Joachim Ezeji
As agriculture and other land use activities expand in Africa, there is need for these activities, especially agriculture to grow in a manner sensitive to water bodies. This is particularly true in this age of the Anthropocene, when human activity has become the dominant driver of the natural environment.
To safeguard and preserve water quality for tomorrow’s Africa it becomes germane to stress that at this time of its historic evolution and economic transition e.g. the advent and intensity of land acquisition by water scarce countries from Asia to grow more food for its people.
In Africa about 300 million people lack access to adequate water supply and about 313 million people lack access to adequate sanitation. Hence in addition to having to replace existing infrastructure, it will be necessary to provide a water supply and sanitation to an additional 21 million people each year on average.
Also, statistics show that agricultural food production has not kept pace with population growth in Africa. The population of Africa in 2005 was estimated at about 905 million and is expected to grow to 1.115 billion by 2015; 1.345 billion by 2025 and 1.936 billion by 2050. As a result, the nutrition position of the region is now worse than it was 30 years ago.
According to African Regional Development Report (2006), the African economy grew by 3.7% between 2003 and 2005, yet 46.4% of the population (313 million people) lived on less than US$1 per day in 2001 and the absolute number of malnourished people in Africa has increased substantially from around 88million to over 200 million in 1999 to 2001.
In much of West Africa, the average food supply (2,430kcal/day/person) is below what is regarded as the optimum level (2,700kcal/day/person). An annual investment outlay of US$4.7 billion has been suggested as being required to achieve food security in Africa. But does such investment include food security measures that are sensitive to critical ecosystems?
Hitherto, in Africa, the average rate of application of NPK fertilizer is reported to be 13kg per hectare. Factors responsible for this have included cost and scarcity of the product when needed by farmers. The implication has been the heavy post harvest losses calculated at 50per cent for fruits and vegetables and 30 per cent for root crops and tubers.
Despite the low rate of application of chemical fertilizers, recorded loses ranges from 22kg of Nitrogen (N), 2.5kg of Phosphorus (P) and 15 kg of Potassium (k) per hectare per year through soil mismanagement and ignorance. This is equivalent to US$4 billion worth of fertilizer (at United States prices) and likely US$30 billion at African fertilizer prices (Sanchez 2002; Bationo et al., 1998).
But with the increasing presence of “alien farmers or agro-investors” the scenario of low level of chemical fertilizer application will likely increase but one challenge that could remain is whether the rate of loses would be better managed to reduce leach into ground waters or run off into streams and rivers.
In the United States of America, China and parts of Europe this is already an extant nightmare as many water bodies have become polluted by Nitrates and Phosphorus from agricultural lands. Though these countries may have the resources to treat their water but the enormous costs involved are scary, hence revealing the need for Africa to safeguard its future water supplies by developing a food security strategy that is most sensitive to the environment.
One such pathway is the ecological pathway of limiting the effects of eutrophication in Africa’s waters. This is already a major problem in most African Rivers including the Nile, the Niger as well as Lakes Victoria and many others; and should in effect be controlled at this early stage.
Though other sources of pollution exist, but eutrophication by agricultural nutrients can be perverse. It often give rise to accelerated rise of algae and higher forms of plant life which has consequently led to the undesirable disturbance to the balance of organisms present in and dependent on the water and its quality.
The threat to biodiversity of both the aquatic habitat and of other species in the food chain is obvious as the water often become too low in oxygen for some species to tolerate, especially the local fish species.
The change agent to this emerging scenario is a coterie of most cost-effective measures vital in reducing the load of phosphorus and nitrate coming from farm runoff, also known as nonpoint pollution. This includes providing advisory and technical services to farmers in Africa’s watersheds.
Therefore there is need to support farmers with services that are underpinned by the principles of ecosystem based management vital in managing agricultural land in a way that is sensitive to the ecological health of nearby freshwater ecosystem thereby mitigating pollution and achieving food security etc.
The aim should be improving the management of the freshwater resource by forging a more effective connection among people and nature. And this should relate directly to the integrity, vitality, and resilience of vital freshwater ecosystem structures.
This strategy should acknowledge that the key to ecosystem management is the goal of ecological sustainability – protecting and restoring critical ecological components so that future as well as current generations will have their needs met, in this case – food security and safe water supplies.
Showing posts with label Agriculture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Agriculture. Show all posts
Wednesday, 22 June 2011
Media, Agriculture and Climate Change
By
Joachim Ezeji
http://blogs.worldbank.org/dmblog/team/joachim-ezeji
The strongest impacts of climate change in Africa are associated with rainfall and water availability; and agriculture in Africa is completely leaned on both hence its enormous vulnerability. An understanding therefore of how local communities perceive and consider changes occurring in their communities (such as water shortage) or how they interpret the climate crisis can help define strategies for appropriate responses and specific applications to reduce vulnerability to climatic variability and change. The questions to consider involve the inclusion of local knowledge in the definition and diffusion of long-term application of adaptation policies. As efforts to develop and diffuse adaptation mechanisms in Africa and elsewhere grow in momentum, one major constraint has been the failure to develop an effective communication strategy to drive the process.
