1 PROSPECTS FOR AGROECOLOGICALLY BASED NATURAL-RESOURCE MANAGEMENT FOR LOW-INCOME FARMERS IN THE 21ST CENTURY Miguel A. Altieri, University of California, Berkeley – NGOC/CGIAR Jean-Marc von der Weid, AS-PTA, Brasil – GFAR-SC The Problem and the Challenges. Despite good global agricultural performance with respect to yield in the last two decades, the numbers of people undernourished only fell by 80 million, from 920 million to 840 million between the late 1960s and the early 1990s. In the last 30 years enough food was produced to feed everyone had it been more evenly distributed. Most analysts agree that poverty is the key reason why 840 million people do not have enough to eat and that at present, hunger is not a matter of agricultural limits but a problem of masses of people not having access to food or the means to produce it. About 73 million people will be added to the world’s population every year from now until 2020 and thus it is possible that food production will not keep pace with demand, implying that food insecurity and hunger will persist as key challenges for the international agricultural research community. But realistically, if the root causes of hunger, poverty and unequal land distribution are not addressed, hunger will persist no matter what agricultural technologies are used. Most modern agricultural technologies have the potential to deal with the issue of quality and quantity of food (which is part of the problem) but does not address the distributive and access aspects of food which are at the heart of the hunger problem. Insisting only on technological solutions to hunger ignore the tremendous complexity of the problem of food scarcity. Despite the above, few doubt that a huge increase in food production will have to be accomplished sooner or later. Whether the target date will be 2030 or 2050 is a less important question than is how to meet this immense challenge of doubling world food supply? It is not so clear, however, what needs to be done from this point forward to achieve food security for all in the years ahead. Over the past decade, yield increases from the Green Revolution technologies have been decelerating, and in some cases stagnating (Pingali et al. 1995). The highest yields have been obtained by using ever- larger inputs of fertilizer and irrigation water, which in many places have passed the point 2 of diminishing returns. Greater use of these inputs is thus becoming less productive. Moreover, at high input levels, adverse environmental impacts associated with monocultures and agrochemicals are becoming a serious concern. Soil erosion and degradation, chemical pollution, along with the exhaustion and pollution of surface and underground water sources, deforestation and the destruction of biodiversity in general, are some of the most notorious impacts of the conventional agricultural model. The difficulty in quantifying and assigning monetary values to ecological degradation has not allowed scientists to quantitatively and convincingly prove the hidden costs behind the gains in yields in conventional farming. The model’s current production costs have grown alarmingly, even if such externalities are disregarded. Modern agricultural system’s energy matrix reveals a tremendous dependency on fossil fuel, as costs rise exponentially with each successive oil crisis. Over the coming 50 years we will obviously be approaching the limits of this approach, unless its energy matrix is changed. Moreover, for the most part resources-poor farmers of Latin America, Asia, and Africa gained very little from the processes of development and technology transfer of the Green Revolution. Many analysts of the Green Revolution have pointed out that the new technologies were not scale-neutral. The farmers with the larger and better-endowed lands gained the most, whereas farmers with fewer resources often lost, and income disparities were often accentuated. Not only were technologies inappropriate for poor farmers, but peasants were excluded from access to credit, information, technical support and other services that would have helped them use and adapt these new inputs. Although subsequent studies have shown spread of high-yielding varieties among small farmers in some areas, disparities remain. Areas characterized by peasant agriculture remain poorly served by the transfer- of-technology approach. Due to market and institutional biases in favor of an export oriented agriculture, campesinos have been pushed off the land, further reducing grain production for local and regional consumption and aggravating the cycle between poverty and environmental degradation. By the end of the XX century we can therefore conclude that the modernization of agriculture has not solved the problem of overall rural poverty nor has it improved the distribution of land which remains concentrated. The historical 3 challenge of the international agricultural community is to assume responsibility for the welfare of the small farmers that on average account for 70% of the farms in Latin America and make up 65% of the poor. These farmers occupy fragile environments, but nevertheless are stewards of agrobiodiversity and make a substantial contribution to regional food self-sufficiency. Such resource-poor farmers and their complex systems pose special research challenges and demand appropriate technologies. Such farmers will not likely be the target of the private sector or advanced research institutions. One thing that is clear to most analysts is that food production will have to come from agricultural systems located in countries where the additional people will live in. In these countries, farmers are not only resource poor with no access to credit, technical assistance or markets, but their farming systems are complex and diversified with mixes of annual crops, trees and livestock. Many of them (about 370 million rural poor) are located in arid or semi-arid zones or in steep hill-slope areas that are ecologically vulnerable. Thus it is clear that in order to benefit the poor more directly, an NRM approach must be applicable under the highly heterogeneous and diverse conditions in which smallholders live, it must be environmentally sustainable and based on the use of local and indigenous resources. The emphasis must be on improving whole farming systems at the field or watershed level rather than specific commodities. Technological generation must be demand driven which means that research priorities must be based on the socio-economic and environmental needs and circumstances of resource-poor farmers. The Challenges of a Pro-Poor Natural Resources Management (NRM) Strategy. Perhaps the most significant realization at the end of the XX century is the fact that areas characterized by traditional agriculture remain poorly served by the transfer-of- technology approach, due to its bias in favor if modern scientific knowledge and its neglect of local participation and traditional knowledge (Lappe et al. 1998). The historical challenge of the international agricultural community is therefore to refocus its efforts on marginalized farmers and their agroecosystems and assume responsibility for the welfare of their agriculture. 