditional production systems that integrate trees (38). However, a combination of factors is contributing to the decline of many species, including species that have historically provided food during recurrent and critical foodshortage periods, or products for local use and Photo credit: Mike McGahuey The millet growing under this Acacia tree in Chad is denser, taller, and greener than that in the foreground because Acacia increases soil fertility and water availability for the intercropped cereal.

PAGE 204

203 trade (44). Indigenous information on use of these resources is also being lost. Alley Cropping Alley cropping is a modern agroforestry technique developed from well-established traditional practices. Its precursor, the bush fallow system of shifting agriculture, is an indigenous form of agroforestry that has been practiced for centuries. Fields were cropped for several years followed by an extended woody fallow when deep-rooted trees and shrubs played a key role in restoring soil fertility. In the past, with low human population levels and land freely available, this represented an ecologically sound system of subsistence agriculture. Today, however, few areas remain where the population/land balance permits land to be left fallow for the necessary 15 to 30 years to restore fertility. Scientists at the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) incorporated the desirable features of bush fallow into a continuously productive farming system for the humid tropics. Rows of nitrogen-fixing trees or shrubs, such as Leucaena, Gliricidia, and Calliandra, are planted 2 to 4 meters apart, and the space between is planted in an annual crop like maize. The shrubs are pruned frequently, with the trimmings used as mulch, fodder, or fuelwood. Yields of maize stabilized at about 2 tons/ha after 6 years of continuous alley cropping; without alley cropping, the yield was no more than one-half ton/ha (24). An especially promising shrub for use on waterlogged soils is Sesbania rostrata, native to Africa. Rice yields were increased 55 percent with the addition of the Sesbania prunings, comparable to the addition of 120 kg nitrogen/ha (33). Although experimental results such as these indicate the technical feasibility of alley cropping, farmer acceptance and adoption is in the early stages of evaluation. Alley cropping is more labor-intensive than traditional methods and requires a considerable change in farming practice. Farmer participation in farm trials organized by IITA and the International Livestock Center for Africa has been enthusiastic, however (19). Of particular interest is the evidence of farmer adaptation and experimentation with introduced agroforestry systems, suggesting the ability to tailor systems to variable circumstances and needs (37). Alley cropping probably will find its greatest acceptance in areas where land scarcity is the most acute, that is, where shifting agriculture is no longer possible. It will require adaptive research for the seasonally humid and highland areas and major modifications before it can be used in the semiarid zone where water competition between trees and crops would be a constraint. Furthermore, none of the species used for alley cropping in the humid zone seem suitable for the non-irrigated semiarid zone, and likely alternatives are not readily apparent. This is especially true for hardy, fast-growing nitrogen-fixers (18). Windbreaks (or Shelterbelts) Windbreaks are uniform rows of trees planted in fields perpendicular to the prevailing winds to reduce evapotranspiration, soil erosion, and wind-induced crop damage. Windbreaks are a virtually unknown practice in traditional lowresource agriculture in Africa, but are receiving some attention among the development agencies. The Majjia Valley Windbreak Project in Niger is one of the most successful projects in the Sahel. The project, begun in 1975 with the assistance of the private voluntary organization CARE, has established about 350 kilometers of windbreaks to protect some 3,000 hectares of rainfed millet and sorghum fields (10). Early evaluations of this project indicate that crop yields had increased 23 percent, while a more recent estimate is that they increased 15 percent. Both estimates take into account the 6 percent of farmland lost to trees. The most likely explanation for the differing estimates is that the trees are now larger, depressing crop yields by causing more shading and competing for nutrients (53). The small average field size and the need to orient the windbreaks perpendicular to prevailing winds makes it impractical for an individual farmer to establish windbreaks. To be suc-

PAGE 205

204 cessful, a group of farmers, ideally an entire village as was done in the Majjia, must cooperate in the effort so that windbreaks can extend across adjoining fields. Another constraint in windbreak establishment is that they need protection from livestock. Livestock in semiarid regions usually are left to roam freely during the dry season. Windbreaks or other field plantings dispersed over large areas are difficult to protect from grazing. The villagers in the Majjia agreed not to allow grazing during the approximately 3 years required for the tree branches to grow out of the reach of livestock. This was enforced by guardians hired with project funds. Also, rights to the trees can be controversial; ownership of the windbreaks in the Majjia Valley and the distribution of wood products harvested from them are still unresolved 13 years after the projects start (18). The Majjia Valley project started out in response to a request for assistance from local villages. It began on a small scale working closely with forest service agents and villagers. The project has developed enthusiastic support from villagers who have seen the benefits firsthand. Now 60 farmer-owned, private nurseries exist in the valley and these help respond to requests for assistance from surrounding villages (19). Periodic partial harvesting of the windbreaks could make the participating villages largely self-sufficient for their wood needs (18). Live Fencing and Other Linear Plantings Another agroforestry approach is to use trees or shrubs to form live fences or hedgerows to mark field or garden boundaries and control livestock movement. These also can be pruned to produce fuelwood and building materials (53). Live fencing requires a large number of closely spaced plants and frequent pruning. The use of live fencing varies greatly between regions. In some places it is almost unknown, yet in the Fouta Djalon Highlands in Guinea there is a social caste who make their living establishing live fencing (18). Live fencing, although labor-intensive to establish, provides a low-cost alternative to metal fencing (27). Fences in the semiarid regions formerly were made with readily available thorn bushes chopped down and arranged where needed. With desertification and increased demands on resources, thornbushes are increasingly in scarce supply. Thus, live fencing could be advantageous, especially around dry-season gardens which must be protected from free-ranging livestock. Unfamiliarity with live fencing techniques seems to be a significant constraint in many areas. Other linear plantings do not necessarily have to be as densely planted or require as frequent pruning as live fencing. Encouraging the planting of multipurpose trees and shrubs along field margins often is easily achieved because many farmers want to define the limits of their property clearly. Field border plantings may be a first step toward more integrated (e.g., of crops, trees, and livestock) agroforestry techniques. A second step can be planting trees and shrubs on contour lines on sloping fields as a soil and water conservation practice, Linear plantings also commonly are established along roads, trails, and waterways (18). Potential for Adoption Agroforestry offers strong potential because it tends to fit well into existing African farming systems and meets numerous needs of resource-poor farmers and herders. Agroforestry can contribute to improved management of soil and water resources, leading to increased, more stable yields. The multiple benefitsfood, fodder, fuelwood, building materials, and incomepossible from agroforestry systems also can reduce pressure on natural forest and grazing lands. Agroforestry techniques are rarely capitalintensive compared to many other technologies, thus encouraging farmer and herder experimentation and adoption. If seedlings are provided by a service or project, the main inputs from the farmer or herder is labor. An important fringe benefit of agroforestry development is that by increasing soil organic matter it enhances effectiveness and reduces potential waste in commercial fertilizer applications. Most tropical soils are characterized by highly

PAGE 206

205oxidized, low activity clays that are unable to bind nutrients in a form usable to the plants. The addition of organic matter to the soil improves its ability to retain fertilizers until crops can make use of them. Newly developed, synthetic, water-absorbing polymers applied to form a water-absorbing layer at the root zone may prove to be instrumental in afforestation efforts, particularly in the arid/semi-arid zone. In experiments con-ducted in Sudan, the survival period of tree see-dlings was increased fivefold when polymers, able to hold 400 times their weight in water, were used in the soil mixture. The present sur-vival rate for tree seedlings in Sudan is no morethan 50 percent and in Ethiopia the performance is even worse, with only 15 percent sur-vival recorded among 500 million seedlings. Ata cost of 14 to 22 cents per tree, the new technique could be a cost-effective way of improving afforestation efforts (8). Despite its promise, development assistance agencies have become interested in agroforestry only recently. PVOs, and CARE in particu-lar, have been innovators in agroforestry. CARE has 13 agroforestry projects in 11 African coun-tries (26). Few projects are as much as 10 years old, but these have already made substantial progress toward developing stable, sustainable farming systems. It appears that development agencies have only scratched the surface of agroforestrys potential for improving the lot of the resource-poor agriculturalist in Africa.Problems and Approacheslntegrating AgricuIture, Forestry, and LivestockOne of the most serious obstacles to promoting agroforestry as a sustainable land-use system is institutional, The fact that agricultural education and administration typically are pur-

PAGE 207

206 sued along narrow disciplinary lines creates fundamental problems for agroforestryby definition an integrated production system requiring interdisciplinary research. In simplest terms, the dilemma this creates can be characterized the following way: Agroforestry is institutionally considered a sub-division of forestry. Forestry institutions deal with forestry and forest land. The major potential of agroforestry lies in the integration of trees into agricultural and pastoral lands. The development of these lands is the mandate of agricultural institutions. Agricultural institutions are not mandated to deal with agroforesty [29). Even forestry departments have until recently shown considerable reluctance in promoting agroforestry, Foresters now seem more willing to support agroforestry, realizing that farmers faced with insufficient crop yields will not devote land and energies to tree plantations solely for firewood production. Those few projects such as the Majjia Valley Windbreak Project that have involved tree planting on farmers fields to increase crop yields have enjoyed much greater success than projects that have just emphasized maximizing wood volume/ha/ year. The agriculture, livestock, and forestry services of most African governments are as strongly separated among disciplines as, and in part because they reflect, their Western country counterparts (53). The need to improve integration of these agricultural activities is particular important in the case of African agriculture. Such institutional changes cannot occur overnight, but increased integration and cooperation among disciplines could be strongly encouraged, among agricultural as well as social sciences. For example, development assistance could ensure that participation by all relevant government services be negotiated in the project planning stage, even though this may make the project administratively more burdensome. Funding could be provided for multidisciplinary agroforestry workshops that include foresters, agronomists, livestock specialists, and social scientists. The number of schools offering agroforesty courses in developed countries is increasing, but still is small. Probably no more than six universities in the United States offer instruction in agroforestry, usually a single, recently created, course (46). This shortage is paralleled in Africa. Development assistance agencies could support agroforestry courses as part of degree programs in tropical forestry. AID, for example, could provide funding to selected U.S. universities to develop or bolster agroforestry curricula. Support for regional agroforestry schools for the different agroecological zones could also be promoted. Obstacles of Land and Tree Tenure Farmers rarely will plant trees, let alone protect and care for them, if they have no assurance that they will reap the benefits. This makes agroforestry difficult for those farmers who lack secure rights to their land. Few poor farmers actually hold title to the land they cultivate, as central governments generally claim most of the land. In practice, however, most of the farmland is passed down from one generation to another and remains under family control (18). A large percentage of farmland in some areas is cultivated by families who borrow or lease farmland. The landowner in such cases may forbid tree planting by the tenant if local custom associates tree planting with land tenure rights. Lack of land and tree tenure is especially problematic for women, who could benefit greatly from having an improved, more accessible supply of fuelwood and fodder. Even where land tenure is well defined, land and tree rights may be separate. Communal farmland has also been the target of a number of efforts to mobilize tree planting efforts, but the track record of these efforts is not good. What belongs to the group is no one individuals responsibility, and the care and protection needed by young trees is too often lacking on communal lands (18). The problem can be particularly acute in the case of communal grazing areas. Development assistance efforts will be more successful when they take local landand tree-tenure practices into ac-

PAGE 208

207 count in the design of agroforestry projects. The rights to use the trees need to be defined as part of the project design. African governments may need to reassess their land tenure and forestry legislation if agroforestry is to reach its potential. Encouraging Investment in Agroforestry The payback period varies considerably for different agroforestry techniques. Alley cropping may start to improve yields during the first year or two. A live fence, if managed properly, may become effective in 1 or 2 years. Windbreaks may begin to produce results in 3 or 4 years. Some fruit trees used for intercropping may begin to bear fruit in 3 years. The shorter the period before benefits are realized, the more likely farmers are to invest scarce land, labor, and capital in agroforestry initiatives. Thresholds of investment are obviously highly variable and will depend on such factors as level of investments required, added risks that may be created, how and to whom benefits are derived, or previous experience with innovation. A better understanding of these economic trade-offs from the farmers point of view is in itself an important research area that could also help calibrate research priorities in experiment stations to what is needed and adoptable by farmers. Other agroforestry techniques may take much longer to produce a return on investment. For example, Acacia albida intercropping may yield few benefits for the first 10 years, although the long-term benefits may be very substantial, particularly in light of increasing demands being placed on the resource base. Few resourcepoor farmers have the luxury to approach investment decisions using such a long-term perspective, however. Under such circumstances, supporting agencies may need to underwrite costs until farmers and herders begin to realize benefits. Expanding markets for agroforestry goods also may provide incentives and support the sustainability of such efforts. In other cases, however, continued support may depend on more permanent forms of government incentives or restrictions, the costs and benefits of which should be viewed within the context of long-term national interests in sustaining the natural resource base. Support for Docentralizod, Locally Managed Nurseries Most seedlings for agroforestry plantings are produced in central nurseries, usually in cooperation with national forest services. Without development assistance, forest services of many African countries are incapable of producing and distributing the quantity of seedlings necessary for large-scale plantings. More importantly, many are not capable of helping large numbers of widely scattered farmers, each needing small-scale plantings. Even if farmers accept a particular agroforestry technique, it will do little good if they have no source for the required seedlings. Improving local capacity to produce seedlings would give farmers better control over access to desired tree species, and would greatly reduce the significant logistical and transportation problems involved with centralized nurseries. A few projects have begun to encourage and support the creation of local village, school, and private nurseries. The CARE Koro Village Agroforestry Project in Mali, the AID Community Forestry Project in Guinea, and the Somalia Community Forestry Project are examples (box 8-l). Box 8-1.Community Agroforestry in Somalia For the first time, women have become an important force in a major agroforestry project in northwest Somaliaan area hit hard by desertification and a fuelwood crisis. At least 7,000 people, including members of the Somali Womens Democratic Organization (SWDO), the National Range Agency (NRA), and local residents and refugees have learned a variety of skills that can be used in future development work. In addition to planting some 300,000 trees, skills have been learned for establish-

PAGE 209

. 208 ing and managing local nurseries, collecting and analyzing data, and coordinating large communitybased reforestation and conservation activities. Some 60,000 persons have benefited in 2 years. Associated enterprises include producing and marketing fuelwood and growing vegetables between rows of newly planted trees. The trees fix nitrogen in the soil; protect the vegetables from wind and soil erosion; and produce green manure, mulch, and firewood, The firewood provides fuel, and the vegetables improve diets, and both will be marketed by the women. Feasibility studies are also looking at beekeeping/honey production as another income-generating enterprise because the trees flowers attract large numbers of bees. The communities involved want to expand their forestry and agriculture activities. Plans for water reservoirs and irrigation systems are underway. The Overseas Education Fund (OEF) has provided extensive training to SWDO members and NRA extension agents in program design, implementation and management, technical agroforestry, and small business management and marketing to enable them to carry out programs in other parts of the country. Training materials have been published for use in similar efforts in the region. A factor in the success of this project is the government of Somalias recognition of the importance of conservation issues, This region of Somalia has suffered for many years from severe drought and desertification caused in part by mismanagement of natural resources. Because of the scarcity of trees, supplies of the regions most important source of fuelfirewoodwere very low and were further depleted by an influx of refugees from Ethiopia. In response to this crisis, the government developed a 5-Year Plan (1982-86) which gives anti-desertification and forestry top priority. OEF, in turn, launched this 2-year pilot agroforestry project with funding from AID. The refugees are mostly women and children who came from Ethiopia. While only 43 percent of the over 500 Ethiopian refugees and Somalis hired from the local communities are women, this is considerably more than the usual number of women engaged in paid manual labor in rural Somalia. This is probably the first time that the men in the project have had so many female co-workers, or that so many had access to training in technical and management skills. SOURCES: Overseas Education Fund International, Washington, DC, Press Release, Dec 11, 1986; OEF International Annual Report, 1986; OEF Internatlonal Final Report: Community Forestry for Refugee Related Areas, 1987 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. CHAPTER 8 REFERENCES Abalu, G. O., A Note on Crop Mixtures Under Indigenous Conditions in Northern Nigeria, Iournal of Development Studies vol. 12, 1976, pp. 212-220. Aina, P. O., Lal, R., and Taylor, G. S,, Soil and Crop Management in Relation to Soil Erosion in the Rainforest of Western Nigeria, Proceedings of National Soil Erosion Conference, Purdue University, 1977, pp. 75-84. Akobundu, 1.0., Live Mulch: A New Approach to Weed Control and Crop Production in the Tropics, Proceedings of the 1980 British Crop Production ConferenceWeeds, 1980, pp. 377-382. Altieri, Miguel A., Agroecology; The Scientific Basis of Alternative Agriculture (Boulder, CO: westview Press, 1987). Altieri, M. A., and Liebman, M., Insect, Weed, and Plant Disease Management in Multiple Cropping Systems, Charles A. Francis (cd.), Multiple Cropping Systems (New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1986), pp. 183-218. 6. Altieri, M. A., Letourneau, D. K., and Davis, J. R., Developing Sustainable Agro-Ecosystems, Bioscience, vol. 33, 1983, pp. 45-49. 7. Andrews, David J., Intercropping in LowResource Agriculture in Africa, contractor re8 port prepa~ed for the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, December 1987). Arthur, R., New Weapon To Beat Drought, South, No. 73, November 1986, pp. 127-128. 9. Bach, C. E., Effects of Plant Density and Diversity on the Population Dynamics of a Specialist Herbivore, the Striped Cucumber Beetle, Aca]ymma Vittatta (Fab.), Ecology, vol. 61, 1980, pp. 1515-1530. 10. CARE International, Journees de Travail sur

PAGE 210

209 11. 12, 13 14 15. 16, 17, 18, 19. 20. 21, 22 IEtude des Brise-Vent de la Majjia, Niamey, Niger, 1986. Charreau, C., Soils of Tropical Dry and Dry Wet Climatic Areas of West Africa and Their Use and Management, Lecture Series, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 1974. Francis, Charles, Challenges of Intercropping: Policy Issues, contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, December 1987). Francis, Charles (cd,), Multiple Cropping Systems (New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1986). Francis, C., Harwood, R., and Parr, J., The Potential for Regenerative Agriculture in the Developing world, American Journal ofAlternative Agriculture, vol. 1, No. 2, Spring 1986, pp. 65-75. Francis, C. A., and Harwood, R. R,, Enough Food, Special Publication, Rodale Press and Regenerative Agriculture Association, Emmaus, PA, 1985. Francis, C, A., and Saunders, J, H., Economic Analysis of Bean and Maize Systems: Monoculture Versus Associated Cropping, Field Crops Res., vol. 1, 1978, pp. 319-335. Fussell, L. K., Serafini, P. G., Bationo, A., and Klaij, M. C., Management Practices to Increase Yield and Yield Stability of (Pearl) Millet in Africa, J.R. Witcombe and S.R. Seckerman (eds.), International Pearl Millet Workshop, ICRISAT/ INTSORMIL, Patancheru, India, 1986. Hagen, Roy T., Agroforestry in Africa, contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, December 1987). Harrison, P., The Greening of Africa: Breaking Through the Battle for Land and Food, An International Institute for Environment and Development-Earthscan Study (Toronto: Paladin Grafton Books, 1987). Hart, R. D., The Design and Evaluation of a Bean, Corn, and Manioc Polyculture System for the Humid Tropics, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville, 1974. Helm, L., The Role of Weeds in Human Affairs, Weed Science, vol. 19, 1971, pp. 485-490. Horowitz, Michael M, The Sociology of Pastoralism and African Livestock Projects, Program Evaluation Discussion Paper No. 6 (Washington, DC: Agency for international Development, 1984). 23. 24. 25. 26. 27, 28. 29. 30, 31 32, Horwith, Bruce, A Role for Intercropping in Modern Agriculture, Bioscience, vol. 35, No. 5, 1985, pp. 286-291 Kang, B, T., Wilson, G. F., and Lawson, T. L., Alley Cropping: A Stable Alternative to Shifting Cultivation (Ibadan, Nigeria: International institute of Tropical Agriculture, 1984). Kirmse, R. D., and Norton, B, E., The Potential of Acacia albida for Desertification Control and Increased Productivity in Chad, Z3iologicaZ Conservation, vol. 29, 1984, pp. 121-141. Kramer, John M., Agroforestry in Africa, Testimony to U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment, Washington, DC, October 1985, Kuchelmeister, Guide, State of Knowledge Report on Tropical Hedges, Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit (German Agency for Technical Cooperation), Eschborn, FRG, 1986 (draft). Lal, Rattan, Managing the Soils of Sub-Saharan Africa, Science, vol. 236, May 29, 1987, pp. 1069-1076. Lundgren, B. O., and Raintree, J. B., Sustained Agroforestry, ICRAF Reprint No. 3, International Council for Research in Agroforestry, Nairobi, Kenya, August 1983, Lyman, J, K., Sanders, J. H., and Mason, S. C., Economics and Risk in Multiple Cropping, C.A. Francis (cd.), Multiple Cropping Systems (New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1986), Pp. 250-266. MacDonald, L.H. (cd.), Agro-forestry in the African Humid Tropics, Proceedings of a Workshop Held in Ibadan, Nigeria, Apr. 27-May 1, 1981 (Tokyo, Japan: United Nations University, 1982), McGahuey, Michael, Impact of Forestrv Initiatives in ~he Sahel: Effect of Acacia albida Tree on Millet Production in Chad (Washington, DC: Chemonics International, January, 1986). 33. Mulongoy, K., Potential of Sesbania rostrata (Brem.) as Nitrogen Source in Alley Cropping Systems, Biological Agriculture and Horticulture, vol. 3, 1986, pp. 341-346. 34. Nair, P. K. R., Soil Productivity Aspects of Agroforestry (Nairobi, Kenya: International Council for Research in Agroforestry, 1984). 35. Norman, D. W., Newman, M. D., and Ouedraogo, I., Farm and Village Production Systems of the Semi-Arid Tropics of West Africa: An Interpretive Review of Research, ICRISAT Research Bulletin No. 4, Pantancheru, India, 1981. 36. Norman, D. W,, Rationalizing Mixed Cropping Under Indigenous Conditions: The Example of

PAGE 211

210 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44, 45. Northern Nigeria, Journal of Development Studies vol. 11, 1974, pp. 3-21. Okali, C., and Sumberg, J. E., Sheep and Goats, Men and Women: Household Relations and Small Ruminant Production in Southwest Nigeria, J.L. Moock [cd.), Understanding Africas Rural Households and Farming Systems (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1986), pp. 166-181. Palmberg, Christel, Selection and Genetic Improvement of Indigenous and Exotic Multi-Purpose Tree Species in Dry Zones, Agroforestry Systems, vol. 4, 1986, pp. 121-127. Porteres, R,, The Improvement of Agricultural Economy in Senegal, African Soils, vol. 3, No. 1, 1954, pp. 13-57. Power, J. F., and Follett, R. F., Monoculture, Scientific American, vol. 256, No. 3, March 1987, pp. 79-86. Rae, M. R., and Willey, R. W., Evaluation of Yield Stability in Intercropping: Studies on Sorghum/Pigeonpea, Experimental Agriculture, vol. 16, 1980, Pp. 105-116. Risch, S. J., Andow, D,, and Altieri, M. A., Agroecosystem Diversities and Pest Control: Data, Tentative Conclusions, and New Research Directions, Environmental Entomology, vol. 12, 1983, pp. 625-629. Root, R. B., Organization of a Plant-Arthropod Association in Simple and Diverse Habitats: The Fauna of Collards (Brassica oleracea) Ecological Monographs, vol. 43, 1973, pp. !35-124. Sene, El Hadji, Trees, Food Production and the Struggle Against Desertification, Unasylva, vol. 37, 1985/4, Pp. 19-26. Siddoway, F, H., and Barnett, A. P., Water and Wind Erosion Control Aspects of Multiple Crop~in~, American Societv of A~ronomv SDecial 46, 47! 48, 494 50, 51. 52. 53. Publication No. 27 (Madison, WI: ASA, 1976), pp. 317-335, Steiner, Frederick, Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning, Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, personal communication to Roy T. Hagen, January 1987. Steiner, K. G., Intercropping in Tropical Smallholder Agriculture With Special Reference to West Africa, Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), Bonn, West Germany, 1982. Trenbath, Brian R., Resource Use by Intercrops, in: Multiple Cropping Systems, Charles A, Francis (cd.) (New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Co,, 1986), pp. 57-81. weber, Fred R., consultant, International Resources Development and Conservation Services, Boise, Idaho, personal communication, 1986. weber, Fred R., and Carol Stoney, Reforestation in Arid Lands (Arlington, VA: Volunteers in Technical Assistance, 1986). Willey, R, W., Intercropping-Its Importance and Research Needs, 1. Competition and Yield Advantages and 2, Agronomy and Research Approaches, Field Crop Abstracts, vol. 3, 197g, pp. 1-10, 73-85. Willey, R. W., and Rae, M, R., Genotype Studies at ICRISAT, R.W. Willey and C. Carver (eds.), [international Workshop on Intercropping, January 1979, ICRISAT, Patancheru, India, 1981. Winterbottom, Robert, and Hazlewood, Peter T., Agroforestry and Sustainable Development: Making the Connection, Ambio,, vol. 16, No, 2-3, 1987, Pp. 100-110.

PAGE 212

Chapter 9 Crop and Livestock

PAGE 213

CONTENTS Page Summary . . . ... ..m. o..t.., .+.m+.$..rc. ,.. .O+. Crop Breeding . . . . . . . . . . ... The Potential of Specific African Crops . . . . . .......215 Potential of Crop Breeding . . . . . . . . . ....220 Problems and Approaches . . . . . . . ~ ........221 Animal Breeding . . . . . . . . . . . ....226 The Potential of Specific African Animals . . . . . . ..227 Chapter 9 References . . . . . . . . ~ . . Boxes Box Page 9-1. Definitions of Common Breeding Terms . . . . . ......213 9-2. Biotechnologys Impact on African Agriculture . . . . . .222 Figure Figure Page 9-1. Potential Improvement Pathways for Traditionally Managed Small Ruminant Flocks on Maasai Group Ranches. . . . . . ..230 Tables Table Pag e 9-1. Grain Yield Per Hectare by Region, 1950-52 and 1980-82.............214 9-2. Research Expenditure as Percentage of Product Value, by Commodity, for Selected Countries indifferent Regions of the world . ......225 9-3. Endangered African Cattle Breeds . . . . . ...........229 9-4. Poultry Productivity Under Different Management Systems .........231

PAGE 214

Chapter 9 Crop and Livestock Genetic Improvement

PAGE 215

214 Table 9-1 .Grain Yield Per Hectare by Region, 1950-52 and 1980-82 Average annual yield (kg) Change Region 1950-52 1980-82 (percent) North America. . . . . 1,646 3,757 + 128 Western Europe . . . . 1,733 3,843 + 122 East Asia . . . . . 1,419 2,973 + 109 Eastern Europe . . . . 931 1,819 + 95 South Asia . . . . . 825 1,450 + 76 South America. . . . . 1,217 1,854 + 52 Africa . . . . . . 757 1,044 + 38 Australia* . . . . . 1,100 1,301 + 18 World . . . . . 1,186 2,247 + 89 Data are for 1981-83. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research, World Indices of Agricultural and Food Production, 1950-1983, unpub. printout (Washington, DC, 1984), cited in L. Brown and T. Wolf, Reversing Africas Decline (Washington, DC: Worldwatch Institute, 1985).

PAGE 216

215 l l l Several factors restricting wider use of improved varieties, for example, poor transportation and marketing infrastructure, will require a long time to resolve. In the meantime, affordable, immediate, and significant advances can be obtained by improving agronomic and livestock management practices for traditional or improved varieties [4,14,34,57). Since inefficient practices sometimes are the limiting factors, improvements in them may outweigh those from plant or animal breeding. Even so, the gains resulting from the use of these improved practices for improved varieties typically are greater than for local varieties. Crop breeding is the process of selecting traits from parent plants to produce offspring that are better according to some predetermined criteria. The most important objectives for crop breeding for resource-poor farmers in Africa include: l higher yielding under farmer conditions; l yield stability from season to season; l pest and disease resistance; l tolerance to environmental stress; l improved quality, storage, and ease of processing; and l adaptation to diverse cropping systems, including intercropping. Breeding objectives may differ according to clientele. A variety used primarily for home consumption (often grown by women) would probably concentrate on yield stability, storage and processing characteristics, and nutritional quality. When breeding a variety for cash generation (often produced by men), it maybe more appropriate to emphasize responsiveness to management and inputs. Maintenance research is necessary to sustain breeding improvements and it can require as much money and time as it took to develop the This material on crop breeding is based primarily on OTA contractor reports prepared by David J. Andrews, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE; Fred R. Miller and John A. Mann, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX; Sherman F. Pasley, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL; Ivan W. Buddenhagen, University of California, Davis, CA; Walter A. Hill and Conrad Bonsi, Tuskggee University, Tuskegee, AL (app. A). improvements initially (39). Also, when an improved variety is introduced into a new environment, a minor pest may cause unanticipated damage, necessitating additional research to improve host resistance. The Millet Potential of specific African Crops 2 Millet is grown on 15.5 million hectares in Africa, producing 8.8 million metric tons of food grains per year (47). Although it is often grown with sorghum in the arid/semi-arid zone, millet can be produced in areas too dry even for sorghum. Two speciespearl or bulrush millet (Pennisetum americanum) and finger millet (Eleusine coracana)native to Africa account for 95 percent of production, the former being about four times as prevalent. pearl millet is the only major food crop that can be grown on the sandy soils from Senegal to Sudan. It is also grown in the drier areas of eastern and southern Africa, but production there is only one-fifth that in West Africa. In contrast, fin2 Where the potentiaI of improved varieties is discussed, it is based on estimates of crop breeders contacted by OTA, and data on current yields from the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Estimates assume the use of improved seeds and improved management practices. These discussions are often framed around yield enhancement, but it is important to note that these yield estimates take into account improvements that also reduce losses to pests, drought, etc.

PAGE 217

216 ger millet is grown in the moister areas of eastern and southern Africa, principally in Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Malawi, Zaire, Zambia, and Zimbabwe (40). Alternative crops such as sorghum and maize are also commonly grown in these moister areas. Other African millet species are of restricted local importance; for example, Iburua or Fonio (Digitaria iburua) is an important famine food in several west African countries and Tef (Eragrostis tef) production is about 145,000 tons/year in Ethiopia. Millet production currently averages about 500 to 700 kg/ha/yr but this could be doubled in 20 years by a combination of new varieties and improved cultivation practices (4). Convincing theoretical, experimental, and on-farm evidence exists to support such claims (16). Genetic improvement could increase yields by perhaps 1 percent per year. Yield potential in unimproved varieties exceeds 3 tons/ha/yr (28,29). Currently, however, these landraces produce a low proportion of grain compared to total plant biomass, therefore much of the breeding effort is directed to improving this ratio. Higher yielding and disease-resistant varieties of pearl millet are now grown on half of Indias 11 million hectares. Yield increases of 20 percent were obtained over the last 2 decades from crosses between African germplasm and Indian breeder stocks. Similar sources of variability also have great potential in Africa but are more difficult to exploit because Africa faces greater disease and pest problems. A number of improved varieties have been released in Africa, but widespread adoption of these varieties has not occurred. However, the precise extent of adoption is not well-documented and the degree of farmer-to-farmer spread not known. It is doubtful that more than 10 percent of any African countrys cropland is planted in improved varieties, although this figure may be higher in Senegal (4). On-farm evidence shows that large differences in yield exist between adjacent fields belonging to different farmers. Since both receive the same rainfall, the major difference is attributed to management and previous cropping history. The best fields in a given locality already are giving double the average yield. Many agronomists agree that low soil fertility and inadequate, untimely management, not cropwater availability, are currently the major onfarm factors restricting production (16). Sorghum Sorghum evolved in north-eastern Africa some 2,000 to 4,000 years ago. The sorghum belt extends from approximately 7 to 15 degrees north latitude from the west coast to the east coast. It is the primary source of dietary energy for the majority of the regions poorest people. Although sorghum is thought of as a crop for arid and semi-arid regions, it is also important in some wetter areas: the highlands of East Africa from Ethiopia to Burundi and Rwanda; semi-humid areas of West Kenya and Uganda; and in areas of the Guinea Savanna in West Africa. It is the first or second most important cereal grain in much of Africa, sharing importance with millet throughout the arid/semi-arid zone and with maize in the wetter areas. Sorghum breeding is an art as old as the crop, but rather young in terms of modern science. The germplasm base is extremely broad, but still vastly underused, and since sorghum is of African origin, Africa stands to benefit greatly from additional research. Plant breeders do not agree on the extent to which current sorghum yields can be increased. Part of the disagreement arises because the estimates are derived from different starting points sorghum is grown under a wide range of environmental and management-intensive conditions. Based on a weighted average of U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization data for SubSaharan Africa, the average yield for sorghum is 780 kg/ha/yr (49). productivity in Sudan is about 20 percent lower than the average, while neighboring Ethiopia averages 1,350 kg/ha/yr (49). Gains of between 50 and 100 percent are possible on fertile soils with moderate rainfall simply by using existing improved varieties (34). The 100 percent estimate, a doubling of the current level, assumes 10 to 15 years of additional

PAGE 218

217 Photo credit: Dale Bottrell/Consortium for International Crop Protection Sorghum is an important cereal grain in most of Africa and its growers stand to benefit greatly from improved varieties. successful breeding improvements. Related improvements in management could result in yields of 4,000 to 8,000 kg/ha/yr in areas of reasonably good soil conditions, with yields reaching half this level on the acid soils of Mali, Niger, and much of West Africa (34). Other researchers are less optimistic, perhaps because their focus is on the difficulty of extending the entire package which consists of the new variety, new management practices, and increased use of inputs such as fertilizer. These more pessimistic views place possible production levels at between 1,500 to 3,000 kg/halyr using improved varieties and management practices (3,32,41). Sorghum hybrids are uncommon except in Sudan and Zimbabwe. The adoption rate for hybrids and other improved varieties in most of East Africa is only 5 to 10 percent, and it is even lower in West Africa (34). Some crop breeders believe that hybrid sorghum is appropriate only for a small area of Africa, and that research and extension efforts should reflect this, placing increased emphasis on improving non-hybrid sorghum varieties for most of Africa (34). Maize Maize, although not native to Africa, is planted on more land than any other cereal (56), and it is undoubtedly the most important grain in the subhumid tropical uplands and the highlands. Its ecological requirements overlap considerably with sorghum, but it is not as drought tolerant. Maize consumption tended to be restricted to urban areas in the past, perhaps because of food aid and imports. Increasingly, however, maize is becoming more widespread, a trend that is likely to continue given its productivity. Maize yields in different African countries vary dramatically but the average is 1,160 kg/ ha/yr (49). Countries that do not make wide use of improved seed typically average 600 to 700 kg/ha/yr, whereas in Zimbabwe where improved seeds are used the average is nearly three times higher (49). Estimating the potential increases in yield for low-resource farmers is difficult, however. Adoption rates for improved maize are generally high, so maize yields could double in many areas in the near future (17,38). The continued spread of hybrids that began in the mid-1960s should allow even greater increases (56,60). The area planted to hybrids in Kenya, Zimbabwe, and Zambia is exceptionally high, and can be attributed to the advanced infrastructure, incentives, and inputs that favor the use of improved maize in these countries. The estimated amount of land in Africa now devoted to Kenyan and Zimbabwean improved maize varieties could be doubled (49). Nigeria is making extensive use of diseaseresistant maize materials developed by the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture. In addition, recently developed Tanzanian and Zambian varieties and hybrids are streak-virus

PAGE 219

218 resistant and will be useful in large areas in neighboring countries (17). Breeders have had little success in increasing maize tolerance to drought, but several improved varieties mature more quickly than local varieties and, therefore, are less affected by the onset of the dry season. Rico Two species of rice are grown in Africa: Asian rice (Oryza sativa), which was introduced, and African rice (Oryza glaberrima). Rice is the fourth most common crop in Africa in terms of hectarage after maize, millet, and sorghum (56). It is grown throughout Africa wherever water is adequate, including river basins within the arid and semi-arid zone. However, it is a major food crop of only a few African countries. Three major forms of rice cultivation can be distinguished for Africa: dryland, wetland, and irrigated. Dryland (or upland) cultivation is practiced where rain is the only source of water. It comprises about 40 percent of the paddy production in Sub-Saharan Africas 15 major riceproducing countries. Wetland cultivation (e.g., in swamps, mangroves, and deep water) occurs in all four major agroecological zones and represents about 45 percent of paddy production. Only about one-sixth of the regions rice is produced using modern irrigation and, 60 percent of this occurs in just one country Madagascar (51). Dryland rice, which occupies about half the area planted to rice in Africa, is low yielding and depresses the 1,450 kg/ha annual average for rice in Africa (49). Some improvements have been bred into dryland varieties (60), and additional research emphasizing disease resistance is justified. Greater potential exists, however, for improving rice production in other agroecological zones (7). High-yielding varieties are used on approximately 4.7 percent of the area planted to rice (9). For these rice production systems, as for dryland rice production, breeding for disease resistance is important. Yields could be increased in many areas by improving water control, but significant problems hinder irrigation in Africa (see ch. 7). Expansion into wetland areas offers the greatest potential for production increases. However, current rice improvement efforts for Africa do not reflect this (7). Food Legumes A diverse group of legumes are grown as crops in Africa, including cowpeas, common beans, lima beans, soybeans, groundnuts (peanuts), bambarra groundnuts, pigeon peas, chickpeas, and a number of other minor species. One or more legumes grow in each agroecological zone, and many of these crops can be grown under a wide range of ecological conditions. Bambara groundnut, for example, is one of the most drought-tolerant legumes, but it also grows in the rainforest environment and in cool, moist highlands. Typical of other food legumes, this crop contains two to three times more protein than cereals, yet it is considered a poor peoples crop and is among the most neglected by science (35). Legumes are also valuable sources of oil, and are important in animal nutrition. Many legumes are able to fix nitrogen and, therefore, can thrive in nitrogen-poor soils. This ability makes them well-suited to crop rotations and enhances their benefits in intercrop situations. The major research emphasis has been and should continue to be stabilization of production through increased disease and pest resistance, development of short-cycle varieties, such as the 60-day cowpea variety developed by the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, and improved nitrogen-fixing ability. Major advances in yield potential maybe possible, but will be secondary to these other considerations (7). Potential also exists for expanding the use of legumes into new areas; for instance, lima beans could be introduced to the seasonally or continuously humid tropics, pigeon peas could be used in the arid/semi-arid zone, and chickpeas could be grown in the highlands.

