Small scale agriculture the world over is constrained by four main factors: access to land, access to markets, access to capital and access to skills. In addition, African smallholders face increasing difficulties accessing sufficient soil moisture and nutrients to produce reliable harvests. On-going desertification and decreasing biodiversity also increasingly threaten sustainability. Large scale policy interventions are inherently difficult, as rural people tend to be organised at local level, and rural institutions in Africa are often weak, yet World Bank and government initiatives usually argue for economies of scale. The most promising support initiatives in southern and eastern Africa work locally to build local institutions, while supporting production with risk-reducing technologies. At the same time, they provide groups with market access, training and mentorship. The results of large-scale land reform initiatives have been almost universally disastrous.
The Food, Energy and Water Crises
There are about 6.5 billion people alive today, and nearly half of them are actively involved in farming. Water is a key factor in their survival. By the year 2025, major international water shortages are expected. China and India between them have more than a third of the world’s population (2.2 billion people) and nearly two-thirds of these people are involved in agriculture. Population densities vary between 300 and 700 people per square kilometre in the different regions of these countries. Both countries together have about 5,000 cubic kilometres of fresh water available. In the United States, the position is dramatically different: water is plentiful (about 2,500 cubic kilometres of fresh water for 280 million people), while the population density is 3 people per square kilometre. About 21 million hectares of land is irrigated (IWMI, 2000).
The demographic situation in South Africa is between that of China and India on the one hand, and industrialized countries such as the United States on the other. The population density is 35 people per square kilometre and about 15% of the population are actively involved in farming. However, water availability in South Africa is a major problem: while the United States has about 7000 cubic metres of fresh water available per person per year, and even China and India have about 2000, South Africa has only 1200 cubic metres of fresh water available per person per year. Only 1.3 million ha (about 1%) of our land is irrigated, with a total of 50 cubic kilometres of water available. Table 1 summarizes the situation.
Table 1 Population, urbanisation and available fresh water
China and India
South Africa
United States
Population
2,2 billion combined
40 million
280 million
Population density
500 per km2
35 per km2
3 per km2
Proportion in agriculture
65 %
15 %
2 %
Water per person per yr.
2,000 m3
1,200 m3
7,000 m3
Although South Africa is urbanizing rapidly, water shortages and erratic rainfall distribution will continue to plague those people involved in rainfed agriculture. Climate change will probably make the central and western parts of South Africa drier, while the east may become wetter, but subject to highly erratic violent storms. Table 1 also shows that despite rapid urbanization, population density is not nearly as high in South Africa as in China and India. But, unlike the United States, substantial numbers of people are still involved in agriculture. However, the number of people living in the rural areas is much higher than the number involved in agriculture. More than 20 million people (at least 3 million families) live in the rural and peri-urban areas, but less than a third of these are actively involved in agriculture, or even home vegetable production.
Over the past 60 years in the USA, the proportion of people involved in agriculture (directly and indirectly) has dropped from about 50 to only 2%! Modern methods of agriculture have reduced the time taken to produce a hectare of maize from more than 1,000 hours when done by hand, to only 12 hours in mechanised broad acreage farming; modern farming is very efficient in terms of production per hectare and output per person, but very inefficient in energy and water use terms (Pimentel and Pimentel, 1979). Often, more non-solar energy is consumed in mechanised, chemical-intensive agricultural production than the actual energy value of the food produced.
The South African National Department of Agriculture (NDA, 2001) estimates that 14 million people in South Africa are food-insecure. This represents at least two thirds of the rural population, more than 2 million households. With increasing food and energy prices, and decreasing water availability, these numbers are currently rising sharply. South Africa must find ways of assisting these 2 million households to achieve household food security. Some can be helped to become semi-commercial farmers, while at least a million households will need help in developing subsistence systems which will allow them to enjoy at least basic levels of well-being, and a more secure basis from which to choose their developmental direction. The so-called Schreber Allotment Gardens, which have been a feature of German cities for 200 years, are one model which South Africa could incorporate in a national urban food security programme.
