|
|
| (4 intermediate revisions by one user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| | | | |
| − | Zambia and Mozambique are both characterized by relatively low rates of population density. The fertility of their soils, particularly in the North, remains limited. Traditional agricultural practices in the region have been based on the abundance of land. As the population increases and industrial agriculture becomes increasingly frequent in the area, small-scale farmers need to rethink their practices. Recommendations include the use of improved seeds, fertilizers and herbicides as well as the variation of crops instead of slash-and-burn agriculture and rat-hunting with fire. | + | Zambia and Mozambique are both characterized by relatively low rates of population density. The fertility of their soils, particularly in the North, remains limited. [[Pastoralist agricultural systems|Traditional agricultural practices]] in the region have been based on the abundance of land. As the population increases and industrial agriculture becomes increasingly frequent in the area, small-scale farmers need to rethink their practices. Recommendations include the use of [[Crop Production Guide|improved seeds]], fertilizers and [[Fate_of_pesticides_in_paddy_rice_systems|herbicides]] as well as the variation of [[Crop selection and scheduling|crops]] instead of slash-and-burn agriculture and rat-hunting with fire.<br/> |
| | | | |
| | = Background = | | = Background = |
| | | | |
| − | Both countries are experiencing a stable increase in GDP over the last few years, resulting in 7.3% growth in Zambia and 7.4% growth in Mozambique in 2012 (African Development Bank 2013). This boom however is based on the export of raw materials (copper in Zambia, coal and aluminium in Mozambique). The rural population hardly benefits from the economic development, relatively few jobs are created. Zambia has been pursuing an export promotion policy (N’gona, S., & C. Dube (2012). Aid for Trade and Economic Development. A Case Study of Zambia. Lusaka: CUTS International) and has turned into a maize exporter (Stoddard & Mfula 2013). Agriculture is still the main source of income in the region. | + | Both countries are experiencing a stable increase in GDP over the last few years, resulting in 7.3% growth in Zambia and 7.4% growth in Mozambique in 2012 (African Development Bank 2013). This boom however is based on the export of raw materials (copper in Zambia, coal and aluminium in Mozambique). The rural population hardly benefits from the economic development, relatively few jobs are created. Zambia has been pursuing an export promotion policy<ref>N’gona, S., & C. Dube (2012). Aid for Trade and Economic Development. A Case Study of Zambia. Lusaka: CUTS International.</ref> and has turned into a maize exporter<ref>Stoddard, E. & C. Mfula, C. (2013, 19. November): Drought threatens small-scale Zambian maize farmers. Daily News: http://www.newsdaily.com/africa/6b53a0aaf7b47195e88ad93dd11e2820/drought-threatens-small-scale-zambian-maize-farmers (06.12.2013).</ref>. Agriculture is still the main source of income in the region. |
| | | | |
| − | Many Zambians and Mozambiquans suffer from malnutrition (IFPRI (2012). Toward an Integrated Approach for Adressing Malnutrition in Zambia. Available online under [http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/ifpridp01200.pdf http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/ifpridp01200.pdf] (06.12.2013). Stunted growth due to undernourishment occurs in 45 % of children under five. The majority of Zambians and Mozabiquans live in rural areas where they have large (though declining, Jayne, T.S. et al. (2003). Smallholder income and land distribution in Africa: implications for poverty reduction strategies. Food Policy 28, 253-275) areas of land at hand: The population density in both countries is low: In Zambia, 14 million people live on 752.000 km<sup>2</sup>, about twice the area of Germany (CIA World Factbook: Zambia 2013: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/za.html), 24 million people live on Mozambique’s 786.000 km<sup>2</sup> (CIA World Factbook: Mozambique 2013: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/mz.html). But are they still poor? | + | Many Zambians and Mozambiquans suffer from malnutrition. Stunted growth due to undernourishment occurs in 45 % of children under five<ref>IFPRI (2012). Toward an Integrated Approach for Adressing Malnutrition in Zambia. Available online under http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/ifpridp01200.pdf (06.12.2013).</ref>. The majority of Zambians and Mozabiquans live in rural areas where they have large (though declining<ref>Jayne, T.S. et al. (2003). Smallholder income and land distribution in Africa: implications for poverty reduction strategies. Food Policy 28, 253-275.</ref>) areas of land at hand.<br/> |
| | | | |
| − | While industrial farmers reap three tons of soy per hectare in summer and ten t/ha of wheat (under artificial irrigation), small scale farmers‘ hauls do not exceed 500 kg maize per hectare (Kruchem, T. (2013, 30 November): Kleinbauern in Afrika. Landwirtschaft mit Armutsgarantie. Deutschlandfunk. Available online under [http://www.deutschlandfunk.de/kleinbauern-in-afrika-landwirtschaft-mit-armutsgarantie.724.de.html?dram:article_id=270623 http://www.deutschlandfunk.de/kleinbauern-in-afrika-landwirtschaft-mit-armutsgarantie.724.de.html?dram:article_id=270623] (06.12.2013). How come industrial farmers are so much more efficient?