PAGE 220

219 Roots, Tubers, and Plantains Root and tuber crops are major sources of food energy for at least 200 million people in Sub-Saharan Africa, particularly in the humid and highland areas (5). For example, they account for at least half the calories in peoples diets of Zaire, Congo, and Gabon (56). Many of these crops are efficient producers of calories, much more so than maize on a per-hectare basis. For example, compared to maize, cassava produces 2.2 times as many calories/ha; yams produce 2.7 times as much; and sweet potato produces 1.5 times as much (52). Cassava (Manihot esculentum) is the most widely grown root crop, and it is adaptable to a wide range of agro-climatic and soil conditions. It is able to survive on marginal soil and so is often grown as the last crop in a rotation sequence, before the land must be abandoned to fallow. Even though it can be grown under humid conditions, cassava is fairly drought tolerant (20). Cassava accounts for approximately one-third of the total staple foods produced in Africa and its leaves are a preferred green vegetable that provide high-quality protein, minerals, and vitamins (52). It can be stored in the ground safely for up to 36 months, thus making it available to farmers anytime of year (18). The tolerance of cassava to extreme stress, its efficient production of calories despite lowresource requirements, and its year-long availability and compatibility with other crops will continue to make cassava an important component of diversified farming systems (20). Cassava yields in Africa average 6.4 t/ha/yr, compared to the world average of 8.8 t/ha/yr (19). Improved varieties exist that are high-yielding, resistant to disease and insect pests, good quality for consumer acceptance, and low in cyanide content. The amount of land planted with these improved varieties is still very low in Africa, but their use is increasing as evidenced in Nigeria (22). Yam (Dioscorea spp.) requires fertile soils and is produced chiefly in the more humid countries of West Africa. Africa produces an estimated 96 percent of the worlds yams, concentrated in Africas yam zone: Nigeria, Benin, Togo, Cameroon, Ghana, and the Ivory Coast (18). Despite the high labor cost to produce yams, it is a preferred food in these countries, a highly valued cash crop, and an important source of income for resource-poor farmers (22). Although almost all yams produced are local varieties, adoption of improved varieties may spread with the help of a recently developed method of producing seed yam (conventional tubers used for planting weigh about 800 grams, whereas the new ones weigh about 30 grams). The minisett technology, as the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture has labeled this breakthrough, can increase the amount of planting material available, shorten the period during which the land is occupied with yams, and allow for healthier plants and more uniform stands. The end result has been higher yields and economic returns (5]. Sweet potato (Ipomea batatas) is grow n through out Sub-Saharan Africa, but is a major staple in only a few countries: Burundi, Rwanda, and Uganda. Although it grows well under a variety of ecological conditions, its sweetness limits its acceptability (22). As with cassava, the crop can be used for animal feed as well as human consumption. Improved sweet potato varieties exist that are resistant to weevil, disease, and nematodes, but adoption rates remain low (22,25]. Aroids such as cocoyams (Xanthosoma spp. and Colocasia spp.) require an ample water supply and, thus, tend to be concentrated in areas of high rainfall. They are important in four of the humid countries: Cameroon, Ghana, Gabon, and Nigeria (52). Although several clones of cocoyam resistant to diseases have been identified and are being incorporated into breeding programs, virtually no improved varieties are being used by farmers (22). plantains also are widely grown, particularly in forest areas and in home gardens. They are a major energy source in a few rural areas such as those in Rwanda and Uganda. Plantains are an ideal crop to raise following forest clearing

PAGE 221

220 because they need little land preparation and they provide useful cover within intercrops. Plantains can be grown on steep slopes unsuited to root crops and cereals (52). Although cassava can be stored underground, most root, tuber, and plantain crops are difficult to store. In terms of production, yield enhancements are most likely from efforts directed at increasing pest and disease resistance. Improvements in quality, for example, reducing the cyanide content of cassava and the sugar level in sweet potatoes, is another promising avenue for plant breeding (22). Potential of Crop Brooding The genetic code carried in the seed is especially valuable to the farmer with limited resources, since this is potentially one of the least expensive inputs that can be purchased for a large area (15). The potential benefits to resource-poor farmers in Africa from crop breeding are high. Improved varieties offer a relatively inexpensive way to improve productivity markedly (4,15). A combination of factors are beginning to offer hope for higher, more stable yields: resistance to several pests and diseases has been bred into many major crops; new crops can make more efficient use of internal and external resources; and more quickly maturing varieties allow additional flexibility in crop rotations and increased stability under variable and often adverse climatic conditions. New priorities in research, if they can be fostered, could lead to substantial improvements in food quality, processing, and storage. Significant improvements can be expected to result from breeding because comparatively little research has been done on African crops, so the potential seems virtually untapped. Landracesunimproved varieties now in useare well adapted to produce high-quality grain and maximum biomass from limited resources. However, they often are inefficient in terms of maximizing grain production. Landraces typically have harvest indexes (the proportion of grain biomass to total plant biomass) of about 20 percent while HYVs can reach 40 percent or more (4). Crop breeding can substantially increase grain yields by improving the plants ability to partition the biomass it produces into grain. However, minimal research has been conducted on most of these crops to date, so much work remains and progress will be gradual. Since crops are grown for fodder and other purposes besides human consumption, these multiple objectives should be reflected in breeding priorities. Rewards from breeding will be increased if they can be used as catalysts to bring about additional agricultural changes. Yield increases can begin a cycle of economic growth. For example, a crop yield increase from 600 to 800 kg/ha represents a 33-percent gain in productivity. But the farmers profit may be doubled, tripled, or even increased tenfold, depending on the initial break-even point. Thus, the farmer has more income to purchase, among other items, additional inputs that will further increase yields, reduce drudgery, etc. When local entrepreneurs are stimulated to produce these inputs, such as small-scale machines, the development process is further enhanced. Crop Brooding Cautions Crop breeding often has resulted in replacing traditional landrace mixtures with pure lines of improved varieties. This practice can increase a crops vulnerability to new epidemics and environmental stresses. First, since appropriate breeding emphasizes resistance to pests, improved varieties should be less susceptible to pest damage than original landraces. However, the ongoing co-evolution of pests and their host plants requires continued genetic input from traditional varieties to maintain the gains from breeding (39). A recent proposal calls for incorporating landraces and wild relatives of crops into development assistance efforts. Traditional cropping systems can be modernized while still serving an important role as crop germplasm repositories (2]. Second, the risk of a disease or pest epidemic increases if the mixture of varieties planted in an area is replaced by any one variety, regardless of whether it is an improved one or not. Therefore, many varieties should be used rather

PAGE 222

221 than planting extensive areas with one genetic type. Another caution to consider when introducing new varieties is that they should not adversely affect the biological equilibrium between the crop and pests and diseases. The first sorghum hybrids used in India carried no resistance to Striga, a major parasitic weed. Seeds from the weed are now much more abundant than they were traditionally, and they persist in the soil for 10 years. Striga generally is a more serious problem in Africa than Asia. Thus, the potential for a similar incident to occur through the careless release of a crop variety with insufficient resistance is greater in Africa (4). Scientists conducting breeding efforts should try to anticipate the social effects of their work. The Green Revolution in Asia has been criticized for increasing existing social inequality. An evaluation of the Consultative Group on international Agricultural Research (CGIAR) system, however, disagreed, arguing that reductions in the price of grains favor the poor more than the rich who spend a smaller portion of their income on food. They go on to caution, however, that technological advance, while vital for the development of agriculture and the economy, is a poor instrument for redistributing wealth (27). Another social issue involves the need to understand demands on labor, including household division of labor. A critical issue in regard to the expansion of root crops, for instance, is the potential increased demands on womens labor. Since women have responsibility for producing and processing most of these crops, any expansion should also be accompanied by improved production techniques, improvements in extension and local processing facilities, and increased access to credit (52). The role of biotechnology in plant breeding may raise similar equity issues (box 9-2), Problems and Approaches Many non-technological factors that impinge on food production, such as the need for African governments to improve incentives for farmers to grow food, also apply to the issue of crop breeding. Markets for inputs and outputs need to be developed and stabilized wherever possible. Concerns are also expressed regarding the distortion of local tastes and demands that result when donors supply food aid in the form of crops that cannot be grown locally. OTA has identified several problems more specific to crop breeding, 1. Decreasing the Gaps Between On-station and On-farm Results One of the most striking features of African agriculture is the small impact that improved varieties have had, despite the dramatic results achieved at experiment stations. On-station yields commonly are on the order of 40 to 60 percent greater than on-farm yields (31). Several activities could help reduce the gap between on-station and on-farm results: l l l l Collect baseline data on present crop production levels and constraints: Farming systems research (FSR) can ensure that breeding objectives are developed with farmer input, based on knowledge of the farming system in which the improved variety will be used, and that the varieties are viable when used under the conditions and constraints facing the farmer. FSR teams should evaluate improvements such as improved processing ability, not just yield increases, resulting from use of improved seed. Include a mix of natural and social scientists on the research team: It is particularly important that women be well-represented among researchers and extensionists. African women have primary responsibility for consumption decisions and, therefore, strongly influence the adoption of improved varieties. Identify improved varieties that have performed well under similar agroecological and socioeconomic conditions: These varieties from other continents or simply from other parts of Africa need to be extensively screened under local conditions. Increase on-farm research and trials: A proper balance is needed between creating appropriate genetic variability on the

PAGE 223

222 Box 9-2.Biotechnologys Impact on African Agriculture Biotechnology includes a variety of methods for introducing and reproducing new genetic variation in organisms as well as a number of industrial applications of biological processes. Specific technologies related to plant breeding include tissue culture and other techniques for propagating plants; fusion of plant cells (protoplasts) either within or between species; and precise recombination of DNA, the genetic material (53). These techniques could enable plant breeders to work faster, to adapt plants more precisely to specific situations, and to introduce new traits into crops either from other plants or from micro-organisms. In some cases, plant cell cultures could replace field-grown crops. So far, certain types of biotechnology have moved rapidly into commercialization and are used in developing as well as developed countries. For example, some Kenyan farmers grow potatoes from materials provided by the National Plant Quarantine Station in Nairobi. These materials originated in tissue cultures sent from the International Potato Institute in Peru. Other, more complex biotechnologies have been slower to develop than expected. Significant impacts on plant agriculture are expected first in developed countries in 5 to 20 years (13,54). The application of biotechnology to plant breeding in Africa continues to be small. Many methods rely on highly trained technicians and expensive laboratory equipment that is currently beyond the capacity of most African countries to purchase and maintain. Many plant breeders argue that African nations should draw on others research resultsespecially those of the International Centers and the developed countries private sectors rather than develop their own facilities. Enthusiastic support, including that of several African countries, for the new International Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology suggests that developing countries prefer to develop their own capacity for biotechnology to a certain extent (37). Plant breeding and other changes in African agriculture due to biotechnology are likely to be important in the long-term (13), Significant issues related to biotechnologys availability and use will have to be resolved, though. For example: Unlike many plant breeding improvements in the past, biotechnology is concentrated in the private, not public, sector of developed countries, How can interested countries ensure access to the benefits of this research, What long-term relationships with U.S. firms and/or universities might be possible? How might African governments and farmers derive greater benefits and incentives to maintain the valuable germplasm resources contained in the diverse genetic base of their agricultural and wild species? How can biotechnologys benefits be provided to resource-poor farmers and herders when they are not major consumers of its products, nor are they likely to have the skills, money, and market experience to take full advantage of new methods? Perhaps most importantly, how can African countries prepare for the possibility that major export crops such as pyrethrin and cocoa, and the livelihoods of the farmers who produce them, may be displaced by genetically engineered products in developed countries? experiment station and adaptive research under on-farm conditions. Experiment stations allow for research under more controlled conditions, such as artificially highpest pressures. On-farm trials increase the probability that new varieties will be useful under farmers conditions and increase rates of adoption. Farmers fields can also be used to preserve diverse genetic material. 2. Choosing Appropriate Breeding Priorities The research agenda chosen by crop breeders can enhance this disciplines contribution to African food security. The new emphases on ensuring that improved varieties meet the objectives of resource-poor farmers and fit into their farming systems are particularly critical for Africa. A consensus is emerging on the ob-

PAGE 224

223Photo credit: Donald Plucknett/Consultative Group on International Agricultural ResearchOn-farm research is crucial to increasing the impact of improved varieties. In Rwanda, this farmer and scientist work together to test different crop combinations and various soil and water management schemes for growing cassava, plaintain, andjectives of genetic improvement programs thatlwill most benefit resource-poor farmers and herders:l Varieties that are higher yielding underlfarmer conditions: Researchers are payingmore attention to developing varieties that produce a reliable yield under the variable, often adverse conditions of the farmer and less emphasis on their ability to yield well under the ideal conditions created at the experimental station.l Yield stability: An improved variety mustlbe able to produce in bad years. This traitis a prerequisite to breeding efforts directed at maximizing yields under a range of envi-ronmental conditions.l Pest and disease resistance: Protecting crops from pests and diseases can be one of the most effective means of increasing and stabilizing production.maize.Tolerance for environmental stress: Breeding can improve crop tolerance for adverse environmental conditions, rather than re-quiring that the environment be modified.Improved quality, storage, and ease of proc-essing: Criteria for improving quality include increased protein content and fewer toxic and anti-nutritional factors. Adoption of varieties will be enhanced by efforts to ensure that the harvest can be stored and processed to fit local consumption preferences.Adaptation to diverse agricultural systems, reflecting the multiple uses of the products:Improved varieties will be used more by resource-poor farmers if the improvements address their needs and fit their practices. For example, while the grain from cereals is used for human nutrition, the stalks are a valuable source of fodder, cooking fuel, and building material.

PAGE 225

224 Even when an improved variety is shown to do well under farmers conditions, a complex of factors influence adoption rates. For example, a newly developed sorghum hybri d (Hageen Durra I), released in Sudan, has generated excitement because it is capable of greatly increasing yields under experimental conditions. Although the hybrid yields less under resource-poor farmers conditions, it still has been an important factor in raising production in Sudan. According to recent reports, however, it is suffering a serious setback. Now that food is more plentiful in some regions, farmers are returning to the traditional varieties because they are preferred for preparing a favored food, Kisra (30). Another factor in the shift is the inability of farmers to sell surplus sorghum at a price that justifies buying the more expensive hybrid (11). Even with improved varieties that the farmer does not have to buy each year, adoption rates are still low. Probably no more than 10 percent of the land in Africa devoted to cereal production is planted with improved varieties (49). 3. Matching Crop Research Funding With Importance for Food Security Along with the shift in breeding priorities, there could be a redistribution of research funding so that attention to various crops would more closely reflect their respective contribution to the food security of the African people. The level of research that has been directed toward many African crops, particularly food crops, is low. Table 9-2 presents rough estimates of research expenditures by commodity, expressed as a percentage of the value of production to the commodity. The data indicate that while certain export crops, such as coffee, cocoa, and sugar, have received substantial attention, food crops, particularly cassava and sweet potatoes, have been largely ignored, not only in Africa, but throughout the developing world. It is also notable that livestock have received considerably more attention in Africa, based on their relative economic value, than food crops (42). Crop breeding research to improve food security should also direct specific attention to those crops most important to the resource-poor farmer, largely neglected to date. Only about 15 African scientists are concerned primarily with millet breeding on some 15 million hectares in about 12 African countries. About 100 breeders work on millet for roughly the same area in India. An acute need exists for all categories of scientists in Africa but it is not unrealistic to hope that 25 additional millet breeders could be trained by the year 2000 (4). In addition, the food legumes and the root crops, tubers, and plantains have been especially neglected. A key factor causing this neglect is the predominant subsistence use of these crops. In the short term, operating funds could be increased for existing scientists. A supplement of $20,000 per year would enable a scientist to pay most operating costs (fuel and cultivation, consumable field and lab supplies), buy basic equipment, and provide and run simple seed storage operations (4). 4. Improving Seed Multiplication and distributio n In order to achieve benefits of improved varietal development on a wide scale, African countries need to develop or gain access to viable seed industries. Currently, few African countries have adequate seed industriespublic or privatethat can handle, process, store, or market seeds. Moreover, few have mechanisms to test improved varieties in farmers fields, or have adequate seed laws to encourage indigenous seed industries or promote private external investments (38,50). Low seed multiplication capability is a major obstacle to wider use of improved varieties, especially maize, but also for millet, sorghum, and rice. Also, low multiplication rates or genetic purity problems exist in crops such as groundnut, cowpea, and cassava (3). As a result, farmers are unable to obtain improved varieties despite crop breeders successes. Local seed production and distribution is preferred

PAGE 226

225 Table 9-2.Research Expenditure as Percentage of Product Value, by Commodity, for Selected Countries in Different Regions of the World (average of 1972-79 period) a Region Latin All International Commodity Africa b Asia America countries centers Starchy Staples: Wheat d . . . . . . 1.30 Rice . . . . . . . 1.05 Maize e . . . . . . 0.44 Cassava . . . . . . 0.09 Potatoes . . . . . . 0.21 Sweet potatoes . . . . 0.06 Field beans . . . . . 1.65 Other Food Crops: Vegetables . . . . . 1.56 Soybeans . . . . . 23.59 Citrus . . . . . . 0.88 Export Crops: Cotton . . . . . . 0.23 Sugar . . . . . . 1.06 Cocoa . . . . . . 2.75 Bananas . . . . . . 0.27 Coffee . . . . . . 3.12 Groundnuts . . . . . 0.57 Coconuts . . . . . 0.07 Livestock: Beef . . . . . . . 1.82 Pork . . . . . . . 2.56 Poultry . . . . . . 1.99 Other livestock . . . . 1.81 0.32 1.04 0.21 0.41 0.21 0.18 0.06 0.19 0.19 0.43 0.08 0.19 0.08 0.60 0.41 1.13 2.33 0.68 0.51 0.57 0.17 0.23 0.13 0.48 14.17 1.57 0.20 0.64 1.25 0.92 0.12 0.60 0.03 0.10 0.65 0.67 0.39 0.60 0.32 1.12 0.89 0.42 0.51 0.25 0.23 0.11 0.29 0.07 0.32 0.73 1.06 0.52 0.21 0.27 1.69 0.27 1.18 0.25 0.04 1.36 1.25 1.64 0.71 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.08 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.005 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 NOTES: aData on research expenditures by commodity have to be estimated indirectly and are consequently very rough. Data may vary considerably according to different sources. blncludes Egypt,Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Sudan, Tanzania, Tunisia, and Uganda. cTwenty-six developing countries accounting for 90 percent of developing country agricultural research expenditures (excluding China) dMost of the wheat research in Africa wascarfied out in North Africa. elncludes millet and sorghum research for Africa. SOURCE: MA. Judd, J.K Boyce, and R.E. Evenson, lnvesting in Agricultural Supply: Economic Growth Center Discussion Paper No 442 (New Haven, CT: Yale University, 1983. As calculated by John M. Staatz, The Potential of Low-Resource Agriculture in African Development: contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, December 1987) because of the need for local adaptation, but this may not be possible in many countries. Greater private sector efforts could be encouraged in this are abut an obstacle is that few African nations have adequate seed laws to protect companies investments (38). The potential for promoting private seed companies is very uneven in Africa. For poorer countries where markets and infrastructure are weak, private investment is unlikely. In such cases reliance on public efforts and access to germplasm from international centers is most important. A few examples exist where countries have been successful in developing indigenous seed multiplication industries or have capitalized on the use of imported high-yielding varieties. In Sudan, a dozen local farmers/ businessmen/entrepreneurs independently attempted to produce Hageen Durra I in 1985 and 1986, but it remains to be seen whether the effort is successful (3). Some concerns have been expressed over undesirable consequences of seed laws that grant varietal patent protection needed to encourage private investments in developing countries. Cited adverse effects include negative impacts on research activities at international centers, establishing monopoly powers, and reducing

PAGE 227

226 germplasm diversity. There is disagreement over the existence or extent of such negative effects, but research shows that support for public plant breeding efforts (e.g., national and international research centers) help to counter them (55). Although the donkey is the only major livestock species that originated in Africa, a diversity of animal breeds are now present there. Centuries of exposure to the wide range of environments and diverse management systems on the continent have allowed livestock to evolve and be actively selected to meet a range of needs. Some 50 varieties of cattle and similar numbers of goats and sheep have been identified (60). African livestock have been bred specifically to be able to cope with environmental stress and serve multiple uses. Not surprisingly, Africas livestock tend to be late maturing, slow growing, and modest milk producers (6). Although African livestock breeds generally are less productive than temperate breeds, they typically outperform them under the harsh environmental conditions and low-input management systems that exist in much of Africa. Therefore, little potential for genetic improvement to increase milk or meat production exists without reducing nutritional, disease, and climatic stress (6). Genetic improvement and use of exotic breeds will become more viable components of intensified systems as animal health, nutrition, and management are improved. Considerable potential exists to improve milk and meat production of ruminant breeds in certain favorable areas, specifically in highland regions. In lowland regions, environmental factors have led to management systems that typically provide little supplemental feed or health care, so the potential for production improvements is modest. Some potential exists, however, for genetic improvement in disease resistance. The presence of tse-tse fly, which carries the disease trypanosomiasis, severely restricts cattle raising in about 40 percent of Africa. However, 5 percent of Africas cattle, sheep, and goats display genetic resistance to the disease, so there is some opportunity for livestock breeding, evaluation, and selection programs to enhance this characteristic (see ch. 11). Most livestock breeding programs in Africa have focused on cattle. Recently, small ruminants, and to a lesser extent camels, are being recognized as components of improved lowresource management systems. Breed improvement programs have stressed cross-breeding and introducing exotic breeds because these approaches provide visible and rapid gains in upgrading local stocks (23). However, few of these efforts have proven successful. Resource-poor farmers and herders generally have not benefited from this emphasis on exotic cattle breeds. For poor rural people, exotic cattle are usually impossible or unattractive investments: they come in large valuable units which are not divisible while alive and which do not store well when dead. Only households already well buffered against contingencies can risk capital on exotic cattle. In contrast, the animals usually owned by poor rural people are cheaper and smaller. They may be native cattle, somewhat resistant to local diseases, or other species of animals (8). While crossbreeding with exotic breeds and development of composite breeds (where environmental conditions allow) can enhance performance, recent research shows indigenous livestock to be more efficient producers than previously thought, thus warranting further investigation (60). Concern exists, however, that the lack of national breeding policies and the prevalence of indiscriminate crossbreeding programs are currently threatening a number of these potentially useful, indigenous livestock breeds with extinction (1,23).

PAGE 228

227 The Potential of Specific African Animais Cattle African breeds of cattle fall into three main groupsthe humped Zebu in the north, the humpless or taurine breeds that predominate in the tsetse fly-infested humid and sub-humid zones, and the small cervico-thoracic-humped Sanga common in the southern and eastern Savannah regions (6). Compared to temperate breeds, the potential to increase weight or milk production through genetic manipulation is generally low in these breeds (12). Because of these limitations, efforts to meet increased demands for livestock production, particularly cattle, have focused on crossbreeding and introducing exotic breeds. These breeds also fall under three basic groupingsZebus (e.g., Sahiwal and Brahman types) from Asia and America, European beef and dairy breeds, and exotic Zebu/European hybrids such as the Bonsmara and Santa Gertrudis (6,44). Despite considerable research on breed improvement in virtually every country in Africa, during colonial and post-independence periods, only some 3 percent of Africas cattle herd has been affected (60). Most of this small improvement has occurred on cattle ranches and small dairy farms in a few select countries (e.g., Kenya and Malawi) (50). Surprisingly, little is known about the comparative performance of the various breeds (6). A review of some 500 papers on livestock research published between 1949 and 1978 show that only one-fifth have any comparative data and only one-quarter had data that enabled direct quantitative comparison (i.e., based on some common productivity index) (45). Notwithstanding this poor track record and paucity of data, a few success stories exist. The case of development of dairy farming in Kenya is perhaps the most notable (21). In certain highland regions in Kenya, the use of cows crossbred between local and European dairy breeds has brought sixfold increases in milk yields. The number of these crossbred cows has increased significantly, averaging 14 percent per year between 1960 and 1975. Kenya Cooperative Creameries has emerged as a successful dairy enterprise supplied by a network of some 300 smallholder cooperatives. The success of this enterprise is attributed to: favorable climate, good infrastructure and markets, and support from government and extension services. Further increases may be possible in other highland regions with similar favorable conditions. For example, preliminary efforts to intensify milk production in the Ethiopian highlands seem promising (33). Less dramatic, though more widespread, benefits may result from cross-breeding with breeds more suited to tropical conditions. For example, Sahiwal cattle from Pakistan were first introduced into Kenya almost 50 years ago and have since become a significant breed in some semi-arid regions (l). For much of Africa, however, the potential value of introduced breeds is small. As one assessment of prospects for breed improvement and conservation in the Sudan reported (36): [A]ny genetic improvement programme, involving crossbreeding or importation of purebred European cattle to the country for replacement of indigenous cattle, is not only impracticable but also undesirable. The use of exotic stock is at best a restricted activity in certain farms that can afford provision of improved feeding and management conditions not at present available in small farms and nomadic/trans-humant herds. A need to focus increased attention on indigenous breeds is evident. However, many governments continue to emphasize crossbreeding and introduction programs despite a poor record of genetic improvement to date, and despite a basic lack of knowledge about breeds appropriate to the region (60). It is becoming increasingly clear, however, that priority inbreeding activities should be shifted to emphasize local stocks, particularly gathering and evaluating field data to establish their merits, limitations, and potential for improvement.

PAGE 229

228Photo credit: Donald Ptucknett/Consultative Group on International Agricultural ResearchGambian Ndama cattle are typical of several indigenous African breeds they possess valuable genetic traits (in this case, tolerance to trypanosomiasis, a widespread disease).A related priority for African livestock development is to take action to avoid extinction of various African breeds. Some efforts already have been launched, but potentially valuable genotypes continue to be threatened for a variety of reasons (table 9-3). There is a need for additional national and international breed conservation efforts (23,55). Small Ruminants and Canals Just as the so-called poor peoples crops (e.g., roots and tubers) have been largely overlooked in crop research, small ruminants (e.g., sheep and goats) and camels have suffered similar neglect despite their important role in providing animal protein in African diets. Interest in these animals is increasing, however. Within the last few years, for example, the International Livestock Center for Africa has organized a Small Ruminant and Camel Group to identify, disseminate, and promote research. Also promising is the work of the Small Ruminant Collaborative Research Support Program (SR-CRSP) in Kenya, particularly its emphasis on training African scientists in small livestock research. Research from the Small Ruminant and Camel Group suggests that the reproductive performance of small ruminants within traditional production systems can be improved (26). Increased attention should be directed toward reemphasizing breeding controls that limit lambing or kidding to once a year because evidence exists that non-seasonal breeding among indigenous breeds can provide higher reproductive output. To optimize annual reproductive rates, livestock breeders may want to manipulate intervals between birthings, average age of breeding females, as well as litter size (26). Improved reproductive performance has also been obtained from camels as a result of improved management and nutritionreducing intervals between births from 26 to 18 months. These improvements reinforce the notion that better animal husbandry holds more immediate potential than genetic improvements. Disease aggravated by poor nutrition is the major constraint on small ruminant production

PAGE 230

229 Table 9-3.Endangered African Cattle Breeds Breed Location Main use Reasons for decline in number Traits that justify conservation Maturu Lagune Mpwapwa Baria Creole Kuri Kenana Butana NDama Nigeria Benin, Ivory Coast Tanzania Madagascar Mauritius Chad; Nigeria Sudan Sudan Gambia, Senegal, Guinea Meat, draft Meat Milk, meat Milk, meat Milk, meat, draft Milk, meat Milk, Milk Meat Crossbreeding; lack of interest by farmers as tractors become available; Nigerian civil war Crossbreeding; lack of interest by farmers because of small mature size (125 kg) and low milk yields Lack of sustained effort to develop and maintain breed Crossbreeding Crossbreeding Numbers greatly reduced by rinderpest and drought; political instability Crossbreeding; loss of major habitat to development scheme Crossbreeding Crossbreeding Trypanotolerant; hardy; good draft animal; low mortality; short calving interval Trypanotolerant; adapted to humid environment Adapted to semi-arid plateau of central Tanzania Adapted to local environment; humpless Adapted to local environment High milk production potential; able to swim long distance; tolerant of heat and humidity Good dairy animal; adapted to hot, dry environment Good dairy animal; adapted to hot, semi-arid environment Trypanotolerant; efficient meat producer under poor conditions Ability to survive Trypanosome Infection (spread by tse-tse fly) that causes African sleeping sickness in cattle. SOURCES K O Adeniji, Recommendations for Specific Breeds and Species for Conservation by Management and Preferred Techniques, U N Food and Agriculture Organization, Animal Genetic Resource Conservation by Management, Data Banks, and Training, FAO Animal Production and Health Paper No 41 (Rome FAO, 1984); pp 89-98 and R McDowell, Visiting Professor, Department of Animal Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, personal communication, 1987 (57). Breed improvement and selection is thus important primarily as a component of improved management systems. An integrated research approach to developing improved production systems would have to consider a variety of needs. For instance, in a project to enhance goat milk and meat production, crossbreeding and upgrading indigenous breeds were done in conjunction with improving nutrition and management (58). Preliminary evaluations suggest that low-cost improvements could double production beyond that of using large ruminants (24). Although most research is focused on areas where the environment is favorable, improvements are also possible in less accommodating environments (46). Research on small ruminants in Africa has shown consistently large variation in output among different flocks of sheep and goats within various regionsas much as fivefold differences between the best and worst flocks (57). These differences are principally a function of individual management. This suggests that significant increases in productivity and improvements to human welfare can likely be achieved by low-technology, low-cost packages based on improving existing management practices and existing biological potential within traditional systems already found in Africa (57]. Figure 9-1 outlines, in general terms, a set of improvement pathways based on the best features of an existing pastoral system in Kenya. Poultry and Swine Poultry production is ubiquitous in Africa, but the intensity of production varies greatly. By far the most prevalent is the traditional scavenging system using local breeds and little supplementary feed, water, or veterinary care (50). Since the threat of a disease that can quickly wipe out entire flocks is ever present, farmers are discouraged from maintaining large numbers of fowl or investing much in supplementary care However, research o n progressive intensification of traditional, lowinput management systems suggests that major increases in production would be possible given access to adequate health services (table 9-4). Use of improved or introduced breeds may be important only in the latter phases of inten-

PAGE 231

230 Figure 9-1 .Potential Improvement Pathways for Traditionally Managed Select against twinning in sheep Select for twinning in Manipulate flock structures (cutting of old females and sale of surplus young females) to obtain maximum production of young (parturition interval + litter size) Pathological Nutritional Institute Attempt to assure veterinary better food supply countermeasures (milk + fodder) (growth rate) and their dams (milk production) Stratify flocks to control breeding NOTE: Open arrows indicate alternative or secondary pathways SOURCE: R. Trevor Wilson, Goats and Sheep in the Traditional Livestock Production Systems in Semi-Arid Northern Africa: Their Importance, Productivity and Constraints on Production, Livestock Development in SubSaharan Africa: Constraints, Prospects, Policy, J. Simpson and P. Evaneiou (eds.) (Boulder: CO, Westview Press, 1984). sification. Research on marketing strategies, in cakes). African swine tend to carry a number support of such increases in production potenof diseases and parasites transmissible to tial, would also be necessary. humans and, thus, intensive management in Swine production is a relatively minor component of livestock production in Africa, concentrated primarily in West African coastal areas. Breeds are nondescript Iberian types introduced by the Spanish and Portuguese, well adapted to scavenging production systems and resistant to many diseases (50). Some improved breeds (e.g., Large White) have been introduced subsequently, and productivity increases have resulted from improved management and feeding (e.g., with manioc, bananas, and oilseed close proximity to humans may present health problems. It is likely that most gains in pig production in Africa, derived from use of exotic breeds, will occur as a result of large-scale Western production technologies located near urban centers where demand exists. Swine production, as well as poultry production, represent perhaps the only examples where direct introduction of large-scale livestock production technology has proven widely successful.