Effective communication as a sub-set of development needs to be developed in order to get the message down to the bottom of the pyramid where those most affected i.e. the small holder farmers agglutinate. The concept of information in general, and of climate change adaptation information in particular, as a resource for effective adaptation and development, needs to be domesticated well beyond the current cozy confines of conference rooms and research hubs. Adaptation has been defined (AMMA, 2008) as a strategy of responses that aims to bring the potential impacts of climate change down to a minimum and reduce the negative effects for the lowest cost.
As such measures get developed, it becomes urgent to educate people including government officials, agricultural extension officers and farmers on what they are. Local policy makers, planners and administrators need to recognize that information is indispensable to the adaptation process. This is apparent with due cognizance of the fact that in most parts of Africa, the essential information mechanisms and infrastructural facilities are not yet sufficiently developed to foster the generation, storage, preservation, retrieval, dissemination and utilization of information. However, effective communication is seen as an essential tool for the establishment and maintenance of good social and working relationships and it enables people to exercise control over their environment. The purpose of communication is to bring about change of attitude, knowledge, skills and aspiration of the receivers.
In Nigeria, various communication media are commonly used to transmit all sorts of information to people. Some of these include magazines, leaflets, newsletters, newspapers, pamphlets, radio, internet, handset phones and television, among others. None of these media has proven excellent in this regard because of a number of factors, most salient though latent is that most of the journalists or program presenters are not experts in the field and often rely on what they read or where instructed/directed to do. Short term courses by journalist has not been effective in eclipsing this constraint. What has helped over the years are only where such journalists have been on that bit for years, hence pooling a great wealth of experience and exposure. As at today, many journalist in Africa are still at cross roads on the difference between mitigation and adaptation. You need to read their articles or stories to understand what I mean. Journalists need to have a background of good training at least to the University level in order to understand current dynamic global debates such as those on agriculture, Climate change and carbon trading etc. A three day training or conference participation in Brussels or Lagos cannot confer all that knowledge on them.
What I am suggesting in effect is that everybody should be and function as a media. Word of mouth is the best advert. Use issues as this as ice breakers and see what they know. Extension farmers still remains a veritable and useful tool. A combination of media, word of mouth and extension services is the best approach. In my organization, Rural Africa Water Development Project, a Nigerian NGO; we mainstreamed effective communication into many of our pro-poor programs. And one lesson we have learnt and which we always share is the fact that beyond stirring awareness, this has the extra benefit of building ownership and a high sense of community participation in the projects. People living in same community or in the same trade or profession should at least. freely share information within themselves.
An interesting study by Agwu et al (2008) in Nigeria sought to determine farmers’ adoption of improved agricultural technologies disseminated via radio farmer programme in Enugu State, Nigeria. The findings of this study revealed that major source of information on improved agricultural technologies to farmers were fellow farmers; then followed by radio programmes. A greater proportion (96.3%) accepted radio as a useful source of information on improved agricultural technologies. However, only 23.7% of the respondents were found to have listened to the radio farmer programme. The study further showed that the major relevant technologies disseminated were harvesting of yam and storage in barns and pest control in food crop farms.
The study also revealed that the radio farmer programme had little effect on enhancing adoption of improved technologies by the respondents. A greater proportion (56.3%) of the respondents were not satisfied with the radio farmer programme. Only age, farming experience and membership of farmers’ organization significantly influenced adoption of improved agricultural technologies disseminated through the radio while the major constraints to adoption of technologies include inappropriate scheduling of programme, inability to ask relevant questions and get the feedback from the radio presenter and language used in presenting the programme. Based on these findings, it was concluded that the present level of adoption of the improved agricultural technologies disseminated via radio farmer programme to farmers in Enugu state is low.
Finally, the media-newspapers, television, and radio- represent a special communication challenge to development. Approached wisely, the media may carry your story as you want it framed. Mishandle the media, on the other hand, your message may be publicly skewed. In engaging the media, you will need to identify the different segments of your audience and craft appropriate messages for each, and these include the local small holder farmers.
Joachim Ezeji
http://blogs.worldbank.org/dmblog/team/joachim-ezeji
The strongest impacts of climate change in Africa are associated with rainfall and water availability; and agriculture in Africa is completely leaned on both hence its enormous vulnerability. An understanding therefore of how local communities perceive and consider changes occurring in their communities (such as water shortage) or how they interpret the climate crisis can help define strategies for appropriate responses and specific applications to reduce vulnerability to climatic variability and change. The questions to consider involve the inclusion of local knowledge in the definition and diffusion of long-term application of adaptation policies. As efforts to develop and diffuse adaptation mechanisms in Africa and elsewhere grow in momentum, one major constraint has been the failure to develop an effective communication strategy to drive the process.
Effective communication as a sub-set of development needs to be developed in order to get the message down to the bottom of the pyramid where those most affected i.e. the small holder farmers agglutinate. The concept of information in general, and of climate change adaptation information in particular, as a resource for effective adaptation and development, needs to be domesticated well beyond the current cozy confines of conference rooms and research hubs. Adaptation has been defined (AMMA, 2008) as a strategy of responses that aims to bring the potential impacts of climate change down to a minimum and reduce the negative effects for the lowest cost.