| + | {| cellspacing="1" cellpadding="5" border="1" style="width: 500px" |
| | + | |+ Population density and growth<br/> |
| | + | |- |
| | + | | |
| | + | | area (in km<sup>2</sup><ref>CIA World Factbook: Zambia 2013: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/za.html (06.12.2013).</ref>) |
| | + | | population<br/> |
| | + | | population growth (in %)<ref>CIA World Factbook: Mozambique 2013: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/mz.html (06.12.2013).</ref> |
| | + | |- |
| | + | | Mozambique<br/> |
| | + | | 786.000<br/> |
| | + | | 24 million<br/> |
| | + | | 2.5<br/> |
| | + | |- |
| | + | | Zambia<br/> |
| | + | | 752.000<br/> |
| | + | | 14 million<br/> |
| | + | | 3.2<br/> |
| | + | |} |
| | | | |
| − | The 2013/14 Zambian maize haul is expected to be significantly diminished by an ongoing drought. Last year’s haul was negatively affected by poor weather conditions and pests, resulting in a 11% loss (Stoddard, E. & C. Mfula, C. (2013, 19. November): Drought threatens small-scale Zambian maize farmers. Daily News: http://www.newsdaily.com/africa/6b53a0aaf7b47195e88ad93dd11e2820/drought-threatens-small-scale-zambian-maize-farmers)
| + | While industrial farmers reap three tons of soy per hectare in summer and ten t/ha of wheat (under [[Irrigation methods|artificial irrigation]]), small scale farmers‘ hauls do not exceed 500 kg maize per hectare<ref>Kruchem, T. (2013, 30 November): Kleinbauern in Afrika. Landwirtschaft mit Armutsgarantie. Deutschlandfunk. Available online under http://www.deutschlandfunk.de/kleinbauern-in-afrika-landwirtschaft-mit-armutsgarantie.724.de.html?dram:article_id=270623 (06.12.2013).</ref>. How come industrial farmers are so much more efficient?<br/> |
| | | | |
| − | = Exogenous Challenges =
| + | The 2013/14 Zambian maize haul is expected to be significantly diminished by an ongoing drought. Last year’s haul was negatively affected by poor weather conditions and pests, resulting in a 11% loss<ref>Stoddard, E. & C. Mfula, C. (2013, 19. November): Drought threatens small-scale Zambian maize farmers. Daily News: http://www.newsdaily.com/africa/6b53a0aaf7b47195e88ad93dd11e2820/drought-threatens-small-scale-zambian-maize-farmers (06.12.2013).</ref>. |
| | | | |
| − | == Geography == | + | = Practices<br/> = |
| | | | |
| − | == Land Use ==
| + | Soils in both Northern Zambia and Mozambique are stony, acid and not very fertile. They only hold a limited amount of water while [[Soil erosion by water in Africa|strong rainfalls wash away]] almost all organic nutrients<ref>Kruchem (2013).</ref>. Small-scale farmers in Southern Africa hence need large areas of land to cultivate maize or manioc. As agriculture does not yield satisfactory incomes, farmers additionally produce and sell charcoal, go hunting or collect fruits and herbs. |
| | | | |
| − | Traditionally, families are assigned new land by village chiefs or other authorities. Land resources are limited though, especially with regard to a growing population (a steady 2.5% in Mozambique and 3.2% in Zambia (World Bank (2013). Population growth (annual %). Available online [http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW] (06.12.2013)). Furthermore, the government has started to sell land to industrial agricultural companies.