PAGE 232

231 1. 2. 3. 4. Table 9-4.Poultry Productivity Under Different Management Systems outputs Eggs 1 yr. old Eggs for System Characteristics hen/yr chicks/hen consumption Traditional Scavenging; no water, feed; 20-30 2-3 0 inadequate night shelter. Improved traditional Regular water and grain; Step 1 improve night shelter; care of 40-60 4-8 0 hen/chicks in first week; Newcastle vaccination. Improved traditional Same as Step 1 plus further Step 2 improvement in feeding, approx. 10-12 30-50 watering, and housing. 100 Treatment for ectoand endoparasites. Additional vaccination as indicated. Improved traditional As Step 2 but with improved 160-180 25-30 50-60 Step 3 breeds; complete diet; (semi-intensive) hatching by local hens. SOURCE: U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, African Agriculture: The Next 25 Years: Annex III Raising Productivity (Rome: 1986) CHAPTER 9 Adeniji, K. O., Recommendations for Specific Breeds and Species for Conservation by Management and Preferred Techniques, U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, Animal Genetic Resources Conservation by Management, Data Banks and Training, FAO Animal Production and Health Paper 44/1 (Rome: FAO, 1984). Altieri, M. A., and Merrick, L.C., In Situ Conservation of Crop Genetic Resources Through Maintenance of Traditional Farming Systems, Econormc Botany, vol. 41, No, 1,1987, pp. 86-96. Andrews, David J., Professor of Agronomy, Department of Agronomy, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE, personal communication, 1987. Andrews, D. J., Millet Breeding for Low-Resource Agriculture in Africa, contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information S&vice, December 1987). 5. Asnani, V. L., Otoo, J. A., and Hahn, S. K., Improved Seed Yam Production Technology (Ibadan, Nigeria: International Institute of Tropical Agricuhure, March 1985). 6. Brumby, P. J., and Trail, J. C. M., Animal Breeding and Productivity Studies in Africa, ILCA Bulletin, No. 23, January 1986, pp. 23-27. 7, Buddenhagen, Ivan W., Crop Breeding for Low-Resource Agriculture: Overview, Rice, and Food Legumes, contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, December, 1987). REFERENCES 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14, 15. Chambers, Robert, Rural Development: Putting the Last First (New York, NY: Longman, 1983). Dalrymple, Dana G,, Development and Spread of High-Yielding Wheat Varieties in Developing Countries and Development and Spread of High-Yielding Rice Varieties in Developing Countries (Washington, DC: U.S. Agency for International Development, 1986). Dalrymple, Dana G., Office of Agriculture, Bureau for Science and Technology, U.S. Agency for International Development, Washington, DC, personal communication, July 1987, DSilva, Brian, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, personal communication, 1987. Eicher, Carl K., and Baker, Doyle C., Research on Agricultural Development in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Critical Survey, MSU International Development Paper No. 1, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, 1982. Elkington, John, Double Dividends? U.S. Biotechnology and Third World Development, WRI Paper No. 2 (Washington, DC: World Resources Institute, November 1986). Francis, Charles A., Challenges of Intercropping: Policy Issues, contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information System, December 1987). Francis, C., Harwood, R., and Parr, J., The Potential for Regenerative Agriculture in the Developing World, American Journal of Alterna-

PAGE 233

232 16, 17 18, 19. 20. 21. 22. 2 3 2 4 tive Agriculture, vol. 1, No. 2, Spring 1986, pp. 65-75. Fussell, L. K., Serafini, P. G., Bationo, A., and Klaij, M. C,, Management Practices to Increase Yield and Yield Stability of (Pearl) Millet in Africa, J.R. Witcombe and S,R. Seckerman (eds.), International Pearl Millet Workshop, ICRISAT/ INTSORMIL, Patancheru, India 1986. Gibson, Paul, Department of Plant and Soil Science, Southern Illinois University, personal communicaiton, 1987. Hahn, S. K., Tropical Root Crops: Their Improvement and Utilization, Conference Paper 2 (Ibadan, Nigeria: International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, 1984). Hahn, S. K., and Keyser, J., Cassava: A Basic Food of Africa, Outlook on Agriculture 14(2): 95-99, 1985. Hahn, S. K., et al., Cassava and the African Food Crisis, Paper Presented at the 3rd Triennial Symposium of ISTRC-AB held at Owerri, Nigeria, Aug. 17-23, 1986. Harrison, P., The Greening of Africa: Breaking Through the Battle for Land and Food, An International Institute for Environment and Development-Earthscan Study (Toronto: Paladin Grafton Books, 1987). Hill, Walter A., and Bonsi, Conrad, Root Crop Breeding, contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, December 1987). Hodges, J., Animal Genetic Resources in the Developing World: Goals, Stategies, Management and Current Status, Proceedings of Third World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Lincoln, NE, vol. 10, July 1622, 1986. Hogan, E. B., Rachie, K. O., and Robins, J. S., Collaborative Research Support Program Review Study, Office of Agriculture, Bureau for Science and Technology, U.S. Agency for International Development, Washington, DC, n.d. 25. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), Root and Tuber Improvement Program, IITA Annual Report and Research Highlights 1985 (Ibadan, Nigeria: IITA, 1986), pp. 100-126. 26. International Livestock Centre for Africa, ILCA Annual Report 1986/87: A Year of Progress and Change (Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: ILCA, 1987). 27. Jahnke, H, E., Kirschke, D,, and Langemann, J., The Impact of Agricultural Research in Tropi28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33, 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40, 41. cal Africa, CGIAR Study Paper Number 21 (Washington, DC: The World Bank, 1987). Kassam, A. H,, and Kowal, J. M., Water Use, Energy Balance and Growth of Gero Millet at Samaru, Northern Nigeria, Agricultural Meteorology. vol. 15, pp. 333-342. Lambert, C., LIRAT et lAmelioration du Mil, Agron, Trop. vol. 38, 1982, pp. 78-88. Mann, John A., Department of Soil and Crop Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, personal communication, 1987. Matlon, Peter, The West African Semi-Arid Tropics, J. Mellor, C. Delgado, and M. Blackie (eds.), Accelerating Food Production in SubSaharan Africa (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987). Matlon, Peter, Principal Economist, International Crops Research Institute for the SemiArid Tropics, Burkina Faso, personal communication, 1987. McDowell, Robert E., Visiting Professor, Department of Animal Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, personal communication, 1987. Miller, Fred R., and Mann, John A., Sorghum Breeding, contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, December, 1987). National Academy of Sciences, Tropical Legumes: Resources for the Future (Washington, DC: 1979). Osman, A. H., Sudanese Indigenous Cattle Breeds and the Strategy for their Conservation and Improvement, U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, Animal Genetic Resources Conservation by Management, Data Banks, and Training, FAO Animal Production and Health Paper 44/1 (Rome: FAO, 1984). OSullivan, Dermot A., International Biotechnology Center Takes Shape, Chemical and Engineering IVews, Oct. 13, 1986, pp. 21-23. pasley, Sherman F., Maize Breeding, ,contractor report for the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, December 1987). Plucknett, Donald and Smith, Nigel, Sustaining Agricultural Yields, Bioscience, vol. 36, January 1986, pp. 40-45. Rachie, K. O., and Peters, L. V., The Eleusines [Andhra Pradesh, India: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, 1977), Scheuring, John, Seeds Department, Ciba Gei~v

PAGE 234

233 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 5 46. Ltd., Basil, Switzerland, personal communication, 1987. Staatz, John M., The Potential of Low-Resource Agriculture in African Development, contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, December, 1987). Stigter, C. J., Microclimate Management and Manipulation By Traditional Farmers in Tanzania, Agricultural Physics Section, Physics Department, University of Dares Salaam, Tanzania, 1985. Trail, J.C. M., and Gregory, K. E., Animal Breeding in Sub-Saharan Africa: Toward an Integrated Program for Improving Productivity, J.R. Simpson and Evangelou, P. (eds.), Livestock Development in Sub-Saharan Africa: Constraints, Prospects, Policy (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1984), pp. 107-121. Trail, J, C. M., Merits and Demerits of Importing Exotic Cattle Compared With the Improvement of Local Breeds, Intensive Animal Production in Developing Countries, Occasional Publication No. 4, British Society of Animal Production, U. K., 1981. Turk, ]oyce, Bureau of Science and Technology, Office of Agriculture, U.S. Agency for International Development, Washington, DC, personal communication, 1987. 47. U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, Production Yearbook for 1984 (Rome: FAO, 1985). 48, U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, African Agriculture: The Next 25 YearsMain Report (Rome: FAO, 1986). 49. U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, African Agriculture: The Next 25 YearsAtlas of African Agriculture (Rome: FAO, 1986]. 50. U,N. Food and Agriculture Organization, African Agriculture: The Next 25 YearsAnnex III (Rome: FAO, 1986). 51. U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, African Agriculture: The Next 25 YearsAnnex IV (Rome: FAO, 1986). 52. U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, Committee on World Food Security, Role of Roots, Tubers and Plantains in Food Security in SubSaharan Africa, Eleventh Session, Rome, Apr. 9-16, 1986, CFS-86/4, February 1986. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Impacts of Applied Genetics: MicroOrganisms, Plants, and Animals, OTA-HR-132 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1981). U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Technology, Public Policy, and the Changing Structure of American Agriculture, OTA-F-285 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, March 1986), U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Technologies to Maintain Biological Diversity, OTA-F-330 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, March 1987). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Food Problems and Prospects in Sub-Saharan Africa: The Decade of the 1980s, FAER Report No. 166, August 1981. Wilson, R. T., Goats and Sheep in the Traditional Livestock Production Systems in SemiArid Northern Africa: Their Importance, Productivity and Constraints on Production, J.R. Simpson and P. Evangelou (eds.), Livestock Development in Subsaharan Africa: Constraints, Prospects, Policy (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1984), pp. 91-106. Winrock International, Kenya: Dual-purpose Goat Production Systems (SR-CRSP), Project Profile, Winrock International, Morrilton, AR, April 1987. Wolf, Edward C., Worldwatch Paper 73 Beyond the Green Revolution: New Approaches for Third World Agriculture, (Washington, DC: The Worldwatch Institute, October 1986). World Bank, The, West Africa Agricultural Research Review (Washington, DC: The World Bank, February 1987),

PAGE 235

Chapter 10 Improved Use of Animals

PAGE 236

CONTENTS Page Summary . . . . . . . . . .....................237 Opportunities for Improved Use of Animals ..........................24 3 Mixed Crop/Livestock Systems Using Small Ruminants ...............243 Animal Traction. . . . . . . . . . . . ....245 Aquiculture . . . . . . . ................,.....248 Potential . . . . . . . . . . . .............250 Problems and Approaches . . . . . . . ............251 Chapter 10 References . . . . . . . ...............252 Box 1o-1. 10-2. 10-3. 10-4. 10-5. Table 10-1, Boxes Page Contribution of Livestock to Agricultural Development ........,...238 Pastoralism in Africa . . . . . . . . ....,.....,239 Fisheries Development in Sub-Saharan Africa . . . . ....241 Two New Farming Systems Using Small Ruminants . ...,..,,.244 Elements of Successful Aquiculture Development in Zaire ., .,...., .249 Tabl e Page Livestock Distribution by Farming System in Sub-Saharan Africa .,..238

PAGE 237

Chapter 10 Improved Use of Animals 237

PAGE 238

238 Box lo-1.Contribution of Livestock to Agricultural Development Livestock, particularly in the farming systems context, provide many other benefits in addition to food. Food may not necessarily be the greatest concern for resource-poor farmers and herders. Development efforts in the past have usually been aimed at the improvement of livestock productivity for meat, however. Animal Traction. Livestock are a major supplier of draft power in the third world. Livestock provide an estimated 75 percent of traction power ranging from a low of about 10 percent for Africa to as high as 99 percent for India. The use of animal traction will continue to be of importance to low-resource agriculturalists due to the high cost of fossil fuel and mechanical equipment and the ability of draft animals to use low-quality crop residues for their subsistence. Food Reserve.The food reserve or insurance against crop failure provided by livestock is important, particularly in those areas where climatic variation causes frequent fluctuations in crop production. During droughts, animals provide food, while during good years the herds are increased. A1though herds will fluctuate in size they provide security from climatic-induced crop failure. Usually enough of the herd will survive poor years so that the size can increase when climate improves. Capital Accumulation. Livestock serve as a bank which can be converted to cash as needed. The fund can be used for emergencies and medical expenses, school costs, taxes, and making investments in agricultural resources. Draft animals are often rented as a source of family income. Value-Added.Livestock convert low-value household and community-owned forage and familysupplied labor into high-value products. In extensive grazing systems, cattle, sheep, and goats graze on land which has no value for crop production. In intensive, confined systems (pen feeding) small ruminants are fed low-value crop residue and hand-collected forage harvested from land unsuitable for normal crop production. Children and women provide labor for these enterprises thus adding to family income and food supply. Manure.Most animal manure is valued as a source of fertilizer for crop production, and some types are used as building material and/or as a source of cooking fuel. As a source of fuel, manure reduces the pressure upon forest resources which are severely depleted in many parts of Africa. But its fertilizer benefits are lost when burned. Social Equity. Because land is not equitably distributed, development of crop agriculture has not benefited the landless. Ownership of small livestock may not require land ownership because of availability of public land or the development of backyard intensive projects. Animals provide opportunity for food and income for the landless. Because livestock products are purchased by urban people who have wealth, they will provide a channel for income to the poor. Export Earnings. Livestock products are a potential source of foreign exchange. Many African countries produce meat, hides, and fiber in excess of domestic needs and export provides important foreign exchange for the domestic economy. SOURCES: Robert E. McDowell, Ruminant Products: More Than Meat and Milk (Morrilton, AR: Winrock International Livestock Research and Training Center, 1977); R.W, Rice, Domestic Livestock in Arid Lands FSR/E, Department of Animal Science, University of Arizona, unpublished manuscript, n.d.

PAGE 239

239 Box 10-2.Pastoralism in Africa An estimated 6.8 million people in West Africa, south of the Sahara, and 9.3 million people in eastern and southern Africa depend on pastoral herding as their principal livelihood (30). Three general categories of pastoralist production are (9,49]: l l l Nomadism: Pastoral systems almost entirely dependent on livestock and that do not involve a permanent place of residence or practice of regular cultivation. Transhumant Pastoralism: Pastoralist maintains a permanent residence for several years near which a few crops are typically cultivated. Animals are usually herded by adult male members of the household, sometimes migrating over hundreds of kilometers, in order to obtain adequate forage and water. Sedentary Pastoralism: A form of mixed farming where Permanent residence is established and crop-s are grown, but livestock production is the dominant enterprise. These three forms of pastoralist production have been described as three different ways of life (that) are specific human answers to the painful choice between high-quality forage and drinking water (2). This characterization stresses the importance of water and soil nutrients in determining the form of livestock production in the arid and semi-arid Africa where pastoralism prevails. Water is the limiting factor in the driest region (i. e., below 300 mm rainfall). In these low rainfall areas, the growing season may only last 1 month but the vegetation produced is nutrient rich. Nomads and transhumant pastoralists try to take full advantage. Availability of soil nutrients quickly replaces water as the limiting factor in wetter regions. The increased quantity of available forage in the wetter regions cannot compensate for poor nutritional quality of forage due to inadequate availability y of nitrogen (as well as reduced digestibility and phosphorus content) (2). Researchers have also identified a wide array of adaptive strategies employed by pastoralists to ensure reliable and adequate production throughout the year in their unpredictable and unproductive environment (7,8). Briefly, these include: l l l l Movement: Movement is an obvious but essential aspect of pastoralist production that enables herders to take optimal advantage of patchy, fluctuating, and low-density resources. Pastoralists also tend to divide herds into smaller groups to further optimize use of scarce resources. Use of Resource Reservoirs: Pastoralists depend on pockets of higher biotic productivity (e.g., highlands, swamps, or rivers), as forage and water availability in the broader range become scarceeither seasonally or because of poor rainfall. Social mechanisms commonly evolve to help control use of these resources. Because of their greater agronomic potential, these areas also tend to be the focal points of farmer encroachment or other agricultural development schemes that can undermine this critical resource for pastoralists. Species Composition and Herd Structure: Multi-species herd composition provides effective use of available browse as well as providing pastoralists with consistent supply of food due to differing periodicities of growth and reproduction, and differing lactation patterns. Mix of different species is also a function of plant productivity and rainfall (e. g., higher proportion of cattle in more favorable areas or years). Herd size is typically maximized to the limits of available labor, while composition of household labor (i.e., age and sex) may also define herd structure. Social Systems and Interactions: These include the various ritual, political, juridical, and economic relationships that have developed to enhance efficiency in the use of resources and to provide insurance against disaster. Examples include various forms of resource sharing and redistribution. Disturbing trends in land use and livestock ownership have emerged in Africa that raise serious concerns for efforts to promote food security among Africas herders. Taken together they suggest a growing vulnerability to drought and famine among increasing numbers of poor pastoralists that depend primarily on their livestock for food and income. First, pastoralists are among the biggest losers in Africas growing competition for agricultural land, Poor farmers continue to expand into new areas due to population growth or displacement after giving up land to commercial production. Many have moved onto grazing land traditionally

PAGE 240

240 used by pastoralists. This, in turn, has forced pastoralists onto still poorer land. In addition to reducing productivity and increasing vulnerability of production to drought, this trend has resulted in a shift from what was largely a complementary relationship between farmers and herders to one of increasing conflict over resources (13,18,28). Second, a marked trend toward increased economic differentiation is occurring in pastoralist communities. Specifically, ownership of herds is being heavily concentrated among a few wealthy stock owners and increasing numbers of pastoralists are becoming paid laborers to herd for these, often absentee, owners. Although this trend raises specific equity concerns, it also raises concern over sustainability in emerging systems (18,49). The intensity and specifics of absentee herd ownership vary but its occurrence has important implications for local ecology, since this group of part-time pastoralists usually operates outside the indigenous management system, and is likely to be less concerned than local herders with long-term conservation and grazing control (28). Technical or institutional success stories in assisting Africas pastoralists are rare. Not surprisingly, a high degree of frustration has emerged over the little progress that has been made in improving pastoralist production despite considerable investment. The fallout seems to be a retrenchment of development assistance effort in support of pastoralists. The argument made is that development funding is better spent where chances of success are more likely. In neglecting the development needs of this group, however, human impoverishment and land degradation are likely to accelerate. This dilemma has led to serious reevaluation among livestock and pastoralist development experts of where and how things have gone wrong, but questions of how best to proceed remain unresolved (12,45). Some potential does exist for enhancing pastoralist livelihoods and improving their food security, but exploiting it may require a different approach and different expectations than have been applied to date, A growing consensus is emerging that development goals should shift more toward enhancing the subsistence base of pastoralist production sytems, rather than focusing on increasing meat production for commercial markets. Increased attention should be directed at smaller scale interventions and incremental improvements, rather than large-scale interventions. Also, failure to improve significantly on traditional production systems should be seen as testament to their effectiveness and suggests that building off existing systemsrather than replacing themand tapping the knowledge base of pastoralists themselves is a rational approach to finding solutions (11). Too often development efforts have focused on introducing a specific technology without assessing its broader impact on the larger production system or its desirability from the perspective of the pastoralists themselves. Greater appreciation now exists of the critical role of social and institutional devices that enable the direct participation of pastoralists in the definition, design, and management of projects (13,27). The emergence and support of local groups such as pastoralist associations is seen as a response to the needs for pastoralists to gain a greater voice in regional planning and political decisions affecting them. They also provide institutional mechanisms to assist herders in stemming the tide of expansion of sedentary farmers onto critical dry-season grazing areas. Such issues also relate directly to the need to address changing patterns of land tenure and communal resource use (46).

PAGE 241

241 Box 10-3.Fisheries Development in Sub-Saharan Africa Fish, on average, provide about 12 percent of animal-derived protein in the African diet, three times as high as in Latin America and four times as high as in the Near East. Sub-Saharan Africas approximately 2.7 million metric ton fish catch in 1984 was derived in almost equal parts from marine and inland fisheries (43), Africas marine fisheries production declined between 1976 and 1984, while inland fishery production has increased about 8 percent during the same period. While large-scale marine fisheries have increased in importance in a few African countries, traditional small-scale (or artisanal) fishing still accounts for 85 to 95 percent of Africas total fish catch (9,35,43). Further development of Africas predominantly small-scale fisheries faces many of the same problems as efforts to enhance low-resource farming and herding. Factors intrinsic to fishing operations, including low productivity and consequent low incomes, make investments in improvements difficult. Productivity is also hampered by the fishers poor access to markets, transportation, and credit. A recent study of technologies for low-resource fisheries suggests that the most effective technologies are generally those that: 1) are adaptable to solving specific local problems, 2) mitigate against ecological or social disruptions, and 3) are economically feasible and desired by the community they are intended to serve. The study also concludes that projects promoting new mechanical or fabrication technologies should include a training component, service support, and emphasize locally available components and spare parts (35). Productivity of traditional fisheries is being undermined by deteriorating natural resources. Overfishing and disruption (e.g., pollution) of spawning or feeding areas, commonly due to impacts of large-scale commercial operations, are major causes of this deterioration. Deforestation in coastal areas has also made certain woods that are preferred for boat construction increasingly scarce (35), Just as low-resource farmers and herders have been largely neglected by national and international agricultural research, so too have the low-resource fishers been neglected. For example, studies show that although some 70 percent of the marine catch off West Africa is taken by small-scale fishers, this group receives no more than 20 percent of government fisheries funding. Considerable benefits are identified in supporting these small-scale fisheries, including creating employment, effective use of local investment, and production of high-quality products using little energy and causing little pollution (42). Evaluation of the economics of largev. small-scale fishing in Africa is scant (9). One such comparative study for Sierra Leone, however, concluded that small-scale operations were more profitable and could produce fish at a lower cost per ton than large-scale firms (26). The Fishery Committee for the Eastern Central Atlantic, a regional fishery organization set up by the U,N. Food and Agriculture Organization, has suggested numerous mechanisms to promote and protect African small-scale fisheries. Designating in-shore areas specifically for use by low-resource fishers, as has been done in Cameroon, Mauritania, and Senegal, is one mechanism. Developing credit for fishers to purchase canoes, nets, and motors is another. Interventions must be preceded by assessments of possible negative impacts on communities, however (42). The neglected role of women should be integral to such investigation (24). Though they seldom go out in the boats, women play a critical role in shore-based fishing (e.g., 95 percent of the work-force in Ghana and Togo)with principal responsibility for processing, transportation, and marketing. Further, women commonly are major owners and investors in boats and gear, the principal source of wealth among low-resource fishers (9,42). production on small farms: generally speaking, those African c s with the greatest increase in stock numbers also experinced the highest cereal on increases (5). Diversified production systems that include 1ivestock (or fish] and crops also offer increased security of production. For example, producing millet as the staple grain in the northern Sahel is only possible because of the added food security provided by livestock rearing since millet crops often fail (49). Combining several types of livestockfor instance, cattle, goats,

PAGE 242

[Page Omitted] This page was originally printed on a gray background. The scanned version of the page is almost entirely black and is unusable. It has been intentionally omitted. If a replacement page image of higher quality becomes available, it will be posted within the copy of this report found on one of the OTA websites .

PAGE 243

243 OPPORTUNDTIES FOR IMPROVED USE OF ANIMALS Mixed Crop/Livestock System s Using Small Ruminants Small ruminantssheep and goatsare a valuable asset for resource-poor farmers. They are generally well suited to small mixed farms because of the low capital investment per head, contributions to nutrition and family income (in small but timely amounts), and minimal competition for land and labor (47). Research on their actual contributions is scarce, however. Increasing attention now is turning to the complementary roles small ruminants can play in integrated crop/livestock systems, particularly in medium to high rainfall areas. Rearing of small ruminants in mixed production systems often is a minor enterprise relative to crop production. For example, African women primarily engaged in food preparation and processing may complement these activities by rearing small numbers of animals using household wastes as feed supplements. Production efficiency could be improved, however, by taking greater advantage of possible complementary interactions between small ruminant and crop production (17). l l l Small livestock are able to convert lowvalue crop residues to high-value animal products (e.g., milk and milk products, meat, hides, etc.). Animal manure provides an effective means to convert forage to fertilizer, particularly for small home garden plots. Rotations or intercropping of food crops with forage crops (especially leguminous species) enable farmers to produce highquality animal feed, as well as increase soil fertility and control crop disease. ILCA has been testing ways to enhance efficiency in low-resource farming systems by increasing crop/livestock integration in existing farm enterprises (see box 10-4). Two general approaches have emerged. One is an integrated alley farming approach based on work conducted at the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture in Nigeria, which links crops and livestock through the use of leguminous browse trees (ch. 8). The second is referred to as an Intensive Feed Garden Approach and is directed toward regions where land is scarce and animal confinement is appropriate or necessary (36). Both systems are based on the premise that small ruminant production must occur within the context of existing agricultural systems. Researchers thus have stressed the need to keep demands for cash, time, and management to a minimum, as well as focusing attention on those areas where land scarcity makes increased management more acceptable. Although research on both systems is incomplete, preliminary results are promising. As Africa becomes increasingly populated and livestock grazing is restricted in some areas, livestock production will have available more labor but less land. Efforts like the two ILCA models will become increasingly attractive to and necessary for resource-poor farmers, especially as greater confinement of animals increases the need for cut-and-carry fodder operations. On-farm investigations of alley farms in Nigeria show greater flexibility in how farmers use the system than had been anticipated by researchers (36). This suggests that alley farming is adaptable to meet a variety of objectives under low-resource conditions and that tradeoffs in inputs are possible, enabling farmers to adjust systems to meet their particular needs or limitations. The Nigerian government has now initiated its own program to promote alley farming. The intensive feed gardens have not been thoroughly evaluated. However, some investigations have shown that when the fodder crops are rotated to food crops after 2-year intervals, the enhanced soil nitrogen and organic matter can boost sorghum yields up to 300 percent [32). The system could offer a sustainable rotation that would be highly beneficial to low-resource farmers (32)particularly under conditions where alley farming may not be possible, where

PAGE 244

244 Box IO-4.TWO New Farming Systems Using Small Ruminants Alley Farming in Humid Nigeria Throughout much of the humid zone of West Africa, small ruminants are kept in free-roaming village flocks with low management inputs and relatively low productivity. ILCAs Humid Zone programme has developed for this region an improved sheep and goat production system that is closely integrated with crop production. The new system employs the fast-growing leguminous trees Leucaena leucocephala and Gliricida sepium as animal feed and as a means of maintaining soil fertility. The system uses alley cropping techniques in which crops are grown in 4-m wide alleys between rows of Leucaena or Gliricidia. During cropping years, 75 percent of the tree foliage is applied to the soil as mulch, while the rest is fed to small ruminants. The cropping system is periodically fallowed for 2 to 3 years, and during this period the natural vegetation, as well as the tree foliage, is eaten by small ruminants. The Humid Zone Programme is evaluating 16 alley farms in different villages. All farmers include Leucaena and Gliricidia trees that have been established from seed. At least 40 accessions of Gliricidia were collected from Costa Rica during 1983, some of which are now producing fresh weight yields 160 percent higher than the local types. Nigerias Federal Livestock Department is starting a pilot development project in which 60 participating farmers will practice alley farming on their own land. The farmers will also adopt an improved animal health package recommended by ILCA, which includes vaccination and dipping to prevent common diseases. Fodder Banks in the Subhumid Zone Livestock producers in the West African subhumid zone have great difficulty feeding their animals during the long dry season. Fodder is scarce and of poor quality, and cattle commonly lose 15 percent of their body weight before the rains return. Milk yields and reproductive performance fall and mortality rises. Supplementary feedstuffs are scarce and expensive, but home-grown legume forages are likely to offer a solution. However, livestock owners have little access to land, few implements for cultivation and little money to spare for fertilizer. ILCAs Subhumid Zone Programme has addressed these problems by introducing fodder banks of forage legumes which are cultivated and partially fertilized by the animals themselves. Large numbers of animals are crowded onto the 2to 4-ha fodder bank areas at the start of the rains. They graze the remaining vegetation, their hooves break up the soil surface and their dung and urine provide fertilizer to help in the establishment of the forage legumes. The fodder bank is then sown with successfully tested varieties of Stylosarzthes (e.g., lucerne and style) and 150 kg/ha of phosphate fertilizer. By the end of the rainy season such fodder banks yield 4 to 6 tons of dry matter per hectare, with a crude protein content of at least 13 percent. The fodder banks are made available to animals periodically during the dry season, giving highquality feed and boosting production at a time of the year when the animals are accustomed to only a small amount of low-quality grazing. The ILCA package has been enthusiastically received by local herders and by Nigerias Federal Livestock Department. Now 23 fodder banks exist in ILCAs case study areas, some of which have been started by the pastoralists themselves after seeing the success of banks grown by ILCAs team. SOURCE: International Livestock Center for Africa (ILCA), ILCA Annual Report 1983: Improving Livestock and Crop-Livestock Systems in Africa, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 1983.

PAGE 245

245 land is particularly scarce, or where the numbers of landless Africans are increasing. In a similar vein, research begun in 1979 on dual-purpose (milk and meat) goat production systems in Kenya show promising results in developing low-cost, low-risk technologies able to accommodate the land, labor, and capital constraints faced by resource-poor farmers (48). In this work, the major factor limiting improved production was found to be the poor quality and scarcity of feed, especially during the dry season. To compensate, the researchers introduced an indigenous legume, Sesbania sesban, which provided supplemental protein for goat diets, improved soil fertility and provided fuelwood and a living fence. Introducing sweet potatoes into the system and using its vines as supplementary feed was also found to be effective. Despite these promising results, a number of problems need to be addressed, Paramount is the need to incorporate veterinary care into such programs (ch. 11). Peste de Petit Ruminant (PPR), a respiratory disease, poses a particularly severe threat because it is widespread in Africa and can wipe out an entire flock or herd quickly. Preliminary results show that innoculating small ruminants each year with tissue cultured rinderpest inoculation can control PPR under village conditions (36), but the problem remains whether resource-poor farmers are willing to invest in vaccination. Unpublished cost-benefit data suggest attractive returns (36), but other social, technical, and institutional factors must also be considered, not the least of which is the effectiveness of extension services in reaching low-resource farmers. Animal Traction Animal traction refers to the use of animals, primarily cattle, for farming activities like land preparation; sowing, weeding, and harvesting crops; and transportation. Substituting animal for human power can reduce human labor while increasing the farmers ability to cultivate more land per day, and with less drudgery. Savings in labor, however, are offset to varying degrees by the work needed to maintain the animals. Some 10 to 20 percent of Africas farmers use animals for traction, but the practice is steadily spreading. The area cultivated by animal traction is estimated at about 15 million ha, or 15 percent of total cultivated land, This average figure masks major variations at a regional level; the proportion cultivated by animal traction varies from no more than 2 percent in central and West Africa to 42 percent in eastern Africa. It reaches a high of 90 to 100 percent in Ethiopia and Botswana (41), Even on farms where animals are used for plowing, manual labor is often relied on for other farming activities. For example, only 5 percent of farmers who plow with animals use them to pull mechanical weeders (41). Overall, animal traction makes only a small contribution to the overall power requirements of African agriculture, which is still about 90 percent dependent on human labor. Several West and Central African countries are nearly 100 percent dependent on human labor. Although animal traction can be used for deep plowing, which sometimes can lead to increases in crop yields, few farmers use the technology to improve tillage. Rather, animals are mainly used to expand the area cultivated and improve labor efficiency, and these factors lead to increases in overall production rather than yield increases per hectare (38), It has been argued convincingly that the acceptance and viability of animal traction, as well as use of tractors, is a function of the type of fallow practiced by farmers (38). The ability to benefit from animal traction is hampered by the presence of tree roots and stumps in regions

PAGE 246

246 where tree fallow prevails. This suggests that animal traction or tractors become more viable under progressively more intensive bushfallow and grass-fallow systems (38). Studies of the relationship between fallow type and shifts from hand cultivation to animal traction provide the following general observations (38): l l l The transition to the plow would not be cost effective in forest and bush fallow systems due to the high overhead costs required for removing stumps and for animal maintenance. A distinct point exists in the evolution of agricultural systems where plow use becomes economically feasible. This point is conditional on soil types and soil fertility: the transition would occur sooner for hard-to-work soils (clays) and for soils which require high labor inputs for maintaining soil fertility. The high costs involved in buying animals and equipment can deter resource-poor farmers from adopting animal traction. Oxen and equipment may cost one to three times a farmers annual income, depending on the amount of equipment included (20,38). Although animal traction can be used to double or triple rates of return by using mechanization to free up labor, it can be as long as 5 years before these rates are reached (21). Also, the economic return from animal traction seems to decrease if too much equipment is introduced at once or if it is too complex (20). For example, in some cases earnings per worker and even per hectare on the highly mechanized enterprises (ones using a seed drill, hoe lifter, and cart) can be lower than on farms using only a seed drill). Where draft animals are already in use, inadequate or untimely access to draft animals can result in a failure to plant at the optimal time and, thus, significantly reduce yield (37). Making more efficient use of draft animals can make important contributions to improving yields. Improving animal health offers one important avenue to increased efficiency (ch. 11). Improvements in, and diversification of, animal traction equipment offer others. ILCA has modified the traditional Ethiopian maresha plow so that it can be pulled by one ox instead of two in one attempt to address the problem of insufficient draft power. This simple change could have significant impact in a country where only one-third of the farmers own two oxen. Using the new plow, a single well-nourished ox can plow 60 to 70 percent of the area normally covered by two oxen, and the farmers can make the inexpensive plow modifications themselves (19). Initially enthusiasm was high based on result from tests at the research headquarters. However, subsequent on-farm studies identified a number of problems that have dampened expectations and reinforced awareness of the need to promote increased farmer participation in technology development (29). Increased attention is now being directed to other modifications of the maresha that, based on on-farm trials, offer great promise (23). One modification is the development of a terracing plow that could make important contributions to efforts to reduce soil loss, increase water conservation, and provide stable crop yields. Another modification is the development of a broadbed and furrow maker that could promote better use of the nearly 100 million hectares of Sub-Saharan Africas vertisols. Vertisols are clay-rich soils that have a very high waterholding capacity and thus, when wet, tend to get waterlogged and sticky. When dry, they become hard and cracked. To grow anything besides a few waterlog-tolerant crops, elevated beds need to be built to increase water drainage and evaporation. Making such broadbeds in these difficult to work soils is traditionally done by hand, and requires labor inputs of about 60 hours/ha. The maresha broadbed maker, costing about $25 for modification, can cover the same area in about 16 hours using a pair of oxen. Although power requirements are about so percent higher than for the traditional maresha, power needs are considered well within that which can be provided by a pair of local zebu oxen (23). Improvements in total labor productivity are estimated to be at least 40 percent, while measured yield gains of bread wheat and teff were found to be about 80 percent and 25 percent higher, respectively.

PAGE 247

247Increased use and modification of animal traction technology in crop production, including plowing, planting, and weeding, show significant promise for increasing labor productivity. Weedingthe second most important labor bottleneck after plowingcan be done six to seven times faster using animal traction compared to hand weeding (22). Increased attention could also be directed to other underdeveloped uses of animal traction. ILCA for example has developed an ox-drawn scoop that can be used to dig and remove silt from ponds to store water for the dry season, or to develop aquiculture (19). Animal traction as a pumping technique in small-scale irrigation schemes may also deserve greater attention as does animal-driven transport. Expansion and diversification of animal traction technology in promising regions will require access to equipment and will increase demand for repair services and spare parts (38). Large factories in several countries, for example, Senegal, Mali, and Ivory Coast, have been set up to manufacture animal traction and transport equipment. These tend to be parastatal operations and their production capacity is generally much higher than existing demand. As such, these operations tend to be subsidized and are given access to preferential credit terms (44). Increased use of animal traction may make such operations cost-effective in the future, However, increased attention should be directed toward supporting small private, locally based, enterprises. Significant benefits exist in supporting the training of blacksmiths in equipment production, maintenance, and repair where these artisans are widely dispersed and integrated into villages, and where they provide services directly to local farmers (10,38),Photo credit: U.S. Agency for International DevelopmentMastering the use of animal traction can take as long as 5 years for farmers unfamiliar with it. Here a Senagalese farmer practices plowing during the dry season.

PAGE 248

248 Aquacuhre Aquiculture refers to practices by which fish and other aquatic organisms are cultivated, much like any other agricultural product, rather than caught from rivers, lakes, or oceans. Land, water, and climate combinations in many places in Africa have potential for supporting aquiculture. Appropriate technologies have been demonstrated that are profitable and within the management capability of low-resource farmers (15). By regulating stocking and improving pond design, small pond systems can be the basis of modest managed fisheries. Ponds built for aquiculture can be designed to play a role in a larger soil and water conservation program. Ponds help slow the erosional force of runoff water and can reduce downstream flooding. The water stored in ponds can be used during the dry season for watering stock, irrigation, drinking, washing, recreation, and to support wildlife. Therefore, fish production facilities can be combined with many other uses. The management used in aquiculture can be extensiveusing random stocking of available fish species into existing pondsor intensive using exotic species raised on processed feed in ponds built with mechanization. Extensive and semi-intensive approaches currently hold the most promise for resource-poor farmers (6, 14,15). Many unsuccessful efforts to establish aquiculture in Africa bypassed extensive management and attempted to introduce intensive systems (15). Extensive systems, however, are better suited to and more likely to be adopted by low-resource farmers becomes of their lower capital input and lower financial risk (34). Farm systems could be studied to design aquiculture systems that are compatible with farmer labor and financial constraints. As IThe material on fisheries is based primarily on John Grover and Stephen Malvestutos contractor report (app. A) and an unpublished description of the U.S. Peace Corps fisheries work by Harry Rea and John Zarafonetis, June 29, 1987, Washington, DC. farmer familiarity and competence in managing aquiculture increases, efforts can be directed to emulate the more productive but more complex polycultures such as those of China. As with intercropping or mixed-species herding, polyculture ponds increase yields because the mix of species more efficiently uses available resources than can any one species (14). One of the simplest ways to enhance fish production in ponds is by the use of fertilizers. Chemical fertilizers or organic material can be used to stimulate natural fish food production. Fish may also be fed directly, but products that provide a nutritionally complete diet are usually expensive and in short supply in less developed countries. The same is often true of chemical fertilizers. Nevertheless, some locally available farm byproducts such as animal manure, cereal brans, and crop residues sometimes can be used to supplement natural foods in ponds to enhance fish production. Efforts to increase aquiculture production should include identification of these local feed/fertilizer resources and the design of production systems that take advantage of this local availability. Integrating fish, livestock, and garden production into a singIe systema practice common in the Orientmay be applicable in select cases in Africa. Local application may take various forms. A typical situation might be for a farmer to have a few small fishponds, with water enriched with runoff from a small poultry or stock pen. The enriched water from the pond, besides producing fish, would also be used to irrigate and fertilize a vegetable garden. Garden wastes would then be fed back to the stock or be put into the ponds. The diversity of such an integrated system reduces the risks associated with any single part of the system and also provides a variety of products for household use or local markets. Small operation can usually be built and maintained with family labor and can be programmed to keep within existing demands for time and food, or cash crop production. Such. systems require relatively little capital and remain in the control of the producing family.