Given South Africa’s energy crisis, and the world-wide food crisis and water crisis, what practical strategies can be employed to help small scale farmers and food-insecure rural and peri-urban households to feed themselves? Experience shows that a combination of water-efficient and low external input sustainable agricultural practices can produce adequate food for Africa, but that these need to be combined with institutional support through participatory farmer support programmes. Such programmes need to combine farmer-to-farmer training programmes with training for rural community facilitators and a process of developing market linkages for local, regional and export markets. South African research shows that rainwater harvesting and organic farming can produce economically viable yield levels, while evidence from eastern Africa shows that when National Organic Agricultural Movements (NOAMs) are given adequate support, farmers will respond with dramatically increased production. Both depend on working locally.
Water Use Efficiency
Improving water use efficiency requires both improvement in use of water supply, and reduction in water demand; available moisture should be optimally used. In arid and semi-arid areas of Africa, three factors contribute dramatically to crop failure:
· high levels of evaporative demand (potential evapotranspiration);
· poor water infiltration; and
· low soil water holding capacity.
In many hot areas of Africa potential evapotranspiration (the atmospheric water demand) is higher than the total annual precipitation. In southern Africa, most farming is practiced in areas where the mean annual potential evaporation, (e.g. 1540 mm at Rainman Landcare Foundation) exceeds the mean annual precipitation, (e.g. 850 mm at Rainman Landcare Foundation). When rainfall is divided by potential evapotranspiration, an aridity index can be derived (e.g. 0.55 at Rainman Landcare Foundation [Lorentz and Auerbach, 2005]; 0.24 in the drier Free State Province [Botha et al., 2005]). High levels of aridity contribute to Southern Africa’s water scarcity. Water Use Efficiency (or, to be more technically correct, Precipitation Use Efficiency), can be calculated as a function of crop produced per unit of water received in rainfall. When Kofi Annan, then Secretary General of the United Nations, called for increases in the amount of food produced with our existing water resources, he said we need to produce “more crop per drop”; essentially, he was saying that our water use efficiency must improve.
The Rainman Rainwater Harvesting System
This is what rainwater harvesting is able to achieve, when integrated with organic farming. Research at the Rainman Landcare Foundation showed that infiltration was almost doubled and groundwater recharge increased from 6 % to 26 % using swales (dead-level contour banks) and compost. A further strategy for increasing water use efficiency is to reduce soil evaporation, thus also reducing the aridity index. Evaporation can be effectively reduced while protecting the soil against degradation, by the use of mulches; research showed a 40 % decrease in evaporation (Auerbach, 1997 and 1999, Lorentz and Auerbach, 2005).
The Rainman Rainwater Harvesting System was thus developed, using swales, compost and mulch, and it has been widely used in KwaZulu-Natal. This simultaneously improves soil texture, reduces organic matter oxidation by reducing soil temperatures, reduces raindrop impact, and thus soil erosion, improves soil nutrient and moisture retention, and with good conservation engineering (swales [dead-level contour banks], or else micro-catchment basins) dramatically increases water infiltration (Auerbach, 2005). In the drier, flatter areas to the west, in-field (micro-catchment) rainwater harvesting systems work best (Botha et al., 2005), while in the steeper, high rainfall areas of the eastern seaboard, runoff is harvested from an upper catchment (ex-field), and concentrated in a lower production area (Lorentz and Auerbach, 2005).
In particular, arid areas with high evaporative demand also characteristically have high levels of soil erosion and high rates of organic matter decomposition. The result is a cycle of degradation of the natural resource base. Simply by combining strategies to improve water use efficiency with strategies to conserve soil organic matter and biodiversity, the Rainman System improves efficiency of water use, while reducing the pollution load on waterways and the dangers of chemical contamination. At the same time, livelihoods are improved through access to niche markets.