As such measures get developed, it becomes urgent to educate people including government officials, agricultural extension officers and farmers on what they are. Local policy makers, planners and administrators need to recognize that information is indispensable to the adaptation process. This is apparent with due cognizance of the fact that in most parts of Africa, the essential information mechanisms and infrastructural facilities are not yet sufficiently developed to foster the generation, storage, preservation, retrieval, dissemination and utilization of information. However, effective communication is seen as an essential tool for the establishment and maintenance of good social and working relationships and it enables people to exercise control over their environment. The purpose of communication is to bring about change of attitude, knowledge, skills and aspiration of the receivers.
In Nigeria, various communication media are commonly used to transmit all sorts of information to people. Some of these include magazines, leaflets, newsletters, newspapers, pamphlets, radio, internet, handset phones and television, among others. None of these media has proven excellent in this regard because of a number of factors, most salient though latent is that most of the journalists or program presenters are not experts in the field and often rely on what they read or where instructed/directed to do. Short term courses by journalist has not been effective in eclipsing this constraint. What has helped over the years are only where such journalists have been on that bit for years, hence pooling a great wealth of experience and exposure. As at today, many journalist in Africa are still at cross roads on the difference between mitigation and adaptation. You need to read their articles or stories to understand what I mean. Journalists need to have a background of good training at least to the University level in order to understand current dynamic global debates such as those on agriculture, Climate change and carbon trading etc. A three day training or conference participation in Brussels or Lagos cannot confer all that knowledge on them.
What I am suggesting in effect is that everybody should be and function as a media. Word of mouth is the best advert. Use issues as this as ice breakers and see what they know. Extension farmers still remains a veritable and useful tool. A combination of media, word of mouth and extension services is the best approach. In my organization, Rural Africa Water Development Project, a Nigerian NGO; we mainstreamed effective communication into many of our pro-poor programs. And one lesson we have learnt and which we always share is the fact that beyond stirring awareness, this has the extra benefit of building ownership and a high sense of community participation in the projects. People living in same community or in the same trade or profession should at least. freely share information within themselves.
An interesting study by Agwu et al (2008) in Nigeria sought to determine farmers’ adoption of improved agricultural technologies disseminated via radio farmer programme in Enugu State, Nigeria. The findings of this study revealed that major source of information on improved agricultural technologies to farmers were fellow farmers; then followed by radio programmes. A greater proportion (96.3%) accepted radio as a useful source of information on improved agricultural technologies. However, only 23.7% of the respondents were found to have listened to the radio farmer programme. The study further showed that the major relevant technologies disseminated were harvesting of yam and storage in barns and pest control in food crop farms.
The study also revealed that the radio farmer programme had little effect on enhancing adoption of improved technologies by the respondents. A greater proportion (56.3%) of the respondents were not satisfied with the radio farmer programme. Only age, farming experience and membership of farmers’ organization significantly influenced adoption of improved agricultural technologies disseminated through the radio while the major constraints to adoption of technologies include inappropriate scheduling of programme, inability to ask relevant questions and get the feedback from the radio presenter and language used in presenting the programme. Based on these findings, it was concluded that the present level of adoption of the improved agricultural technologies disseminated via radio farmer programme to farmers in Enugu state is low.
Finally, the media-newspapers, television, and radio- represent a special communication challenge to development. Approached wisely, the media may carry your story as you want it framed. Mishandle the media, on the other hand, your message may be publicly skewed. In engaging the media, you will need to identify the different segments of your audience and craft appropriate messages for each, and these include the local small holder farmers.
Saturday, 18 December 2010
Agric: Targeting apposite investment
By
Joachim Ezeji
The agricultural sector is the major source of livelihood for more than 70 per cent of Nigerians. Agriculture is presently estimated to represent 42 per cent of the country’s GDP. However, many Nigerians are yet to see the gains of the enormous investments in the agriculture sector by the federal Government. It is estimated that more than 35 per cent of the population are suffering from malnutrition because they cannot attain the required calories level. It is also estimated that in 2009 alone that farmers were faced with series of challenges ranging from land insecurity to the lack of soft loans, grants and implements like tractors. Also, there are fears that the food situation in Nigeria could worsen since soils are becoming poor and degraded.
Also, the small-scale farmer is also faced with the dearth of quality seeds, fertilizer and agro chemicals. It is also argued that if all the projects, policies and initiatives are well implemented and supervised, there will be a significant difference in the agricultural sector of the Nigerian economy. There is also the need to reposition agricultural research institutes to make them more responsive to emerging challenges. However, stakeholders argue that it is time for government to review the agricultural policy and strategies to ensure development, efficiency, effectiveness and food for all. For every one of the government’s agricultural initiatives to be meaningful, it must embrace the right to food security, civil rights, good governance and implementation.