| + | == Slash-and-burn Agriculture == |
| | | | |
| − | = Practices =
| + | Regional agricultural practices include the use of fire. During the winter months farmers burn their field to neutralize the acid soil. Additionally, crops to be planted may draw nutrients from the ashes. When all wood in the area is burnt and soil as well other [[Organic matter management|microorganismsare]] destroyed after two or three years, the farmland needs to lie idle for about thirty years to recover. |
| | | | |
| − | Soils in both Northern Zambia and Mozambique are stony, acid and not very fertile. They only hold a limited amount of water while strong rainfalls wash away almost all organic nutrients (Kruchem 2013). Small-scale farmers in Southern Africa hence need large areas of land to cultivate maize or manioc.
| + | Although farmers know that fire-based agriculture damages soils, this method is deeply rooted in cultural context: Many farmers believe that evil spirits are chased away by the fire. |
| | | | |
| − | == Slash-and-burn agriculture and land rotation == | + | == Land Use and Land Rotation == |
| | | | |
| − | Regional agricultural practices include the use of fire. During the winter months farmers burn their field to neutralize the acid soil. Additionally, crops to be planted may draw nutrients from the ashes. When all wood in the area is burnt and soil as well other microorganisms are destroyed after two or three years, the farmland needs to lie idle for about thirty years to recover. Therefore land rotation is traditionally practiced in the region.
| + | Land rotation is traditionally practiced in the region. Traditionally, families are assigned new land by village chiefs or other authorities. This extensive agricultural practice is only viable in case a low population density. [[Land_Use_Planning_-_Briefing_Note|Land resources]] are limited, especially with regard to the growing population. Furthermore the government has started to sell land to industrial agricultural companies.<br/> |
| | | | |
| − | These extensive agricultural practices are only viable in the case a low population density. This is however no longer the case. Secondly, people tend to live along the few major roads in these rural areas and contribute to elevated population densities and increased exploitation of soils there. The practices further fail to provide sufficient income for the farmers and their families, harm the environment and contribute to climate change (Kruchem 2013).
| + | Secondly, people tend to live along the few major roads in these rural areas. They contribute to elevated population densities and increased [[Le_concept_sur_la_construction,_la_réhabilitation_et_l'exploitation_durable_de_petits_aménagements_hydroagricoles_dans_le_sud-ouest_du_Burkina_Faso|exploitation]]of soils there. |
| | | | |
| − | Although farmers know that fire-based agriculture damages soils this method is deeply rooted in cultural context: Many farmers believe in evil spirits that are chased away by the fire.
| + | Current agricultural practices fail to provide sufficient [[Incomes_and_livelihoods_related_to_agricultural_water_management|income]] for the farmers and their families, harm the environment and contribute to [[Climate_Change_and_Agriculture|climate change]]<ref>(Kruchem 2013).</ref>.<br/> |
| | | | |
| − | == Alternative Sources of income == | + | == Charcoal == |
| | | | |
| − | As agriculture does not yield satisfactory income, farmers produce and sell charcoal, go hunting or collect fruits and herbs.
| + | Charcoal is the cheapest source of energy in Southern Africa but still yields a reasonable income when sold (50-60 $ a ton in Lusaka<ref>Kruchem (2013). </ref>). Hence farmers cut down trees to produce charcoal. Zambia has to highest per capita [[Agriculture_and_REDD+_._The_main_driver_of_deforestation_and_a_key_sector_for_successful_implementation_of_REDD+|deforestation]] rate worldwide. Charcoal is also exported to Tanzania and Malawi. |
| | | | |
| − | === Charcoal === | + | == Hunting == |
| | | | |
| − | Charcoal is the cheapest source of energy in Southern Africa but still yields a reasonable income when sold (50-60 $ a ton in Lusaka, Kruchem 2013). Hency Farmers cut down trees to produce charcoal. Zambia has to highest per capita deforestation rate worldwide. Charcoal is also exported to Tanzania and Malawi.