At the Rainman Landcare Foundation, annual increase in infiltration due to the swales is approximately equal to ten rainfall recharges of 200 mm (Lorentz and Auerbach, 2005). The contribution of compost to water and nutrient holding capacity of the soils has not yet been quantified, but the certified organic produce attracts a price premium of about 20%. The 1 hectare wetland system catches and stores enough water from the 11 hectare catchment area to irrigate 1 hectare of market garden fully and to supplement the 1 hectare of coffee with 3 or 4 irrigations. In the drier Free State, in-field rainwater harvesting systems resulted in yield increases for maize and dry beans ranging from 55% to 2967% (Botha et al., 2005). Thus, again, small-scale local rainwater harvesting is highly efficient for reducing the risk of crop failure. It is simple and cheap to construct, and it radically improves both the farm productivity and the farmer’s livelihood.
The following photographic case study illustrates how low-cost local intervention can transform disaster into productivity, with training, mentoring and practical assistance.
This example from practical experience illustrates how low-cost local interventions can allow farmers to expand useful innovations. Unfortunately, government opposition to this development project, because of lack of understanding or rainwater harvesting by the Department of Agriculture, has seen the curtailment of development and the blocking of the further development of sustainable irrigation systems. Yet small rainwater harvesting interventions such as that described do not dislocate any people, but rather support the ability of small scale farmers to improve their livelihoods by reducing the risk of crop failure, while large-scale interventions such as regional dams dislocate people and have major effects on the environment.
From technical success to social upliftment: extension theories and practice
But how can technical innovations be converted into successful social upliftment programmes? What have we learned from the last 50 years of international development aid, African famines, the Green Revolution and the current world food crisis?
Niels Röling outlines how agricultural extension progressed from “doing it to the farmers”, to “doing it for the farmers”, and more recently towards “doing it with the farmers” (Röling, 1988). As participatory approaches became more popular in the last two decades of the twentieth century, there was general agreement that it is more efficient to work with farmers, helping to identify innovations, and helping to create conditions whereby farmers can apply innovative approaches to improve their livelihoods.
More recently, Röling (2009) writes that “farmers have very few opportunities that they can access through improved technology. Appropriate technologies can only be effective within the very small windows of opportunity smallholders have. The challenge, therefore, is to stretch those opportunities. …. if the challenge is to enhance innovation, what are the pathways through which agricultural science can have impact? This question is at the heart of the professionalism of the agricultural scientist. One cannot imagine that scientists go about their business of producing technologies without worrying about the processes by which their work contributes to reaching development and sustainability goals. Yet when one looks at how scientists conceptualize pathways of science-for-impact, one often cannot escape the impression that they and their professional organizations do not spend much time and effort on understanding them.” Röling concludes that “The urgency of persistent rural poverty in Africa, climate change and global food insecurity make it imperative that we invest in developing appropriate pathways of science and in capacity building of agricultural science so as to render it fit-for-purpose given the new global challenges”.
Support for innovation happens at a local scale, and when it happens effectively, it spreads locally from farmer to farmer with a slow but relentless efficiency. Innovations that work also need to be supported by institutions that work, however. Röling comments: “In the new thinking, the key challenge is not so much to transfer technology to users, but to enhance the innovative capacity of key stakeholders …. Innovation is seen to emerge from the synergistic interaction of such stakeholders. I have struggled with the appealing concept of innovation throughout my career. …. It is not becoming easier, especially now that anthropogenic change of the fragile troposphere is asking for innovation in the way we innovate. My involvement in … the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development [IAASTD], which was approved by 59 countries in an inter-governmental plenary at Johannesburg, South Africa, in April 2008, really brought home this new context. IAASTD is a sequel to, and follows a similar procedure as, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Eco-System Assessment (EA). That is, the IAASTD came about as a multi-stakeholder process under the auspices of a Bureau made up of governments, private organisations and civil society. Some 400 authors were involved in writing the report” (Röling, 2009).