The ADB, in partnership with the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), has supported agricultural development in Africa with investments of around $3.8 billion. In Nigeria, apart from its growing budgetary allocation from seven per cent in 2008 to 12 per cent in 2009, various special intervention funds had also been injected into the sector. More than N400 billion was injected into the sector in 2009 alone. A budgetary allocation of 3.7 per cent was made in the sector in 2010. (i.e. recurrent N34.4bn and capital 49.9bn). The Yar’adua government (2007 – 2009) also earmarked three per cent (N300bn) of the Natural Resource Development Fund for the development of the agric sector.
President Goodluck Jonathan also , has set aside N242 billion to stimulate agriculture growth. This is apart from the N200bn that was lodged in some banks in 2009.Other intervention programmes in the sector since Nigeria’s independence in 1960 include; the National Accelerated Food Production Project (NAFPP) from 1970 to 1974; Operation Feed the Nation (OFN) of 1976; Green Revolution Programme (GRP) of 1980; Directorate for Food, Road and Rural Infrastructure (DFRRI) of 1986; National Agricultural Land Development Authority (NALDA) of 1992; National Accelerated Industrial Crops Production Programme (NAICPP) of 1996; Agriculture Development Programme (ADP); National Seed Service Programme (NSS); the establishment of the Federal Agriculture Coordinating Unit (FACU), Agriculture Credit Guarantee Scheme (ACGS), the Nigerian Agricultural Corporative and Rural Development Bank (NACRDB) and the recently launched contentious N200bn Commercial Agric Credit Scheme, among others.
In Nigeria, increasing changes in rainfall patterns as a result of climate change is already threatening small –scale agriculture, making it pretty difficult to plough farm lands after the very first rains. This threatens food security and income – making for small scale farmers. However, beyond this challenge are those of supporting farmers with services that are underpinned by the principles of ecosystem-based management necessary to manage agricultural land in ways that are sensitive to the ecological health of the environment. The paper therefore canvasses that any worthy investment in today’s agriculture should aim to basically address these challenges in order to foster sustainable development. Using a social-ecological approach, it discusses case studies of small scale rice farmers in Uboma, South-eastern Nigeria who are partnering to secure markets through a process that rewards farmers producing quality crops as well as creating of viable networks that links farmers from local farms to critical markets.
Water mismanagement, inappropriate land use, as well as poor knowledge of anti-drought measures by farmers have led to land degradation such as soil erosion and loss of the soil’s productive capacity to produce food. Also the limited potential for dry season farming through soil and water conservation, the non-employment of rain water harvesting technology, as well as conflicts over limited water resources have not helped the situation. Consequently, local livelihoods are being jeopardized while increasing poverty for thousands of local farmers expands. It is feared that economic losses of about 5-20% of National GDP could be wrought and that the region may lose between 4-6% of its GDP, with some sectors likely to face greater challenges. Already the region is facing reductions in yields from rain-fed agriculture of 10%, which may climb up to 50% by 2020.
This therefore underscores the need for the government to assign appropriate priority to the agriculture, forestry and fisheries sectors, in order to create opportunities to enable the world’s smallholder farmers and fishers, including indigenous people, in particular vulnerable areas, to participate in, and benefit from financial mechanisms and investment flows to support climate change adaptation, mitigation and technology development, transfer and dissemination. Agricultural systems must move in tandem with sustainable land management practices that positively contribute to the mitigation of climate change and ecological balance.”
Till today in parts of eastern Nigeria, the effects of worsening drought have continued to hamper farming activities. Water mismanagement, inappropriate land use, as well as poor knowledge of anti-drought measures by these farmers have led to land degradation such as soil erosion and loss of the soil’s productive capacity to produce food.
Also the limited potential for dry season farming through soil and water conservation, the non-employment of rain water harvesting technology, as well as conflicts over limited water resources had not helped the situation. Consequently, local livelihoods are being jeopardized while increasing poverty for thousands of farmers expands.
Getting farmers to enrich and share their knowledge of rainwater harvesting practices and soil and water conservation is often difficult because of dispersed nature of the farms and poor availability of time. A pool of different on-the-farm experiences is therefore desired to gain valuable experience amongst farmers in monitoring and evaluation and to formulate and agree upon a strategy on how to continue/advance in sharing and implementing rain water harvesting experiences as well as using the project to improve soil management and further options for land management and boost food harvests.
The concept of water harvesting has been around for many years through the use of reservoirs for domestic water supply. Water harvesting into small ponds or special devices as is currently the case should be consolidated as it remains the solution to water droughts because they reduce the consumption of mains or abstracted water and provide a secondary store of water for irrigation during dry season.
Farmers should be supported to use the World Overview on Conservation Agriculture Technology (WOCAT) questionnaires to document rainwater harvesting practices and soil and water conservation technologies.Farmers need to be exposed to gain valuable experience in monitoring and evaluation.Their is also the need for farmers to be assisted to formulate and agree upon a strategy on how to continue/advance in documenting, evaluating and disseminating rainwater harvesting experiences.
A wealth of SWC knowledge exists world-wide (scattered), but this is not documented and evaluated and thus being lost. Indigenous or local knowledge is not documented hence not easily accessible and thus hardly used; there has always been a heavy focus on documenting degradation but too little on sustainable land management (SLM) practices; experiences and lessons learned at global, national and local level should help to achieve better SWC and effective adaptation to climate change.