| + | Fire is a common means to hunt rats in Northern Mozambique. This practice negatively impacts on the environment as microorganisms are destroyed in the fire, and the [[Soil_erosion_by_water_in_Africa|soil gets leeched away]] more easily. It is also risky as in some cases houses or whole villages get burned down. Fire-hunting accelerates [[Agriculture_and_REDD+_._The_main_driver_of_deforestation_and_a_key_sector_for_successful_implementation_of_REDD+|deforestation]]. |
| − | | + | |
| − | === Hunting ===
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Fire is a common means to hunt rats in Northern Mozambique. This practice negatively impacts on the environment as microorganisms are destroyed in the fire and the soil gets leeched away more easily. It is also risky as in some cases houses or whole villages get burned down. Fire-hunting accelerates deforestation (Kruchem 2013). | + | |
| | | | |
| | = Recommendations = | | = Recommendations = |
| | | | |
| − | Agriculture expert George Allison recommends chalk, improved seeds and fertilizers. So far, farmers’ use of fertilizers is wrong or the do not fertilize at all. Irrigation or plant protection substances such as herbicides are not part of their toolkit. Access to knowledge and machines, but also to loans and markets is crucial. | + | Agriculture expert George Allison recommends [[Influence_of_climate_change_on_irrigated_organic_carbon_to_rice_cultivated_lowlands_in_tropical_mountainous_regions|chalk]], improved seeds and fertilizers. So far, farmers’ use of fertilizers is wrong or the do not fertilize at all. [[Design_for_irrigation|Irrigation]] or plant protection substances such as herbicides are not part of their toolkit. Access to [[Knowledge_management_(climate_change)|knowledge]] and [[Promising_Technologies_to_Enhance_Sustainable_and_Environmentally_Friendly_Agricultural_and_Rural_Development_in_Ghana|machines]], but also to [[Financing_Small-Scale_Irrigation_in_Sub-Saharan_Africa|loans]] and markets is crucial. Choosing the right [[Crop_selection_and_scheduling|crop]] with regard to its specific [[Crop_water_requirements|requirements]] may also increase yields. |
| | | | |
| | == Crop Rotation == | | == Crop Rotation == |
| | | | |
| − | Crop rotation means that one plant, e.g. soy, gives nutrients which the other, e.g. a cereal such as wheat or barley, needs. Soy is known as a legume and has a symbiotic relationship rhizobiaceae, a type of bacteria. They fix atmospheric nitrogen in soy roots and exchange sugar. This classic symbiosis allows rhizobia to fix over 200 kg nitrogen per hectare. After the soy reap, the next crop considerably benefits from the increased level of nitrogen available in the soil (FAO (2008). The Importance of Crop Rotations. Available online under [http://www.fao.org/ag/ca/training_materials/leaflet_rotations.pdf http://www.fao.org/ag/ca/training_materials/leaflet_rotations.pdf] 06.12.2013) | + | Crop rotation means that one plant, e.g. soy, gives nutrients which the other, e.g. a cereal such as wheat or barley, needs. Soy is known as a legume and has a symbiotic relationship rhizobiaceae, a type of bacteria. They fix atmospheric nitrogen in soy roots and exchange sugar. This classic symbiosis allows rhizobia to fix over 200 kg nitrogen per hectare. After the soy reap, the next crop, e.g. wheat, considerably benefits from the increased level of nitrogen available in the soil<ref>FAO (2008). The Importance of Crop Rotations. Available online under http://www.fao.org/ag/ca/training_materials/leaflet_rotations.pdf (06.12.2013).</ref>. |
| | | | |
| | == Use of Technologies and Machines == | | == Use of Technologies and Machines == |
| | | | |
| − | Farmers’ Access to technologies, machines and, most important of all, knowledge, is so far limited. | + | Farmers’ access to technologies, machines and, most important of all, [[Knowledge_management_(climate_change)|knowledge]], is so far limited. |
| | | | |
