An Assets-Based Approach to Sustainable Use of Land and Water

Contribution to “Presentation on Sustainable Use of Land and Water for

Food Security”, FAO Committee for Food Security, Rome, 1st June 2001

Professor Jules Pretty, Centre for Environment and Society, University of Essex, Colchester CO4

3SQ, UKjpretty@essex.ac.uk

Three agricultural options• expand the area of agriculture, by converting new

lands to agriculture, but losing forests, grasslands and other areas of important biodiversity

• increase per hectare production in agricultural exporting countries, mostly industrialised, so that food can be transferred or sold to those who need it

• increase total farm productivity in developing countries which are going most to need the food

• by purchasing inputs/technologies?

• by using locally-available assets and resources?

Best options for the poorest?• Which work best for the poorest

• great success in past… but still 790 million people food poor

• Key questions:– to what extent can farmers improve food

production with low-cost and locally-available technologies and inputs?

– What impacts do these methods have on environmental goods and services, and the livelihoods of people relying on them?

Five Assets of Rural Systems(livelihoods, communities, economies)

Financial Capital:money, savings

Natural Capital:nature’s goods and services

(waste assimilation, pollination, storm protection, water supply, leisure, wildlife)

Social Capital: cohesiveness of people

and societies - trust, reciprocity, rules and norms,

networks and institutions

Physical Capital:infrastructure

Human Capital:the status of individuals - health, skills, knowledge

Natural Capital• food, wood and fibre; • water regulation and supply; • waste assimilation and treatment; nutrient cycling and fixation; • soil formation; • biological control of pests; • climate regulation and carbon sequestration; • wildlife habitats; • storm protection and flood control; • pollination; • recreation and leisure

• Value of world’s natural capital - $33 trillion (equivalent to twice the size of the world’s formal economy)

Social Capital• Fundamental basis for sustainable

development• lowers the costs of working together• facilitates co-operation between people

• Relations of trust that lubricate co-operation• Common rules, norms and

sanctions for behaviour • Reciprocity and exchanges• Connectedness and social institutions

Assets - inputs and outputs• Agriculture transforms:

• natural capital (functional biodiversity, soil health)

• social capital (connectedness, cooperation, trust)• human capital (knowledge, skills) • together with physical and financial capital

• But it also indirectly affects all three renewable assets

• some forms of agriculture increase the asset base• other forms decrease assets, and leave less for

future generations

Farm,Livelihood orCommunity

System

With access toand stocks of:

Natural capitalHuman capitalSocial capital

Physical capitalFinancial capital

Renewablenaturalcapital

Contextualfactors:

agro-ecologicalclimaticcultural

economiclegal

politicalsocial

Shaped by:external

institutionsand policies

Depletion of:Natural capitalHuman capitalSocial capital

Social capital:vertical andhorizontal

participatoryprocesses

New skillsand

technologies

Non-renewableinputs

Food and othermarketed produce

Finance:income, credit,

grants

Accumulation of:Natural capitalHuman capitalSocial capital

Assets-based model of agricultural systems

PositiveFunctions

NegativeFunctions

Farm,Livelihood orCommunity

System

With access toand stocks of:

Natural capitalHuman capitalSocial capital

Physical capitalFinancial capital

Renewablenaturalcapital

Contextualfactors:

agro-ecologicalclimaticcultural

economiclegal

politicalsocial

Shaped by:external

institutionsand policies

Depletion of:Natural capitalHuman capitalSocial capital

Social capital:vertical andhorizontal

participatoryprocesses

New skillsand

technologies

Non-renewableinputs

Food and othermarketed produce

Finance:income, credit,

grants

Accumulation of:Natural capitalHuman capitalSocial capital

Assets-based model of agricultural systems – flows and outcomesin sustainable systems

PositiveFunctions

NegativeFunctions

Farm,Livelihood orCommunity

System

With access toand stocks of:

Natural capitalHuman capitalSocial capital

Physical capitalFinancial capital

Renewablenaturalcapital

Contextualfactors:

agro-ecologicalclimaticcultural

economiclegal

politicalsocial

Shaped by:external

institutionsand policies

Depletion of:Natural capitalHuman capitalSocial capital

Social capital:vertical andhorizontal

participatoryprocesses

New skillsand

technologies

Non-renewableinputs

Food and othermarketed produce

Finance:income, credit,

grants

Accumulation of:Natural capitalHuman capitalSocial capital

Assets-based model of agricultural systems – flows and outcomesin modernised systems

PositiveFunctions

NegativeFunctions

Sustainable Use of Land and Water• A more sustainable agriculture seeks to make the

best use of nature’s goods and services • Integrates natural and regenerative processes, (nutrient

cycling, nitrogen fixation, soil regeneration and natural enemies) into food production processes

• Minimises the use of non-renewable inputs that damage the environment or harm health

• Makes best use of knowledge and skills of farmers• Make productive use of social capital - people’s capacities to

work together to solve common management problems, such as pest, watershed, irrigation, and forest management

• Also contributes to public goods ~ clean water, wildlife, carbon sequestration in soils, flood protection, landscape quality, rural jobs

Sustainable Agriculture Audit and Research• Aims

• audit recent progress in developing countries towards sustainable agriculture,

• assess the extent to which such projects/initiatives have increased local food production

• Surveyed 208 projects in 52 countries using questionnaires, project reports and evaluations, and verifying experts

• purposive sampling - not random

Cases rejected where:• no obvious sustainable agriculture link• participation in projects was for direct material

incentives– as there are doubts that ensuing improvements persist

after such incentives end

• where there was heavy or sole reliance on fossil-fuel derived inputs, or on their targeted use alone

• this is not to negate these technologies, but these were simply not the focus of this research;

• where the data provided was too weak or the findings unsubstantiated

Farmers and hectares• 208 projects/initiatives• 8.98 million farmers have adopted

sustainable agriculture practices and technologies

• 28.92 million hectares • equivalent to 3.01% of the 960 million hectares of

arable and permanent crops in Africa, Asia and Latin America

• 8.44 m ha if discount large farms adopting zero-tillage in South America

Food production increases• intensification of a single component of farm system

• with little change to the rest of the farm ~ home garden intensification, vegetables on rice bunds, introduction of fish ponds or a dairy cow;

• addition of new productive element to a farm system• such as fish in paddy rice, or agroforestry, which provides a boost to

total farm food production;

• better use of natural capital to increase crop intensity• water ~ water harvesting and irrigation scheduling• land ~ reclamation of formerly unproductive land

• improvements in per hectare yields of staples • through introduction of new regenerative elements into farm systems

(eg legumes)

• improvements in yields through introduction of new and locally-appropriate crops and animals

Sustainable agriculture projects/initiatives - crop yield changes (89 projects)

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

yields before/without project (kg/ha)

rela

tive

yie

ld c

han

ge

afte

r/w

ith

pro

ject

maize

sorghum/millet

beans/soya/peas/groundnut

rice

wheat

potato/sweet pot/cassava

cotton

vegetables

no change

SAFE-World Change in yield grouped by crop type(mean and s.e.m)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

maize

wheat

rice

sorg

hum/m

illet

vege

table

s

bean

s etc

pota

to e

tc

cere

als

grand

tota

l

rela

tive

yie

ld c

han

ge

wit

h/a

fter

pro

ject

Mucuna (velvetbean) cover cropping in Benin• For suppression of weed Imperata

cylindrica and intercropping with maize• Local adaptation of technology by

farmers• Area of poor soils; low access to

fertilizers, declining fallow periods • 14,000 farmers adopted• Maize yields to 3-4 t/ha • Benefit-cost 1.24 (cf 0.62 without mucuna); up to 3.56 if

seeds sold

Zero-Tillage in Brazil and Argentina• Zero-tillage

• No ploughing of soil• Brazil - 11 million hectares• Argentina - 9.2 million hectares

• Benefits• better input use, water retention, diverse

rotations, increased organic matter in soils (thus more carbon sequestration)