SWC specialists and decision-makers need better knowledge management. To adapt to climate change. WOCAT’s vision-that knowledge on sustainable land management is shared and used globally to improve livelihoods and the environment; should be mainstreamed. By the adoption of these measures farmers in eastern Nigeria underscored the need to maximize the potentials of dry season agriculture in order to boost food security, alleviate poverty, restore lost top soils and reduce point pollution of water sources from farms. But to achieve these would require putting in place pro-poor governance mechanisms as well as unleashing the creative ability of all farmers to participate fully in conservation agriculture measures under a framework of sustainable land management necessary in order to boost their livelihoods, reduce conflicts over water and enables a comprehensive understanding of human, and the natural environment.
Joachim Ezeji
The agricultural sector is the major source of livelihood for more than 70 per cent of Nigerians. Agriculture is presently estimated to represent 42 per cent of the country’s GDP. However, many Nigerians are yet to see the gains of the enormous investments in the agriculture sector by the federal Government. It is estimated that more than 35 per cent of the population are suffering from malnutrition because they cannot attain the required calories level. It is also estimated that in 2009 alone that farmers were faced with series of challenges ranging from land insecurity to the lack of soft loans, grants and implements like tractors. Also, there are fears that the food situation in Nigeria could worsen since soils are becoming poor and degraded.
Also, the small-scale farmer is also faced with the dearth of quality seeds, fertilizer and agro chemicals. It is also argued that if all the projects, policies and initiatives are well implemented and supervised, there will be a significant difference in the agricultural sector of the Nigerian economy. There is also the need to reposition agricultural research institutes to make them more responsive to emerging challenges. However, stakeholders argue that it is time for government to review the agricultural policy and strategies to ensure development, efficiency, effectiveness and food for all. For every one of the government’s agricultural initiatives to be meaningful, it must embrace the right to food security, civil rights, good governance and implementation.
The ADB, in partnership with the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), has supported agricultural development in Africa with investments of around $3.8 billion. In Nigeria, apart from its growing budgetary allocation from seven per cent in 2008 to 12 per cent in 2009, various special intervention funds had also been injected into the sector. More than N400 billion was injected into the sector in 2009 alone. A budgetary allocation of 3.7 per cent was made in the sector in 2010. (i.e. recurrent N34.4bn and capital 49.9bn). The Yar’adua government (2007 – 2009) also earmarked three per cent (N300bn) of the Natural Resource Development Fund for the development of the agric sector.
President Goodluck Jonathan also , has set aside N242 billion to stimulate agriculture growth. This is apart from the N200bn that was lodged in some banks in 2009.Other intervention programmes in the sector since Nigeria’s independence in 1960 include; the National Accelerated Food Production Project (NAFPP) from 1970 to 1974; Operation Feed the Nation (OFN) of 1976; Green Revolution Programme (GRP) of 1980; Directorate for Food, Road and Rural Infrastructure (DFRRI) of 1986; National Agricultural Land Development Authority (NALDA) of 1992; National Accelerated Industrial Crops Production Programme (NAICPP) of 1996; Agriculture Development Programme (ADP); National Seed Service Programme (NSS); the establishment of the Federal Agriculture Coordinating Unit (FACU), Agriculture Credit Guarantee Scheme (ACGS), the Nigerian Agricultural Corporative and Rural Development Bank (NACRDB) and the recently launched contentious N200bn Commercial Agric Credit Scheme, among others.
In Nigeria, increasing changes in rainfall patterns as a result of climate change is already threatening small –scale agriculture, making it pretty difficult to plough farm lands after the very first rains. This threatens food security and income – making for small scale farmers. However, beyond this challenge are those of supporting farmers with services that are underpinned by the principles of ecosystem-based management necessary to manage agricultural land in ways that are sensitive to the ecological health of the environment. The paper therefore canvasses that any worthy investment in today’s agriculture should aim to basically address these challenges in order to foster sustainable development. Using a social-ecological approach, it discusses case studies of small scale rice farmers in Uboma, South-eastern Nigeria who are partnering to secure markets through a process that rewards farmers producing quality crops as well as creating of viable networks that links farmers from local farms to critical markets.
Water mismanagement, inappropriate land use, as well as poor knowledge of anti-drought measures by farmers have led to land degradation such as soil erosion and loss of the soil’s productive capacity to produce food. Also the limited potential for dry season farming through soil and water conservation, the non-employment of rain water harvesting technology, as well as conflicts over limited water resources have not helped the situation. Consequently, local livelihoods are being jeopardized while increasing poverty for thousands of local farmers expands. It is feared that economic losses of about 5-20% of National GDP could be wrought and that the region may lose between 4-6% of its GDP, with some sectors likely to face greater challenges. Already the region is facing reductions in yields from rain-fed agriculture of 10%, which may climb up to 50% by 2020.