PAGE 249

. 249 planners, however, must also evaluate and mitigate any potential adverse health impacts that may arise from aquiculture operations both on the stock produced and on people. Disease or parasite outbreaks are commonly the most severe constraints to aquiculture development in a region (l). For example, greater attention could be directed to evaluating the threats of increased influenza pandemics that may arise from the spread of aquiculture operations, particularly systems that closely integrate fish, waterfowl, and swine production (39). Threats of introducing or exacerbating schistosomiasis is another important concern. Agrochemical use in farming operation should also be evaluated to avoid problems of introducing toxins (e.g., pesticides) that commonly accumulate in aquatic food organisms. Aquiculture operations can also generate their own pollution problems, such as nutrient build-up, for which mitigation plans may be needed (l). Experience with promoting integrated aquiculture systems in Africa is small, although initial results of the Peace Corps work in a few areas, such as Tanzania, for example, seem promising (14). Reviews of aquiculture development elsewhere suggest that it is best approached in stages. Integration of fish production with other forms of animal husbandry may follow but may be too complicated during startup (14). The Peace Corps, initially with support from Oxfam and later from AID and the Zaire government, have been involved in aquiculture in Zaire since 1973. OTA asked the Peace Corps to outline briefly what factors are most important for successful aquiculture development, based on their experience (box IO-5). These lessons seem to provide useful guidelines for supporting aquaculture development in other parts of Africa as well, Box 10-5.EIements of Successful Aquiculture Development in Zaire The Peace Corps Fish Culture Expansion Project in Zaire began in 1978, building off earlier work and feasibility studies dating to 1973, The earlier experience demonstrated the technical and economic feasibility of small-scale Tilapia culture in family-operated fishponds. This work provided an understanding of local conditions, including the biology of fish production in the area and the culture and institutional framework around which the project was to be oriented. The following points have been identified as the most important elements of successful aquiculture development based on at least 10 years of experience with the project. Farmer interest in and familiarity with fish culture. In the project area, people have harvested river fish for centuries. They liked Tilapia and were interested in the project. Although colonial introduction of aquiculture was unsuccessful, many people were familiar at least with what fishponds were. Therefore, Peace Corps Volunteers (PCVs) did not have to introduce a completely foreign technique. Tilapia culture is ideal as a first form of intensive animal husbandry. Tilapia are extremely hardy fish, they rarely die from disease or mismanagement, and they reproduce in a wide range of conditions. Farmers left their village for weeks at a time, in certain cases, and returned to find not only that their fish had survived, but also had spawned. Little capital investment is necessary. Fingerlings are inexpensive, ponds can be dug by hand when labor is not needed for tending other crops, and inputs are available locally (feed, organic fertilizer, and fingerlings for restocking). Excellent technical and logistical support. A technically qualified Associate Peace Corps Director has been responsible for the project nearly continuously since 1974. Most PCVs have participated in pre-service technical training and are involved in all planning processes. This technical training not only has provided PCVs with the needed technical and extension skills but also instilled in the locals high levels of confidence, enthusiasm, motivation, and, perhaps most importantly, a sense of direction. PCVs set high standards for project ponds. High work quality standards are expected from participants in the demonstration ponds. This often means withdrawing support from those farmers who are unwilling or unable to meet adequate standards and commitments. The re76-57~ O 88 7 : QL 3

PAGE 250

250 l l l maining farmers each build several high-quality ponds that serve as models for other interested farmers. Failure to set standards for pond operations has been a major shortcoming of several other technical support programs. Focus on management. Even though the mechanics of fish culture are simple and the risks considerably lower than with other forms of animal husbandry, the concepts can be difficult to understand. Concepts such as stocking, feeding, growth, and production rateslet alone pH and oxygen cyclingare unfamiliar to farmers that have never raised animals. Proper management is the reason that some farmers produce two to three times more fish than their neighbors. Development of local infrastructure. The Zaire fish culture project demonstrates that this type of agricultural development is possible even with minimal national government support. The programs focus has always been on the individual farmer. Fingerlings are produced and distributed locally, experienced farmers advise new farmers on site selection, pond construction and management, and farmers meet regularly to discuss problems. Numerous seminars, meetings, and field trips are held before there is ever talk of forming a group. Farmers get to know each other and come to rely on each other for advice and assistance. The result is the development of a local private infrastructure capable of taking over PCV responsibilities. Long-term commitment. A 10-to 20-year commitment maybe necessary for introducing aquacult&e into a region, although shorter support periods may be possible for particular sites. The Peace Corps recognized the need for a long-term view when introducing the technology into a village, and plans to be actively involved from 4 to 8 years depending on the village. PCV input is designed to last long enough for farmers to see positive results, but then it is phased out as local management skills are developed. SOURCE: Harry Rea and John Zaraphonetis, unpublished cast study, U.S. Peace Corps, Washington, DC, June 19, 1987. POTENTIAL Improvements in existing low-resource farming systems for much of Africa will be predicated on access to increased income so there is cash available to invest in inputs to enhance productivity, such as improved seeds, fertilizer, and labor. Livestock, particularly small ruminants and poultry, provide the most important source of income for subsistence farmers. The improved diets that result from introducing animals into farming systems further enhances the production potential. So, too, do livestock systems that help modulate labor demandi.e., those that can employ labor during periods of underemployment but do not place heavy demands on labor during seasonal labor bottlenecks. Promoting improved integration of crop and livestock production holds strong promise for Africa. For the region as a whole, an extra animal in the cattle population on a mixed farm correlates with an additional one-quarter hectare of crop land, a 200 kg incremental grain output per year, as well as an additional 30 kg of meat and 38 kg of milk (3,4). Research also shows that integrating animals into a small farm increases returns over cropping alone. For example, maize grown solely for human consumption recovers 39 percent of the crops energy and 20 percent of the protein. When the materials left from food preparation are fed to an animal, nearly 50 percent of the crops energy and 30 percent of the protein is used. Small ruminants offer particular advantages and opportunities within low-resource agricultural systems and deserve increased attention (49). Research on improved integrated crop/livestock management systems is new but shows great promise and seems well adapted to meeting the particular needs and constraints of resource-poor farmers. Development of other technologies, such as new or adapted implements to make more effective use of animals, promises to provide improvements in production efficiency. Animal traction enables farmers to cultivate more land and reduce drudgery,

PAGE 251

251 and helps improve nutrition for the farm family, Animal disease, particularly trypanosomiasis, severely limits animal use in much of Africa. Disease control, particularly through expanded use of trypanotolerant breeds and improved management systems (ch. 11), offer hope for future wider application of mixed crop/livestock technologies, achieved through diversification of food and income sources made possible by mixed crop/ livestock production. Aquiculture, for example, potentially could be a part of farming systems throughout the humid lowlands, tropical highlands, and wherever else water is available to supply small, year-round ponds, Also important for the resource-poor farmer is the increased food security that can be PROBLEMS AND APPROACHES Currently, about 75 percent of African livestock are raised on small, primarily subsistence, farms where animal nutrition is the most limiting factor in increasing animal productivity. It is likely that this will remain the norm for some time to come (31). Improving efficiencies by better integrating crops and livestock to facilitate small-scale mixed production is thus a logical focus for the immediate future. Despite the predominant importance of livestock in arid and semi-arid regions, efforts to develop technology for pastoralist systems largely have been unsuccessful, with the possible exception of veterinary interventions. A reassessment of goals and strategies is needed so lessons learned from mistakes are better used in planning future activities. Further, soliciting knowledge and participation of herders themselves is now seen as an essential component of successful interventions (13,45,49). AID and others have expressed an emerging agreement that the prime emphasis in the livestock sector at this time should be to support the subsistence base of pastoral herding rather than to stress commercial meat production (45). Increased attention needs to be directed toward resolving the resource conflicts between pastoralists and sedentary agriculturalists. The problems that emerge where farmers move into grazing areas that pastoralists require for dry season browse are particularly acute. The potential of livestock development in wetter regions is more promising. Livestock remain underexploited in subhumid regions, particularly for animal traction and integrated crop/livestock systems. Cattle production in the humid zone will continue to be restricted by trypanosomiasis, but small ruminant production using leguminous trees to complement other feed sources seem promising although, here too, there are disease problems to combat. More broadly speaking, the need exists to better account for the interaction between crops, trees, livestock, and wildlifeas well as the social and cultural values that emerge at the interface of human and natural systems. Perhaps the single most important objective should be to recognize and take advantage of complementary areas and mitigate against areas of conflict. One example is the potential links leguminous trees and shrubs can play in simultaneously providing access to high protein forage for livestock, improving soil fertility for crops, and reducing pressures on the surrounding environment by providing fuelwood, stabilizing soils, and enabling more intensive production. Conversely, an accounting is also needed of possible deleterious interactions. For example, plants that may be best for nitrogen fixation may produce forage that is toxic for animals (33). Plant breeders efforts to increase grain yield may affect the needs of African farmers who use crop residues as a source of livestock feed. Farmers in Mali, for instance, rejected an improved variety of cowpea because the improved crop yield also significantly reduced the amount of residue for fodder (49). In a similar case, new bird-resistant varieties of sorghum

PAGE 252

252 contained increased tannin, which reduced the utility of plant protein. Plant breeders must consider these potential trade-offs and look at whole plant uses in order to respond to the needs of low-resource farmers (31). Animal traction, although not prevalent in Africa compared to other developing regions, is steadily increasing in importance. Fostering increased use of animal traction has a significant role to play in the future of African agriculture. It is necessary, however, to consider environmental and sociological factors before promoting animal traction in an area. Structure of the soil, relative content of clay to sand, and erodibility are obvious considerations. Sociological factors more difficult to measure are also important, however. For instance, consider the analysis below of the problems encountered trying to promote animal traction in the Dukolomba region of Mali (25): When elders of Dukolomba, upon being confronted with the ox-drawn plow by the French, told the laboring youth of the village that the cow hoe, as it is called, would wear out their soil too quickly, they are, as we have seen, not lying. But it wasnt the soil that they were trying to economize on. As the decision makers, but not the laborers, in the family firm, these elders felt that with the labor-saving device of the plow they would lose control over the youths, who feeling less needed by the family, would drift away, either to the Ivory Coast or into their own separate firm. Thus in purchasing a plow, the elder would lose not only its price but also control over labor which he could use to advantage throughout the year. The youths were to be shamed into staying at home by the spectre of famine which would result from their being absent during the moundmaking and the weeding season. Both elders and youths concur on this explanation of Dukolombas early avoidance of the plow. Although research and technology development in support of integrated crop/livestock systems is scant, that which does occur is more common in the international research centers than in African national research centers (31), This is a serious omission from national research programs given the prevalence of mixed farming systems in Africa and the potential gains from improved crop/livestock integration, CHAPTER 10 REFERENCES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Bardach, John, Aquacuhure: Moving From from Other Regions, CIFA Technical Paper Craft to Industry, Environment, vol. 30, No. No. 9 [Rome: U.N. Food and Agriculture Orga2, March 1988, pp. 6-11, 36-40. nization, 1982). Breman, H., and de Wit, C. T., Rangeland 7. Dahl, Gudrun, Production in Pastoral SocieProductivity and Exploitation in the Sahel, Science, vol. 221, No. 4618, Sept. 30, 1983, pp 1341-1347, Brumby P., The International Livestock Centre IILCA) and Food Production in Africa, Preventive Veterinary Medicine, vol. 2, 1984, p. 3. 8 Brumby P., lLCAS Activities in Improving Smallholder Livestock Production in Africa, Working Document, International Livestock Centre for Africa, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 1985. Brumby, P., ILCAIts Approach and Work, A Presentation for International Centres Week 9. ties, J.G. Galaty et al. (eds.), The Future of Pastoral Peoples, proceeding of a conference held in Nairobi, Kenya, Aug. 4-8, 1980 (Ottawa: International Development Research Centre, 1981), pp. 200-208. Dyson-Hudson, N., Adaptive Resource Use Strategies of African Pastoralists, F. DiCastri, F.W.G. Baker, and M. Hadley (eds.), Ecology in Practice (Part 1: Ecosystem Maintenance) (Dublin: Tycooly International Publishing Limited, 1984), pp. 262-273. Eicher, C.K. and Baker, D, C., Research on Agri1986, Washington, D.C. (Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: cultural Development in Sub-Saharan Afric~: A International Livestock Centre For Africa, Critical Survey, MSU International Develop1986). ment Paper No. 1, Department of Agricultural Coche, A.G. (cd.), Coastal Aquacuhure: DevelEconomics, Michigan State University, East opment Perspectives in Africa and Case Studies Lansing, MI, 1982.

PAGE 253

10, 11. 12, 13. 14. 15, 16, 17. 18. 19. Fromont, Michel, Artisans of Development, The IDRC Reports vol. 16, No. 4, October 1987, Pp. 18-19. Galaty J.G. and Aronson, D. R,, Research Priorities and Pastoralist Development: What Is To Be Done? J.G. Galaty et al. (eds.), The Future of Pastoral Peoples, proceedings of a conference held in Nairobi, Kenya, Aug. 4-8, 1980 (Ottawa: International Development Research Centre, 1981), pp. 101-118. Galaty, J. G., et al. (eds.), The Future of Pastoral Peoples, proceedings of a conference held in Nairobi, Kenya, Aug. 4-8, 1980 (Ottawa: International Development Research Centre, 1981). Goldschmidt, W., The Failure of Pastoral Economic Development Programs in Africa, J.G. Galaty et al, (eds.), The Future of Pastoral Peoples (Ottowa: International Development Research Center, 1981), pp. 101-118, Grover, John and Malvestuto, Stephen, LowResource Agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa: Principles and Concepts for Managing Inland Fisheries, contractor report to the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, December 1987). Grover, J.H, Street, D, R,, and Starr, P, D., Review of Aquiculture Development Activities in Central and West Africa, Research and Development Series IVo. 28, International Center for Aquiculture, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, 1980. Harrison, Paul, The Greening of Africa; Breaking Through the Battle for Land and Food (Toronto: paladin Grafton Books, 1987). Hart, R. D., Fitzhugh H. A., and Gutierrez, N. F., Crop-Animal Production System Research at Winrock International, H.A. Fitzhugh, et al. (eds,), Proceedings of a Workshop: Research on Crop-Animal Systems, CATIE, Turrialba, Costa Rica, Apr. 4-7, 1982 (Morrilton, AR: Winrock International, 1982), Horowitz, Michael M, and Little, Peter D., African Pastoralism and Poverty: Some Implications for Drought and Famine, paper presented at conference on Drought and Famine in Africa; Denying Hunger a Future, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, Aug. 10-12, 1985. International Institute for Environment and Development and World Resources Institute, Elements of Success: Sustainable Development in Sub-Saharan Africa, World Resources 1987 (New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc., 1987), pp. 221-238. 253 20. International Livestock Centre for Africa, Animal Traction in Sub-Saharan Africa, ILCA Bulletin, No. 14 (Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: ILCA, December 1981). 21, Jaeger, William K., Agricultural Mechanization: 22, 23. 24. 25. 26, 27, 28. 29. 30. 31. The Economics of Animal Draft Power in West Africa (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1986), Jaeger, W,, and Sanders, J. H., Prc)fitability of Animal Traction: Field Study in Burkina Faso, H.W. Ohm and J.G. Nagy (eds.), Appropriate Technology for Farmers in Semi-Arid West Africa (West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University, 1985), PP. 291-307. Jutzi, S., Anderson, F. M,, and Astatke, A., LowCost Modifications of the Traditional Ethiopian Tine Plough for Land Shaping and Surface Drainage of Heavy Clay Soils: Preliminary Results From On-Farm Verification Trial s, ILCA Bulletin, No. 27 (Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: ILCA, April 1987). Lartey, B. L,, and Dzidzienyo, S., FisherwOrner-1 in Africa, Food and Nutrition, vol. 12, No. 2, 1986, p. 19. Lewis, John, The Status of the Ox-Drawn Plow in Dukolomba, Dukolomba, Mali, Apr. 29, 1975. Excerpted in Michael M Horowitz, The Sociology of Pastoralism and Ati-ican Livestock Projects (Washington, DC: U.S. Agency for International Development, 197), Linsenmeyer, D. A., Economic Analysis of Ahernative Strategies for the Development t of Sierra Leone Marine Fisheries, African Rural Economy Working Paper No. 18 (East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural Economics, 1976). Little, P. D., The Workshop on Development and African Pastoral Livestock Production, Institute for Development Anthropology, Inc.; U.S. Agency for International Development, Bureau for Africa, Office of Development Resources, March 1982. Little, Peter, Land Use Conflicts in the Agricultural Pastoral Borderlands: The Case of Denys, Peter Little et al, (eds,), Lands at Risk in the Third World (Boulder, CO: Westv iew Press, 1987), pp. 195-212. MacKenzie, Debora, E~hiopias Hand to the Plough, NewScientist, No. 1580, Oct. 1, 1987, PP. 52-55. McDowell, R. E., The Role of Animals in Developing Countries, American Association for Advancement of Science, Animals, Feed, Food and People (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1980), PP. 103-120. McDowell, R. E., An Animal Science Perspec-

PAGE 254

254 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38, 39, 40, five on Crop Breeding and Selection Programs for Warm Climates, Cornell International Agriculture Mimeograph 110 (Ithaca, NY: Department of Animal Science, Cornell University, April 1986). McDowell, Robert E., Visiting Professor, Department of Animal Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, personal communication, 1987. McDowell, R. E., and de Haan, C., West African Agricultural Research Review: Livestock Research, WAPDR, Washington, DC, The World Bank, 1986. Mitchison, A., Aquiculture: Still Promising, Food and Nutrition, vol. 12, No. 2, 1986, pp 30-31. National Research Council, Board on Science and Technology for International Development, Fisheries Technologies for Developing Countries (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1988), Okali, C., and Sumberg, J. E,, Sheep and Goats, Men and Women: Household Relations and Small Ruminant Production in Southwest Nigeria, J.L. Moock (cd.), Understanding Africa Rural Households and Farming Systems (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1986), pp. 166-181. Peters, P. E., Household Management in Botswana: Cattle, Crops, and Wage Labor, J.L. Moock (cd.), Understanding Africas Rural Households and Farming Systems (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1986), pp. 133-154. Pingali, P, L., Bigot, Y., and Binswanger, H, P., Agricultural Mechanization and the Evolution of Farming Systems in Sub-Saharan Africa (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987). Scholtissek, C,, and Naylor, E,, Fish Farming and Influenza Pandemics, Nature, vol. 331, Jan. 21, 1988, p. 215. Simpson, J. R., and McDowell, R. E., Livestock 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. in the Economies of Sub-Saharan Africa, A. Hansen and D,E. McMillan (eds.), Food in SubSaharan Africa (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc., 1986), pp. 207-221, Starkey, Paul, Draught Animal Power in AfricaPriorities for Development, Research and Liaison, Farming Systems Support Project Networking Paper No. 14 (Washington, DC: Agency for International Development, February 1986). Timberlake, Lloyd, Africa in Crisis (London: Earthscan, International Institute for Environment and Development, 1985). U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, African Agriculture: The Next 25 YearsAtlas of African Agriculture (Rome: FAO, 1986). U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, African Agriculture: the Next 25 Years, Annex V, Inputs Supply and Incentive Policies (Rome: FAO, 1986). U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), The Workshop on Pastoralism and African Livestock Development, A.I.D. Program Evaluation Report No. 4 (Washington, DC: USAID, June 1980). U.S. Agency for International Development, Land Tenure and Livestock Development in Sub-Saharan Africa, AID Evaluation Special Study No. 39, Washington, DC, May 1986. Winrock International, Sheep and Goats in Developing Countries: Their Present and PotentiaZ RoZe, A World Bank Technical Paper (Washington, DC: The World Bank, 1983). Winrock International, Kenya: Dual-purpose Goat Production Systems (SR-CRSP), Project Profile, Winrock International Institute for Agricultural Development, Morrilton, Arkansas, April 1987. World Bank, The, West Africa Agricultural Research Review (Washington, DC: The World Bank, February 1987).

PAGE 255

Chapter 11 Improved Systems to Reduce Losses

PAGE 256

CONTENTS Page Integrated Pest Management . . . . . . . . ......257 Summary . . . . . . . . . ....................257 Options for Managing pests . . .............................258 potential . . . . . . . .........................261 Problems and Approaches . . . . . . . ..........263 Improving Animal Health . . . . . . ...................264 summary . . . . . . . . . . . ...........264 Veterinary Support . . . . . . . ................265 Animal Nutrition . . . . . . . ..................266 Potential Gains From Improved Animal Health ......................26 9 Problems and Approaches . Post-Harvest Technologies . . Summary . .. ... ., $....... Opportunities for Improvement. Potential Problems Chapter 11 .,.,.. . . . and Approaches References . . . . . . . . . ....,,. 270 . . . . . . . . 273 .0,. . .,..,, . ,,.,,. . 273 . .,.,,. . . . . . . 274 . . . . . . . . 279 ..,., . . ,,,..< . . . 279 ,..0. . . . ,.,,.. ..,.,, . 281 Box 11-1, 11-2. 11-3. Boxes Page State of the Art: Control of Major Livestock Diseases in Sub-Saharan Africa . . .. . . . . . ..........,.267 Women Invent New Technology for Smoking Fish . . . .,280 Improved Charcoal Stoves . . . . . . . . ..., ..281 11-1. The Resurgence of R Table 11-1. Figure Page nderpest in Africa and the Near East . .271 Table Page Effectiveness of Plant Protection in 15 West and Central African Countries . . . . . . . . ..., ., ..., ., . ,262

PAGE 257

Chapter 11 Improved Systems To Reduce Losses This chapter examines various technologies available to reduce preand post-harvest losses in African farming systems. The first section deals with the various elements of integrated pest managementa strategy that aims at integrating the best mix of available methods to control losses of crops due to pests. The second section examines technologies to improve animal health in low-resource agriculture, both grazing and mixed crop/livestock systems. Improved animal health has the potential to reduce direct losses due to mortality, as well as improve productivity of livestock. Veterinary support and improved animal nutrition are the major areas examined. The final section looks at a host of technologies that fall under the general category of post-harvest technologies. Although many technologies specifically address themselves to reducing post-harvest losses, such as improved preservation and processing, others are more important for their ability to reduce drudgery and increase efficiency of post-harvest activities. INTEORATED PEST MANAGEMENT 1 Summary 257

PAGE 258

258 Options for Managing Pests manihoti) and the cassava green mite (Mononychellus tanajoa complex) were accidentally Quarantines introduced into Africa from South America in the 1970s. These exotic pests now infest at least Quarantines are regulatory techniques to pre60 percent of the cassava-growing area of Africa vent the entry and establishment of new plant and cause annual losses estimated at nearly $2 and animal pests in a country or area. For exbillion (22). The possibilities for introduction ample, the cassava mealybug Phenacoccus of exotic pests into new areas of Africa can be

PAGE 259

259 expected to increase as the frequency of contact among nations increases. Quarantines require a high degree of coordination at a national or regional level. A dilemma common to almost all Sub-Saharan countries is the inability to enforce quarantine regulations at ports of entry. While most countries have some form of quarantine regulations, few are effective (3). A study by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of quarantine programs in West and Central Africa showed that the quarantine personnel were not technically qualified because of inadequate training (60). Further, regional mechanisms for cooperation, so important in regulating the spread of pests, are not fully used because of political tensions and poor communications. Their cost-effectiveness in Africa cannot be addressed because datae.g., on the origin, volume, and economic worth of the produceare lacking (3). Quarantine experts concur, however, that although quarantine programs do not guarantee complete protection, if properly implemented they greatly reduce the risk of costly accidental introductions, Pest Resistance pest resistance refers to the use of varieties of plants and animals which are resistant, tolerant, or unattractive to the pest. In recent years, plant breeders have bred resistance into, or identified resistance sources for, a range of basic African food crops, including sweet potato, yam, cocoyam, cowpea, sorghum, maize, rice, millet, and cassava. Recent significant accomplishments in pest resistance include the development of cassava varieties that are genetically resistant to mealybug and green spider mite (21). Resistant cassava clones are being distributed to Nigerian farmers, and seeds are being dispatched to national programs throughout Africa. Improved lines of cassava with resistance to the African cassava bacterial blight (caused by Xanthomonas campestris pv. manihotis) also have been developed. Several improved lines give yields up to 30 tons per hectare (40) and have out-yielded local standard varieties by 2 to 18 fold primarily due to their disease resistance (32,33). Cultural Controls Cultural controls involve manipulating farming practices to alter the environment so it is less favorable for the pest or more favorable for the pests natural enemies. Virtuall y al l resource-poor farmers use cultural controls. Intercropping, for example, is a widespread practice which helps reduce pest problems. Different crop species can also be grown on a rotation basis, thereby disrupting the lifecycle of many pests. For example, groundnuts or other nematode-resistant crops are used to disrupt the populations of this pest, which, if left untreated, can devastate cassava yields (22). Other traditional African cultural practices known to reduce pest populations include burning undesirable vegetation, planting crops during pest-free times of year, and cultivating to control weeds (43). For example, Kenyan farmers, recognizing the link between low soil fertility and Striga weed, use crop rotations and fertiliPhoto credit: Donald Plucknett/Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research Pest resistance has been identified for a number of important African crops including sweet potatoes like those being planted by this Rwandan woman.

PAGE 260

260 zation with manure to control this parasitic plant which, if untreated, can virtually eliminate yields of cereal grains (11). These techniques are often the least expensive and most effective methods for suppressing insects, disease agents, and weeds (3,17). Biological Control Biological control involves either the propagation and release of new natural enemies predators, pathogens, and parasitesagainst target pests or the encouragement of practices that preserve and increase the effectiveness of existing natural enemies. It is a process of reinforcing natures own system of checks and balances that can be used by the individual farmer. Traditional agricultural practices, especially intercropping, encourage natural biological control of pests, and unless disrupted by pesticides or other means, natural predators and parasites keep many potential native insect and mite pests in check. No one must purchase this form of crop protection and it continues to benefit farmers as it has for as long as traditional agriculture has existed. Classical biological control, which involves propagation and release of new natural enemies, has been applied in Africa to a relatively small number of foreign insect, mite, and weed species. Whereas naturally occurring biological control involves no cost and requires no institutional support to maintain, classical biological control involves costs to find, import, rear, and distribute the new natural enemies and requires institutional support to maintain the program. The Africa-wide Biological Control Project of Cassava Pests, set up by the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) in 1980, is the largest organized effort in biological control in the region. This project is responsible for successfully introducing a parasite for control of cassava mealybug (Phenacoccus manihoti). Since 1982, a parasitic wasp Epidinocarsis lopezi, imported from South America, has been released at 54 different sites. The parasite has successfully established itself at most of the release sites, covering roughly 9 percent of the total land planted with cassava in Africa, and is spreading to other areas. In Nigeria, where it has been studied most intensively, mealybug populations have been reduced to non-injurious levels wherever the parasite has become established. The parasite will now be released in other mealybug areas as part of a $20 million biological control program (9,15, 26,33). Worldwide, economic returns from classical biological control programs are estimated at $30 for every $1 invested (49). Pesticides Pesticides include a variety of chemical substances that can be divided into biological (plant, bacterial and viral, and fungal-derived) and chemical (synthetic) 3 pesticides. Pyrethrin, derived from chrysanthemum plants, is a biological pesticide that was used in traditional agricultural systems in Africa, and is now produced commercially in Kenya (74). In general, biological pesticides are a fairly recent area of research, and although they are currently a minor component of pesticide use, their importance is expected to increase. Some new pesticides will blur the area further between biological and chemical forms. Future pesticides are likely to be based on insect pheromones, microbial products, naturally occurring insect growth regulators, etc. (74). The primary benefit of pesticides is they can be marshaled quickly to give rapid control of a threatening pest. For example, minimal applications of the insecticide permethrin to cowpea in Nigeria reduced the major insect pest populations 50 to 85 percent and increased yield sevenfold (42). The dramatic impact that pesticides can have was also illustrated by their role in controlling the 1986 locust and grasshopper outbreaks. As late as August, these insects were expected to destroy the crops of tens of millions of Africans. Reuter News Agency warned of an invasion of biblical proportions. However, by the end of October, 1986, cooperation and technology had been generally suc3Biological pesfici~es can be modified and, thin, also considered synthetics but the term refers more often to pesticides without biological bases.

PAGE 261

261 cessful in protecting crops in the affected region (3). In Senegal, for example, crop losses were kept to about 5 percent (7). Pesticides provide short-term control, however, and grasshoppers and locusts are recurrent African pests. For instance, desert locust outbreaks are occurring in 1988 and control is likely to be more difficult than in 1986. Chemical pesticide use in Africa varies considerably among crops, pests to be controlled, and geographical region. Large areas of cash crops (cotton, coffee, banana, cocoa, etc.), usually planted as monoculture, generally receive the greatest quantities of pesticides, but the chemicals are also used on some food crops, especially the high-yielding varieties of cereal grains and vegetables. Concerns exist that use of chemical pesticides has been promoted more quickly in Africa than has the capability to ensure their effective and safe use (3). In particular, critics point to the export by industrialized countries of pesticides that are restricted or banned for sale in their domestic markets. For example, about 25 percent of U.S. pesticide exports were chemicals that have been heavily restricted, suspended, or prohibited in domestic markets (6,67). Many Sub-Saharan countries lack the infrastructure to govern the importation, domestic use, and disposal of pesticides. Of 15 West and Central African countries included in a 1985 survey, 5 had no laws to govern the importation or use of the materials. Even with pesticide laws, most governments lack the infrastructure required to enforce them. Farmers are seldom prepared to handle pesticides. Often they cannot read or understand pesticide labels, or they use pesticides from unlabeled containers. They rarely possess (or wear) protective clothing or safety devices, and may carelessly dispose of the leftover materials. African countries seldom have medical personnel and facilities trained to diagnose and treat cases of pesticide poisoning, and extension efforts to train farmers on correct use of pesticides are often minimal (6,44). Consequently, developing countries account for up to 50 percent of pesticide applicators acute poisoning and 73 to 90 percent of fatalities, even though they use only 10 to 25 percent of the worlds pesticides (2,6,12,19,37). Apart from the concern over health and environmental impacts in Africa, increased pesticide use is being challenged by growing genetic resistance in pest organisms. In 1984, 638 pest species worldwide (428 arthropods, 50 weeds, 150 plant pathogens, and 10 small mammal pests and plant-attacking nematodes) were known to possess strains resistant to one or more previously effective pesticides (54). Resistance has appeared in many serious pests affecting agriculture, livestock, and public health in Africa (3). 1PM is a strategy designed to provide the best mix of available pest control methods and thus it is a responsible approach to pest management. In a sense, virtually all resource-poor farmers and herders in Africa practice a form of integrated pest management. They depend on a combination of traditional practices such as intercropping, using pest-resistant local varieties when possible, and enhancing naturally occurring biological controls over certain pests, However, 1PM programs are just beginning to benefit from scientific advances in understanding of the ecology of pests and are beginning to be implemented in a way consistent with local agricultural and socioeconomic conditions, Management information is the primary input required for 1PM. The potential of the technology will depend, in large part, on how successfully traditional and modern knowledge on pest control can be merged. Farmers are an important source of information on local pest resistant varieties, many of which can be further improved by scientific research. Implementing effective 1PM program s throughout Africa will take many years, but because 1PM represents an effective approach to pest management, benefits will accrue as countries move in the direction of using this method. Some countries (e.g., Central African Republic, Somalia, or Guinea) have little government infrastructure and few pesticide laws, delivery systems, personnel, facilities, or cooperative

PAGE 262

262 links with neighboring countries and international centers (table 11-1). In these countries, a minimum of 10 years would probably be required just to create an organizational structure necessary to develop and sustain an effective long-term effort in pest and pesticide management (3). Quicker results could be expected in countries (e.g., Nigeria, Kenya, Cameroon, Ivory Coast) with more developed pest management infrastructure, assuming pest management is given a higher priority and increased attention is given to an integrated approach rather than simply relying on pesticides alone. Greater attention should also be directed to assessing what influence pesticide subsidies may have on adopting the best mix of pest management technologies. Nigeria, for example, has substantial government and scientific resources. Pesticide enforcement procedures and improved quarantine programs could be in place in a few years. Work toward developing 1PM programs for selected crops could begin immediately, drawing from existing scientific knowledge and farmers experience and practices. Within 5 years, 10 to 20 percent of farmers of specific crops such as rice (where a rich knowledge base already exists) could be using partial 1PM packages. Within 10 years, an estimated 50 percent of the farmers could be using 1PM technology (3). As biological pesticides become better researched, they are likely to become a more important tool in the 1PM arsenal. For example, Neem trees (Azadirachta indica) produce repellents and feeding deterrents for a broad spectrum of economic agricultural and household pests. Neem is being grown commercially in several African countries (69). Ended (Phytolacca dodecandra) is a plant that has proven effective as a molluscicide. This plant, which can be grown in much of Africa, holds promise as a control agent for schistosomiasis, a snail-transmitted disease (69). Several viralbased pesticides are important in 1PM systems, for example, in soybean production in Brazil Table 11-1 .Effectiveness of Plant Protection in 15 West and Central African Countries Percent of countries in category No Area of plant protection Good Moderate Poor information Plant protection personnel . . . . . . 7 40 46 7 Pest control equipment. . . . . . . 0 47 47 6 Support facilities . . . . . . . . 0 13 80 7 Plant protection laboratories . . . . . 0 47 47 6 Pest diagnostic laboratories. . . . . . 0 47 47 6 Plant quarantine buildings, equipment. . . . 7 40 40 13 Pesticides available locally. . . . . . 0 43 20 27 Plant protection service . . . . . . 7 20 40 33 Agricultural schools, training facility . . . 7 66 20 7 Specialized plant protection curriculum. . . . 7 33 53 Institutionalized research . . . . . . 7 53 20 20 On-farm, applied research, . . . . . . 0 13 74 13 Pest lists . . . . . . . . . 13 47 33 7 Pest distribution knowledge. . . . . . 0 47 40 13 Pest biology knowledge . . . . . . 7 7 13 73 Economic loss knowledge . . . . . . 0 27 40 33 Pest control knowledge . . . . . . 0 20 80 0 Overall strength Extension. . . . . . . . . . 7 40 40 13 Research . . . . . . . . . 20 54 13 13 Training . . . . . . . . . 7 46 40 7 I Countries in survey were Benin, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Congo, Gabon, The Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Nigeria Sierra Leone, Togo, and Zaire. SOURCE: P.S. Teng, Plant Protection Systems in West and Central Africa: A Situation Analysis, unpublished report to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization Plant Protection Service, August 1985.

PAGE 263

263 and coconut production in the South Pacific (23), Problems and Approaches Interdisciplinary Approach to Filling Information Gaps The development and implementation of technically effective and socioeconomically and environmentally sound pest control policies and programs is a major challenge facing Africa. Meeting this challenge will require a new approach, where experts accustomed to working in isolation in their own disciplines learn to work with others in an interdisciplinary team. Teams composed of traditional pest management disciplines (e. g, entomologists, plant pathologists, weed scientists); basic biologists (e.g., ecologists, taxonomists, geneticists); economists; and other social scientists are required. 1PM requires much greater understanding of the ecology of the pest/natural enemies/host complex than does the use of chemical pesticides. Gathering this information can be a slow process, but it can be facilitated by taking advantage of farmer and herder knowledge. Studying local pest control practices and how these fit into other agricultural activities can allow research and extension personnel to improve their effectiveness. Tapping the knowledge base of African pastoralists, such as how the Fulanis keep trypanosomiasis, ticks, and tick-borne diseases to low levels, may also provide researchers with methods to reduce livestock losses (16). 1PM research personnel could use farmers fields for much of their experimentation; extension personnel could organize demonstrations of new practices in these same fields and extend the demonstrations to other areas where conditions are similar. The International Agricultural Research Centers and a few national institutions possess the interdisciplinary expertise required to foster this approach. Their efforts in breeding crops with pest resistance and developing cultural controls have already had a favorable impact, Universities in the United States have experience in the development of 1PM systems and could serve as an important technical resource, Improved lnfrastructure and Management A number of countries are hindered in their attempts to control pests by their lack of basic infrastructure, resources, and personnel (44, 60). In spite of the obvious economic impact of crop losses due to pests, governments generally have not emphasized improving plant protection as a means of increasing and ensuring adequate food security. A general trend exists of under-investment in plant protection extension, research, and training relative to other disciplines of agriculture (3). To date, the largest efforts to develop 1PM systems for crop pests have been through the CILSS (The Permanent Interstate Committee for Drought Control in nine West African Countries of the Sahel) Integrated Pest Management Project and U.S. Agency for International Developments (AID) Regional Food Crop Protection Project (RFCP). Both focused on pest problems of basic crops in the Sahel (the RFCP Project also included Cameroon and Guinea Bissau). Also, both projects served to increase attention to crop protection issues and improved Sahelian institutional capabilities in 1PM (70). However, the CILSS 1PM Project was unsuccessful in developing 1PM packages for the RFCP Project to extend because the projects suffered management problems that reduced their effectiveness (70). Improving the Use of Chemical Pesticides Development assistance often has relied on chemical pesticides for quick solutions to pest problems but often has ignored long-term impacts (3). In some respects, pesticide problems in Africa and in other developing areas have come about because of an error in the transfer of technology. Modern pesticide technology developed by and for use in the developed world has been exported to developing countries without adequate attention to whether the institutional capacity existed to handle it

PAGE 264

264 (2). These problems are exacerbated by industrialized nations policies allowing export of unregistered and highly hazardous pesticides. Although some people have advocated banning export of such pesticides, this does not have the support of many exporting countries nor importing countries who desire to retain sovereignty over their choice of imports. pesticide use is encouraged also by subsidies that serve as incentives for farmers to use more than may actually be needed, discourage farmers from using alternative methods, and impede institutional efforts in 1PM (58). In Senegal, 90 percent of all agricultural pesticides are distributed to growers free of charge by crop marketing boards and other agricultural agencies. The rate of pesticide subsidy in Ghana is nearly 70 percent (3). Development assistance could take a longer term view that encourages sustainable, safer solutions to predictable problems. For instance, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and various locust control agencies could contribute by placing increased emphasis on early-warning systems for locusts and other migrant pests, thereby encouraging a preventativerather than crisisreactionapproach to controlling major pest outbreaks. Recently developed guidelines within FAO, the World Bank, and AID hold promise for improving the safety of pesticide use in developing countries. The FAO Code provides voluntary guidelines for governments of exporting and importing nations on distribution and use of pesticides. The World Bank Guidelines prohibit use of highly toxic pesticides and unsafe pesticide practices in Bank-financed projects. AIDs policy on pesticide assistance requires a risk-benefit evacuation of agricultural pesticides proposed for use in AIDs development assistance projects However, AID coul d strengthen its policy of encouraging the use of non-chemical methods and 1PM systems. AIDs present funding of pesticides in development projects could be reduced or eliminated in countries that lack proper infrastructure for handling the materials. It is too early to determine the impact of the FAO, World Bank, and AID guidelines, but they represent a step toward preventing pesticide abuse and should serve as an important reference for other donors and pesticide enforcement agencies in Africa. Poor animal health is the most serious obstacle to improving livestock production in SubSaharan Afric. ThRee principal mechanisms are available to overcome constraints to animal health (75): 1. improve control of endemic diseases and parasites, 2. enhance nutritiim to reduce susceptibility to disease and parasitism, and 3. use disease-resistant breeds and study the mechanisms and inheritance of disease resistance. Progress in improving animal health necessarily involves all three approaches since nutritional status, exposure to disease, and genetic make-up all interact to determine how well an animal is able to function in a given environment. This section examines the role of veterinary support and improving animal nutrition in grazing and mixed crop/livestock systems. Disease resistance is covered in chapter 9.