The IAASTD Executive Summary of the Synthesis Report states (pp 3 & 4):
“The IAASTD responds to the widespread realization that despite significant scientific and technological achievements in our ability to increase agricultural productivity, we have been less attentive to some of the unintended social and environmental consequences of our achievements. We are now in a good position to reflect on these consequences and to outline various policy options to meet the challenges ahead, perhaps best characterized as the need for food and livelihood security under increasingly constrained environmental conditions from within and outside the realm of agriculture and globalized economic systems.
“This widespread realization is linked directly to the goals of the IAASTD: how Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology (AKST) can be used to reduce hunger and poverty, to improve rural livelihoods and to facilitate equitable environmentally, socially and economically sustainable development. Under the rubric of IAASTD, we recognize the importance of AKST to the multifunctionality of agriculture and the intersection with other local to global concerns, including loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services, climate change and water availability.
“The IAASTD is unique in the history of agricultural science assessments, in that it assesses both formal science and technology (S&T) and local and traditional knowledge, addresses not only production and productivity but the multifunctionality of agriculture, and recognizes that multiple perspectives exist on the role and nature of AKST. For many years, agricultural science focused on delivering component technologies to increase farm-level productivity where the market and institutional arrangements put in place by the state were the primary drivers of the adoption of new technologies. The general model has been to continuously innovate, reduce farm gate prices and externalize costs. This model drove the phenomenal achievements of AKST in industrial countries after World War II and the spread of the Green Revolution beginning in the 1960s. But, given the new challenges we confront today, there is increasing recognition within formal S&T organizations that the current AKST model requires revision. Business as usual is no longer an option. This leads to rethinking the role of AKST in achieving development and sustainability goals; one that seeks more intensive engagement across diverse worldviews and possibly contradictory approaches in ways that can inform and suggest strategies for actions enabling to the multiple functions of agriculture” (IAASTD, 2008).
Changes in development thinking
The brief of the IAASTD, arising out of the World Summit on Sustainable Development held in Johannesburg in 2002, was to assess how agricultural knowledge, science and technology could reduce world hunger and poverty. The brief was not to examine how yields per hectare could be maximised through technology. Criticisms levelled at the process and conclusions of IAASTD imply that because it looks at practical ways to help resource poor farmers to improve their livelihoods, it is unscientific. Scientific paradigm shifts are notoriously difficult to bring about, and until significant numbers of scientists find compelling research evidence for changing from technology-centred strategies for maximising production per hectare to systems-centred strategies for sustainable production, the polemic is likely to continue.
The Syngenta representative on the IAASTD, walked out of the talks near the end of the four year study, claiming bias against genetic engineering, and wrote in New Scientist: ”Organic agriculture was not subject to the same scrutiny. Its limitations in sustainably producing more food, feed, fibre and fuels do not appear in the report, even though they have been recognised by bodies such as the UN Food and Agriculture Organization. It takes three times the land to produce the same yield grown conventionally, so going organic could remove wild spaces, compromise biodiversity and mean hunger for many” (Keith, 2008). Clearly, as can be seen in the following section, organic agriculture does not take three times the land to produce the same yield, but “scientific prejudices” die hard. The response by Professor Jiggins (2008) in the same issue of New Scientist was noteworthy: “The drafts have been subjected to two independent peer reviews by assessors from industry, government, civil society and specialist research institutes. A single paragraph could call on evidence from over 3000 journal articles, book chapters and reports of experiences in the field, as well as discussions with consultants. Sadly, one of the main players ducked the challenge of maintaining the dialogue. In the closing weeks, participants from the biotech multinational Syngenta repeatedly failed to deliver key text, even though deadlines were extended for them. The company eventually walked out of the governing bureau”. Rather than present evidence that genetic engineering benefits small scale farmers, they withdrew.
However, development thinking is changing as evidence of the effectiveness of water efficient low external input sustainable agriculture mounts across the world. Willer and Kilcher (2009) summarise in “The world of organic agriculture: Statistics and emerging trends”, how the sector has grown, with statistical information now available from 144 countries. Their survey shows that in 2007, 32.2 million hectares of agricultural land were managed organically by more than 1.2 million producers. The global market is increasing by 5 billion US dollars per year, and in 2007, was worth 46.1 billion dollars.