This therefore underscores the need for the government to assign appropriate priority to the agriculture, forestry and fisheries sectors, in order to create opportunities to enable the world’s smallholder farmers and fishers, including indigenous people, in particular vulnerable areas, to participate in, and benefit from financial mechanisms and investment flows to support climate change adaptation, mitigation and technology development, transfer and dissemination. Agricultural systems must move in tandem with sustainable land management practices that positively contribute to the mitigation of climate change and ecological balance.”
Till today in parts of eastern Nigeria, the effects of worsening drought have continued to hamper farming activities. Water mismanagement, inappropriate land use, as well as poor knowledge of anti-drought measures by these farmers have led to land degradation such as soil erosion and loss of the soil’s productive capacity to produce food.
Also the limited potential for dry season farming through soil and water conservation, the non-employment of rain water harvesting technology, as well as conflicts over limited water resources had not helped the situation. Consequently, local livelihoods are being jeopardized while increasing poverty for thousands of farmers expands.
Getting farmers to enrich and share their knowledge of rainwater harvesting practices and soil and water conservation is often difficult because of dispersed nature of the farms and poor availability of time. A pool of different on-the-farm experiences is therefore desired to gain valuable experience amongst farmers in monitoring and evaluation and to formulate and agree upon a strategy on how to continue/advance in sharing and implementing rain water harvesting experiences as well as using the project to improve soil management and further options for land management and boost food harvests.
The concept of water harvesting has been around for many years through the use of reservoirs for domestic water supply. Water harvesting into small ponds or special devices as is currently the case should be consolidated as it remains the solution to water droughts because they reduce the consumption of mains or abstracted water and provide a secondary store of water for irrigation during dry season.
Farmers should be supported to use the World Overview on Conservation Agriculture Technology (WOCAT) questionnaires to document rainwater harvesting practices and soil and water conservation technologies.Farmers need to be exposed to gain valuable experience in monitoring and evaluation.Their is also the need for farmers to be assisted to formulate and agree upon a strategy on how to continue/advance in documenting, evaluating and disseminating rainwater harvesting experiences.
A wealth of SWC knowledge exists world-wide (scattered), but this is not documented and evaluated and thus being lost. Indigenous or local knowledge is not documented hence not easily accessible and thus hardly used; there has always been a heavy focus on documenting degradation but too little on sustainable land management (SLM) practices; experiences and lessons learned at global, national and local level should help to achieve better SWC and effective adaptation to climate change.
SWC specialists and decision-makers need better knowledge management. To adapt to climate change. WOCAT’s vision-that knowledge on sustainable land management is shared and used globally to improve livelihoods and the environment; should be mainstreamed. By the adoption of these measures farmers in eastern Nigeria underscored the need to maximize the potentials of dry season agriculture in order to boost food security, alleviate poverty, restore lost top soils and reduce point pollution of water sources from farms. But to achieve these would require putting in place pro-poor governance mechanisms as well as unleashing the creative ability of all farmers to participate fully in conservation agriculture measures under a framework of sustainable land management necessary in order to boost their livelihoods, reduce conflicts over water and enables a comprehensive understanding of human, and the natural environment.
Sunday, 7 February 2010
GM crops in Nigeria: true or false?
It is timely to find out the official policy of the Nigerian government on Genetically Modified (GM) crops? This has become necessary in view of the crass ignorance of the average Nigerian on what GM crops are; and, if Nigerians are ignorant of what exactly GM crops are, then how sure are we that these controversial and in some instances dreaded crops are not already here in Nigeria.
Again, some ubiquitous Nigerians have many uncanny ways and some of these include trading on banned and counterfeit products. They go all out, and even against extant laws of the country to buy and import into the country items they know too well are dangerous and disruptive to the economy and the environment such as used refrigerators, old cars and machinery, fake drugs as well as despoiled food items such as rice and many others. This situation is further complicated by our porous borders and gullible security agents manning them.
It is on this premise therefore, that I seek to discuss GM crops in Nigeria and possibly find out what the official position of government is on it.
GM crops are crops or seedlings that have undergone genetic modification in the laboratory. This includes the introduction of a well-characterized gene or genes into an established genetic background or between species. A product of biotechnology or crop engineering, the resultant features include the ability of the crop to now grow and flourish in difficult terrains or barren farmlands; for example, they become drought resistant crops in arid soil or salt proof in high salinity farmlands.
In year 2000, the Times magazine had discussed the work of the Swiss biologist Ingo Potrykus who led the team that engineered the “golden rice”. The rice, a flagship product of Biotechnology (in the words of Dick Taverne’s essay in Prospect Magazine, 2007) was to start a new green revolution to improve the lives of millions of the poorest people in the world. It was estimated to help remedy vitamin- A deficiency, the cause of 1-2million deaths a year, and could save up to 500,000 children a year from going blind. No other scientific development in agriculture in recent time is thought to hold such promise.
Only a decade after their commercial introduction, GM crops were already in cultivation in well over 100million hectares spread across 22 countries by over 10million farmers. About 9 million of of this number are resource-poor farmers in developing countries, mainly India and China. Most of these small-scale farmers grow pest-resistant GM cotton. In India alone, production has tripled over the past 3 years to over 10million hectares. This cotton has proven to benefit farmers because it reduces the need for insecticides, thereby increasing their income and also improving their health.