PAGE 265

265 Veterinary Support Veterinary medicine has made great advances over the last several decades. Mass drug production techniques have greatly reduced drug costs and many side effects have been reduced or eliminated (14), As the value of livestock relative to the cost of veterinary care continues to increase, the economic viability of investing in animal care has become increasingly attractive, even to low-resource farmers and herders. For the most part, however, veterinary services are highly subsidized by African governments in order to capitalize on economies of scale in mass immunization programs (14). Subsidies also help to increase national meat and milk production and therefore to lower consumer prices. Veterinary support services were among the first livestock projects promoted in Sub-Saharan Africa some 60 years ago, and these types of projects still predominate. One problem caused by this heavy emphasis on veterinary work is that while most epidemic diseases are now largely controllable and livestock populations have increased as a result, other needed areas of technology (e.g., range management and animal husbandry) and institutional backup have lagged behind (14). Lack of effective disease surveillance and disease reporting systems, as well as a lack of adequate diagnostic laboratories also hamper progress in disease control (16). Development assistance agencies to date have focused their animal disease control efforts on trypanosomiasis (48). Trypanosomiasis, transmitted by the tsetse fly, afflicts humans (sleeping sickness) and animals (Nagana). The tsetse fly is present in 37 African countries, infesting some 9 million hectares or 42 percent of the total land area. Thirteen countries 4 are almost completely infested (62). Altogether, some 45 million people are estimated to inhabit infested land. The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that presently infected areas might eventually support up to 120 million head of cattle (or the equivalent of other stock) if the disease were controlled (48). Controlling trypanosomiasis by animal immunization is at present impossible and treatments have in many cases produced drug-resistant trypanosomes. Thus, for now the control of tsetse and trypanosomiasis will rely on a combination of other methods including ground and aerial spraying of insecticides, changing the tsetses habitat through bushclearing, disrupting the tsetses reproductive 4 Benin, Central African Republic, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Togo, and Zaire.

PAGE 266

266 cycles through the release of sterilized flies, and the use of baited traps to reduce populations (48,76). Increased attention is also being directed toward improved husbandry and management of animals that display some tolerance to typanosomiasis such as the NDama, Maturu, and Keteku breeds of cattle (16) (see ch. 10). This extremely dynamic and constantly changing livestock disease creates unique difficulties in efforts to implement and monitor elaborate control and eradication programs. Some people are concerned, however, that an inordinate proportion of resources and funding have been focused on trypanosomiasis (16). while researchers generally agree that controlling trypanosomiasis would have major impacts on the potential for livestock development, many argue that development of a general vaccine to deal with this variation seems unlikely for some time because of the large number of strains present among the three African trypanosome species and their characteristic of changing forms in the bloodstream (16,59). In the meantime, a number of other diseases that may be more easily controlled have received considerably less attention. Two such diseases are rinderpest and contagious bovine pleuro-pneumonia (CBPP). Vaccines for both exist, the former with a once-in-a-lifetime inoculation, the later providing one year immunity (so research on longer term protection is desirable). Other relatively neglected livestock diseases in Africa include East Coast Fever and other tick-borne diseases, foot-and-mouth disease, streptothricosis, African swine fever, and various diseases caused by internal parasites. Box 11-1 identifies major livestock diseases in Africa and the availability of control methods. Breakthroughs in preventing and treating animal health problems have outpaced the ability to distribute the veterinary technology in Africa. African extension systems face numerous problems including a lack of adequate funds to get trained staff into the field to address clients needs and a general lack of proven technologies that do not disrupt the delicate equilibrium of interacting environmental, economic, and social factors in African livestock systems (14). A further problem is how the lack of interaction between veterinarians and other livestock scientists has created a narrow focus for extension agents. Most agents are trained in veterinary sciences and are seldom able to provide support on improved range management or animal husbandry. The benefits of veterinary support could be enhanced if promoted in conjunction with improved nutrition and management (14,16). Access to vaccine is fundamental to disease campaigns. A recent review of vaccine-producing facilities in Africa found that relatively minor investment in these facilities and rehabilitating their equipment could result in adequate production levels of rinderpest and CBPP vaccine for the region (30). Problems of inefficiency and improved quality control need to be addressed, however. Vaccine for poultry (e.g., Newcastle vaccination), can be more efficiently and cheaply obtained in international markets (14). Livestock malnutrition is considered by many to be the single most serious limitation to improved livestock production in Africa. Nutritional stress, compounded by intestinal parasites, is largely responsible for the high mortality (17 to 45 percent) recorded for calves, kids, and lambs in their first 3 months (14,45). Improving animal feed has thus become a major focus for African livestock development. This emphasis is reflected in staffing at the International Livestock Center for Africa (ILCA), where plant agronomists significantly outnumber animal scientists and veterinarians combined (46). Investigation of forage species, treatment of crop residues to increase digestibility, and improved storage qualities in forage are important areas being studied. Another promising avenue of investigation is providing supplemental fodder for small ruminants in mixed production systems (see ch. 10). Improving animal nutrition in Africa confronts the same serious problems as in cropping systems resource-poor farmers and herders severe constraints on access to exter-

PAGE 267

267 Box 11-1.State of the Art: Control of Major Livestock Diseases in Sub-Saharan Africa Rinderpest: A virus affecting ruminants and occasionally swine. It has a high mortality and spreads rapidly. A reliable, once-in-a-lifetime, vaccine is available but could be improved by making it thermostable, thereby reducing cost and reliability problems associated with current cold storage requirements. CBPP (Contagious bovine pleuro-pneumonia): A cattle disease caused by parasitic micro-organisms called mycoplasma. Immunity can be maintained for one year with vaccination but longer term protection is desirable. Treatment is also possible but generally not practical, PPR (Peste des petits ruminants): A viral disease affecting small ruminants that can result in high mortality and is increasing in prevalence, A once-a-year inoculation with rinderpest vaccine has good results. Anthrax, Blackleg, Pateurellosis: Available vaccines are adequate. African swine fever: A complex disease precluding intensive swine production in many areas. No effective control exists except slaughter, Research on control methods is needed urgently, Trypanosomiasis: No complete control exists. Because of the complexity of the pathogen, development of a vaccine has low probability in the next 10 to 20 years. Control of the vector (tsetse fly) through use of traps or vaccine-impregnated screens is most promising. Aerial spraying is expensive, clearance is seldom permanent, and may be environmentally harmful. Research on fly attractants, use of sterile male flies, and the search for tolerant cattle breeds deserves high priority. Dermatophilosis (Cutaneous streptotrichosis): As yet this is an under-researched constraint to cattle production in the West African humid to sub-humid zone, and a major impediment to use of Zebu type cattle in infected areas. More investigation on control is needed. Gastro-Intestinal Parasites: They probably cause the greatest losses among livestock in the region, especially in morbidity. Drugs for control are available but additional research is needed on integration into existing management systems. Tick-borne Diseases: The International Laboratory for Research on Animal Diseases and the International Center for Insect physiology and Ecology (both located in Kenya) have had promising results in vector control for East Coast Fever. Research is needed to see if this initial success can be extended to control vectors of piroplasmosis and heartwater in West Africa. SOURCES: World Bank, Western African Projects Department, West Africa Agricultural Research Review (Washington, DC: The World Bank, February 1987); William M. Moulton, Major Disease Deterrents to Improving the Sub-Saharan African Livestock Industry, J.R. Simpson and P. Evangelou (eds.), Livestock Development in Sub-Saharan Africa: Constraints, Prospects, and Policy (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1984), pp. 79-90. nal inputs. The need to depend on resources on maximizing their utilization rather than on internal to the system may be even more pro achieving an optimal nutritional status for each nounced in animal agriculture, however. The animal. The difference between these two congreater isolation of grazing systems, particularly trasting concepts is important. The key task among pastoralists, necessitates a higher level is to use what is available in African smallholdof self-sufficiency. In mixed crop/livestock sysings, rather than to seek the ideal feeds for Afritems, animal rearing is undertaken as a secondcan animals (4). ary activity to crop farming, so resource-poor farmers are generally less willing to divert meaProblems of animal nutrition are quantitative ger resources to animal improvements. Underand qualitative. Quantitative improvements can standing these constraints has important lessons be achieved through proper stocking of rangefor research and development assistance. lands, establishing improved pastures as complementary forage to native pastures, planting The principles underlying (the efficient use forage crops, promoting soil and water conserof crop residues and pastures in Africa) center vation practices, and through timely harvest

PAGE 268

268 and storage of crop residues (75). Improvements in quality involves ensuring nutritional adequacy of pastures, forages, and feed supplements and correcting deficiencies through pasture management, germplasm selection, and residue enhancement (75). Seasonal fluctuations in the availability and nutritional adequacy of feed supplies are among the most serious nutritional problems for African livestock in pastoral and mixed crop/livestock systems. Shortfalls are most pronounced in the dry seasons in arid and semi-arid zones. It is during this period when competition for animal milk between calves and people becomes most pronounced. The consequence of this is low weaning weights and high morbidity for calves. Improving feed resources for calves and calving mothers can bring major improvements in calf survival rates. Finding ways to supplement feed during this period is critical to improving productivity and thus deserves high research priority. Domestic ruminants such as cattle, camels, goats, and sheep must be able to obtain some minimum level of energy from the plant material they eat. These animals are not able to compensate for nutritionally poor forage by eating more, so access to quality forage is essential. The level of plant material or dry matter that an animal is able to mobilize for energy is called its digestibility or DIGa function of the total digestible nutrients of the plant (46). For domestic ruminants, the required DIG value is approximately 45 percent. Only about 5 percent of the feed available on low-resource farms is typically of high nutritional content, i.e, with a DIG value of 55 percent or greater (46). Of the remainder about half has adequate nutritional range (DIG 40 to 45 percent) and half is less than adequate. Research to increase the feeding value of plants and byproducts by 5 to 10 percent thus could prove significant (46). The principal mechanism for increasing digestibility is to provide the microbial organisms in the animals digestive rumen track with an improved supply of nitrogen and other critical growth factors. This can be achieved by chemically treating crop residues (e.g., with anhydrous ammonia or urea), supplementing crop residues with more nitrogen-rich forage (e. g., Trifolium) or both (4,46). Although these approaches appear promising, more on-farm testing is needed to better assess socioeconomic feasibility under resource-poor conditions (76). Low nitrogen levels in many African soils hinder both plant and animal productivity, so researchers have begun to focus attention on using forage legumes to enhance soil fertility and provide a protein supplement for livestock simultaneously. Some efforts are being directed to improving protein sources within grazing regions such as by planting nitrogen-fixing trees in conduction with reforestation campaigns. Others are aimed at better extracting leaf protein from legumes (69]. The major focus, however, is on more intensive agroforestry systems, such as using leguminous forage species as links between crop and livestock production (see ch. 10). Various forms of animal confinement, such as maintaining animals in stalls or tethering them, are becoming increasingly prevalent in more populated, land-scarce regions of Africa. Stall feeding historically has not been a part of African agricultural systems, except in small enclaves such as the Mandara Mountain region of Northern Cameroon, on the slopes of Kilimanjaro in Tanzania, on the island of Ukaru in Lake Victoria, and on mixed-cropping dairy farms in Kenya and Rwanda. Another exception is the common rearing of small livestock in and around many urban areas throughout Africa (29). The primary constraint to animal confinement is that it is labor-intensive and thus it competes for labor also needed for growing crops. Confinement also tends to increase the incidence of animal health problems and mortality in the absence of adequate veterinary care. Confinement offers some significant advantages, however. First, it is possible to regulate nutritional needs more carefully, assuming that sufficient fodder and feed-supplements are available. Second, manure can be collected, allowing it to be used more efficiently for fertilizer. Third, veterinary care is easier because the animals are contained (vaccinations and

PAGE 269

269Photo credit: Kay Muldoon/The World BankInadequate animal nutrition is the most serious limitation to improved livestock production in Africa. Livestocks fitness for animal traction is most important during the dry season when high quality food is in short supply.many other veterinary services are made easier, but containment actually aggravates other problems, such as ticks). Fourth, animal feeding efficiency is increased due to reduction ofenergy expended for grazing. And last, confine-ment generally produces higher quality meat.Potential Gains From Improved Animal HealthImprovements in animal health offer direct and indirect benefits for agricultural productivity (14). One direct benefit is reduced mortality. Given the high mortality rates commonfor African livestock (25 to 40 percent for youngstock and 3 to 15 percent for older stock), the potential for significant improvement seems great. To illustrate, vaccination and dipping campaigns in two Nigerian villages recorded a 75-percent reduction in death rates of sheepand goats (35). In another case, veterinary pack-ages for goat care brought economic returns of at least 20 percent (76). High returns are also reported for the rinderpest campaigns and ef-forts to combat foot-and-mouth disease (14). Al-though these returns on investment appear attractive, research is still needed on the ability and willingness of resource-poor agriculturalists to take advantage of these services. Improved animal health care also brings indirect benefits. As noted above, shortfalls in feed during parts of the year and competition between humans and calves for milk supplies causes high levels of pre-weaning mortality in African livestock. By improving calf nutrition during this period, not only is mortality reduced, but indirect benefits are achieved such

PAGE 270

270 as earlier sexual maturity of livestock, increased mature body weight, and increased efficiency in overall feed use (5,14). The prospect of controlling tsetse fly or at least expanding stock of trypano-tolerant livestock could have major impact on crop and livestock production in Africa. Many currently infested areas are among the most arable and they potentially could support sizable human populations. Increasing population densities in these regions can, in turn, help control reinfestation. Some researchers note, for example, that as land is converted to cultivation, shade cover is decreased and the habitat becomes less suitable for tsetse flies, which require shade (57). Problems and Approaches Much of Africa maybe witnessing a deterioration in animal health services at a time when greaternot lesssupport is needed. It is unlikely that governments will be able to provide significant increase in funding for livestock development. The challenge for development efforts, therefore, must focus on making more effective use of existing resources. Incorporating Sustainability in Eradication Program Planning Considerable resources and energy have been directed to livestock disease eradication programs in Africa, particularly rinderpest and trypanosomiasis. In both cases, however, the area of infestation has actually increased in recent years. Headway has been made in particular regions, only to be lost because necessary provisions to contain the disease could not be sustained. Serious concerns exist over the ability of African governments to sustain disease eradication programs after donor-supported mass inoculation campaigns are completed and the responsibilities, including costs, are transfered to national governments. The recent resurgence of rinderpest in Africa illustrates the problem: after a successful disease control campaign in the 1960s and 1970s, a serious resurgence has occurred because poorer African countries were unable to continue to vaccinate young stock once donor funding was discontinued (figure 11-1) (48). This suggests that criteria regarding sustainability must be incorporated in program planning, especially in light of mounting interest in another major rinderpest eradication program. It is also evident that efforts to clear areas of tsetse fly infestation will continue as a major focus of livestock development work (66). Here too, provisions should be made to ensure greater sustainability. Attention to long-term land-use planning is essential if success is to be achieved and funds not wasted (57). Land should be capable of supporting intensive land use, since establishing permanent agriculture in an area is a first line of defense against reinfestation. This may require establishing adequate support services and infrastructure, as well as policy interventions. Further, the ability of farmers to invest in animal husbandry and managementparticularly in animals that display some trypano-tolerancemay be as important as those technologies for directly controlling tsetse flies (e.g., traps and spraying) or trypanosomes (e.g., trypanocidal drugs) (16). Large-scale efforts to control trypanosomiasis in a region must also address their sustainability, for example, by making an assessment of potential adverse impacts. The FAO commission on African Animal Trypanosomiasis recommends, for example, that tsetse fly control or eradication be supported only in conduction with land-use planning that accounts for increases in the spontaneous settlement that would undoubtedly follow a successful campaign (48). Promoting a More integrated Approach t O Livestock Development Livestock development work has been approached, for the most part, as single sector/single technology interventions. Interventions have generally failed to be examined for their impacts on the broader production system, potential adverse effects have been discounted and possible complementarily of coordinating activities among sectors has not been investigated. In looking at the various obstacles to

PAGE 271

271 Figure 11-1 .The Resurgence of Rindepest in Africa and the Near East The situation between 1976-79 (after termination of the JP 15 Campaign) The situation after 1979 to date livestock development, what at first may seem an obvious solution, may in fact exacerbate problems (18). For example, solving livestock watering problems in arid and semi-arid regions by drilling boreholes seemed an obvious solution, but experience has shown otherwise because severe overgrazing occurred near wells. Similarly, veterinary interventions to address problems of high mortality in pastoralist herds have also tended to lead to serious overgrazing and, in many cases, have worsened existing problems. Programs are initiated without coordination. They are in the hands of technical experts, each of whom is concerned only with his or her own area of expertise. There is no effort to relate the actions taken to the full cycle of activities necessarily involved ., What is needed is a coordinated approach. This means that such technical matters as disease control, land improvement, and marketing operations are to be developed in a concerted, integrated fashion. It also means that the legitimate interests and aims of the pastoralists, including their use of livestock as factors in their social relations, are taken into account (18). A number of technologies able to enhance animal health under low-resource conditions have been identified. In humid and subhumid regions, cut-and-carry fodder operations seems particularly promising for more intensive systems, such as livestock/agroforestry systems and intensive forage gardens. In more arid regions, access to dry-season fodder supplements could significantly improve calf survival rates. Various forms of pasture and fodder improvements or improved conservation of crop residues could meet these needs (31, 38). Cultivating the potential of these various technologies, however, will require greater collaborative work than currently exists among plant and animal scientists, as well as other social scientists, The importance of crop residues as supplemental feed has particular implications for crop breeders who, often divorced from the needs of the livestock subsector, tend to ignore the importance of crop residues to resource-poor farmers. Considerable variation exists in the digestibility of crop residues. Technology to supplement or treat crop residues for increased

PAGE 272

272 digestibility is an important area for collaborative research. Increased attention should now be directed to on-farm research and testing; this will also require supportive socioeconomic analysis to evaluate technologies impacts and adoption under farmers and herders conditions. Adjusting Imbalances in Technical Support Services A number of imbalances in African technical support services have been identified that, if corrected, could provide more effective use of scarce resources devoted to improving animal healthespecially among resource-poor farmers and herders. These include excesses in funds devoted to veterinary support v. other areas of animal health; in research and extension budgets devoted to salaries v. operations; and in soliciting students for livestock extension services from farming and urban backgrounds v. from pastoralist communities. Veterinarians comprise an estimated 70 percent of all African professional livestock workers and have been successful in setting research priorities for African livestock development. Major advances have been made in controlling most epidemic livestock diseases as a result. Research for other animal health areas, such as animal nutrition, as well as related disciplines of range management and animal husbandry have suffered relative neglect. Advances in these neglected areas are essential for resolving the most important constraints now confronting sustainable livestock development in Africa. This suggests that a more balanced allocation of research activities could b e promoted. Concerns also exist over the increasing proportion of livestock services budgets being directed toward staff salaries. Although a general underinvestment in scientific staff is widely recognized, more specific concerns are expressed due to the relative emphasis on staff v. operating funds, and the ineffectual services that can result. One reason for this is that in many African countries vocational school graduates are basically guaranteed a civil service position. Because operating budgets are stagnant or declining, the increasing number of personnel have little money to support research or buy equipment (14). For the most part, staff are underemployed except for the few months during vaccination campaigns. Also, staff are heavily restricted in their ability to engage in field work and research, perhaps reflecting a more serious problem. Another imbalance in livestock support services stems from the relatively few pastoralists in such technical support positions. Students from pastoral communities are less likely to be solicited to become veterinary agents than students from farm or urban backgrounds (14). Important benefits may be derived from increasing training among members of pastoral communities because of their greater familiarity with livestock problems and management practices. Also, greater confidence may emerge between veterinary agents and the people they serve when veterinarians backgrounds reflect their clients. Providing pastoralists with veterinary support still presents unique challenges. These include accommodating the needs of a transient people and finding trained veterinarians willing to live and practice in those conditions. One solution currently being investigated is providing veterinary support via a pastoralist with some basic training and access to supplies, but who will live and operate within the pastoral community. Experience with grassroots veterinariansor paravets, as they are sometimes calledis still too new to judge their effectiveness, but initial results are promising. Experience in Niger and the Central African Republic suggests that frequent contact wit h government services and the existence of supportive institutional structures (e.g., pastoralist associations) tend to increase their effectiveness (14). Supporting RegionaI Cooperation Increased cooperation in research seems essential in a region where a critical mass of qualified researchers per country is often lacking. Establishing research networks thus becomes

PAGE 273

273 very important. In addition to being able to link individual scientists, networks represent a resource for national program development through coordination, technical backstopping, training and printing facilities, and information dissemination (4). The proliferation of research networks dealing with livestock and crop/livestock issues and the increased funding being devoted to these groups is a promising development. Production of animal vaccine is another area where significant benefits may be derived from regional cooperation. For example, benefits may be derived from designating particular facilities for primary responsibility for particular vaccines. This would reduce the need for individual facilities to produce smaller amounts of many different products. Summary Post-harvest crop losses significantly reduce the food and income available to resourcepoor agriculturalists in Africa. It is difficult to estimate food losses with precision; they are locationand season-specific to a degree that makes the concept of average levels of loss almost meaningless (53). Previous high estimates for overall food losses (e.g., at least 20 percent) are no longer accepted by most scientists, although losses can exceed this level in specific cases (20). Post-harvest processing typically demands long, tedious hours of labor. While African women are active in field production of crops and livestockresponsible for 50 to 70 percent of planting, weeding, hoeing, and harvesting of crops, as well as domestic animal carepostharvest activities are almost entirely their domain. African women are typically responsible for 80 to 90 percent of the transport of crop from the fields and their subsequent storage and processing, as well 60 percent of the marketing. These activities are balanced around other responsibilities for collecting water and fuel, cooking, and family care for which they are almost entirely responsible. Efforts to enhance post-harvest technology thus should primarily benefit, and specifically evaluate impacts on, African women. More efficient technologies can contribute to free time that can be spent on farming or family activities, or other enterprises (61). Numerous post-harvest technologies exist for each of the dozen or so major African crops, livestock, and fish. Socioeconomic and technical factors influence the selection of a particular technology, including the size of the farming enterprise, the reliability of the harvest, labor availability, food needs, and income-generation potential (61). OTA has only dealt with a small illustrative subset of promising post-harvest technologies for drying, storing, and processing foods, and in the cases of rice and maize, threshing or shelling for separating the grain from the rest of the plant. No single machine or new practice will drastically improve the post-harvest operations of African farmers, but a large number of relatively simple technologies do exist that have the potential to improve the various post-harvest processes. Several of these improved technologies have been successful in reducing labor demands and in making operations more efficient. These improvements face the best likelihood of success if they are adapted from This material is based primarily on the OTA contractor report prepared by the Tropical Development and Research Institute, London, U. K., (app. A).

PAGE 274

274 Opportunities for Improvement Threshing and Shelling Rice, an important crop in humid regions, is still harvested by hand on most low-resource farms and threshing is done by trampling or hitting the rice-bearing straw against a hard surfaceboth inexpensive techniques, but labor-intensive and wasteful. Small, pedaloperated rotary threshers are in use in West Africa. This technique is faster, reduces waste because stalks can be refed to separate more grain, and allows the hands to remain free to feed the thresher. But to illustrate the importance of considering local conditions, these threshers may prove unsuitable in certain areas of West Africa where custom forbids women to sit astride. Where draft animals are available they can be used to power a simple thresher that increases output considerably compared with traditional methods and has the advantage of not requiring the rice stalks to be collected into bundles (61). Small quantities of maize, another African staple, are traditionally shelled by handa process that is laborious, tedious, but efficient because little grain is damaged. Larger quantities are shelled by placing the cobs in a sack and beating this with a stick. However, some handheld shellers are now available such as a wooden one developed by the Tropical Development and Research Institute (TDRI) (61). This tool is simple, inexpensive, and made from local materials, but it is tiring to use extensively and only shells cobs of a standard size. Small rotary shellers seem suitable for resource-poor farmers and are being introduced into rural areas of Kenya by the United Nations International Childrens Emergency Fund (UNICEF). Surveys show, however, that unless they have large amounts of maize to shell, farmers prefer traditional methods because few kernels are crushed. Simple machines to speed threshing and shelling would seem opportune, but the social consequences (e.g., reduced employment for women) must also be considered (61). Drying and Storage Food must be dried properly before storage to prevent deterioration, inhibit grain germination, limit the growth of fungi and bacteria, and reduce insect infestations. Over-dried crops are subject to breakage, discoloration, scorching, and reduced nutritional value. Many drying methods are available and the choice of method depends on several factors such as climate, quantity, intended final use of the food product, and the availability of fuel. For most staple foods, the basic methods available to resource-poor farmers are sun and air drying. Some artificial drying is necessary when crops are harvested during the wet season. Traditionally, grains such as rice, millet, and shelled maize are simply spread on the ground and left to dry in the sun. One straight-forward way to speed this process is to place the grain on a black plastic sheet to increase the air temperature. This process also is effective for root crops such as cassava; in fact, cassava drying time can be reduced 25 percent by using a black plastic base. Where maize matures during wet periods, such as in the humid areas of West Africa, rapid drying is necessary to prevent spoilage. Drying cribs provide shelter from the rain and allow ventilation through open sides (61).

PAGE 275

275 As farmers grow more improved, high-yielding varieties of maize that mature when the conditions for air and sun drying are inadequate, some artificial drying becomes essential. One simple dryer consists of a cylindrical clay structure with a thatched roof and a raised floor. Fuel is burned beneath in a firing chamber; air is drawn in, heated, and rises through the grain. Farmers acceptance of this technology has been slow, however, because the dryer is hard to install and use. Other alternatives are in use, but a need still exists for low-cost dryers that can be built from locally available materials. Solar dryers are another option. The National Council for Science and Technology in Kenya has developed an improved solar dryer that provides equal drying on all sides without overdying. The dryer is made locally of blackpainted wood, covered with polyethylene, and has a metal drying chamber. Although solar dryers are inexpensive to operate, they do not operate effectively during the rainy season (61). Once a crop has been dried to a suitable moisture level, it must be stored. Storage must protect crops from rain, theft, and attack by fungi, insects, and rodents. Cassava presents particular storage problems because it deteriorates within a few days of being dug from the ground. Traditional cassava storage methods include reburial, coating with mud, placing under water, or the daily watering of heaps of cassava roots. An improved approach is packing freshly harvested roots in boxes of damp sawdust, which can be effective for 1 to 2 months. Traditional approaches for storing grains in Africa are often ingenious in their design and use of local materials (27,41,55,63). Generally, storage areas are built from mud, plant material, stones, or some combination of these. They commonly have thatched roofs and are raised off the ground. In humid areas where the structures combine drying and storage functions, they are more open to allow ventilation (e.g., open-sided cribs). Since rainfall patterns and harvests tend to be more reliable in Africas humid regions than in its drier regions, storage facilities tend to be smaller, holding perhaps a l-year supply of food. By contrast, in semiarid areas where harvests are far less reliable, storage granaries are commonly large, substantial mud structures capable of holding 2 or more tons of grain for up to 5 years. Sealed, underground pits are sometimes used. Because dried grain is vulnerable to insects and rodents, farmers sometimes mix sand, limestone, or other abrasive minerals with the grain. This traditional method provides a relatively effective barrier because it affects the insects surface in such a way as to cause subsequent desiccation of the pest. Mixing selected ashes, herbs, or dried animal dung also can protect stored produce against insect attack. Seeds of the Neem tree, which act as natural insecticides, have also been added to stored grain to repel insects (61). Traditional methods of insect control in storage are rarely as effective as modern synthetic insecticides and fumigants, although they are less expensive and safer. Insecticides are now widely available in most countries and in some cases represent a cost-effective means of protecting stored produce. Training farmers to use these products safely and arranging for reliable supplies presents a challenge to extension services, however (61). Processing Processed grains and other staple foods make up one of the most important parts of the diet of most low-resource farmers. Processing is the essential step of readying crops and other foods for consumption, and it usually involves several slow, laborious steps. Food processing in almost all cases is the responsibility of women. Many opportunities to improve processing exist, with most focusing on reducing the labor involved. The following discussion gives examples of these opportunities for different crops and commodities. Cereals.-Traditional milling of sorghum, for instance, involves soaking the grain to loosen the bran and then pounding it in a mortar to remove the bran. Sorghum grain is usually processed into a porridge or partially fermented flat bread. These traditional foods take a long time to prepare and they are losing popularity with urban populations. Sorghum, however, grows

PAGE 276

well in semi-arid regions and is drought resistant so new processing techniques that could produce more marketable foods and encourage wider acceptance could relieve some dependency on imported food. TDRI, together with the Kenya Industrial Research and Development Institute (KIRDI), is developing instant foods from sorghum and promoting these as substitutes for rice. Also, a mechanized milling method known as dry abrasion has been introduced into villages in Botswana by the Canadian International Development Research Center (IDRC). Once trained to use this mill, a farmer can save several hours of labor each week. Maize is traditionally milled with a pestle and mortar, sometimes after soaking a few days so fermentation can occur. The equipment used is inexpensive, but the process is time and labor consuming. Various types of hand mills are available, but rural women are increasingly making use of community mills. Small amounts of rice can be processed for daily use, but the bulk of the crop is stored in an unprocessed form so that it is less vulnerable to insects. Processing involves several stages, including soaking, parboiling, drying, hulling, and winnowing. Each step is time-consuming and has potential to be made more efficient through new techniques and equipment. For instance, parboiling is done to make hulling easier and it reduces the number of broken grains because the husk is split during heating and the kernel is strengthened. However, three

PAGE 277

277 tedious steps are involved: soaking the grain, heating it until it cracks, then drying it in the sun. In addition, rice prepared this way commonly has an unpleasant odor. The traditional method of winnowing is to toss the rice kernels and separated husks into the air from a flat wooden tray. The kernels fall back to the tray first while the lighter husks catch in the breeze and fall to the ground. Improved methods are being developed for both parboiling and winnowing For example hand-operated winnowerssuch as one that consists of a vertical drum with a fan at one endcan be inexpensive and easy to build. A new method of parboiling is also being developed which is faster and does not result in the unpleasant smell (61). Legumes.Legume processing can be particularly demanding. The traditional method of hulling is to soak the legumes or mix them with oil, sun-dry them, and pound them in a pestle and mortar. The husks are then winnowed off. Small hand or power-operated hullers are available, but these often split the bean. Legumes are usually soaked overnight and then cooked for 1 to 4 hours, a process that is slow and results in the loss of valuable nutrients. Some precooked legumeslegumes that have been flaked, pressure cooked, and dehydratedare being developed but the level of technology may be beyond the reach and access of resource-poor farmers. One particularly important cash crop for resource-poor farmers is the groundnutor peanut. Unlike other legumes, they do not have a hard husk. A wooden, hand-operated decorticator, developed by UNICEF in Kenya, is claimed to be three times more efficient than traditional hand methods for removing groundnut shells. Cassava.Cassava is a root crop and important staple that is processed into a variety of products according to local traditions and needs. Processing cassava is one of the most time-consuming and strenuous tasks faced by African women, and traditional methods can take several days to complete. The main products are chips, flour, and gari. Gari is becoming increasingly popular in some West African countries (e.g., Ghana) because of shortages of other foods. To prepare cassava, it is first soaked a few days to reduce the cyanide content of the roots. Then the root is peeled, chopped into small pieces, and sun-dried. Chips are produced after drying for 3 to 10 days. The chips are pounded in a mortar to make flour. Gari preparation is also lengthy but, once prepared, it is easy to cook and keeps well for several months. Peeled root is washed and grated, then allowed to ferment. Simultaneously, water is extracted either by placing the mixture in bags under heavy weights or some other pressure system. Next, the fermented cassava mixture is sieved and roasted. Techniques are being developed to speed and ease these various steps. Hand or pedaloperated graters are available now. Improved presses, too, are under development. Any modification to traditional methods, however, must be careful to result in a comparable cyanide reduction. Oil Seeds.Vegetable oils are an important commodity and are often in short supply. palm oil, in particular, is a major income source for rural women in the humid areas. While palm fruits are harvested by men, oil processing is a womans task. First, the fruits are boiled for 5 to 10 hours in an iron pot. The oily fibers are then separated from the rest of the seed by either pounding in a mortar or trampling in a pit. These methods are slow and laborious. In traditional processing, water is added during fiber separation and the oil is scooped and sieved from the mixture of fibers, kernels, and water. Then the oil is boiled in drums and left to cool, where any remaining vegetable debris sinks while the oil floats and can be skimmed off. Several advances have been made in oil processing. Sterilizers, small boilers for steaming larger quantities of seeds in shorter time, have been developed. A palm-pounding machine also exists. Several types of screw and hydraulic presses have been designed to make the final stage of oil extraction easier and less time-

PAGE 278

278 consuming, but again, such techniques are not in widespread use. Coconut oil, sunflower oil, and other seed oils are also important in various regions and are similarly difficult to process. Simple improvements in graters and presses can increase output. For example, shea nuts are a locally important source of shea-nut butter, an edible fat that provides income for rural women. Traditional methods of producing the butter result in about 25 percent fat. A hand press developed by the German Appropriate Technology Exchange (GATE) results in high-fat butter, reduces the time involved, and cuts fuel requirements. Although it is expensive to buy initially, the press is estimated to pay for itself in 2 years because of the extra income it generates. Milk.Milk products are highly valued by herders and farmers. Herders use milk and milk products as barter for food grain. Surveys have revealed many traditional systems of milk preservation, principally in the form of butter, ghee, or other fermented products (47). The InternationaI Livestock Centre for Africa (ILCA) recently organized a dairy technology unit, whose focus is to research low-cost means of milk preservation (36). working in the highlands of Ethiopia, the ILCA group has developed an internal agitator fitted to the traditional regional clay milk churn that cuts churning time in half and has increased butter recovery from 75 to 92 percent. The program is also promoting the use of a locally producible wooden press for making cheese, including Queso Blanco, Halloumi, and cottage cheese (36). More efficient cheesemaking is also resulting from improved locally constructed evaporation coolers. As a result of these promising technologies, 13 countries have begun to direct attention to promoting similar improvements in milk preservation (47). Fisheries.-Other particularly important food sources in many countries are derived from marine and inland fisheries. Major coastal fisheries are found in West Africa, Mozambique, and Tanzania, and inland fisheries are important around Lakes Chad, Victoria, and Malawi. The inland delta of the Niger River in Mali is also important because seasonal flooding supports a large population of migrant fishers. Fish is a highly perishable commodity and heavy losses occur at every stage of the postharvest chain. Losses occur during handling on boats and after landing; from blowflies during drying and beetles during storage; and during smoking, packaging, and transport because of crumbling and spoilage. Much of the fish caught is sold immediately, but a significant portion is dried or otherwise preserved, especially where it is transported long distances. For migrant fishermen in Mali, for instance, 3 to 4 months elapse between the fish catch and consumption. As much as 50 percent of the fish processed can be lost. The most common methods of fish processing are air and sun drying, salting, and smoke drying. The traditional approach to drying is simply to spread the fish on straw on the beach and leave them in the sun. One improvement is the use of simple racks that raise the fish off the ground and improve airflow around the fish. Racks can be built from local materials that are cheap and effective. Another potential improvement underway is the development of solar driers. Salt drying, on the other hand, has the advantage of not only drying the fish, but preventing microbiological spoilage. It is usually carried out simply by sprinkling dry salt between stacked layers of split fish or immersing the fish in brine. Smoke drying is widely used in West Africa and is traditionally carried out over a grid of fire or in mud, wood, or oil drum ovens. The heat not only dries the fish, but reduces blowfly attack. Blowflies are a serious threat to fisheries, particularly in the wet season when drying is slow. In Senegal in 1984, one-third of the fish catch was lost to blowfly infestation. Phenolic compounds in the smoke that inhibit bacterial action may also be deposited on the surface of the fish. while this approach is cheap, it requires large amounts of firewood, an increasingly scarce resource. Many different improved ovens are being introduced, such as the Chorker fish smoker that FAO introduced in