In the Foreword to the report (UNCTAD 2008) “Organic Agriculture and Food Security in Africa”, Supachai Panitchpakdi (Secretary General of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development – UNCTAD) and Achim Steiner (Executive Director of the United Nations Environmental Programme – UNEP) comment that by 2050 we will have to feed 9 billion people, and this will require a wide range of systems of sustainable agriculture, and they comment that the evidence presented in the study supports the argument that organic agriculture can be more conducive to food security in Africa than most conventional production systems, and that it is more likely to be sustainable in the long term. The conclusions to this study include the following (p.39):
“All case studies which focused on food production from this research where data have been reported have shown increases in per hectare productivity of food crops, which challenges the popular myth that organic agriculture cannot increase agricultural productivity. Organic production allows access to markets and food for farmers, enabling them to obtain premium prices for their produce (export and domestic) and allows them to use the additional incomes earned to buy extra foodstuffs, education and/or health care. A transition to organic agriculture, delivering greater benefits at the scale occurring in these projects, has been shown to increase access to food in a variety of ways: by increasing yields, increasing total on-farm productivity, enabling farmers to use their higher earnings from export to buy food, and, as a result of higher on-farm yields, enabling the wider community to buy organic food at local markets”.
In spite of these, and many similar conclusions, the aid organisations of Europe, and in particular of Germany, and the government policy makers of Africa, and in particular of South Africa, retain an almost fanatical unwillingness to support organic farming as an important element of sustainable rural development. This is born out by my own experience in approaching both German and South African authorities over a period of 20 years, and by that of supporters who have tried to access German funding in many different quarters for our work (personal communication, Sabine Rick, 1/2/2009).
Contrary to the implication above (Keith, 2008) that FAO recognises that organic farming cannot effectively increase production of food, feed, fuel and fibre, FAO has published data (Scialabba, 2007) showing (#18) that although at the highest levels of production, changing to organic agriculture may affect yields negatively, in subsistence agriculture it doubles or trebles yields, and the world average organic yields are about 132% more than current food production levels, while (#19) using 33 to 56% less non-solar energy than conventional systems. Paragraph #25 states: “Agricultural inputs: the strongest feature of organic agriculture is its reliance on locally available production assets and, thus, its relative independence from crude oil availability and increasing input prices. Working with natural processes increases cost effectiveness and resilience of food production. By managing biodiversity in time (rotations) and space (mixed cropping), organic farmers use their labour (the most readily available capital they have) and environmental services (e.g. predation, pollination, soil nutrient cycling) to intensify production sustainability. These low cost farming practices reduce cash needs and, thus, credit dependence. Although organic enterprises increase returns on labour inputs and offer rural employment opportunities, organic management remains (as in conventional agriculture) a constraint if labour is scarce (e.g. HIV/AIDS areas) or where women already have heavy work burdens”.
In agreement with the Rainman research results, FAO found: “Water-use efficiency: building active soils with high content of organic matter has positive effects on soil drainage and water-holding capacity (20 to 40 percent more for heavy loess soils in temperate climate), including groundwater recharge and decreased run-offs (water capture in USA organic plots was 100 percent during torrential rains). In Pennsylvania, organic corn yields were 28 to 34 percent higher than conventional in years of drought. In India, biodynamic soils have been reported to decrease irrigation needs by 30 to 50 percent” (paragraph #33, Scialabba, 2007). The study also shows that agrobiodiversity is higher and energy use lower, while Carbon sequestration efficiency is almost double.