However, beyond all these attributes, features and claims, there are deep rooted fears amongst the enlightened world that GM technology is most unsafe and harmful to the environment, and that it only lines the pocket of the big agricultural companies. Though GM crops are in abundance in parts of Europe, they are also effectively banned in most countries. Indeed, EU regulations, based on the precautionary principle, provide safeguards against “contamination” of organic farms by GM crops; they require any produce containing more than 0.9 percent GM content to be labeled as such, with the clear implication that it needs a health warning and should be avoided.
However, in view of the extant food security woes in Africa, for example, in parts of West Africa, the average rate of application of NPK fertilizer is reported to be an abysmal 13kg per hectare; should GM crops be relied upon and allowed to close up the food supply gap and flourish in Africa?
Factors responsible for poor fertilizer use have included cost and scarcity of the product when needed by farmers. The implication has been the heavy post harvest losses calculated at 50per cent for fruits and vegetables and 30per cent for root crops and tubers. Compared to the entire continent, recorded loses include 22kg of Nitrogen (N), 2.5kg of Phosphorus (P) and 15 kg of Potassium (k) per hectare per year through soil mismanagement. This is equivalent to US$4 billion worth of fertilizer (at United States prices) and likely US$30 billion at African fertilizer prices.
Also, sadly; with climate change now ravaging the continent, people are becoming increasingly affected as worsening droughts in particular is ruining the lives and livelihood of many households and have continued to hamper farming activities. Water mismanagement, inappropriate land use, as well as poor knowledge of anti-drought measures have continued to constrain the soil’s productive capacity to produce food. Consequently, local livelihoods are being jeopardized while increasing poverty for thousands of farmers expands.
GM crops on the other addresses these loops as they reduce reliance on agrochemical sprays, saves energy, uses less fossil fuel in their production and reduces the emissions of greenhouse gases; and by improving yields, they make better use of scarce agricultural land. These have been confirmed by different studies and reports which reveal that the “environmental impact” of pesticides and herbicide use in GM –growing countries had been reduced by 15 per cent and 20 percent respectively.
Energy-intensive cultivation is being replaced by no-till or low-till agriculture. As at today, more than a third of the soya bean crop grown in the US is now grown in unploughed fields. Apart from using less energy, avoiding the plough has many environmental advantages. It improves soil quality, causes fewer disturbances to life within it and diminishes the emission of methane and other greenhouse gases.
But whatever the merits are, there are oodles of dreadful demerits of GM crops. And one salient argument that is yet to be defeated is the fact that GM crops are “one-off-seeds” i.e. the seeds cannot be preserved or stored for replanting in the following farming season. This therefore imposes on the farmers the task of yearly purchase of the seeds at enormously high costs. How many poor farmers in Nigeria or other places in Africa can afford to go through this ritual yearly?
There are also other concerns such as the environmental threats, particularly those to biodiversity. It is feared that the takeover of natural environments by GM crops could easily lead to mass gene alteration in the entire ecosystem and that this could be counterproductive.
These arguments remained the crux of a class debate amongst nine African scholars on environment while on a residency program at Brown University, USA last fall. We had debated that regardless of the so called abundant benefits that GM crops are evil and are capable of impoverishing Africans in the long run. This was based on our fear that it would erode indigenous or local seeds from Africa; and make the already impoverished small holder farmers and peasants perpetually dependent of imported seeds.
This argument also raised other fears, such as those that claim that once traditional farmlands have been exposed to GM crops, the entire landscape subsequently becomes the exclusive dominance of GM crops as no other crop would be capable of doing well in such farmland. Though this fear still remains hypothetical; empirical analyses in this regard may not even be necessary as people commonly prefer organically produced food because it is neither a quick-fix solution for world hunger nor an exploitative endeavor.
As a country with large population; the most populated in Africa; the official policy of the Nigerian government on GM crops need to be known. Is it here already, or is it yet to arrive? Certainly, we need to know what the position of the Nigerian government is on this matter.
But whatever it is, there is enormous need for citizen education on the pros and cons of GM crops to enable at least an understanding and awareness creation. This has the potential of assisting us, particularly the farmers from deceit and deception by those with ubiquitous uncanny ways.
Again, some ubiquitous Nigerians have many uncanny ways and some of these include trading on banned and counterfeit products. They go all out, and even against extant laws of the country to buy and import into the country items they know too well are dangerous and disruptive to the economy and the environment such as used refrigerators, old cars and machinery, fake drugs as well as despoiled food items such as rice and many others. This situation is further complicated by our porous borders and gullible security agents manning them.
It is on this premise therefore, that I seek to discuss GM crops in Nigeria and possibly find out what the official position of government is on it.
GM crops are crops or seedlings that have undergone genetic modification in the laboratory. This includes the introduction of a well-characterized gene or genes into an established genetic background or between species. A product of biotechnology or crop engineering, the resultant features include the ability of the crop to now grow and flourish in difficult terrains or barren farmlands; for example, they become drought resistant crops in arid soil or salt proof in high salinity farmlands.