| − | The soil’s low fertility of the soil requires farmers to plough it deeply to make it usable for agriculture. At the same time, soils are sensitive and should be disturbed as little as possible. Otherwise organic substances oxidize (such as tannins) and vanish. The Magoye Ripper is a ploughing alternative which only cuts narrow furrows (Kabwe, S. & C. Donovan (2005). The Magoye Ripper: Preliminary Findings on Adoption, Benefits and Constraints. Available online under [http://fsg.afre.msu.edu/zambia/GartYearbookdraftarticle_ripper.pdf http://fsg.afre.msu.edu/zambia/GartYearbookdraftarticle_ripper.pdf] (06.12.2013). | + | The soil’s low fertility requires farmers to [[Contour_bunds_and_ploughing|plough]] deeply to make it usable for agriculture. At the same time, soils are sensitive and should be disturbed as little as possible. Otherwise organic substances (such as tannins) oxidize and vanish. The Magoye Ripper is a ploughing alternative which only cuts narrow furrows<ref>Kabwe, S. & C. Donovan (2005). The Magoye Ripper: Preliminary Findings on Adoption, Benefits and Constraints. Available online under http://fsg.afre.msu.edu/zambia/GartYearbookdraftarticle_ripper.pdf (06.12.2013).</ref>. |
| | | | |
| − | == Conservation agriculture and ecologic agriculture == | + | == Conservation Agriculture and Ecologic Agriculture == |
| | | | |
| − | This device is part of conserving agriculture which is practiced in Argentina, Brazil, Australia and usa. Soild should always be covered by organic material to protect the soil from erosion as a consequence of heavy rainfalls. It can hold water and nutrients (Haggblade, S. & G. Tembo (2003). Conservation Farming in Zambia. Washington D.C.: IFPRI). | + | This device is part of [[Conservation agriculture|conserving agriculture]] which is practiced in Argentina, Brazil, Australia and usa. [[Relevance of soil|Soils]] should always be covered by organic material to protect the soil from [[Anti-erosion_measures|erosion]] as a consequence of heavy rainfalls. It can hold water and nutrients more easily<ref>Haggblade, S. & G. Tembo (2003). Conservation Farming in Zambia. Washington D.C.: IFPRI.</ref>. |
| | | | |
| − | Conserving agriculture is, however, not strictly ecologic. It can’t be, under the conditions in Southern Africa, says Vince Hodson, a leading Zambian agriculture expert (Kruchem 2013). Conservation agriculture includes the application of industrial fertilizers and plant protection substances. Not using chemicals considerably reduces farmers’ chances to generate income and may even negatively impact on children’s education. Weeding is traditionally children’s work. In many families children are sent out to the fields early in the morning, and have a hard time paying attention at school later. Additionally, weeding by hand does not always meet the farmer’s demand – sometimes weeds grow faster than humans can cope with. Secondly, especially shortly before the start of the season, fields have to be cleared from weeds very quickly. To hand-weed a five-hectare farm takes 20-30 days while chemical herbicides take effect within one day. The success of chemical herbicides is more reliable. | + | Conserving agriculture is [[Environmental_Benefits_of_Conservation_Agriculture|environmentally friendly]] but, however, not strictly ecologic. It can’t be, under the conditions in Southern Africa, says Vince Hodson, a leading Zambian agriculture expert<ref>Kruchem (2013).</ref>. Conservation agriculture includes the application of industrial fertilizers and plant protection substances. Not using chemicals considerably reduces farmers’ chances to generate income and may even negatively impact on children’s education. Weeding is traditionally children’s work. In many families children are sent out to the fields early in the morning, and have a hard time paying attention at school later. Additionally, weeding by hand does not always meet the farmer’s demand – sometimes weeds grow faster than humans can cope with. Secondly, especially shortly before the start of the season, fields have to be cleared from weeds very quickly. To hand-weed a five-hectare farm takes 20-30 days while chemical herbicides take effect within one day. The success of chemical herbicides is more reliable. |
| | | | |
| − | == Livestock farming == | + | == Livestock Farming == |
| | | | |