Paragraphs #59, #60 and #68 strongly reinforce the argument that organic farming systems have beneficial effects on the local economy: “59. Agriculture occupies 60 percent of the population of developing countries while in developed countries it is 1 to 2 percent of the population. However, agricultural employment remains a source of social and ecological wellbeing of global importance. In all countries, the replacement of agricultural labour with chemicals and machinery raises concerns about social stability (e.g. breakdown of communities, mass migration, large-scale urbanization), as well as the devastating impact on the natural environment. Replicating the system of industrial food production dominant in developed countries in developing countries where agriculture provides livelihoods for 2.5 billion people will increase the number of displaced, dispossessed and hungry, if no alternatives are created.
“60. Agriculture is the main employer in rural areas and wage labour provides an important source of income for the poor. Thus, by being labour intensive, organic agriculture creates not only employment but improves returns on labour, including also fair wages and non-exploitive working conditions. New sources of livelihoods, especially once market opportunities are reckoned, in turn revitalize rural economies and facilitate their integration into national economies. In several settings, it has been noted that increased control over resources (labour power, production system) develops self awareness and collective self-help which lead to overcoming marginalization.
“68. The fact that poor farmers often live in areas where there are few employment alternatives and agricultural inputs are not supplied makes organic agriculture a unique alternative for local food provisioning, provided that agro-ecological knowledge is available… Organic agriculture offers advantages in terms of enhancing food production where it is most needed by decreasing dependence on external inputs and increasing agro-ecosystem performance. A modelling for large-scale organic conversion in sub-Saharan Africa … suggests that agricultural yields would grow by 50 percent, thus increasing local access to food and reducing food imports”.
Conclusion
Rainwater harvesting, combined with organic production systems, training of local organic facilitators, building of market linkages and on-going mentorship provide a scale-efficient approach to agricultural development which is more likely to increase food production, household food security, biodiversity and water-use efficiency than the current emphasis on high external input, energy-intensive chemical farming systems.
References
Auerbach RMB, Editor, 2005. Rainwater harvesting, organic farming and Landcare: A vision for uprooting rural poverty in South Africa. Rainman Landcare Foundation, Durban.
Auerbach RMB, 1999. Design for participation in ecologically sound management of South Africa’s Mlazi River catchment. PhD thesis, Wageningen Agricultural University.
Auerbach RMB, 1997. People and South African integrated catchment management. Report no 684/1/97, Water Research Commission, Pretoria.
Botha JJ, van Rensburg L, Anderson JJ, Groenewald DC, Kudhlande G and Macheli, M. In-field approaches to rainwater harvesting in drier areas. In: Auerbach (Editor), 2005.
Keith D, 2008. Why I had to walk out of farming talks. New Scientist, 5th April, 2008.
IAASTD, 2008. Executive Summary of the Synthesis Report. (www.agassess.org).
International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development. Island Press.
IWMI, 2000. World water supply and demand in 2025 (In: World water scenario analyses, Editor F Rijsberman, Int. Water Man. Inst.), Earthscan, London.
Jiggins J, 2008.Bridging gulfs to feed the world. New Scientist, 5th April, 2008.
Lorentz S and Auerbach RMB. The hydrology of the Rainman System on Bachs Fen. In: Auerbach (Editor), 2005.
NDA, 2001. A strategy for South African Agriculture. South African National Department of Agriculture, Pretoria.
Pimentel D & Pimentel M, 1979. Food, energy and society. Edward Arnold.
Röling NG, 2009. Pathways for impact: Scientist’s different perspectives on agricultural innovation. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability.
Röling NG, 1988. Extension science: Information systems in agricultural development. University Press, Cambridge.
Scialabba, N, 2007. Organic agriculture and food security. www.fao.org/organicag/oa-publications OFS/2007/5, Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome.
UNCTAD, 2008. Best practices for organic policy: What developing country Governments can do to promote the organic agriculture sector. UNEP-UNCTAD Capacity building task force on trade, environment and development (East Africa), UNCTAD/DITC/TED/2007/3, United Nations, New York and Geneva.
Willer H and Kilcher L, Editors, 2009. The world of organic agriculture: Statistics and emerging trends. International Federation of organic agriculture Movements, Bonn
Tags: Agriculture, farming, food production, production, water use