PAGE 279

279 Ghana. This smoker has a large capacity, is easy to operate, reduces smoking time, and is inexpensive to build, although the design requires skilled workers (box 11-2). Energy Sources. One of the critical needs of the resource-poor farmer is fuelwood and other sources of energy for processing food. Fuelwood is becoming scarce in many parts of Africa. Reforestation efforts such as the country-wide tree planting initiative carried out by the Kenyan National Council of Women in 1977 are long-term solutions. Ways to meet needs more immediately include: l Briquetting, where cellulosic residues such as rice husks or groundnut shells can be pressed into briquettes and burned. However, any development of this type of alternative energy source should be careful not to create problems with soil productivity and conservation due to removal of residues that otherwise would contribute to soil organic matter. l Solar energy, too, offers an alternative although its role may be small. Solar cookers have proven relatively unsuccessful, in part because of the conflict with the local custom of cooking in the evening after the sun has gone down, and in part because they require direct sunlight and must be constantly adjusted as the sun moves. Solar driers, although not yet used on any significant scale, may prove more efficient. Improved cook stoves and post-harvest technologies that use fuelwood more efficiently (box 11-3) (8,10,28). PotentiaI No single machine or new practice will drastically improve the post-harvest operations of African farmers, herders, and fishers, but a large number of relatively simple techniques do have the potential to make myriad small improvements. The impact of technologies can be enhanced if their development is based on an understanding of the entire production cycle. Fishing illustrates this point. As the capacit y for fish processing is increased by improved ovens, more fish have to be supplied regularly to make the ovens economically efficient. Thus, improved fish catches are required, which requires improvements in boats, nets, and other gear. Boats could be fitted with engines, but their high fuel consumption and need for maintenance sometimes is not suitable for resourcepoor agriculturalists. At the other end of the post-harvest chain, improved methods of packaging and marketing would similarly be needed. The contribution of improved post-harvest technologies can be enhanced by focusing increased attention on African women (7,34,52). Most development programs in the past were directed toward men. Donor agencies and African governments are recognizing the necessity of assisting women because if the technology does not fit with womens many duties, it stands little chance of success. Problems and Approaches One of the obstacles that has hindered the development of post-harvest technologies for resource-poor agriculturalists is the low priority that this subject has received from development assistance agencies. Assistance typically has emphasized improvements in production; and the female-dominated post-production side of agriculture has lacked a vocal constituency. Furthermore, food losses at the farm level, as compared to commercial level, most likely are not as high as previously believed, and may actually be acceptable to the farmer or fisher. Development agencies may find it more rewarding to measure success in terms of reducing womens drudgery, rather than quantitatively measuring reductions in lost food. The growing awareness in the development community and among African leaders of the need to find more effective ways of ensuring that assistance reaches women, offers hope that priorities are becoming more balanced. However, women still are underrepresented in extension service positions and at higher levels in the development assistance community. A common feature of development failures has been the inappropriateness of introduced technologies. Not surprisingly, traditional

PAGE 280

280 Box n-2.-Women Invent New Technology for Smoking Fish In Africa, as in other hot, humid zones, it is difficult to preserve fish products since fresh fish deteriorates rapidly and cannot be transported immediately to centers of consumption. This causes significant losses and reduces the amount of animal protein, already scarce, that reaches the local population. Hence, the importance of the chorkor, an oven for smoking fish named for the Ghanian village where it was invented in 1970. It was developed by local women with the assistance of a small project directed by the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the Food Research Institute in Accra, Ghana. The chorkor is an improved version of the traditional cylindrical clay ovens that African women use for smoking fish. Although the traditional ovens still predominate, they are not very efficient. The women who use them work an average of 5 hours a day to obtain only 10 to 20 kilos of poorquality smoked fish and they breathe in a large quantity of smoke in the process. Furthermore, the traditional ovens use enormous amounts of firewood, which is expensive in many African countries. The women of Chorkor, aware of these problems, decided to modify the traditional cylindrical oven. A modified rectangular oven can be built of clay (which can be coated with a layer of cement to keep off rain), with sundried bricks, or with cement blocks mortared, like the bricks, with a mixture of sand and cement, It uses grills made of inexpensive wire netting and wood frames. The wooden frames allow 15 layers of fish to be dried at once (compared to 2 to 3 layers in the traditional ovens), and can be arranged to form a chimney to facilitate circulation of heat and smoke, The oven has two parts, divided by a partition, which can be used together or separately. This permits smoking fewer fish, if desired, and storing already-smoked fish in the section not in use. The advantages of this oven over the traditional ones are great. It can be built in 5 days fairly inexpensively; it lasts longer (if the trays are built well and oiled regularly, and the frames kept from burning and protected from the elements, they can last up to 3 years, and a well-made oven can last up to 8 years); it can dry 240 kg of fish at one time (as compared to only 20 kg with the old system); and it gives a much more uniform and better-quality product. Moreover, it uses one-tenth the amount of wood that traditional ovens use, does not fill the eyes and lungs of the workers with smoke, and takes much less time and effort to use. It is not surprising that the chorkor has been enthusiastically received, especially considering that the inhabitants of the West Coast of Africa prefer smoked fish to fish dried in the sun or salted, Smoked fish has a milder flavor, but since it has a higher moisture content, it spoils more easily if it has not been preserved properly as happens frequently with traditional ovens. With the chorkor system, the smoked fish lasts up to 9 months because the chimney formed by the trays allows more uniform penetration of smoke and heat. The chorkor is, consequently, not only an efficient innovation but also a socially useful technology, as much for the women who use the ovens as for the consumers. Although it is still not well-known outside its region of origin, the chorkor oven is spreading with the help of FAO and UNICEF to Guinea, Togo, Benin, and Guinea-Bissau. In Guinea, for example, 300 women are forming a cooperative for preserving fish with the chorkor and for marketing what they produce. Togo will install 10 chorkors in strategic locations on the coast, teach the Togolese women how to take advantage of the new method, and give them technical advice on construction of the ovens; some Togolese women will go to Ghana to learn how it works, Guinea-Bissau hopes to spread the use of the chorkor to all the islands of the Bijagoz archipelago. It is clear that the local costs of the raw materials for the construction of the chorkor oven will vary from country to country. The same is true of customs, tastes, and climatic conditions, needs of the local rural and urban populations, traditions regarding the use of fish, and the fish species that can be smoked. Obviously care must be taken in spreading use of the chorkor oven. But it is equally evident that the women of Ghana have made an important contribution to the development of appropriate technologies. SOURCE: Guillermo Almeyra, Women Invent New Technology for Smoking Fish, Ceres, vol. 20, No. 1, January/February 1987, pp. 5-7.

PAGE 281

281 Box 11-3.-Improved Charcoal Stoves Most stove programs in Africa have had little success, distributing at best 5,000 to 8,000 stoves. Many of the designs were too expensive, ill-adapted to traditional cooking or heating requirements, or required materials and skills that often were unavailable. An important breakthrough in fuel-efficient stoves came with the U.S. AID-funded Kenya Renewable Energy Development Project, launched in 1982. By the end of 1985 the project had given birth to a new industry whose main producers alone had sold 110,000 improved charcoal stoves at a profit. The new stove is a modification of an existing one called a jiko. In contrast to the jiko, the improved stove is about 50 percent more fuel efficient; it costs 65 to 100 Kenyan shillings, but lasts longer than the old one which costs 60 shillings. For the average Nairobi family spending 170 shillings a month on charcoal, the new stove pays for itself within 8 weeks. There was a high level of local participation in the design. Scrap metal artisans were consulted to make manufacturing easy. The stove is constructed of scrap metal, with an insulating ceramic liner, a built-in grate in the top half, and an ash chamber in the bottom. Prototypes were test marketed in 600 households to make sure they were acceptable. The Kenyan approach has potential in countries where fuelwood is marketed and is expensive. For the poor and scattered rural populations that comprise much of Africa, a different approach is needed. The improved stove developed by the Burkina Energy Institute, for example, is basically a shielded version of the traditional three-stone stove. The improvement is a circular shield built of clay, dung, millet chaff, and water that goes around three-stones that act as pot rests. The stove can be built in half a day to fit any desired pot size, and requires little, if any, cash. Fuel savings range between 35 and 70 percent, Most women recoup the investment of a days labor within 1 or 2 weeks. The low-cost, high benefit, and rapid-dissemination method have brought some 85,000 improved three-stone stoves into use. SOURCE: Paul Harrison. The Greening of Africa: Breakng Through the Battle for Land andFood (Toronto: Paladin Grafton Books, 1979), pp. 205-220. methods have not been abandoned by farmers, herders, and fishers until an improved technology has clearly been shown to be an effective improvement and has few consequent disadvantages. The most successful technologies CHAPTER 1 1. Barr, B. A., Koehler, C. S., and Smith, R. F., Crop Losses, Rice: Field Losses to Insects, Diseases, Weeds, and Other Pests, UC/AID Pest A4anagement and Related Environmental Protection Project (Berkeley: University of California, 1975). 2. Bottrell, Dale, Social Problems in Pest Management in the Tropics, Insect Science Applications, vol. 4, No. 1/2, 1983, pp. 179-184. 3. Bottrell, Dale G., Pest Control, contractor report to the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, December 1987). 4. Brumby, Peter, ILCAIts Approach and Work, have been those based on, or improvements of, traditional practices. This recognizes that traditional practices are often well-adapted to existing conditions and are already proven to be appropriate and acceptable to the adopters. 1 REFERENCE S A Presentation for International Centres Week 1986, Washington, D.C. (Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: International Livestock Centre for Africa, 1986), 5. Brumby, P.J. and Trail, J. C. M., Animal Breeding and Productivity Studies in Africa, ILCA Bulletin, No. 23, January 1986, pp. 23-27. 6. Bull, David, A Growing Problem: Pesticides and the Third World Poor (Oxford: Oxfam, 1982). 7. Carr, M., Appropriate Technology for Women, Appropriate Technology, vol. 5, No. 1,1978, pp. 4-6. 8, Clarke, T. A,, Small-Scale Briquetting by Hand, Appropriate Technology, vol. 13, No. 2, 1986, p. 9.

PAGE 282

282 9 10 Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux International (CAB I), CAB International Nevvs, London, October 1986, pp. 6-7. Commonwealth Science Council, SoZar Dryers, Their Role in Post-Harvest Processing (London: The Commonwealth Secretariat, 1985). 11, Conelly, W. T., Perception and Management of Crop Pests Among Subsistence Farmers in South Nyanza, Kenya, manuscript submitted to Perception and Management of Pests and Pesticides Work Group, 1985. 12. Conservation Foundation, Report Urges Bet13 14 ter Chemical Controls Abroad,; Cons& vation Foundation Letter, No. 2, 1988, pp. 1-7. Cramer, H. H., Plant Protection and World Crop Production, Pf7anzenschutz-Nachrichten, vol. 20, 1967, pp. 1-524. De Haan, C. and Nissen, N. J,, Animal Health Services in Sub-Saharan Africa: Alternative Approaches, World Bank Technical Paper Number 44, World Bank, Washington, DC, 1985. 15. Development International, Mastering the MealybugA Beneficial Approach, Development International (prototype issue], 1986, p. 19. 16. Dipeoulu, (former) Dean, Faculty of Veterinary 17, 18. Medicine, University of Ibadan, Nigeria, personal communication, Oct. 8, 1987 Glass, E.H. and Thurston, H. D., Traditional and Modern Crop Protection in Perspective, l?ioScience, vol. 28, 1978, pp. 109-115. Goldschmidt, W., The Failure of Pastoral Economic Development Programs in Africa, J.G. Galaty, et al. (eds.), The Future of Pastoral Peoples (Ottowa: International Development Research Center, 1981), pp. 101-118. 19. Goodman, L.W. and Portilla, B., Foreign Toxins: 20 21 22. Multinational Corporations and Pesticides in Mexican Agriculture, paper prepared for World Resources Institute conference, 1985. Greeley, Martin, Pinpointing Post-harvest Food Losses, Ceres, vol. 15, No. 1, 1982, pp. 30-37. Hahn, S.K. and Howland, A. K., Breeding for Resistance to Cassava Mosaic, Proceedings Cassava Mosaic Workshop (Ibadan, Nigeria: International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, 1982), pp. 37-39, Hahn, S.K. and Keyser, J., Cassava: A Basic Food of Africa, Outlook on Agriculture, vol. 14, No. 2, 1985, pp. 95-99. 23. Hansen, Michael, Escape from the Pesticide Treadmill: Alternatives to Pesticides in Developing Countries, Preliminary Report (Mount Vernon, NY: Institute for Consumer Policy Research, Consumers Union, May 1986). 24. Harrison, P., The Greening of Africa: Breaking Through the Battle for Land and Food (Toronto: Paladin Grafton Books, 1987), 25. Harwood, R.F. and James, M. T., Entomology in Human and Animal Health, 7th ed, (New York, NY: Macmillan, 1979). 26. Herren, H. R., Neuenschwander, R. D,. Hennes27 28 29 sey, R. D., and Hammond, W. N: O., Introduction and Dispersal of Epidinocarsis lopezi (Hym., Encyrtidae), and Exotic Parasitoid of the Cassava Mealybug, Phenacoccus manihoti (Horn., Pseudococcidae), in Africa, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, vol. 19, 1987, pp. 131-144. Hindmarsh, P. S., Tyler, P.S. and Webley, D, J., Conserving Grain on the Small Farm in the Tropics, Tropical Science, vol. 20, pp. 117-128. Hislop, D., Residue Briquetting in The Gambia, Appropriate Technology, vol. 13, No. 2, 1986, PP. 22-23. Holtzman, John, Stall Feeding of Cattle in the Mandara Mountains of Northern Cameroon, Pastoral Development Network Paper Number 24a, (London: Overseas Development Institute, August 1987). 30. Institut dElevage et de Medecine Veterinaire 31, 32. 33, 34, 35. 36. 37, 38. de Pays Tropicaux (IEMVT), Survey on the Potentialities of the African Laboratories for Rinderpest and Pleuropneumonia Vaccine Production, Maisons Alfort, France, 1983. International Board for Plant Genetic Resources (IBPGR) and the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Forage and Browse Plants for Arid and SemiArid Africa, IBPCR, Rome, 1984, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, 1975 Annual Report (Ibadan, Nigeria: International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, 1976), International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, IITA Research Highlights (Ibadan, Nigeria: International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, 1984). International Labor Office (ILO), Improved Village Technology for Womens Activities, ILO, Geneva, 1984. International Livestock Centre for Africa (ILCA), Veterinary Package Boosts Nigerian Sheep and Goat Production, ILCA Newsletter, vol. 3, No. 3, 1984, pp. 1, 3. International Livestock Centre for Africa (ILCA), ILCA Annual Report, 1986/87, ILCA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopica, 1987, pp. 45-46. ]ejyaratnam, Jeyarajah, Occupational Health in Developing Countries, Scandinavian ~ournal of Work, Environment, and Health, vol. 11, 1985, pp. 229-234. Kategile, J. A., Discussion, Summary, and Rec-

PAGE 283

283 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45 46, 47. 48. ommendations, J.A. Kategile, Pasture Improvement Research in Eastern and Southern Africa (Ottowa, Canada: International Development Research Center, 1985) pp. 499-508. Kenmore, P. E., Heong, K. L., and Putter, C. A., Political, Social, and Perceptual Aspects of Integrated Pest Management Programmed, B.S. Lee, W.H. Loke, and K.L. Heong (eds.), Proceedings of Seminar on Integrated Pest Management in Malaysia, Malaysian Plant Protection Society, Kuala Lumpur, 1985, pp. 47-66. Leuschner, K., Whiteflies: Biology and Transmission of African Mosaic Disease, T. Brekelbaum, A. Bellottii, and J.C. Lozano (eds.), Proceedings of Cassava Protection Workshop, International Development Research Centre Series CE-14, Centro International de Agricultural Tropical, Cali, Columbia, 1978, pp. 5-58. Lindblad, C. and Druben, L., Small Farm Grain Storage, United States Action/Peace Corps Program and Training ]ourna], Manual Series, No. 2, VITA Publications Manual Series, No. 35E (Mount Rainier, MD: Volunteers in Technical Assistance, 1976). Matteson, P. C., The Effects of Intercropping with Cereals and Minimal Permethrin Applications on Insect Pests of Cowpea and their Natural Enemies in Nigeria, Tropical Pest Management, vol. 28, 1982, pp. 372-380. Matteson, P. C., Altieri, M., and Gagne, W. C., Modification of Small Farmer Practices for Better Pest Management, Annual Review of Entomology, vol. 29, 1984, pp. 383-402. MBoob, S. S., Some Observations on the Status of Plant Protection Infrastructures in Central and West Africa, unpublished report to U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, AGPP, October 1984. McDowell, R. E., Livestock Nutrition in Subsaharan Africa: An Overview, J.R. Simpson and P. Evangelou (eds.), Livestock Development in Sub-Saharan Africa: Constraints, Prospects, Policy (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1984), pp. 43-59. McDowell, R. E., An Animal Science Perspective on Crop Breeding and Selection Programs for Warm Climates, Cornell International Agricuhure Mimeograph 110, Department of Animal Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, April 1986, McDowell, Robert E., Visiting professor, Department of Animal Science, North Carolina State University, personal communication to the Office of Technology Assessment, 1987. McMillan, Della E., Government Assisted Land Settlement: Status and Potential in African LowResource Agriculture, contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, December, 1987). 49. Messenger, P. S., Biliotti, E,, and van den Bosch, 50 51 52 R., The Importance of Natural Enemies in Integrated Control, C.B. Huffaker and P.S. Messenger (eds.), Theory and Practice of Biological Control (New York, NY: Academic Press, 1976), pp. 543-563. Metcalf, Robert L. and Luckmann, William H., Introduction to Pest Management (New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, 1982). Molineuax, L. and Gramiccia, G., The Gar~i Project, World Health Organization, Geneva, 1980. Muntemba, S. (cd.), Rural Development and Women: Lessons from the Field. Volumes 1 and 2 (Geneva: International Labour Office, 1985). 53. National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council, Board on Science and Technology for International Development, Postharvest Food Losses in Developing Countries (Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 1978). 54. National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council, Pesticide Resistance-Strategies and Tactics for Management (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1986). 55. OKelly, E. and Forster, R. H., Processing and Storage of Foodgrains by Rural Families, FAO Agricultural Services Bulletin 53 (Rome: U,N. Food and Agriculture Organization, 1983). 56. Pimental, David, World Food, Pest Losses, and the Environment (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1978). 57. Pingali, P. L., Bigot, Y., and Binswanger, H. P., Agricultural Mechanization and the Evolution of Farming Systems in Sub-Saharan Africa, Report No. ARU 40, Agriculture and Rural Development Department (Washington, DC: World Bank, May 15, 1985; rev. February 1986). 58. Reppetto, R., Paying the Price: Pesticide Subsidies in Developing Countries (Washington, DC: World Resources Institute, 1985). 59. Stewart, R., Prospects for Livestock Production in Tsetse-Infested Africa, Impact of Science on Society, Unesco No. 142, pp. 17-125, 1986. 60, Teng, P. S., Plant Protection Systems in West and Central Africa A Situation Analysis, report to U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, Plant Protection Service, August 1985. 61. Tropical Development and Research Institute (TDRI), Post-harvest Technology, contractor

PAGE 284

284 report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, December 1987). 62. U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), African Trypanosomiasis, Information Sheet, FAO, Rome, 1981. 63. U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Processing and Storage of Foodgrains by Rural Families (Rome: FAO, 1983). 64. U,N. Food and Agriculture Organization, African Agriculture: The Next 25 YearsAtlas of African Agriculture, (Rome: FAO, 1986). 65, U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Emergency Center for Locust Operations, African Locust Bzd]etin, No. 1-11, 1986. 66. U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), FAO in Africa (Rome: FAO, 1986). 67, U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office, Better Regulations of Pesticide Exports and Pesticide Residues in Imported Foods is Essential, Rep. No. CED-79-43 (June 22) (Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office, 1979). 68. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Pest Management Strategies in Crop Protection, vol. I, OTA-F-98 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, October 1979). 69. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, PZants: The PotentiaZ for Extracting Protein, Medicines, and Other Useful Chemicals, OTA BP-F-23 (Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1983). 70. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), Continuing the Commitment: Agricultural Development in the Sahel, OTA-F-308 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, August 1986). 71. Usenbo, E. I., Approaches to Integrated Control of Cotton Pests in the Midwestern State of Nigeria, PhD. thesis, University of London, 1976. 72, Van den Bosch, R., Messenger, P. S., and Gutierrez, A. P., An Introduction to Biological Control (New York and London: Plenum Press, 1982). 73. Walsh, J., Return of the Locust: A Cloud Over Africa, Science, vol. 234, 1986, pp. 17-19, pp. 815-816. 74. Ware, George W., The Pesticide Book, (New York, NY: W.H, Freeman and Co., 1978). 75, Winrock International, Sheep and Goats in Developing Countries: Their Present and Potential Role, World Bank Technical Paper (Washington, DC: The World Bank, 1983). 76. World Bank, West Africa Agricultural Research Review (Washington, DC: The World Bank, February 1987).

PAGE 285

Chapter 12

PAGE 286

CONTENTS Page U.S. Foreign Policy Interests in Africa . . . . . ...........287 The Effects of Support for African Farmers on U.S. Agriculture .........289 Conclusion .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... ..<. ..$.... . .$ .. .+.O t o 2 Chapter 12 References . . . . . . . .......,,... .293

PAGE 287

Chapter 12 Epilogue The decision by U.S. policy makers to assist resource-poor agriculturalists in Africa is one that will not be made in isolation. Instead, it will be made in conjunction with the broader objectives and goals of U.S. foreign assistance. Congressional decisionmaking is affected by these broader concerns. Different regions and different interest groups compete for foreign aid dollars. Congress decision to provide funds for one purpose may reduce the money available for others. Cuts in domestic spending may necessitate additional changes in foreign assistance, Thus, any decisions Congress makes to support a resource-enhancing approach must consider how this element fits into the nations underlying rationale for foreign assistance. Two broad policy questions are raised as a result of the congressional committees requests for this study. First, the committees noted House Select Committee on Hunger; House Foreign Affairs Committee; House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, that the United States assists African farmers and herders for humanitarian, economic, and political reasons. But the relative importance of these different motives has shifted and the role of development assistance in this context is increasingly unclear (9). Second, one committee specifically asked how U.S. support for African and global agricultural development affects U.S. farmers. This question echoes recent legislation, supported by various farm groups, to restrict U.S. bilateral and multilateral assistance promoting commodities also exported by U.S. farmers. The question has generated considerable controversy, especially given the problems faced by American farmers in the 1980s, and it deserves clear evaluation. Subcommittee on Natural Resources, Agriculture Research, and Environment; and Technology Assessment Board Members Evans, Hatch, Kennedy, Pen, and Udall. U.S. FOREIGN POLICY INTERESTS IN AFRICA Humanitarian interests clearly top the list of why the general public believes that the United States should provide assistance to developing countries and 39 percent recognize Africa as a region deserving priority attention (6). 2 A n unprecedented outpouring of U.S. governmental and private resources followed the 1984-85 television broadcasts showing starving Africans, and these contributions surely saved many lives. As the head of the United Nations Office of Emergency Operations in Africa, Maurice Strong, said of the recent famine: Certainly, thousands and thousands did die, and hundreds of thousands suffered. But the big news is that 35 million people who might have died, didnt (2). Africa received about 9 percent of U.S. bilateral foreign aid allocated for fiscal year 1987 (18). However, the support stimulated by crises fades quickly with improving situations, such as the return of rainfall to drought-stricken regions in Africa. Yet people familiar with the situation know the return of rain is only a temporary respite in a deteriorating situation. Severe famine already threatens Ethiopia again in 1988, where political and economic policies have exacerbated serious drought-induced food shortages. Humanitarian support will continue to be essential during periods of crisis, but it will do little to provide long-term solutions to Africas food security problems. Many African farmers, herders, and fishers are now caught in a cycle of poverty, malnutrition, and environmental degradation that increasingly undermines their future. Humanitarian assistance can be effec287

PAGE 288

288 tive in responding to the symptoms of this condition, but breaking the cycle requires promoting sustainable economic development. For most Africans, enhanced agriculture offers the most realistic opportunity to achieve this. A bare majority of Americans supports U.S. economic aid to developing countries (8), a level that has remained steady for almost four decades (6). Such aid is commonly aimed at addressing some of the fundamental economic and social problems affecting poor countries, for example, by supporting agricultural development, family planning, and preventative health care. Many people find that U.S. and African economic interests both can be served by promoting African economic development, particularly through its agricultural sector. This mutual interest stems from the realization that expanded U.S. trade opportunities depend directly on improved prosperity and purchasing power in developing countries. Conversely, poor economic performance in the developing world has serious repercussions for the U.S. economy. Developing countries bought 40 percent of U.S. exports and represented the fastest growing markets for U.S. goods by the end of the 1970s. Developing countries are likely to remain important U.S. markets because 90 percent of the projected population increase of 2 billion people by 2010 is expected to be there. Mounting debt and falling commodity prices have slowed the growth of developing country imports of U.S. goods since the late 1970s. The impact of the 1980s recession on developing countries is credited with causing one-half the decline of U.S. exports between 1980 and 1985, as well as a corresponding loss of some 1.7 million U.S. jobs (26). Declines in U.S. agricultural exports alone between 1980 and 1986 resulted in the loss of an estimated 500,000 U.S. jobs in farming and related input and service sectors (29). Whether Africa offers a growing field of trade and economic cooperation for the United States will depend on the future growth of African economies. The continent is not now a major market for U.S. products, nor will it likely become one in the near future (27). Therefore, U.S. economic interests in promoting food security and economic development in the region can only be viewed as a long-term investmentso that in the future healthier economies, improved infrastructures, and larger markets, may lead Africa to a more prominent place in U.S. economic relations. U.S. economic interests, however, seldom assume such a long-term view. And short-term economic goals can conflict with efforts to enhance low-resource agriculture. For example, African urban markets receive approximately $1 billion of U.S. agricultural exports a year, mainly grain (22). American policy to expand grain exports and African policies subsidizing imported grains both act to keep urban food prices low and can reduce or destabilize prices for locally produced food (28), an important source of income for low-resource farmers and herders. It is politically difficult, however, to promote policies to curtail certain U.S. exports and African subsidies as a way to stimulate local agricultureeven in cases where this may be in the longer-term interests of African and U.S. economies alike (35). The United States also pursues foreign policy objectives in Africa based on a number of political and security interests (14, 34): l l l l Africa, with its bloc of 46 nations, can play a decisive role in international organizations and meetings. The United States relies on Africa for important natural resources, now importing more oil from Sub-Saharan Africa than from the Middle East or North Africa (22). The United States also imports at least 90 percent of its cobalt, bauxite, and manganese, with 25-50 percent coming from African countries (10, 32, 33). The continent is strategically located, with deep-water ports, good airfields, and controlling positions in relation to major waterways and air corridors. Continuing regional conflicts make SubSaharan Africa a potential arena for confrontation between external powers and economic stagnation could lead to greater internal instability.

PAGE 289

289 l The U.S. supports democratic institutions and civil rights in Africa. Particular attention is directed to dismantling apartheid in South Africa, for example. U.S. political and strategic interests usually are pursued via diplomatic channels and shift from Administration to Administration. Congressional and Administration attention to these issues tends to be sporadic and center on single issues or regions with high visibility (15, 30). Volatility is also a function of political instability in many African countries (37). With this, political winds can shift quickly in U.S. relations with African countries, and it is not unusual for long-term development interests to be swept up in the process, Agricultural assistance programs can be affected markedly when Congress or the Administration cuts or restricts funds or closes AID missions for political reasons. Years of investment in agricultural research and development can be lost because of these disruptions. Poor farmers and herders are particularly vulnerable to these changes because they have few resources to re-invest elsewhere if they lose what they had invested in discontinued projects. Also, such experiences may undermine their willingness to participate in future development efforts. Some U.S. programs, however, are less susceptible than others to the impacts of political pressures. For example, Congress stipulated that the African Development Foundation be independent of short-term U.S. political interests. This approach seems particularly important for enhancing low-resource agriculture because such support must be long-term and dependable to be effective. Thus, while it is true that the United States has humanitarian, economic, and political interests in aiding Africas poor farmers and herders, these interests often have conflicting dimensions that alternately support and counteract U.S. attempts to provide effective development assistance. THE EFFECTS OF SUPPORT FOR AFRICAN FARMERS ON U.S. AGRICULTURE U.S. farm trade suffered an overall decline during the 1980s, with some commodities losing market shares to foreign competition. Some U.S. farm groups have voiced concern that several developing countries are increasingly competitive in world markets and note that U.S. agricultural assistance has helped these countries improve efficiency (38). Legislators from farm states have used legislation to curtail U.S. support for certain crops in developing countries when the United States exports the same ones. On the other hand, U.S. farm interest groups generally recognize the importance of assisting developing countries achieve the broadbased per capita income growth necessary to create demand and foreign exchange for buying U.S. agricultural exports. For many developing countries, such economic growth requires agricultural development and, thus, technological assistance to increase production and incomes. Recent analyses suggest that, in the long-term, stimulating African development will have greater benefits for U.S. agriculture generally than attempts to limit U.S. technical assistance to African farmers. A strong correlation exists between increased farm production in developing countries and increased agricultural imports (20). For example, annual net staple food imports increased in volume by 133 percent between 1961-65 and 1974-76 for 16 agriculturally successful developing countriesthose with the most rapid growth rates in staple food production (3). Similar results occurred in a study of agricultural economies in Malaysia and Brazil, usually cited as two of the most threatening competitors to U.S. global markets (16).

PAGE 290

290 Despite rapid agricultural development in both countries during the period 1967 to 1983, Malaysia at least doubled imports of food, feed grains, and oilseeds, and Brazil increased both farm exports and imports, particularly of grains. Generally, the dollar value of per capita agricultural imports in agriculturally successful developing countries grew 47 percent between 1970 and 1980, while it grew only 37 percent among agriculturally unsuccessful countries. The conclusion to which all this evidence points is that for developing countries, increases in agricultural production are necessary for widespread income growth, which leads to increases in agricultural imports. Because of this, developing countries with the faster-growing agricultural sectors were the faster-growing markets for U.S. agricultural exports. Thus, American agriculture has nothing to gain and much to lose from slowing down agricultural development in developing counties (12). Cases exist were the positive link between agricultural development and agricultural imports in developing countries has been severed. Macroeconomic factors (e.g., world commodity or energy prices) and national policies (e.g., those that distort free-market mechanisms) are considered the major causes (20, 38). These exceptions do not negate the strong potential for encouraging mutually beneficial partnerships between U.S. exporters and developing countries but they do suggest the need for close, caseby-case analysis. Such analysis, however, may be hampered because the United States monitors and evaluates other countries agricultural policies inadequately (24). Other problems can arise because net benefits to American agriculture does not mean only that all farmers and ranchers will benefit or benefit equally. For example, Brazil is a growing market for U.S. grain but it also is a growing soybean exporter, which U.S. soybean growers note with alarm. The benefits of expanding trade tend to be spread over a large segment of the population (e.g., to U.S. consumers), whereas the costs tend to be more concentrated (e.g., among the producers of a given commodity). The latter groups are more likely to rally support and lobby for favorable policies, tipping public debate in one direction. U.S. commodity groups have effectively restricted U.S. foreign assistance from supporting commodities that compete with U.S. exports. Restrictions on bilateral assistance appear in the Bumpers Amendment to the FY 1987 Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill and a similar statement in the Continuing Resolution for 1988 (HR 3750) restricts U.S. support for multilateral development banks. The Bumpers Amendment states that no funds shall be expended under the Foreign Assistance Act for: any testing or breeding feasibility study, variety improvement or introduction, consultancy, publication, or conference training in connection with the growth of production in a foreign country of an agricultural commodity for export which would compete with a similar commodity grown or produced in the United States. Such restrictions protect particular interests but their broader effects can be problematic. Sometimes U.S. interests in increasing exports may require supporting commodities grown overseas that are also grown by the United States. Also, the United States generates significant ill-will by trying to block all World Bank loans to developing countries to grow certain crops that will compete with U.S. agriculture (17). Also, broad-brush bans do not adequately address how American policy should vary based on different countries development needs and competitive position. This issue has particular relevance for Sub-Saharan Africa where development needs are great and where countries are unlikely to threaten U.S. exports. African export capacity is not a significant threat to U.S. producers and the types of crops grown are not, for the most part, major U.S. export commodities. Some provisions exist in current legislation to address such circumstances. For example, the Bumpers Amendment contains provisions to allow research and other support for competing crops if the production is deemed necessary for the internal food security of the developing country in question (38). However,

PAGE 291

291 indications exist that once broad research restrictions are in place for a given commodity, a de facto research ban may result for countries where increased production presents little or no threat to U.S. exporters. Africa cannot be isolated from the adverse impacts of existing restrictions on global support for U.S. agricultural assistance. Of particular concern are prospects that restrictive legislation could have negative effects on the international research networks that have an important role to play in improving African agricultural development. In particular, concerns exist regarding the consequences for the various International Agricultural Research Centers (IARCs). The IARCs are institutions created specifically to develop new information and technology on the worlds major food commodities, with specific attention to developing country needs. A number of these commodities are also major U.S. exports, for example, maize and wheat. Since the United States contributes 20 to 25 percent of the IARCs core budget, a major reduction in contributions could deal a severe blow to their capacity to generate, adapt, and transfer technology to developing countries and bolster national research in Sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere (38). Reductions could also undermine the important role these institutions play in international agricultural research and in conserving and distributing germplasm. Many future improvements in agriculture are likely to be based on the IARCs workincluding improvements in U.S. agriculture. Much debate regarding the U.S. role in agricultural assistance has focused on international competition for export markets. U.S. agriculture has additional, non-competitive relationships with the rest of the world, however, and the U.S. farm sector receives direct and indirect benefits from U.S. development assistance. Approximately 70 percent of funds for direct bilateral assistance are actually spent in the United States (36). The figure for agricultural aid may be as high as 90 percent (38). Expenditures for technical assistance, commodities, and training are paid to U.S. citizens, companies, and schools. These figures belie the perception that agricultural assistance only benefits its recipients. They also raise questions whether this high proportion of budget expenditures used for U.S. products and services is the most efficient and sustainable means of supporting African development. American farmers also derive direct benefits from government purchases of U.S. agricultural commodities for food aid, as established under the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1984 (Public Law 480). Since their inception, Public Law 480 programs have purchased U.S. farm products from virtually every state at a total of at least $35 billion (31). Indirect benefits are more difficult to quantify but clearly are substantial. They include reverse technology transfer from developing countries generally and Africa in particular, often gained through U.S. involvement in international research. These benefits come in many forms, from specific technology, to research insights, to genetic material collected while working with traditional varieties of crops overseas. Examples include: l l l l l Barley is worth $140 million per year to California farmers. Current varieties resistance to yellow dwarf virus, a potentially devastating disease, is due to a single barley gene from Ethiopia (23). Genetic resistance to wheat rust, another major crop disease, comes from Kenya (5). A sizable portion of Nebraskan sorghum was derived from parental varieties introduced from Nigeria in 1951 (7). In 1986, USDA released new pearl millet germplasm that is resistant to two major U.S. diseases based on a wild subspecies discovered in Senegal (1). U.S. ranchers from Texas to the Carolinas may benefit from a new breed of cattle that has greater tolerance to hot and dry weather, like its West African and English parent stock (11). Genetic resources provide benefits to American agriculture beyond their use as breeding material for improved yield or resistance. Leaf

PAGE 292

292 miners, an agricultural pest, cause at least $15 million damage to Californias crops. A newlyapproved pesticide controlled up to 95 percent of these pests in USDA tests. Its active ingredient originates in tropical African and Asian neem trees where it has been a traditional means of fighting insects for centuries (4). Other indirect benefits to U.S. agriculture come from supporting agricultural research in Africa. U.S. researchers, stimulated by experiences with different kinds of agriculture overseas, exchange knowledge and research approaches. The new ideas coming from returning university scientists, Peace Corps Volunteers, and from foreign visitors to the United States clearly are important: We need to forget the idea (rhetoric) that we are the technological leader in every area and that our perspective should be to share our technology rather than to obtain it from others. To preserve our own competitive position it is imperative that we tap into the new knowledge being generated elsewhere (24). Farming systems research originated overseas, with much of the early work occurring in East Africa. Now, because of growing concern for small farms in the United States increased effort is being directed to applying farming systems approaches here: Colorado State University has farming systems work underway in western Colorado, and researchers at Morehead State University see applications in eastern Kentucky. Much of the universities expertise was first gained in Africa. Interest in reduced pesticide use has attracted growing attention to integrated pest management. Farmers in developing countries, including in Africa, have developed many agronomic practices to reduce pest problems without pesticides. These practices may offer important information for devising U.S. approaches (21). CONCLUSION The main goal of U.S. development assistance, although it is sometimes forgotten by expatriates but seldom by Africans, is to work itself out of job. The Agency for International Development lists 15 countries, in 4 regions of the world, as graduates from development assistance (8). So the U.S. record is not without its successes. Considerable frustration has emerged, however, due to the general ineffectiveness of development assistance. The disappointing record in Africa, despite considerable infusion of funds, is a major source of this frustration, It is almost inevitable that people looking at development assistance in Africa will try to make comparisons to the successes of the U.S. Marshall Plan to support rebuilding war-torn Europe and assistance to Asia in the 1950s. But such comparisons are misleading. Institutional and other constraintsnot to mention a diverse and challenging environmentmake development assistance to Africa fundamentally more difficult than was the case elsewhere. It is also important to remember that U.S. foreign assistance reached as high as 3 percent of the U.S. gross national product (GNP) in the late 1940s (25). It has fallen to about one-tenth that level today, and it is one-half of what it was only 20 years ago. The United States now ranks near the bottom of industrialized countries in terms of percent of GNP devoted to development assistance, although the total dollar amount of U.S. aid is the highest (26). Some experts fear that U.S. foreign aid budgets are now too low to meet U.S. interests in Africas development, as well as broader U.S. interests and responsibilities overseas (19]. Much of the American public, however, perceives that the United States spends too much on foreign assistance (6). Some Americans believe that as much as 40 percent of the U.S. budget goes to development aid. In fact, this figure is 1 percent or less (8), and farmers in Iowa alone received more federal loans and aid in 1987 than the World Bank provided for all of Africa (13).