| − | There are hardly cattle at all in Mozambique. Zambia does have large herds of cows which are not extensively used in agriculture though. Instead of being awarded economic value they mainly serve as source of social and cultural status. Cattle also display a kind of asset to by liquidized in cases of marriage (resp. dowry), education expenses, famines or similar. In countries with large endowments in terms of grazing land such as Mozambique and Zambia, cattle however display a promising opportunity to make a living or to basically feed families, recommends Professor [http://waterforfood.nebraska.edu/blog/2011/04/21/mick-s-mwala/ Mick Mwala], agriculture expert at the university of Lusaka (Kruchem 2013). | + | There are hardly cattle at all in Mozambique. Zambia does have large herds of cows which are not extensively used in agriculture though. Instead of being awarded economic value they mainly serve as source of social and cultural status. Cattle also display a kind of asset to by liquidized in cases of marriage (resp. dowry), education expenses, famines or similar. In countries with large endowments in terms of grazing land such as Mozambique and Zambia, cattle however display a promising opportunity to make a living or to basically feed families, recommends Professor [http://waterforfood.nebraska.edu/blog/2011/04/21/mick-s-mwala/ Mick Mwala], agriculture expert at the university of Lusaka<ref>(Kruchem 2013).</ref>. |
| | | | |
| − | = Government Policies and Development Cooperation = | + | = Government Policies and Development Cooperation = |
| | | | |
| − | Government policies include the introduction of modern farming practices and subsidies on fertilizers. They, as well as development cooperation programs, have so far failed to follow up on the recommendations above. | + | Government policies include the introduction of modern farming practices and subsidies on fertilizers. They, as well as development cooperation programs, have so far failed to follow up on the recommendations above. |
| | | | |
| | == Subsidies == | | == Subsidies == |
| | | | |
| − | Agriculture budgets are small in Zambia. They are in fact mainly made up of staff expenses and subsidies, which, if not governed smartly, deliberately and hence sustainably do more harm than good. The 75 % subsidies on fertilizers have been lowered on 50 % in 2013 (Stoddard and Mfula 2013). Generally, subsidies are useful in the case of a temporal shortage of money in a certain sector or to get a new technology or economic branch started. They are not helpful as a permanent agro-economic policy. Zambian farmers are made dependant by subsidies. (Kruchem 2013) | + | Agriculture budgets are small in Zambia. They are in fact mainly made up of staff expenses and subsidies, which, if not governed smartly, deliberately and hence sustainably do more harm than good. The 75 % subsidies on fertilizers have been lowered on 50 % in 2013<ref>Stoddard and Mfula (2013).</ref>. Generally, subsidies are useful in the case of a temporal shortage of money in a certain sector or to get a new technology or economic branch started. They are not helpful as a permanent agro-economic policy. Zambian farmers are made dependant by subsidies<ref>Kruchem (2013).</ref>. |
| | | | |
| | == Development cooperation == | | == Development cooperation == |
| | | | |
| − | A large stimulus at one point in time instead of many small projects is necessary to get small-scale agriculture going in Southern Africa. Projects so far have focused on one issue over a short period of time, but not really changed the rural areas’ realities. In most cases projects’ impacts are not visible or fade away quickly says Rudy can Gent, a former GIZ expert (Kruchem 2013). | + | A large stimulus at one point in time instead of many small projects is necessary to get small-scale agriculture going in Southern Africa. Projects so far have focused on one issue over a short period of time, but not really changed the rural areas’ realities. In most cases projects’ impacts are not visible or fade away quickly says Rudy can Gent, a former GIZ expert<ref>Kruchem (2013).</ref>. |
| | | | |
| | = Links = | | = Links = |
| Line 92: |
Line 105: |
| | = References = | | = References = |
| | | | |
| − | Bachke, M. E. (2009). Are farmers’ organizations a good tool to improve small-scale farmers’ welfare? Paper presented at the II. Conferencia do IESE “Dinamicas da
| + | <references /> |
| | | | |
| − | Pobreza e Padrões de Acumulação em Moçambique”, Maputo, 22-23 April 2009. Available online under [http://www.iese.ac.mz/lib/publication/II_conf/GrupoII/FArmers_Organizations_Welfare_BACHKE.pdf http://www.iese.ac.mz/lib/publication/II_conf/GrupoII/FArmers_Organizations_Welfare_BACHKE.pdf] (06.12.2013) | + | Bachke, M. E. (2009). Are farmers’ organizations a good tool to improve small-scale farmers’ welfare? Paper presented at the II. Conferencia do IESE “Dinamicas da Pobreza e Padrões de Acumulação em Moçambique”, Maputo, 22-23 April 2009. Available online under [http://www.iese.ac.mz/lib/publication/II_conf/GrupoII/FArmers_Organizations_Welfare_BACHKE.pdf http://www.iese.ac.mz/lib/publication/II_conf/GrupoII/FArmers_Organizations_Welfare_BACHKE.pdf] (06.12.2013) |