• reduced erosion and water pollution• yields: maize up from 3 to 5 t/ha (Brazil); wheat

up from 2 to 3.5 t/ha (Argentina)

The velvetbean in Central America• Velvet bean (Mucuna pruriens)

• Multiple cropped with maize• Fixes 150 kg N/ha per year• Produces 30-50 tonnes biomass per ha/year• Improves and regenerates soils

• 45,000 families in Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua growing mucuna

• Crop yields up from 400-600kg/ha to 2000-2500 kg/ha

• social capital critical - farmers’ groups, experimentation, and extension

Soil and Water Conservation in Niger and Burkina Faso

• 100,000 ha of abandoned and degraded land improved with tassas/zaï

• 20-30 cm holes with residues/manures; harvest water and aid infiltration

• Yields up 50-100% ~ highest in dry years• Household food security ~ from 153 kg deficit to 644 kg

surplus• Reverse migration

• Key elements: action-research approach, openness to farmer initiatives, immediate results, ability to be integrated into existing cropping systems, technological package can be adjust to changing local context

Better land husbandry, Kenya• ABLH using double-dug beds with composting, green

and animal manures ~ last 4-6 seasons• Better water holding capacity and higher organic

matter ~ beds more productive, more diverse and are able to sustain vegetable growth into the dry season

• Benefits for women and children • 75% of households free from hunger during the year (up

from 43%);• Households buying vegetables during year has fallen from

85% to 11%; • Proportion selling vegetables up from 20% to 77%;• 48% of households maize self-sufficient (up from 22%).

Sri Lanka: Water Users’ Groups

• 33,000 water users’ associations• 500,000 farmers on 0.5-1.0 million hectares• irrigated rice main crop

• Benefits• increased water use efficiency• increased cropping intensity• greater total production• reduction in complaints and conflicts

• 1998• water available for only 14% of area• farmers’ associations persuaded government to release

water - successfully produced whole rice crop and earned country $20 million foreign exchange

Positive effects on livelihoods • natural capital:

• increased soil water retention; improvements in water table (with more drinking water in the dry season); reduced soil erosion & improved organic matter in soils; better carbon sequestration; increased agro-biodiversity

• social capital:• more and stronger social organisations; new rules and norms for

managing collective natural resources; and better connectedness to external policy institutions

• human capital: • more local capacity to experiment and solve own problems;

increased self-esteem in formerly marginalised groups; increased status of women; better child health and nutrition, especially from more food in dry seasons; reversed migration

Confounding Factors

• Critical trade-offs between assets• roads for markets and loss of forests• land closed for rehabilitation - poor sell livestock• more work for women• additional incomes go to men

• Increasing assets• may tempt the powerful to take over?

• Aspirations• rural people may want to get away from rural parochialism

• Backlash• strong social capital (groups and networks) become new

power bases - and tempt backlash?• Changing markets for inputs

• reduced demand for agro-chemicals?

Summary of recent progress• Technologies and social processes for local

level sustainable agriculture are well-established

• Social and institutional conditions for spread are less well-known, but have been established in several contexts;

• Political conditions for the emergence of supportive policies are least well established, with only a very few examples of real progress

Policies out of step?• Much evidence of transformed thinking

• everyone in favour of “sustainability”• some willing to change words alone• some willing to change practices

• Most policy structures still encouraging `old’ modernist agriculture

• Need to go beyond `greening the edge’ to `greening the middle’ of farming

• Supportive policies• Core challenge for next decade

What is a good policy for sustainable land and water?• Integrated across sectors• Promotes multifunctionality

• enhances positive externalities and reduces negative externalities

• Knowledge-based and nature-based• builds renewable assets

• Participatory• links up different stakeholders• bottom-up

• Mixture of instruments• economic, advisory, regulatory

Marcus Cato (200 BC)author of Di Agri Cultura

“And when our ancestors would praise a worthy

person, their praise took this form: good

husbandman, good farmer (bonum agricolam

bonumque colonum);

one so praised was thought to have received

the greatest commendation”