PAGE 293

293 Whether the U.S. invests too much or too little in meeting its interests in Africa is a subject that will continue to be debated. Expectations that dramatic short-term results are possible are misguided, though, even if increased funding was available. Further, when frustration over the slow pace of progress leads to frequent shifts in U.S. development priorities, long-term impact is undermined. Stability of funding, then, can be as important as funding levels. The creation of the African Development Fund as well as Congress continued emphasis on agricultural assistance are promising steps in what can be a resource-enhancing approach for U.S. development assistance. Nevertheless, the road to African food security seems long and difficult. Decisions on how to address the challenges are African ones. But the United States has stated, in its foreign assistance legislation, a desire to be a partner in this work. And an approach that enhances low-resource agriculture will be an important component of any effective U.S. development assistance effort. CHAPTER 12 REFERENCES 1, Anonymous, Global Teams Produce Success Stories, Diversity, Issue No. 9, 1986, p. 25, 2. Anonymous, Maurice Strong: African Relief Effort is One of the Great Human Success Stories, The WoodZands Forum, vol. 4, No. 2, Summer 1987, pp. 1-5. 3. Bachman, K.L. and Pauline, L.A. Rapid Food Production Growth in Selected Developing Countries: A Comparative Analysis of Underlying Trends, 1961-76, Research Report No. 11 (Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute, October 1979). 4. Berberick, Stephen, Natural Neem Kills Cockroaches and Greenhouse Pests, Agricultural Research, vol. 34, No. 4, April 1986, pp. 13-14, 5. Brady, Nyle, Technical Assistance to Third World Countries and U.S. Agriculture, transcript of speech presented to the American Soybean Association, September 19, 1985. 6. Contee, C. E., What Americans Think: Views on Development and U. S,Third World Relations, A Public Opinion Project of InterAction and the Overseas Development Council, Washington, DC, 1987. 7. Francis, Charles, Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Nebraska, personal communication, 1987, 8. Goodpaster, A. J,, Seignious, G,M, II, and Hovey, J.A. Jr., U.S. International Leadership for the 21st Century: Building a National Foreign Affairs Constituency, Joint Working Group of the Atlantic Council of the United States and the Citizens Network for Foreign Affairs, Washington, DC, January 1987. 9. Heginbotham, Stanley J. and Newels, Larry Q. 10, 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. An Overview of U.S. Foreign Aid Programs, CRS Report for Congress No. 88-283 F, Congressional Research Service, Libary of Congress, Washington, DC, March 30, 1988. Kamarck, A. M., The Resources of Tropical Africa, Daedalus, vol. 8, No. 2, 1982, pp. 149-163. Kelley, Hubert, Senepol: New Strain for Subtropical Herds, Agricultural Research, vol. 34, No. 10, November/December 1986, p. 11. Kellogg, Earl D,, Agricultural Development in Developing Countries and Changes in U.S. Agricultural Exports, In Consortium for International Cooperation in Higher Education (CICHE), Assistance to Developing Country Agriculture and U.S. Agricultural Exports: Three Perspectives on the Current Debate, Washington, DC, March 1987, pp. 9-20, Kilman, Scott, and Brown, Jean Marie, Blighted Bounty: Rich Harvest Masks Long-Term Erosion of Farm Economy, Wall Street JournaZ, NOV. 9, 1987, p. 1. Kitchen, Helen, U.S. Interests in Africa, The Washington Papers 98, Volume XI, Published with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University, Washington, DC (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1983). Kitchen, Helen, Africa: Year of Ironies, Foreign Affairs, vol. 64, No. 3, 1986, pp. 562-582. Lee, J.E, and Shane, M. U.S. Agricultural Interests and Growth in the Developing Economies: The Critical Linkage, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, DC, August 1986. Mellor, John, The Changing Role of Develop-

PAGE 294

294 18, 19. 20 0 21 22. 23. 24, 25, 26, 27, ing Nations in Agricultural Trade, In National Planning Association (NPA), Food and Agriculture Committee, U.S. Agriculture and Third World Economic Development: Critical Interdependency, Washington, DC, February 1987, pp. 79-88. Newels, Larry Q., U.S. Foreign Assistance in an Era of Declining Resources: Issue for Congress in 1986, Report No, 86-95 F, Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress, Washington, DC, April 1986. Newels, Larry, Head, International Organizations, Development and Security Section, Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division, U.S. Congressional Research Service, personal communication, January 14, 1988. Paarlberg, Robert L., U.S. Agriculture and the Developing World: Partners or Competitors, In R.B. Purcell and E. Morrison (eds.) U.S. Agriculture and Third World Development: The Critical Linkage (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1987) pp. 221-241. Plucknett, D.J. and N.J,H. Smith, Benefits of International Collaboration in Agricultural Research, In E,B. Wennergren, D.L. Plucknett, N.J.H. Smith, W.L. Furlong, J.H. Joshi, Solving World Hunger: The U.S. Stake (Cabin John, MD: Seven Locks Press, 1986) pp. 50-55. Rosen, S, and Shapouri, S., The U.S. Trade Balance with Africa and the Middle East, World Agriculture, Tune 1986, pp. 40-43. S~haller, C. W., Utilizing-Genetic Diversity in the Improvement of Barley Cultivars, California Agriculture, vol. 31, No. 9, 1977, pp. 18-19. Schuh, G. E., What Agricultural Exports Mean to Agricultural Research, Miscellaneous Publication 31, The University of Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station, St. Paul, 1984, p. 8. Schuh, G. Edward, The United States and the Developing Countries: An Economic Perspective, NPA Report No. 222, National Planning Association (NPA), Washington, DC, 1986. Sewell, J.W. and C.E. Contee, Foreign Aid and Gramm-Rudman, Foreign Affairs, Summer 1987, pp. 1015-1036. Shapouri, S. and S. Rosen, Effect of Fiscal Austerity on African Food Imports, Foreign 28. 29, 30, 31, 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. Agricultural Economic Report Number 230, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, DC, May 1987. Singh, S., Sub-Saharan Agriculture: Synthesis and Trade Prospects, World Bank Staff Working Paper No. 608, Washington, DC, July 1983. Tucker, S. K., Reforming U.S. Agricultural Trade Policy, ODC Policy Focus No. 5, Overseas Development Council, Washington, DC, 1987. Ungar, Sanford J,, Africa: The People and Politics of an Emerging Continent (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1985). U.S. Department of Agriculture, P.L. 480: Food for Peace Program Marks Its Thirtieth Anniversary, Foreign Agriculture, vol. 22, July, 1984, pp. 14-17. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines, Mineral Industries of Africa, Washington, DC, March 1984. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines, Mineral Commodity Summaries Washington, DC, 1984. U.S. Department of State, Sub-Saharan Africa and the United States, Publication No. 9112 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, December 1985). Vanegas, Manuel Sr., Toward an Improved Trade Environment in Agriculture, Food PoL iCy, vol. 11, August 1986 pp. 205-215. Wennergren, E. Bovd, The Historv and Nature ,. of U.S. Foreign Assistance, In E.B. Wennergren, D.L. Plucknett, N,J,H Smith, W.L. Furlong, and J.H. Joshi, Solving World Hunger: The US. Stake (Cabin John, MD: Seven Locks Press, 1986), pp. 15-33. 37. Whitaker, Jennifer S., The Policy Setting: Crisis and Consensus, In R.J. Berg and J. S, Whitaker (eds.) Strategies for African Development (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1986), pp. 1-22. 38, Wiese, Karen, U.S. Domestic Policy Dilemmas Affecting Development Assistance, contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, December 1987).

PAGE 296

Appendix A The Assessment's Contractor Reports Part A: Principles of Low-Resouree Agricultur e Report: Low-Resource Agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa: Principles and Concepts for Managing Natural Resources Coauthors: C. Gregory Knight, Department of Geography, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA and R. Dennis Child, Winrock International, Morrilton, AR Reviewers:* Miguel Altieri, Division of Biological Control, University of California, Berkeley, CA John H. Grover, Department of Fisheries and Allied Aquacultures, Auburn University, Auburn, AL James Newman, Department of Geography, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY Roald A. Peterson, Fayetteville, AR M.J. Trlica, Department of Range Science, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, CO Gene C. Wilken, Department of Economics, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, CO Report: Low-Resource Agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa: Principles and Concepts for Managing Inland Fisheries Coauthors: John H. Grover and Stephen P. Malvestuto, Department of Fisheries and Allied Aquacultures, Auburn University, Auburn, AL Reviewers: W. Herbert Allsopp, Smallworld Fishery Consultants, Inc., North Vancouver, British Columbia Arthur J. Hanson, Institute for Resource and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia Frank Meriwether, Agricultural Research Center, University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff, Pine Bluff. AR 1.These contractor reports should be requested as Volume 2 (Contract Papers) of this assessment from the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161, telephone (703) 487-4650. NTIS accession numbers for paper or microfiche copies are: l Part A: Principles of Low-Resource Agriculture, PB 88201 280 /AS. l Part B: The USDA Data Base and the Potential of Low-Resource Agriculture, PB 88 201 298 IAS. l Part C-1: Development Assistance and Low-Resource Agriculture, PB 88201 306 IAS. l Part C-2: Development Assistance and Low-Resource Agriculture, cont. PB 88 201 314 IAS. l Part D: Technology Papers, PB 88 201 322 /AS. 2A&,,wv panell~l~ aISO reviewed each of these cOnIraClOr W0fi9 Richard A. Neal, Bureau for Science and Technology, U.S. Agency for International Development, Washington, DC Roger Palm, South Carolina Aquiculture/ Mariculture Programs International, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC Richard B. Pollnac, International Center for Marine Resource Development, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI Harry Rea, Office of Training and Program Support, U.S. Peace Corps, Washington, DC Ted Scudder, Cape Tribulation, Queensland, Australia Report: Principles and Concepts of Productive Human Resource Systems Author: Anne Fleuret, Department of Anthropology, American University, Washington, DC Reviewers: Ronald Cohan, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL Kathleen Staudt, Office of the Dean of Liberal Arts, University of Texas, El Paso, TX Report: Principles and Concepts of Effective Institutions Author: Milton Esman, Department of Government, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY Reviewers: David Atwood, Science and Technology Bureau, U.S. Agency for International Development, Washington, DC Michael Bratton, Office of the Representative for Eastern and Southern Africa, The Ford Foundation, Nairobi, Kenya James Harbeson, International Studies Program, City University of New York, New York, NY Dennis Rondinelli, Syracuse, NY Report: Integrating Principles and Concepts for Managing Natural, Human, and Institutional Resources (not available from NTIS) Author: Raymond Noronha, Washington, DC Report: Incorporating Participatory Approaches in Institutions Authors: Paula Donnelly-Roark and Grace Hemmings-Gaphihan, Donnelly-Roark & Associates, Washington, DC 76-5780 -88-8 : CL 3 297

PAGE 297

298 Reviewers: Earl M. Brown, African Development Foundation, Washington, DC Margaret Snyder, Development Fund for Women, U.N. Development Program, New York, NY May Yacoob, Water and Sanitation for Health Project, Arlington, VA Report: Low-Resource Agriculture and African Institutional Development Author: Elinor Ostrom, Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, University of Indiana, Bloomington, IN Reviewers: David Atwood, Bureau for Science and Technology, U.S. Agency for International Development, Washington, DC Ed Connerly, NASPAA, Washington, DC Sheldon Gellar, East Lansing, MI George Honadle, Development Alternatives, Inc. Washington, DC Norman Uphoff, Center for International Studies, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY Part B: The USDA Data Base and the Potential of Low-Resource Agriculture Report: The Potential of Low-Resource Agriculture in African Development Author: John M. Staatz, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI Reviewers: Sara Berry, African Studies Center, Boston University, Boston, MA Charles A. Francis, Agronomy Department, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE Report: Potentials for Development in Low-Resource Technologies for African Agriculture Author: Charles A. Francis, Agronomy Department, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE Reviewers: Douglas J. Lathwell, Department of Agronomy, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY John M. Staatz, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI Reviewers of Both Francis and Staatz Papers: Arthur J. Dommen, Africa and Middle East Branch, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC Donald Plucknett, Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, Washington, DC Kenneth Swanberg, Office of International Cooperation and Development, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC Report: The Role of Low-Resource Agriculture in Africa: Overview and Summary Kenya Supplementary Information Malawi Supplementary Information Mali Supplementary Information Nigeria Supplementary Information Senegal Supplementary Information Sudan Supplementary Information Zaire Supplementary Information Zimbabwe Supplementary Information Coauthors: Brian DSilva and Arthur Dommen, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC Reviewers: Charles A. Francis, Agronomy Department, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE John M. Staatz, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI Part C-1. Development Assistance and Low-Resource Agriculture Report: African Perspectives on Low-Resource Agriculture Author: Hussein M. Adam, Somali Unit for Research on Emergencies and Rural Development, Mogadishu, Somalia and Harvard Institute of International Development, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA Reviewers: John W. Bruce, Land Tenure Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI Richard Ford, International Development Program, Clark University, Worcester, MA Thomas M. Painter, Social Science Research Council, New York, NY Bill Rau, Bread for the World, Washington, DC Report: African Models of Developmental Assistance to Low-Resource Agriculture Author: Robert J. Cummings, African Studies and Research Program, Howard University, Washington, DC Reviewers: Bill Rau, Bread for the World, Washington, DC Victor Uchendu, Department of African Amer-

PAGE 298

299 ican Studies, University of Maryland Baltimore County, Baltimore, MD Report: Existing Models of Development Assistance to Low-Resource Agriculture in Africa Author: Carol Lancaster, School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University, Washington, DC Reviewers: Stephen Commins, African Studies Center, University of California, Los Angeles, CA Charles Hanrahan, Abt Associates, Inc., Washington, DC William Haven North, Bureau for Policy Planning and Coordination, U.S. Agency for International Development, Washington, DC Report: Alternative Models of Development Assistance to Low-Resource Agriculture in Africa Author: Celia Jean Weidemann, Washington, DC Reviewers: Paula Goddard, Bureau for Policy Planning and Coordination, U.S. Agency for International Development, Washington, DC Jane B. Knowles, International Agricultural Programs, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI George Scharffenberger, Washington, DC Report: U.S. Domestic Policy Dilemmas Affecting Development Assistance Author: Karen Wiese, Associates in Rural Development, Burlington, VT Reviewers: Tom Armor, El Segundo, CA Robert L. Paarlberg, Center for International Affairs, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA John L. Woods, International Program for Agricultural Knowledge Systems, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL Report: Case Studies: Factors Influencing Agricultural Production of Small Farmers in Zimbabwe and Malawi Author: Kathleen Desmond, Arlington, VA Reviewers: Kathleen Cloud, Women in Development Office, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL. George Honade, Development Alternatives, Inc., Washington, DC John Staatz, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI Report: Government Assisted Land Settlement: Status and Potential in African Low-Resource Agriculture Author: Della E. McMillan, Department of Anthropology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY Reviewers: Pat Fleuret, Bureau for Africa, U.S. Agency for International Development, Washington, DC Ted Scudder, Cape Tribulation, Queensland, Australia Part C-2: Development Assistance and Low-Resource Agriculture [continued) Report: Links Between the Private Enterprise and Low-Resource Agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa Author: Arthur Gibb, Jr., Department of Economics, U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD Reviewers: Michael Farbman and Frank Denton, Bureau for Africa, U.S. Agency for International Development, Washington, DC Joel Greer, National Security and International Affairs Division, General Accounting Office, Washington, DC Steve Haggblade, Metropolitan Studies Program, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY Frances Brigham Johnson, U.S. Agency for International Development, Washington, DC Report: Strategies for Development of the Private Sector and Its Links with Low-Resource Agriculture Coauthors: Galen Hull and Guy Gran, Kensington, MD Reviewers: Michael Farbman and Frank Denton, Bureau for Africa, U.S. Agency for International Development, Washington, DC Steve Haggblade, Metropolitan Studies Program, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY Frances Brigham Johnson, U.S. Agency for International Development, Washington, DC Report: New Models for Low-Resource Agricultural Research and Extension in Sub-Saharan Africa Author: Paul Richards, Anthropology Department,

PAGE 299

300 University College London, London, United Kingdom Reviewers: Robert Chambers, Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK Jane I. Guyer, Mary Ingraham Bunting Institute, Radcliffe College, Cambridge, MA Janice Jiggins, Andelst, Netherlands Robert M. Netting, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ Report: Farming Systems Research and Extension: Status and Potential in Low-Resource Agriculture Coauthors: Susan V. Peats, Daniel Gait, Chris Andrew, Lisette Walecka, Peter Hildebrand, and Kenneth McDermott, Farming Systems Support Project, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL Reviewers: Billie R. DeWalt, Department of Anthropology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY Tim Frankenberger, Office of Arid Lands Studies, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ Bruce F. Johnston, Food Research Institute, Stanford University, Stanford, CA Kenneth Swanberg, Bureau for Science and Technology, U.S. Agency for International Development, Washington, DC Hubert G. Zandstra, Agriculture, Food, and Nutrition Sciences, International Development Research Center, Ottawa, Canada Part D: Technology Papers Report: Soil Fertility Maintenance in Sub-Saharan Africa Coauthors: Paul L.G. Vlek, A.U. Mokwunye, and M.S. Mudahar, International Fertilizer Development Center, Muscle Shoals, AL Reviewers: William R. Greenwood, Office of International Geology, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA Raymond E. Meyer, Bureau for Science and Technology, U.S. Agency for International Development, Washington, DC Arthur B. Onken, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Lubbock, TX John H. Sanders, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN Charles Steedman, Center for Research on Economic Development, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI Report: Crop Rotation and Residue Management Author: Rattan Lal, International Institute for Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria Reviewers: Frank G. Calhoun, International Programs in Agriculture, Columbus, OH George C. Taylor, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC Charles W. Wendt, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Texas A&M University, Lubbock, TX Wayne O. Willis, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, CO Report: Five Small-Scale Water Management Technologies Author: W. Gerald Matlock, Desert Agricultural and Technology Systems, Inc., Tucson, AZ Reviewers: E. Walter Coward, Department of Rural Sociology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY Raymond E. Meyer, Bureau for Science and Technology, U.S. Agency for International Development, Washington, DC B.A. Stewart, Southern Plains Area Conservation and Production Research Laboratory, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bushland, TX Lyman S. Willardson, Department of Agricultural and Irrigation. Engineering, Utah State University, Logan, UT Report: Soil and Water Management in the Humid and Highland Zones of Africa Author: Laurence A. Lewis, Graduate School of Geography, Clark University, Worcester, MA Reviewers: Daniel C. Clay, International Statistical Programs Center, Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC Raymond E. Meyer, Bureau for Science and Technology, U.S. Agency for International Development, Washington, DC Philip W. Porter, Department of Geography, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN Bob J. Walter, Department of Geography, Ohio University, Athens, OH Report: Low-Resource, Small-Scale Irrigation in Africa Author: Alfred S. Waldstein, Associates in Rural Development, Burlington, VT Reviewers: Guy LeMoigne, Agriculture and Rural Development Department, World Bank, Washington, DC

PAGE 300

301 Report: Intercropping in Low-Resource Agriculture in Africa Author: David J. Andrews, Department of Agronomy, University of Nebraska Lincoln, NE Reviewers: Dana Dalrymple, Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, U.S. Agency for International Development, Washington, DC Raymond E. Meyer, Bureau for Science and Technology, U.S. Agency for International Development, Washington, DC John H. Sanders, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN Report: Challenges of Intercropping: Policy Issues Author: Charles A. Francis, Department of Agronomy, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE Reviewers: Dana Dalrymple, Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, U.S. Agency for International Development, Washington, DC Raymond E. Meyer, Bureau for Science and Technology, U.S. Agency for International Development, Washington, DC John H. Sanders, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN Report: Agroforestry in Africa Author: Roy T. Hagen, Esko, MN Reviewers: Steven R. Brechin, School of Natural Resources, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI Bruce B. Burwell, Natural Resources Sector, U.S. Peace Corps, Washington, DC Dennis Johnson, Forestry Support Program, U.S. Forest Service, Washington, DC Michael McGahuey, Chemonics, Inc., Washington, DC Fred R, Weber, Boise, ID Report: Crop Breeding for Low-Resource Agriculture: Overview, Rice, Food Legumes Author: Ivan W. Buddenhagen, Department of Agronomy, University of California, Davis, CA Reviewers: David J. Andrews, Department of Agronomy, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE Charles A. Francis, Department of Agronomy, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE Donald Plucknett, Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, Washington, DC Johannes ter Vrugt, The World Bank, Washington, DC Report: Millet Breeding for Low-Resource Agriculture in Africa Authors: David J. Andrews, Department of Agronomy, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE Reviewers: Glenn W. Burton, Coastal Plain Experiment Station, Tifton, GA Wayne W. Hanna, Coastal Plain Experiment Station, Tifton, GA Report: Maize Breeding Author: Sherman F. Pasley, Office of International Programs, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL Reviewers: L.L. Darrah, North Central Region Crop Production Research Unit, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Columbia, MO Paul Gibson, Plant and Soil Science, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL Report: Sorghum Breeding Authors: Fred R. Miller and John A. Mann, Department of Soil and Crop Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX Reviewers: David J. Andrews, Department of Agronomy, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE John Axtell, Department of Agronomy, Purdue University, West LaFayette, IN Report: Root Crop Breeding Author: Walter A. Hill and Conrad Bonsi, Office of International Programs, Tuskegee University, Tuskegee, AL Reviewers: John C. Bouwkamp, Department of Horticulture, University of MD, College Park, MD Afred Jones, U.S. Vegetable Laboratory, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Charleston, SC Jill E. Wilson, Research Coordinator, University of the South Pacific, Apia, Western Samoa Report: Pest Control Author: Dale G. Bottrell, Department of Entomology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD Reviewers: Andrea Blumberg, U.S. Agency for International Development, Washington, DC Carroll W. Collier, Bureau for Science and Technology, U.S. Agency for International Development, Washington, DC 76-5780 88 9 : QL 3

PAGE 301

302 Raymond E. Frisbie, Department of Entomology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX Agi Kiss, Office of Environmental and Scientific Affairs, The World Bank, Washington, DC Report: Postharvest Technology Author: Tropical Development and Research Institute, London, UK Reviewers: Thomas V. Dechert, Postharvest Institute for Perishables, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID Kenton Harris and Carl Lindblad, Volunteers in Technical Assistance, Arlington, VA John R. Pederson, Food and Feed Grains Institute, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS Report: Communication and Information Technologies Author: Frances B. Hays, Academy for Educational Development, Washington, DC Reviewers: Gary L. Garriott, Volunteers in Technical Assistance, Arlington, VA John K. Mayo, Centre for the Study of Communication and Culture, London, UK Anthony J. Meyer, Bureau for Science and Technology, U.S. Agency for International Development, Washington, DC Joseph N. Pelton, Intelsat, Washington, DC Ewart Skinner, Department of Communication, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN

PAGE 302

Appendix B Participants in Assessment Workshops OTA held five workshops during this assessment. Participants are listed here, African Arid/Semiarid Lands Technology Working Group Apr. 28, 1986 Steve Franzel Development Alternatives, Inc. Washington, DC Dolores Koenig American University Hurst Hall Washington, DC Peter Little Institute for Development Anthropology Binghamton, NY Mike McGahuey Chemonics, Inc. Washington, DC Ray Meyer Bureau for Science and Technology Agency for International Development Washington, DC Gregory Booth U.S. Bureau of Land Management Washington, D.C. Workshop on the Sfructure Function of Congress May 22, 1986 and Congressional Research Service Susan Abbasi Environment and Natural Resources Division Barry Carr Environment and Natural Resources Division Susan Epstein Environment and Natural Resources Division Larry Newels Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division Paul Rundquist Government Division Workshop on Technology for Low-Resource Agriculturalists in Arid and Semiarid Sub-Saharan May 29-30, Chair: Tim Frankenberger Office of Arid Land Studies University of Arizona Tucson, AZ Haidari Amani Department of Economics University of Dar-es-Salaam Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania Africa 1986 David Andrews Department of Agronomy University of Nebraska Lincoln, NE Carl Bielenberg Appropriate Technology International Washington, DC Trent Bunderson International Program Development Office Washington State University Pullman, WA Helen Henderson Bureau of Applied Research and Anthropology University of Arizona Tucson, AZ Michael Horowitz Director Institute for Development Anthropology State University of New York Binghamton, NY Melanie Marlett Arlington, VA Michael McGahuey Chemonics, Inc. Washington, DC 303

PAGE 303

304 Ray Meyer Bureau for Science and Technology Agency for International Development Washington, DC William Phelan International Agriculture Program Cornell University Ithaca, NY Tim Resch Forestry Support Program U.S. Forest Service Washington, DC Michael Roth Department of Agricultural Economics Purdue University West Lafayette, IN AlIan Savory Center for Holistic Resource Management Albuquerque, NM Ian Stewart World Hunger Alleviation through Response Farming Davis, CA Walter Zisette Mercer Island, WA Workshop on Integration of Principles and Concepts for Management of Natural, Human, and lnstitutional Resources in Sub-Saharan Africa Juno 12-13, 1986 Chair: Leonard Berry Provosts Office Clark University Worcester, MA Dennis Child Winrock International Morrilton, AR Milton Esman Department of Government Cornell University Ithaca, NY Anne Fleuret Department of Anthropology American University Washington, DC Louise Fortmann Department of Forestry University of California Berkeley, CA Peter Hildebrand Food and Resource Economics Department University of Florida Gainesville, FL Gregory Knight Department of Geography The Pennsylvania State University University-Park, PA Raymond Noronha Alexandria, VA Workshop Development Assistance Aug. 26-27, 1986 Chair: Mary B. Anderson Consultant in International Economic Development Harvard University Cambridge, MA Robert Cummings African Studies and Research Program Howard University Washington, DC Milton Esman Department of Government Cornell University Ithaca, NY George Honadle Development Alternatives, Inc. Washington, DC Nadine Horenstein International Center for Research on Women Washington, DC Carol Lancaster Director of African Studies School of Foreign Service Georgetown University Washington, DC C. Jean Weidemann Arlington, VA Karen Weise Associates in Rural Development Burlington, VT

PAGE 304

Appendix C African Correspondents The following African scientists and policymakers provided analyses of food security and low-resource agriculture in their regions. They responded to OTAs request for letters or publications regarding 1) whether an agrarian crisis existed, 2) whether OTAs model of low-resource agriculture was accurate and appropriate, 3) how their views differed from others, and 4) how U.S. foreign assistance could be improved. Dr. Adetokunbo O. Adeola Forestry Research Institute of Nigeria Ibadan, Nigeria Dr. Emmanuel N. Agwuna Federal Livestock Department Federal Secretariat Lagos, Nigeria Mr. O. Awoyemi Federal Department of Agriculture and Rural Development Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Water Resources, and Rural Development Federal Secretariat Lagos, Nigeria Dr. Bifuko Baharanyi Fulbright Scholar-in-Residence Department of Political Science Johnson C. Smith University Charlotte, NC Dr. Solomon Bekure Team Leader International Livestock Centre for Africa Kenya Country Program Nairobi, Kenya Professor J. Malcolm Blackie Faculty of Agriculture Department of Agricultural Economics University of Zimbabwe Salisbury, Zimbabwe Mr. G.H.R. Chipande Chancellor College University of Malawi Zomba, Malawi Mr. Ousmane Nafolo Coulibaly Department of Agricultural Economics Michigan State University East Lansing, MI Dr. Bahiru Duguma International Livestock Centre for Africa Small Ruminant Programme Ibadan, Nigeria Dr. A. Mamdouh El-Baz Director Centre on Integrated Rural Development for Africa Arusha, Tanzania Dr. Jos Adriano M. Fernandes Deputy National Director of Agrarian Economy c/o Ministry of Agriculture Maputo, Peoples Republic of Mozambique Mr. Robinson L. Gapare President The National Farmers Association of Zimbabwe Harare, Zimbabwe Dr. Leland R. House Executive Director SADCC/ICRISAT Sorghum-Millet Improvement Program Balawayo, Zimbabwe Dr. Mengistu Hulluka Department of Plant Pathology and Microbiology Texas A&M University College Station, TX Mr. S. N. Kassapu Regional Science and Technology Officer U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization Regional Office for Africa Accra, Ghana Dr. C.L. Keswani Technical Advisor Ministry of Lands, Agriculture and Rural Resettlement Department of Research and Specialist Services Plant Protection Research Institute Harare, Zimbabwe Dr. Fassil G. Kiros Addis Ababa Ethiopia 305

PAGE 305

Dr. Aziadome Kogblevi Directeur du Centre National dAgro-Pedologie Cotonou, Republique Populaire Du Benin Dr. Jumanne Abdallah Maghembe Associate Professor Department of Forest Science Oregon State University Corvallis, OR Dr. M. S. Matsebula Associate Professor Department of Economics University of Delaware Newark, DE Dr. Assefa Mehretu Associate Professor Department of Geography Michigan State University East Lansing, MI Dr. Abukar M. Mohamed Crop Science Research Laboratory Corn Host Plant Resistance Research Unit Mississippi State, MS Ms. Ntombana R. Mugabe Deputy Director Department of Research and Specialist Services Ministry of Agriculture Harare, Zimbabwe Dr. Massa Mukambo Charg dEtudes Service Prsidentiel dEtudes (S. P. E.) Agriculture et Dveloppement Rural Bureau du Prsident de la Rpublique Kinshasa, Zaire Dr. Rukudzo Murapa Head Department of Political and Administrative Studies University of Zimbabwe Harare, Zimbabwe The Honorable Philip Ndegwa Governor Central Bank of Kenya Nairobi, Kenya Dr. Collins Ngwa Senior Lecturer International Relations University of Yaounde Yaounde, Cameroon Dr. Jesse Theuri Njoka Institute of Cameroon Senior Lecturer an-d Chairman Department of Range Management University of Nairobi Nairobi, Kenya Dr. M. A. Noor Vice-Minister of Agriculture Ministry of Agriculture The Office of the Minister Mogadishu, Somali Democratic Republic Dr. Zerubabel M. Nyiira Research Administrator and Principal Research Scientist The International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology Nairobi, Kenya Professor C.T.I. Odu Department of Agronomy Microbiology/Environmental Studies Laboratory University of Ibadan Ibadan, Nigeria Dr. Julius Amioba Okojie Department of Forest Resource Management University of Ibadan Ibadan, Nigeria Professor R.J. Olembo Division of Ecosystems and Natural Resources United National Environment Program Nairobi, Kenya Dr. Joe M.A. Opio-Odongo Department of Agricultural Economics Makerere University Kampala, Uganda Professor C.A. Osuntogun Faculty of Agriculture University of Ife Ile-Ife, Nigeria

PAGE 306

307 Dr. M. Rukuni Dr. John Shao Dean John Shao Associates Faculty of Agriculture Binghamton, NY University of Zimbabwe Dr. D.M. Thairu Harare, Zimbabwe Dryland Farming Research and Development Dr. Abdel Aziz Saad Project Plant Protection Director Machakos, Kenya Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources Plant Protection Directorate Khartoum North, Sudan Professeur Abdoulaye Sawadogo Institute of Tropical Geography University of Abidjan Abidjan, Ivory Coast

PAGE 307

Appendix D External Reviewers The following people reviewed OTAs draft of Enhancing Agriculture in Africa: A Role for U.S. Foreign Assistance. Some people (Part A) reviewed the entire report but were asked to focus particular attention on different sections,* Advisory Panelists, listed in the front of this report, also reviewed the entire draft. Others (Part B) reviewed individual sections or chapters. Most of the material regarding animals was added after the first draft was completed so this sections reviewers are listed separately (Part C). Finally, OTA conducted a collaborative review with the U.S. Agency for International Developments Africa Bureau to help AID consider the implications of OTAs work (Part D). The contractor reports on technologies formed the major basis for chapters 7-11. These reports were reviewed separately (app. A), Part A: Reviewers of Entire Draft Assessment David Andrews, Department of Agronomy, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE (ch, 5) Joan Atherton, Bureau for Policy Planning and Coordination, U.S. Agency for International Development, Washington, DC (ch. 6) Coralee Bryant, Overseas Development Council, Washington, DC (ch. 4) Robert Chambers, Institute for Development Studies, University of Sussex, Falmer, UK (ch. 4) Beatrice Chileshe, Technology Development and Advisory Unit, University of Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia (ch. 4) Ralph Cummings, Science and Technology Bureau, Agency for International Development, Washington, DC (ch. 5) Carl Eicher, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI (ch. 4) Milton Esman, Department of Government, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY (ch. 4) Charles Francis, Department of Agronomy, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE (ch. 3] Peter Freeman, Alexandria, VA (ch. 6) William Furtick, Science and Technology Bureau, U.S. Agency for International Development, Washington, DC (ch. 5) Richard Harwood, Winrock International, Morrilton, AR (ch. 5) Allan Hoben, Director of African Studies, Boston University, Boston, MA (ch. 6) M.S. Matsebula, Department of Economics, University of Delaware, Newark, DE (ch. 4) John Mellor, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC (ch. 4) Uzo Mukwonye, International Fertilizer Development Center, Muscle Shoals, AL (ch. 3) David Norse, Agricultural Division, U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome (ch. 3). Christine Okali, Oxfam, Boston, MA (ch. 4) Julius Okojie, University of Georgia, Athens, GA (ch. 4) Anthony Pritchard, World Bank, Washington, DC (ch, 5) John Staatz, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI (ch. 3) E.T. York, Ormond Beach, FL (ch. 5) Part B: Reviewers of Specific Chapters Chapter 4. A Resource-Enhancing Approach to African Agriculture John Bruce, Land Tenure Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI Richard Ford, International Development Program, Clark University, Worcester, MA Thomas Painter, Social Science Research Council, New York, NY William Rau, Bread for the World, Washington, DC Chapter 5. The Role of Technology in Enhancing Low-Resource Agriculture Peter Brumby, World Bank, Washington, DC Dennis Child, Winrock International, Morrilton, AR Dana Dalrymple, Science and Technology Bureau, Agency for International Development, Washington, DC IThe draft ~hapter~ that ~eviewer~ ~xamined and th e Chapters in this final report do not correspond directly l.m=use the text Was substantial organized and revised following the review. The draft and final material, by reviewer, are matched as closely as possible here. 308

PAGE 308

309 0.0. Dipeolu, International Center for Tropical Animal Health, Tuskegee University, Tuskegee, AL Peter Matlon, Food Research Institute, Stanford University, Stanford, CA (also reviewed ch. 3 and ch. 4) Robert McDowell, Department of Animal Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC Michael Sands, Rodale-International, Emmaus, PA Part C: Material in Chapters 9, 10, and 11 Regarding Animals Peter Brumby, World Bank, Washington, DC Dennis Child, Winrock International, Morrilton, AR 0.0. Dipeolu, International Center for Tropical Animal Health, Tuskegee University, Tuskegee, AL Robert McDowell, Department of Animal Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC Part D: Collaborative OTA/AID Review: Chapter 1 Summary and Options and Chapter 6 The Role of Foreign Assistance in a Resource-Enhancing Approach Bruce Johnston, Food Research Institute, Stanford University, Stanford, CA William E, Lavery, Office of the President, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, VA F.J. Maxwell, Department of Entomology, Texas A & M University, College Station, TX L.D. Swindale, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Andhra Pradesh, India Donald Winkelman, Centro International de Mejoramiento de Maize y Trigo (CIMMYT), Londres, Mexico