| | | | |
| | Benson, T., Cunguara, B. & T. Mogues (2012). The Supply of Inorganic Fertilizers to Smallholder Farmers in Mozambique. Evidence for Fertilizer Policy Development. IFPRI Discussion Paper No. 01229. | | Benson, T., Cunguara, B. & T. Mogues (2012). The Supply of Inorganic Fertilizers to Smallholder Farmers in Mozambique. Evidence for Fertilizer Policy Development. IFPRI Discussion Paper No. 01229. |
| Line 100: |
Line 113: |
| | Kodamaya, S. (2012). Recent Changes in Small-scale Irrigation in Zambia: the Case of a Village in Chibombo District. Available online under [http://www.chikyu.ac.jp/resilience/files/ReportFY2008/ResilienceProject_Report2009_10.pdf http://www.chikyu.ac.jp/resilience/files/ReportFY2008/ResilienceProject_Report2009_10.pdf] (06.12.2013). | | Kodamaya, S. (2012). Recent Changes in Small-scale Irrigation in Zambia: the Case of a Village in Chibombo District. Available online under [http://www.chikyu.ac.jp/resilience/files/ReportFY2008/ResilienceProject_Report2009_10.pdf http://www.chikyu.ac.jp/resilience/files/ReportFY2008/ResilienceProject_Report2009_10.pdf] (06.12.2013). |
| | | | |
| − | Nhira, C., Mapiki, A. & P. Rankhumise (2008). Land and Water Management in Southern Africa. Towards sustainable agriculture. Pretoria. The Africa Institute of South Africa. | + | Nhira, C., Mapiki, A. & P. Rankhumise (2008). Land and Water Management in Southern Africa. Towards sustainable agriculture. Pretoria: The Africa Institute of South Africa. |
| | | | |
| − | Thierfelder, C., Cheesman, S. & L. Rusinamhodzi (2013). Benefits and challenges of crop rotations in maize-based conservation agriculture (CA) cropping systems of southern Africa. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 11 (2), 108-124. | + | Thierfelder, C., Cheesman, S. & L. Rusinamhodzi (2013). Benefits and challenges of crop rotations in maize-based conservation agriculture (CA) cropping systems of southern Africa. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 11 (2), 108-124.<br/> |
| | | | |
| − | [[Category:Food_Security]]
| |
| | [[Category:Excellent]] | | [[Category:Excellent]] |
| | + | [[Category:Resource_Management]] |
| | + | [[Category:Food_Security]] |
Zambia and Mozambique are both characterized by relatively low rates of population density. The fertility of their soils, particularly in the North, remains limited. Traditional agricultural practices in the region have been based on the abundance of land. As the population increases and industrial agriculture becomes increasingly frequent in the area, small-scale farmers need to rethink their practices. Recommendations include the use of improved seeds, fertilizers and herbicides as well as the variation of crops instead of slash-and-burn agriculture and rat-hunting with fire.
Both countries are experiencing a stable increase in GDP over the last few years, resulting in 7.3% growth in Zambia and 7.4% growth in Mozambique in 2012 (African Development Bank 2013). This boom however is based on the export of raw materials (copper in Zambia, coal and aluminium in Mozambique). The rural population hardly benefits from the economic development, relatively few jobs are created. Zambia has been pursuing an export promotion policy[1] and has turned into a maize exporter[2]. Agriculture is still the main source of income in the region.
Many Zambians and Mozambiquans suffer from malnutrition. Stunted growth due to undernourishment occurs in 45 % of children under five[3]. The majority of Zambians and Mozabiquans live in rural areas where they have large (though declining[4]) areas of land at hand.
While industrial farmers reap three tons of soy per hectare in summer and ten t/ha of wheat (under artificial irrigation), small scale farmers‘ hauls do not exceed 500 kg maize per hectare[7]. How come industrial farmers are so much more efficient?
The 2013/14 Zambian maize haul is expected to be significantly diminished by an ongoing drought. Last year’s haul was negatively affected by poor weather conditions and pests, resulting in a 11% loss[8].