In year 2000, the Times magazine had discussed the work of the Swiss biologist Ingo Potrykus who led the team that engineered the “golden rice”. The rice, a flagship product of Biotechnology (in the words of Dick Taverne’s essay in Prospect Magazine, 2007) was to start a new green revolution to improve the lives of millions of the poorest people in the world. It was estimated to help remedy vitamin- A deficiency, the cause of 1-2million deaths a year, and could save up to 500,000 children a year from going blind. No other scientific development in agriculture in recent time is thought to hold such promise.
Only a decade after their commercial introduction, GM crops were already in cultivation in well over 100million hectares spread across 22 countries by over 10million farmers. About 9 million of of this number are resource-poor farmers in developing countries, mainly India and China. Most of these small-scale farmers grow pest-resistant GM cotton. In India alone, production has tripled over the past 3 years to over 10million hectares. This cotton has proven to benefit farmers because it reduces the need for insecticides, thereby increasing their income and also improving their health.
However, beyond all these attributes, features and claims, there are deep rooted fears amongst the enlightened world that GM technology is most unsafe and harmful to the environment, and that it only lines the pocket of the big agricultural companies. Though GM crops are in abundance in parts of Europe, they are also effectively banned in most countries. Indeed, EU regulations, based on the precautionary principle, provide safeguards against “contamination” of organic farms by GM crops; they require any produce containing more than 0.9 percent GM content to be labeled as such, with the clear implication that it needs a health warning and should be avoided.
However, in view of the extant food security woes in Africa, for example, in parts of West Africa, the average rate of application of NPK fertilizer is reported to be an abysmal 13kg per hectare; should GM crops be relied upon and allowed to close up the food supply gap and flourish in Africa?
Factors responsible for poor fertilizer use have included cost and scarcity of the product when needed by farmers. The implication has been the heavy post harvest losses calculated at 50per cent for fruits and vegetables and 30per cent for root crops and tubers. Compared to the entire continent, recorded loses include 22kg of Nitrogen (N), 2.5kg of Phosphorus (P) and 15 kg of Potassium (k) per hectare per year through soil mismanagement. This is equivalent to US$4 billion worth of fertilizer (at United States prices) and likely US$30 billion at African fertilizer prices.
Also, sadly; with climate change now ravaging the continent, people are becoming increasingly affected as worsening droughts in particular is ruining the lives and livelihood of many households and have continued to hamper farming activities. Water mismanagement, inappropriate land use, as well as poor knowledge of anti-drought measures have continued to constrain the soil’s productive capacity to produce food. Consequently, local livelihoods are being jeopardized while increasing poverty for thousands of farmers expands.
GM crops on the other addresses these loops as they reduce reliance on agrochemical sprays, saves energy, uses less fossil fuel in their production and reduces the emissions of greenhouse gases; and by improving yields, they make better use of scarce agricultural land. These have been confirmed by different studies and reports which reveal that the “environmental impact” of pesticides and herbicide use in GM –growing countries had been reduced by 15 per cent and 20 percent respectively.
Energy-intensive cultivation is being replaced by no-till or low-till agriculture. As at today, more than a third of the soya bean crop grown in the US is now grown in unploughed fields. Apart from using less energy, avoiding the plough has many environmental advantages. It improves soil quality, causes fewer disturbances to life within it and diminishes the emission of methane and other greenhouse gases.
But whatever the merits are, there are oodles of dreadful demerits of GM crops. And one salient argument that is yet to be defeated is the fact that GM crops are “one-off-seeds” i.e. the seeds cannot be preserved or stored for replanting in the following farming season. This therefore imposes on the farmers the task of yearly purchase of the seeds at enormously high costs. How many poor farmers in Nigeria or other places in Africa can afford to go through this ritual yearly?
There are also other concerns such as the environmental threats, particularly those to biodiversity. It is feared that the takeover of natural environments by GM crops could easily lead to mass gene alteration in the entire ecosystem and that this could be counterproductive.
These arguments remained the crux of a class debate amongst nine African scholars on environment while on a residency program at Brown University, USA last fall. We had debated that regardless of the so called abundant benefits that GM crops are evil and are capable of impoverishing Africans in the long run. This was based on our fear that it would erode indigenous or local seeds from Africa; and make the already impoverished small holder farmers and peasants perpetually dependent of imported seeds.
This argument also raised other fears, such as those that claim that once traditional farmlands have been exposed to GM crops, the entire landscape subsequently becomes the exclusive dominance of GM crops as no other crop would be capable of doing well in such farmland. Though this fear still remains hypothetical; empirical analyses in this regard may not even be necessary as people commonly prefer organically produced food because it is neither a quick-fix solution for world hunger nor an exploitative endeavor.
As a country with large population; the most populated in Africa; the official policy of the Nigerian government on GM crops need to be known. Is it here already, or is it yet to arrive? Certainly, we need to know what the position of the Nigerian government is on this matter.
But whatever it is, there is enormous need for citizen education on the pros and cons of GM crops to enable at least an understanding and awareness creation. This has the potential of assisting us, particularly the farmers from deceit and deception by those with ubiquitous uncanny ways.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)