PAGE 309

Appendix E The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Database on Low-Resource Agriculture As part of its determination of the current status of low-resource agriculture, OTA contracted with the Economic Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture to compile data on low-resource production in Africa. An agricultural economist, Dr. John Staatz, and an agronomist, Dr. Charles Francis, then reviewed the data, drew conclusions on low-resource agricultures current status, and analyzed its potential contributions to food security and economic development. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimated agricultural production in Sub-Saharan Africa by using a sample of eight countries: Kenya, Malawi, Mali, Nigeria, Senegal, Sudan, Zaire, and Zimbabwe. An agroecological zone map, overlaid on internal regional/political maps of the eight countries, allowed USDA to break down production by agroecological zones. USDA defined low-resource agriculture as: any agricultural production process in which no modern inputs (e.g. chemical fertilizer, pesticide, hybrid seed) or modern production technology (e.g., tractor, drip irrigation) is utilized (1). This definition is considerably narrower than OTAs more qualitative one. Therefore USDAs data are a lower bound on the volume or area of various crops produced under low-resource conditions (4). In addition, this definition forced USDA to look at production on a crop basis rather than on any other (how many farmers practice only lowresource agriculture, how many of these farmers are women, etc.), USDA had to use this definition to obtain quantitative estimates of low-resource production because aggregate production data are the only comparable data available across Africa (4), USDA calculated total crop area and production (within a zone and a country), then subtracted estimates of area and production that were clearly not within this definition, The remaining area and production were considered low-resource agriculture. Data were collected for 22 agricultural commodities in 4 agroecological zones in the 8 sample countries. These eight countries produce over 50 percent of the maize, sorghum, yams, cocoyams and cotton grown in Africa and 30 percent or more of the rice, wheat, sesame, cassava, and groundnut. Thus, the eight countries data are a significant indicator for the major food commodities of the region and certain export crops. These data are not a strong indicator for other important export crops, such as the perennial tree crops like coffee and cocoa. African agricultural data are estimates and significant questions about the quality of this information exist. USDA drew from a number of data sources, including national sources, the U.S. Agency for International Development, the World Bank, and the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization. OTA assumes that this is the best available data upon which preliminary conclusions can be based (3). Nevertheless, a number of clear data gaps exist. Several important crops (cowpeas, bananas, and plantains) are not included nor is animal production. Available data did not allow USDA to distinguish between local and improved varieties of perennial crops (e.g., coffee and palm oil), Therefore, the data undoubtedly reflect an overestimate of low-resource production for these crops. Some of the difficulties in gathering this data arise from OTAs desire to base the analysis on agroecological zones. Also, the weakness of the statistical base is a manifestation of the underinvestment in agriculture, and in low-resource agriculture in particular in Africa (4). Low resource agriculture in Africa, and even within individual African countries, is extremely diverse; hence, any attempt to generalize for the continent as a whole is dangerous. Nonetheless, there are some common features of low-resource agriculture across countries. The USDA data indicate that a very large percentage of major crops in the eight sample countries are grown under lowresource conditions (table E-1). Several patterns emerge: l l Within the arid and semi-arid areas of Africa, most of the basic staples (millet, sorghum, and fonio) are grown under low-resource conditions. If data were available for cowpeas, they probably would show the same pattern, A much smaller percentage of maize than millet and sorghum is grown under low-resource conditions in all four ecological zones. This reflects the spread of hybrid maize in east and southern Africa (particularly Kenya and Zimbabwe) and the greater fertilizer responsiveness of maize compared with millet and sorghum, which has encouraged farmers to use chemi310

PAGE 310

311 cal fertilizers on maize. In Kenya, 50 percent of smallholders grow hybrid maize and fertilizer use has reportedly doubled smallholder maize yields (l). Most African rice is produced by low-resource agriculture, despite large, capital-intensive irrigation schemes in some semi-arid areas (for example, in Senegal and Mali) where over half the rice is produced under higher-resource conditions, Most of the low-resource rice production is produced under rainfed conditions or in small, low-lying areas using gravity irrigation or seasonal flooding. Almost all roots and tubers, which are extremely important staples in the humid areas, are produced under low-resource conditions. This reflects the almost total neglect, until very recently, of attempts to improve these crops by agricultural researchers. With increased population pressure, one would expect a gradual shift toward greater use of these crops because their caloric yield per hectare and per hour of labor is much higher than that of cereals. In general, a much higher percentage of export and cash crop production takes place under higher-resource conditions than does food crop production. For example, virtually no cotton, sisal, or pineapples are grown under lowresource conditions and only 32 percent of tea is. About half the production of groundnuts is reportedly produced under low-resource conditions in semi-arid areas, where groundnuts are an important cash crop; in more humid areas, where they are grown for home consumption, the share of low-resource production increases, The USDA figures indicate that almost all coffee and palm oil production in the sample countries takes place under low-resource conditions. However, this unexpected result reflects both the sample of countries chosen and difficulties in obtaining data. In most cases, the data did not allow USDA to distinguish between local and improved varieties of these perennial crops. USDA knows, for example, that much of the oil palm production in West Africa, particularly in the Ivory Coast (the leading exporter of palm oil in West Africa but not included in the USDA sample), takes place using improved high-yielding varieties, but precise figures were not available. Or farmers may be using lowresource techniques not because they prefer them or because more productive methods are not known but because the systems for delivering modern inputs have broken down. This apparently is the case for coffee and cotton production in parts of East Africa. Generally, these findings reflect the greater attention paid to export crops both in terms of agricultural research aimed at producing varieties responsive to manufactured inputs and in terms of developing the supporting institutions (particularl y input and output markets) that makes such a reliance on external inputs possible. Although it is commonly asserted that the Green Revolution has bypassed Africa, during the last 60 years agricultural research in Africa has resulted in very significant yield increases for three crops: oil palm, cotton, and maize (in eastern and southern Africa) (2). These achievements are reflected in the low percentage of maize and cotton produced under low-resource conditions. Production of Basic Food Crops, Total production of food crops and specialty crops is summarized in Table E-2 by crop group and by agroecological zone. Production figures are similar to those for area under cultivation. Cereal grains are the most important crops, and thus the primary sources of energy and protein, in the arid, semi-arid, seasonally humid, and highland regions of SubSaharan Africa. Grain legumes contribute substantially to total food crop production, especially in the arid and semi-arid zones, and starchy root crops are important sources of energy in the humid zonesespecially the continuously humid zone of the sample countries. Importance of Low-Resource Food Production. It is clear that low-resource agriculture focuses on production of food crops for local sale and consumptionessentially all of the yams, cocoyams, and cassava are produced this way. In the eight countries, low-resource agriculture also accounted for more than half of the millet, groundnut, and rice producedrecognizin g that groundnut is both an export and a subsistence crop. Specific Crop Results. The USDA data show that levels of productivity under low-resource conditions vary widely with crop and country although comparisons may be questionable due to the quality of the available data (table E-2). Cotton yields under low-resource conditions in the arid and semiarid zones are about 205 kg/ha, while higherresource yields in the same zone are calculated to be about 2,276 kg/ha. Thus, yields under lowresource conditions are only 9 percent of those under higher input conditions. Yields of groundnuts across the three lowland zones are about 680 kg/ha

PAGE 311

312 under low-resource conditions and 1,180 kg/ha under higher-resource conditions (the former 58 percent of the latter). For sorghum, the respective yields are 635 kg/ha and 827 kg/ha; low-resource productivity is about 77 percent of the yield under improved conditions. Millet, primarily a crop of resource-poor farmers, has yields of 622 and 683 kg/ha under the two conditions and low-resource agriculture yields 91 percent of the higher-resource yields. Several factors could be responsible for the gaps in yield between low and higher-resource production among these four crops. First, they could reflect the crops individual importance to governments, to research specialists, and to those who finance research and development. Cotton is primarily a low-value export crop and groundnuts are both an export and a subsistence crop. On the other hand, sorghum is primarily a basic food crop, although areas exist where the crop is grown commercially with added inputs as in the Gezira irrigation project of Sudan. Millet is almost exclusively a subsistence crop, with 70 to 80 percent of the area and production coming from low-resource agriculture. Thus, research on subsistence grain groups may have been less than for export crops and the larger gaps between lowand higher-resource yields may reflect this. Or the yield gaps may exist because of how and where the grain crops are grownextensively cultivated on more marginal lands. In these areas, production constraints are severe, and responses to technology may be limited by unrelated constraints, for example, plants will not respond to added fertilizer if water is limiting growth. conclusion The primary purpose for gathering and analyzing the USDA data was to determine the relative importance of low-resource agriculture in Africas current agricultural production. The data show clearly that low-resource agriculture is an important starting point for building food security and economic development of Africa (1,3,4), although different people would come to different conclusions about how this should be done, In practice, even with its conservative definition of low-resource agriculture, the USDA analysis indicates that low-resource agriculture is extremely widespread in Africa. From the point of view of U.S. foreign assistance policy it probably matters little whether low-resource agriculture accounts for 74 percent or 83 percent of millet production in Africa; what is important is that most producers are lowresource agriculturalists and they account for the bulk of production (4). 1. 2. 3. 4. Appendix E References DSilva, Brian and Dommen, Arthur J., The Role of Low-Resource Agriculture in Africa. Overview and Summary, and Supplementary Information, contractor report to the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, December 1987). Eicher, Carl, International Technology Transfer and the African Farmer: Theory and Practice, Department of Land Management, University of Zimbabwe, Working Paper 3/84, May 1984. Francis, Charles A., OTA Technical Paper Series: Potentials for Development in LowResource Technologies for African Agriculture, contractor report to the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, December 1987). Staatz, John M., The Potential of Low-Resource Agriculture in African Development, contractor report to the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, December 1987),

PAGE 312

Table E-1. Production of Various Crops Under Low-Resource Conditions by Agroecological Zone in Eight African Countries a Agroecological zone Arid, Seasonally Continuously Total, semi-arid humid humid Highlands all zones b Food crop Millet Total production . . . . . 0/0 low-resource agriculture . . . Sorghum Total production . . . . . 0/0 low-resource agriculture . . . Fonio Total production . . . . . 0/0 low-resource agriculture . . . Maize Total production . . . . . 0/0 low-resource agriculture . . . Rice Total production . . . . . 0/0 low-resource agriculture . . . Beans Total production . . . . . 0/0 low-resource agriculture . . . Yams Total production 0/0 low-resource agriculture . . . Cocoyams Total production . . . . . 0/0 low-resource agriculture . . . Cassava Total production . . . . . 0/0 low-resource agriculture . . . Export/Cash Crops Groundnuts Total production . . . . . 0/0 low-resource agriculture . . . Cotton Total production . . . . . 0/0 low-resource agriculture Coffee Total production . . . . . % low-resource agriculture . . . Tea Total production . . . . . 0/0 low-resource agriculture . . . Sisal Total production . . . . . 0/0 low-resource agriculture . . . Pineapples Total production . . . . . 0/0 low-resource agriculture . . . Tobacco Total production . . . . . 0/0 low-resource agriculture . . . Wheat Total production . . . . . 0/0 low-resource agriculture . . . 4,289 74 3,326 62 54 100 1,241 35 194 45 N.A. N.A. N.A. N,A. 1,882 49 1,835 3 11 0 N.A. 34 0 N.A. N.A. 235 0 385 67 2,238 59 N.A. 3,468 37 956 67 103 22 4,995 100 333 100 6,806 92 658 60 208 3 7 100 N.A. N.A. N.A. 147 0 N.A. N.A d N.A. N.A. 891 70 1,093 90 68 90 11,655 100 1,332 100 18,435 93 237 90 N.A. 82 100 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 240 38 N.A. N.A. 1,998 23 39 0 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 12 100 84 100 126 32 16 0 155 0 N.A. 222 0 4,914 72 5,564 61 54 100 7,598 37 2,282 75 171 49 16,650 100 1,665 100 25,241 2,777 55 2,055 4 184 94 126 32 50 0 155 0 147 0 457 o

PAGE 313

314 Table E-1 .Production of Various Crops Under Low-Resource Conditions by Agroecological Zone in Eight African Countries Continued Agroecological zone Arid, Seasonally Continuously Total, semi-arid humid humid Highlands all zones b Rubber Total production . . . . . N.A. N.A. 86 N.A. 86 0/0 low-resource agriculture . . . 58 58 Palm Oil Total production . . . . . N.A. 22 663 N.A. 685 0/0 low-resource agriculture . . . 99 78 79 a Kenya, Malawi, Mali, Nigeria, Senegal, Sudan, Zaire, and Zimbabwe b The percentages shown in this column are weighted averages of the figures for each of the 4 zones. c Data are given in thousands of metric tons N.A. indicates that no data were available on the production of the crop in the zone. In most cases, this signifies that the crop is not grown in the zone e Discrepancies between sources corrected by OTA. SOURCE: Brian DSilva and Arthur Dommen, The Role of Low-Resource Agriculture in Africa: Overview and Summary, contractor report to the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, December 1987), Table 3; compiled by John M. Staatz, The Potential of Low-Resource Agriculture in African Development, contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, December 1987), Table 1

PAGE 314

Table E-2.Production of Basic Food Crops and Specialty Crops Grown Under Low Resource (LRA) Conditions and Total Production of Same Crops Cereal grains Grain legumes Starchy roots Specialty crops Region Crop LRA Total Crop LRA Total Crop LRA Total Crop LRA Total Arid, Millet . 3,189 4,289 Groundnut 920 1,882 Cotton . 60 1,835 Semi-Arid Sorghum 2,047 3,326 Soya . . 0 11 Sisal . . 0 34 Wheat . 0 235 Coffee. . 0 11 Rice . 86 194 Maize . 439 1,241 Sesame . 72 117 Fonio . 39 39 Total 5,872 9,441 920 1,893 0 0 60 1,880 Seasonally Maize 1,299 3,468 Groundnut 393 658 Cassava . 6,243 6,806 Coffee. . 6 7 Humid Rice . 636 956 Beans . 22 103 Yams . 4,995 4,995 Cotton . 5 208 Millet . 259 385 Cocoyams 333 333 Tobacco . 0 147 Sorghum 1,314 2,238 Palm oil . 22 22 Sesame . 20 20 Total 3,528 7,067 415 761 11,571 12,134 33 384 Continuously Maize . 622 891 Groundnut 213 237 Cassava . 17,059 18,435 Coffee. . 82 82 Humid Rice . 984 1,093 Beans . 61 68 Yarns . 11,655 11,655 Rubber . 50 86 Cocoyams 1.332 1.332 Palm oil . 516 663 Total 1,606 1,984 274 305 30,046 31,422 648 831 Highlands Wheat . 0 222 Sisal . . 0 16 Rice . 0 39 Tea . . 40 126 Maize . 450 1,998 Coffee. . 848 4 Millet . 90 240 Cotton . 12 12 Pineapple. 0 155 Sugarcane 1,550 3,107 Total 540 2,499 0 0 0 0 1,686 3,500 Total (8 country) 11,546 20,991 1,609 2,959 41,617 43,556 2,427 6,595 SOURCE: Charles A. Francis, OTA Technical Paper Series: Potentials for Development of Low-Resource Technologies for African Agriculture, contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment (Springfield, VA National Technical Information Service, December 1987),

PAGE 315

List of Related OTA Reports l l l Grassroots Development: The African Development Foundation, OTA-F-378 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing office, June 1988). GPO Stock No. 052-003-01109-3; price $8.50. Continuing the Commitment: Agricultural Development in the Sahel, OTA-F-308 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, August 1986). Out of print from GPO; NTIS Order No. PB 87-117 644/AS (available photocopied or in microfiche]. Africa Tomorrow: Issues in Technology, Agriculture, and Foreign Aid, OTA-BP-F-31 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing office, December 1984). GPO Stock No. 052-003-00985-4; price $5.50. NOTE: Reports are for sale through the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 20402-9325, (202) 783-3238 and the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA, 22161-0001, (703) 487-4650.

PAGE 317

Index Acacia akbuda 10, 85, 171-172, 202, 207 Accelerated Development, See Policy reform Access to inputs and information by low-resource agriculturalists, 68, 78, 109, 177-178, 208, 246, 250 to irrigable land, 185 African Development Bank (AfDB) multilateral assistance by, 130-132 U.S. support for, 31 African Development Foundation, 23, 137 Africa-wide Biological Control Project of Cassava Pests, 260 Agency for International Development, U.S. (AID) agroforestry projects supported by, 198, 207, 208 aquiculture support by, 249 Congressional oversight of, 132-133 Development Assistance (DA), 17-18, 31, 126-130 Economic Support Funds (ESF), 18, 31, 126-130 fertilizer use policy of, 177 Food Aid, 31, 128 fuel efficient charcoal stove development support by, 281 infrastructural development by, 139 institution-building support by, 141-143 livestock emphasis of, 251 NGOS as intermediaries for, 185 operational capabilities for resourceenhancing approach to development assistance by, 150-153 pesticide use guidelines of, 264 Plan for Supporting Agricultural Research and Faculties of Agriculture in Africa, 19, 25 policy reform aid by, 146-148 political influences on, 32, 125, 289 priorities of, 125 Regional Food Crop Protection Project (RFCP) of, 263 resource-enhancing development assistance strategy of, 148-150 resource-enhancing technologies support by, 169-170 role of development assistance by, 17, 18, 19, 20, 27-28, 125, 148-150 Sahel operations, 151 Small Ruminant Collaborative Research Support program of, 242 training support by, 140-141 Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act, 291 Agroecological zone common intercrops by, 196 low-resource agriculture by, 50-56 primary food commodities by, 6, 50-56 promising technologies and practices by, 15-16, 103, 104 rice production variation by, 218 soil fertility maintenance problems by, 177 USDA data on crops gown by, 313-314, 315 Agroforestry, 114, 208 benefits and adoption potential of, 204-205 payback period for, 207 problems with and approaches to, 205-207 types of, 200-204 see also individual technologies using AIDS, effect on agricultural development of, 37 Alley cropping, 112, 200, 203 increasing yields by, 172, 176 livestock integration into, 243, 244, 245 Angola, 9 Animal health, See Health, animal Animal traction, 106, 112, 116, 198, 200, 238, 245-247 Aquiculture, 116 elements for successful development of, 249 food security using, 241, 242 opportunities for improved use of, 248-250 potential drawbacks to using, 248-249 Asia fertilizer credit use in, 178 integrated crop/livestock production in, 242 integrated fish/livestock/crop production in, 248 large-scale irrigation in, 184 night soil use in, 173 striga problem in, 221 Azolla-Anabaena, 171, 172, 175 Benin chorkor oven use in, 280 crop breeding and productivity in, 219 Bilateral assistance, U. S., to Africa, 31-32, 126-130 Biological nitrogen fixation (BNF), 10, 85, 171-172, 175, 177, 202, 207 Biotechnology, impact on African agriculture of, 221, 222 Botswana animal traction use in, 245 water management in, 164 319

PAGE 318

320 Brazil as competitor to U.S. global agricultural trade, 289, 290 1PM use in, 262 Breeding, animal and plant cautions concerning crop, 220-221 choosing appropriate priorities when, 222-224 improvements in techniques for, 115-116 non-technological problems with crop, 221-226 pest resistance into African plants and livestock, 259 potential of individual African crops, 215-220 potential of specific African animals, 227-231 terminology, 213 Bunds, 163-164 Burkina Energy Institute, 281 Burkina Faso, 9 fertilizer use in, 175, 177 fuelwood shortages in, 64 health care training in, 107 water management in, 162, 163-164, 168, 182 Burundi crop breeding and productivity in, 216, 219 population density in, 61 Camels. See Livestock Cameroon, 263 animal confinement use in, 268 crop breeding and productivity in, 219 effectiveness of plant protection in, 262 small-scale fishery promotion in, 241 Canadian International Development Research Center (IDRC), 267 Cape Verde, water management in, 162, 168 CARE, agroforestry projects by, 203-204, 205 Cassava, 9 breeding, 219, 220 processing, 277 storage, 275 USDA data on, 311 Cattle. See Livestock Central African Republic, 261 Chad hydrological research in, 186 small-scale, irrigation use in, 181, 182 China, 172 CILSS, Integrated Pest Management Project of, 263 Club du Sahel, irrigation use research by, 186 Colorado State University, 292 Community Forestry Project (Guinea)AID, 207 Congress, U. S., 3, 17, 18, 20 direction and priorities for development assistance by, 124-125 findings and options on African development assistance for, 21-32, 105-110 funding a resource-enhancing approach to development assistance by, 125-132 oversight of a resource-enhancing approach to development assistance by, 132-134 Congressional Research Service (CRS), computerizing foreign assistance budget of, 132-133 Conservation tillage, 167-168 Constraints on African farmers investment in improvements, 49-50, 116, 169-170, 182-183, 206-207 to agroforestry adoption, 206-207 on AID operational capabilities, 151-152 biophysical and socio-economic on agricultural productivity, 64-66, 173, 175, 177-178, 185, 198-199, 266-269 to crop breeding success, 216 Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) breeding effects evaluation by, 221 IARC support by, 144-146 U.S. contribution to, 130 Contour planting, 163 Costa Rica, 244 Costs. See Expenditures; Funding Crops by agroecological zone, 50-56 breeding for improved, 215-226 drying and storage methods for, 274-275 effectiveness of protection programs for, 261-262 germplasm conservation of, 220-221 intensive feed garden approach to growing, 243, 244, 245 limiting pest damage to, 257-264 processing methods for, 273-278, 279 production estimates for low-resource agricuhure, 57-58, 62, 100 USDA data on low-resource production of, 310-312, 313-314, 315 Data collection agricultural reform policy, 148 AID-wide system for, 152 on livestock breeding, 227 on quarantine cost-effectiveness, 259 USDA low-resource agriculture, 59, 310-312 on womens activities, 148 Debt, external, 36 Deforestation. See Degradation

PAGE 319

321 Degradation, of natural resource base, 63, 64, 77-78, 80, 81, 198, 200, 201, 207 Department of Agriculture, U.S. (USDA) database on low-resource agriculture of, 310-312 Soil Classification System of, 170 Department of State, U. S., 22, 32 AIDs dependence on, 125, 289 Department of Treasury, U. S., 23, 24, 26 Desertification. See Degradation Development assistance, 77-78 African perspectives on priorities for, 92-94 AIDs responsibility in a resource-enhancing approach to, 148-153 assessment of approaches to, 88-92 benefits to U.S. farm sector from U. S., 291-292 categories of a resource-enhancing approach to, 134-148 concepts central to a resource-enhancing approach to, 78-88 conflicting U.S. interests impact on African, 287-289 Congress and a resource-enhancing approach to, 124-134 difficulty in assisting pastoralists with, 237, 239, 240 effects of support for African, on U.S. agriculture, 289-292 farm interest groups-backed restrictions on, 289-291 findings and options for Congress concerning, 21-32 main goal of, 292 see also Bilateral assistance; Congress, U. S.; Multilateral assistance; individual donor organizations Development Fund for Africa, FY 1988, 18, 31 Diversity African cultural and ecological, 3, 45, 46-50 as component of low-resource agriculture systems, 59, 81-84, 106-107 development assistance priorities to promote, 81-84 in technologies for Africa, 106-107 Drainage practices, 165-166 Du Pent, 183 Education. See Training Efficiency, of low-resource agriculture and pastoral systems, 50, 77, 78, 84-86, 237 Employment low-resource agriculture as primary, 3, 45, 58-59, 77, 78 non-farm, 110 see also Labor Equity biotechnology in plant breeding and, 221, 222 in development assistance, 90-91 livestock ownership and social, 238 Ethiopia agroforestry in, 205 animal traction use in, 245 cheesemaking in, 278 crop breeding and productivity in, 216 famine threat to, 287 hand pump use in, 183 livestock breeding and productivity in, 227 refugees from, 208 European Economic Community (EEC), 177 Expenditures on biological pest control, 260 government agricultural research, 66, 68, 69, 224, 225 on irrigation projects in Africa, 183, 186 see also Funding Extension services, underdevelopment of African, 68-69, 186-187 Famine buffers against, 59-60 U.S.-funded relief for, 78, 125, 135 Farming systems research (FSR), 108, 186, 221, 292 Federal Livestock Department (Nigeria), 244 Fertility. See Soil Fertilizer inorganic, 174-175, 175-177 long-term effects of commercial inorganic, 176-177 organic, 171-174, 175, 177 supply and demand problems involving, 177-178 use in aquiculture of, 248 Findings and options for Congress concerning development assistance to low-resource agriculturalists, 21-32, 105-110 Fisheries development of African low-resource, 237, 241 processing catch of, 278 Fodder banks, 244 Food and Agricultural Organization, U.N, (FAO), 16 chorkor oven development assistance by, 280 cropland condition estimates by, 114, 115 fertilizer use policy of, 177 Fishery Committee for the Eastern Central Atlantic of, 241

PAGE 320

322 irrigation estimates by, 184, 186 management practices demonstrations by, 113 natural resource degradation estimate by, 63 pesticide use guidelines of, 264 quarantine study by, 259 trypanosomiasis infected area estimates by, 265 U.S. contribution to, 130 yield increases estimates by, 65 Food Research Institute (Ghana), 280 Food security contribution of low-resource agriculture to, 21, 56-60, 77-78 definition of, 3 demand side of, 35-36 need to improve African, 35, 38, 224 obstacles to achieving, 64-69, 100-103 as overarching goal of AID-provided development assistance, 125 technologies for improving African, 111-117 U.S. economic interests in promoting African, 288 Foreign Assistance Act, 88, 89, 124-125, 135 Francis, Charles, 310 Fuelwood collection and deforestation, 64, 207-208 increase in, from using agroforestry techniques, 204 use for food processing, 279 Funding crop research and food security, 224 U.S. bilateral, 126-130, 148-149 U.S. multilateral, 130-132 see also Expenditures Gabon, crop breeding and productivity in, 219 Gardens, home, 56, 81, 82, 104, 243-245, 248 Genetic improvements. See Biotechnology; Breeding German Appropriate Technology Exchange (GATE), 278 Ghana crop breeding and productivity in, 219 pesticide use subsidies in, 264 small-scale irrigation use in, 182 women in fisheries of, 241 Goats. See Livestock; Small ruminants Gravity diversion irrigation systems (channeled and poldered), 180-181 Green Revolution applicability to Africa of, 100-102, 311 social effects of, 221 technology packages for Africa, 214-215 Grey, David, 183 Gross domestic product (GDP), agriculture's contribution to African, 3, 45-46 GTZ (West Germany), 177 Guidelines to determine appropriate technology 179, 257-258, 264 choices, researcher/agriculturalist cooperation, 109 to support a resource-enhancing approach of development assistance, 79, 81, 84, 86 Guinea agroforestry use in, 204, 207 chorkor oven use in, 280 crop breeding and productivity in, 216 effectiveness of plant protection in, 261 Guinea-Bissau, 180, 181, 263, 280 Health impacts of aquaculture on, 248-249 intercropping impacts on crop, 198, 199 pesticides impact on human, 261 Health, animal, 226, 228-229, 230, 245, 264-273 Incentives encouraging conservation measures, 165 from governments to increase food production, 221 for pesticide use, 264 Income African per capita, 62 from fisheries in Africa, 237 from livestock in Africa, 237, 240 low-resource agriculture as source of, 58-59 India handpump use in, 183 improved crop use in, 216 non-resistant sorghum from, 221 Infrastructure controversy over developing rural, 139 improving, for 1PM implementation, 262, 263 weaknesses in agricultural, 67-68, 177-178, 215, 225, 261 Inputs. See individual inputs Insects. See Health; Integrated Pest Management; Pests Integrated Pest Management (1PM), 117 challenges facing African implementation of, 262-264 components of successful program using, 258-261 criteria for choosing optimal methods of, 257-258

PAGE 321

323 information as primary input in programs of, 261-262 potential for effective use of, 261-263 Intercropping, 195-200, 201-203 International Agricultural Research Centers (IARCS), 14, 26, 144, 146 impact of U.S. research ban on, 291 intercrop research by, 109 1PM expertise of, 263 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD)World Bank, 131 International Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, 222 International Center for Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE)Kenya, 144 International Council for Research on Agroforestry (ICRAF)Kenya, 144 International Fertilizer Development Center (IFDC)U.S., 144, 178 International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) approach, 12, 88, 90, 91, 92 International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), 130 International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA)Nigeria, 144 Africa-wide Biological Control Project of Cassava Pests, 260 crop/livestock integration research by, 243, 244 crop research by, 68, 203 hybrid crop varieties developed by, 217, 218, 219 water management research by, 164 International Laboratory for Research on Animal Diseases (ILRAD)Kenya, 144 International Livestock Centre for Africa (ILCA)Ethiopia, 144 alley cropping farm trials by, 203 animal traction technology improvements by, 247 crop/livestock integration research by, 243, 244 dairy technology developed by, 278 Humid Zone Programme of, 244 research in small ruminants by, 228 staffing bias of, 266 Subhumid Zone Programme of, 244 International Potato Institute (CIP)Peru, 222 International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR), 146 International Soybean Program (U.S.), 144 Irrigation factors favoring expansion of low-resource, 185 gravity diversion systems for 180-181 small-scale technology for, 115 water-lifting and pumping systems for, 181-184 Ivory Coast animal traction and transport equipment factories in, 247 crop breeding and productivity in, 219 effectiveness of plant protection in, 262 palm oil production in, 311 Kenya AID livestock programs in, 152-153 improved shellers use in, 274, 277 animal confinement use in, 268 crop breeding and productivity in, 216, 217, 222 cultural crop control use in, 259-260 dual-purpose goat production in, 245 effectiveness of plant protection in, 262 fertilizer use in, 172, 176 fuel-efficient stove developed in, 281 handpump use in 183 inoculated legumes use in, 172 livestock breeding and productivity in 229 pesticide production in, 260 population and farm size in, 61 technology acceptance in, 105 USDA data on, 310, 311 water management in, 162, 166-167, 180 Kenya Cooperative Creameries, 227 Kenya Industrial Research and Development Institute (KIRDI), 276 Kenya Water for Health Organization, 183 Kenyan National Council of Women, 279 Koro Village Agroforestry Project (Mali)CARE, 209 Labor dependence on household, 49-50, 78, 81-84, 110, 185, 221 intercropping impacts on, 198 Land tenure agroforestry use and, 206-207 livestock ownership trends and, 239, 240 Legumes food, 218, 277, 311 inoculated, 172 use in dual-purpose systems of, 244, 245 see also Acacia albida; Biological nitrogen fixation Leucaena leucocephala, 176 Linear plantings. See Live fencing

PAGE 322

324 Linkages among researchers/extension agents/agriculturalists, 107 development assistances support for agricultural/non-agricultural, 86-88 Live fencing, 200, 204 Livestock breeding for improved, 226-231 contribution to agricultural development of, 237, 238 control methods for major diseases affecting, 245, 267 distribution (by farming system), 237, 238 fertilizer from, 173 imbalances in technical support health services for, 272 improving animal nutrition for, 266-269 improving veterinary support for, 265-266 integrating into cropping systems of, 116, 205-206, 241 improved use of, 243-247, 250-252 mechanisms to improve health of, 264 promotion of an integrated development approach for, 270-272 see also Animal traction, Health, animal: Small ruminants Low-input agriculture, FAO definition of, 48 Low-resource agriculture, definition and characterization of, 3, 4, 5, 46-47, 310 Madagascar crop breeding and productivity in 218 small-scale irrigation use in, 180 Maize breeding, 217-218 processing, 276 USDA data on, 310, 311, 312 Majjia Valley Windbreak Project (Niger), 203, 204, 206 Malawi, 4, 51 crop breeding and productivity in, 216 handpump use in, 183 livestock breeding and productivity in, 227 maize production in, 105-106 USDA data on, 310 water management in, 164 Malaysia, 289 Mali, 4 agroforestry projects in, 207 animal traction and transport equipment factories in, 247 animal traction promotion in, 252 crop breeding, and productivity in, 175, 217, 251 nomadic herding in, 52 Peace Corps operations in, 137 policy reform problems in, 147 privatization of low-resource systems in, 187 small-scale irrigation use in, 182 USDA data on, 310, 311 Malnutrition increase in, 62-63 as major constraint on livestock productivity, 266 Manuring, 114, 115, 173-174, 175, 176 Mauritania fuelwood shortages in, 64 small-scale fishery promotion in, 241 small-scale irrigation use in, 182 McPherson, M. Peter, 152 Michigan State University, 21 Microcatchments, water harvesting, 162-163 Military assistance, developmental impact of, 126, 289 Millet breeding, 215-216 drought resistance of, 196 USDA data on, 310, 311, 312 Minimum tillage, 114, 115, 167-168 Mixed crop/livestock systems, 116, 205, 206, 241 Morehead State University (Kentucky), 292 Mulching, 114, 115, 167-168 Multilateral assistance, U. S., to Africa, 31-32, 130-132 Multilateral development banks (MDBs). See individual bank names National Council for Science and Technology (Kenya), 275 National Plant Quarantine Station (Kenya), 222 National Range Agency (NRA), 207-208 Natural resources. See Resources New Directions/basic human needs approach, 88-89, 124-125 Niger, 10 agroforestry use in, 200 crop breeding and productivity, in 217 fertilizer use in, 176 Peace Corps operations in, 137 phosphorus deficiency in soil of, 175 privatization of low-resource systems in, 187 resource degradation in, 80 water management in, 162 windbreak projects in, 203-204 Nigeria biological pest control use in, 260, 262 crop breeding and productivity in, 217, 219 effectiveness of plant protection in, 262

PAGE 323

325 fertilizer consumption in, 175 food security study in, 61 hydrological research in, 186 intercropping use in, 196, 197, 198 on-farm investigations of alley cropping in, 243, 244 pesticide use in, 260 pest resistant cassava clones use in, 259 USDA data on, 310 Nigerian Institute of Agriculture, 69 Night soil, 173 Non-governmental organizations (NGOs). See Private sector; Private voluntary organizations (PVOs); individual organizations Office of Overseas Scientific and Technical Research (ORSTOM)France, 186 Overseas Education Fund (OEF), 208 Oversight, 28-30 coordinating and improving congressional, 132-133 reducing the burden of congressional, 133-134 Oxfam, 163, 249 Pakistan, cattle imported from, 227 Pan-African Forum of African Voluntary Development Organizations (FAVDO), 138 Pare National des Volcans (Rwanda), 169 Pastoralists categories of and strategies used by, 237, 239, 240 efficiency of low-resource systems used by, 50, 77, 78, 84-86, 237 linkages with farmers by, 53 profile of, 4, 52 Peace Corps African development assistance by, 18, 23, 26, 27, 28, 136-137 Fish Culture Expansion Project of, 249-250 water harvesting microcatchments introduction by, 162-163 Personnel AID training of, 140-141 CGIAR training of African, 145-146 lack of qualified quarantine, 259 need for trained fertilizer use, 177, 178 shortages in extension service, 68-69 Peste de Petit Ruminant (PPR), 245 Pesticides, 260-261 environmental impact from use of, 261 improved use of chemical, 263-264 Pests biological controls for, 260 breeding resistance to, 259 cultural controls for, 259-260 options for managing, 258-261 resistance to pesticides developed by, 261 Plantains, 219-220 Policy African development assistance and U.S. foreign, 287-289 chemical pesticide trade, 261, 263-264 comparative assessment of types of development assistance, 88-92 national breeding, 226 national crop pricing, 66-67 objectives of the United States, in Africa, 288-289 reform, 12, 66-67, 88, 89-90, 146-148, 187 unsupportive national and donor, 66-67, 87-88, 146-148, 187, 221 Population challenge of growing African, 60-61, 100 urban migration of African, 110 Private sector African rural non-farm, 138-140 role in diffusion of low-resource irrigation technologies of, 185 seed laws and investment by, 225 Private and voluntary organizations, U.S. (PVOs) African development assistance by, 26, 27, 28, 134-136 agroforestry projects by, 205 local level work by, 137-140 water harvesting microcatchments introduction by, 162-163 windbreak projects supported by, 203-204 see also Private sector; individual organizations Public opinion, on foreign assistance, 20, 287, 288, 292-293 Quarantines, 258-259 Recession farming, 162 Regional Food Crop Protection Project (RFCP), 263 Research coordination of, 144, 272-273 on crop/livestock integration, 243-245, 250-251, 252

PAGE 324

326 on factors determining technology adoption, 170 Farming systems (FSR), 108, 186, 221, 292 farm interest groups-backed restrictions on U.S. aid for, 20, 290-291 government expenditures for, 68, 69, 224, 225 increasing African capacity for, 24-25, 107 increasing cooperation in health-related, 272-273 legume, 218 level of support for agricultural (by region), 69 livestock management, 226, 228, 229, 230, 231, 243, 250, 252 misguided policies for, 67, 176, 290-291 needs for intercropping, 198-200 on-farm adaptive, 107, 176, 221-222 Resources continuum in use of, 47-48 deterioration in base of, 63-64, 77-78, 100, 198, 240, 241 development assistance donors reliance on external, 110 development assistance use of untapped local, 21, 84-86 technology potential based on improved use of natural, 113-114 yield increases through efficient use of natural, 197-198 Reuter News Agency, 260 Rice breeding, 218 processing, 276-277 USDA dat