Soils in both Northern Zambia and Mozambique are stony, acid and not very fertile. They only hold a limited amount of water while strong rainfalls wash away almost all organic nutrients[9]. Small-scale farmers in Southern Africa hence need large areas of land to cultivate maize or manioc. As agriculture does not yield satisfactory incomes, farmers additionally produce and sell charcoal, go hunting or collect fruits and herbs.
Regional agricultural practices include the use of fire. During the winter months farmers burn their field to neutralize the acid soil. Additionally, crops to be planted may draw nutrients from the ashes. When all wood in the area is burnt and soil as well other microorganismsare destroyed after two or three years, the farmland needs to lie idle for about thirty years to recover.
Although farmers know that fire-based agriculture damages soils, this method is deeply rooted in cultural context: Many farmers believe that evil spirits are chased away by the fire.
Land rotation is traditionally practiced in the region. Traditionally, families are assigned new land by village chiefs or other authorities. This extensive agricultural practice is only viable in case a low population density. Land resources are limited, especially with regard to the growing population. Furthermore the government has started to sell land to industrial agricultural companies.
Secondly, people tend to live along the few major roads in these rural areas. They contribute to elevated population densities and increased exploitationof soils there.
Charcoal is the cheapest source of energy in Southern Africa but still yields a reasonable income when sold (50-60 $ a ton in Lusaka[11]). Hence farmers cut down trees to produce charcoal. Zambia has to highest per capita deforestation rate worldwide. Charcoal is also exported to Tanzania and Malawi.
Fire is a common means to hunt rats in Northern Mozambique. This practice negatively impacts on the environment as microorganisms are destroyed in the fire, and the soil gets leeched away more easily. It is also risky as in some cases houses or whole villages get burned down. Fire-hunting accelerates deforestation.
Crop rotation means that one plant, e.g. soy, gives nutrients which the other, e.g. a cereal such as wheat or barley, needs. Soy is known as a legume and has a symbiotic relationship rhizobiaceae, a type of bacteria. They fix atmospheric nitrogen in soy roots and exchange sugar. This classic symbiosis allows rhizobia to fix over 200 kg nitrogen per hectare. After the soy reap, the next crop, e.g. wheat, considerably benefits from the increased level of nitrogen available in the soil[12].
There are hardly cattle at all in Mozambique. Zambia does have large herds of cows which are not extensively used in agriculture though. Instead of being awarded economic value they mainly serve as source of social and cultural status. Cattle also display a kind of asset to by liquidized in cases of marriage (resp. dowry), education expenses, famines or similar. In countries with large endowments in terms of grazing land such as Mozambique and Zambia, cattle however display a promising opportunity to make a living or to basically feed families, recommends Professor Mick Mwala, agriculture expert at the university of Lusaka[16].
Government policies include the introduction of modern farming practices and subsidies on fertilizers. They, as well as development cooperation programs, have so far failed to follow up on the recommendations above.
Agriculture budgets are small in Zambia. They are in fact mainly made up of staff expenses and subsidies, which, if not governed smartly, deliberately and hence sustainably do more harm than good. The 75 % subsidies on fertilizers have been lowered on 50 % in 2013[17]. Generally, subsidies are useful in the case of a temporal shortage of money in a certain sector or to get a new technology or economic branch started. They are not helpful as a permanent agro-economic policy. Zambian farmers are made dependant by subsidies[18].
A large stimulus at one point in time instead of many small projects is necessary to get small-scale agriculture going in Southern Africa. Projects so far have focused on one issue over a short period of time, but not really changed the rural areas’ realities. In most cases projects’ impacts are not visible or fade away quickly says Rudy can Gent, a former GIZ expert[19].
Benson, T., Cunguara, B. & T. Mogues (2012). The Supply of Inorganic Fertilizers to Smallholder Farmers in Mozambique. Evidence for Fertilizer Policy Development. IFPRI Discussion Paper No. 01229.
Nhira, C., Mapiki, A. & P. Rankhumise (2008). Land and Water Management in Southern Africa. Towards sustainable agriculture. Pretoria: The Africa Institute of South Africa.
Thierfelder, C., Cheesman, S. & L. Rusinamhodzi (2013). Benefits and challenges of crop rotations in maize-based conservation agriculture (CA) cropping systems of southern Africa. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 11 (2), 108-124.