4 The urgent need to combat rural poverty and to conserve and regenerate the deteriorated resource base of small farms requires an active search for new kinds of agricultural research and resource management strategies. NGOs have long argued that a sustainable agricultural development strategy that is environmentally enhancing must be based on agroecological principles and on a more participatory approach for technology development and dissemination (Altieri et al. 1998). Focused attention to the linkages between agriculture and natural resource management will help greatly in solving the problems of poverty, food insecurity, and environmental degradation. To be of benefit to the rural poor, agricultural research and development should operate on the basis of a “bottom-up” approach, using and building upon the resources already available: local people, their knowledge and their autochthonous natural resources. It must also seriously take into consideration, through participatory approaches, the needs, aspirations and circumstances of smallholders (Richards 1995). This means that from the standpoint of poor farmers, innovations must be: ! Input saving and cost reducing ! Risk reducing ! Expanding toward marginal-fragile lands ! Congruent with peasant farming systems ! Nutrition, health and environment improving Although statistics on the number and location of resource-poor farmers vary considerably, it is estimated that about 1.9 to 2.2 billion people remain directly or indirectly untouched by modern agricultural technology. In Latin America, the rural population is projected to remain stable at 125 million until the year 2000, but over 61% of this population is poor and is expected to increase. The projections for Africa are even more dramatic. The majority of the rural poor (about 370 million of the poorest) live in areas that are resource-poor, highly heterogeneous and risk prone. Their agricultural systems are small scale, complex and diverse. The worst poverty is often located in arid or semi-arid zones, and in mountains and hills that are ecologically vulnerable (Conway, 1997). These areas are remote from services and 5 roads and agricultural productivity is often low on a crop by crop bases, although total farm output can be significant. Such resource-poor farmers and their complex systems pose special research challenges and demand appropriate technologies that are: ! Based on indigenous knowledge or rationale ! Economically viable, accessible and based on local resources ! Environmentally sound, socially and culturally sensitive ! Risk averse, adapted to farmer circumstances ! Enhance total farm productivity and stability Many agroecologists have argued that the starting point in the development of new pro-poor agricultural development approaches are the very systems that traditional farmers have developed and/or inherited. Such complex farming systems, adapted to the local conditions, have helped small farmers to sustainably manage harsh environments and to meet their subsistence needs, without depending on mechanization, chemical fertilizers, pesticides or other technologies of modern agricultural science (Denevan, 1995). The persistence of millions of hectares under traditional agriculture in the from of raised fields, terraces, polycultures, agroforestry systems, etc., document a successful indigenous agricultural strategy and comprises a tribute to the “creativity” of small farms throughout the developing world (Wilken, 1997). These microcosms of traditional agriculture offer promising models for other areas as they promote biodiversity, thrive without agrochemicals, and sustain year- round yields. Agroecology as a fundamental scientific bases for NRM. For years several NGOs in the developing world have been promoting agroecologically-based NRM approaches. Such organizations argue that a sustainable agricultural development strategy that is environmentally enhancing must be based on agroecological principles and on a more participatory approach for 6 technology development and dissemination. Agroecology provides a methodological framework for understanding the nature of farming systems and the principles by which they function. It is the science that provides ecological principles for the design and management of sustainable and resource-conserving agricultural systems- offering several advantages for the development of farmer-friendly technologies. Agroecology relies on indigenous farming knowledge and selected modern technologies to manage diversity, incorporate biological principles and resources into farming systems, and intensify production. Thus it provides for an environmentally sound and affordable way for smallholders to intensify production in marginal areas. Agroecology goes beyond a one-dimensional view of agroecosystems – their genetics, agronomy, edaphology, and so on, - to embrace an understanding of ecological and social levels of co-evolution, structure and function. Instead of focusing on one particular component of the agroecosystem, agroecology emphasizes the interrelatedness of all agroecosystem components and the complex dynamics of ecological processes (Vandermeer 1995). Agroecosystems are communities of plants and animals interacting with their physical and chemical environments that have been modified by people to produce food, fibre, fuel and other products for human consumption and processing. Agroecology is the holistic study of agroecosystems, including all environmental and human elements. It focuses on the form, dynamics and functions of their interrelationships and the processes in which they are involved. An area used for agricultural production, e.g. a field, is seen as a complex system in which ecological processes found under natural conditions also occur, e.g. nutrient cycling, predator/prey interactions, competition, symbiosis and successional changes. Implicit in agroecological research is the idea that, by understanding these ecological relationships and processes, agroecosystems can be manipulated to improve production and to produce more sustainably, with fewer external inputs and lower negative environmental or social costs (Altieri 1995). The design of such systems is based on the application of the following ecological principles (Reinjntjes et al. 1992) (see also Table 1): 7 1. Enhance recycling of biomass and optimizing nutrient availability and balancing nutrient flow. 2. Securing favorable soil conditions for plant growth, particularly by managing organic matter and enhancing soil biotic activity. 3. Minimizing losses due to flows of solar radiation, air and water by way of microclimate management, water harvesting and soil management through increased soil cover. 4. Species and genetic diversification of the agroecosystem in time and space. 5. Enhancement of beneficial biological interactions and synergisms among agrobiodiversity components thus resulting in the promotion of key ecological processes and services. These principles can be applied by way of various techniques and strategies. Each of these will have different effects on productivity, stability and resilience within the farm system, depending on the local opportunities, resource constraints and, in most cases, on the market. The ultimate goal of agroecological design is to integrate components so that overall biological efficiency is improved, biodiversity is preserved, and the agroecosystem productivity and its self-sustaining capacity is maintained. Agroecological management must lead management to optimal recycling if nutrients and organic matter turnover, closed energy flows, water and soil conservation and balance pest-natural enemy populations. The strategy exploits the complementarities and synergisms that result from the various combinations of crops, trees and animals in spatial and temporal arrangements (Altieri 1994). In essence, the optimal behavior of agroecosystems depends on the level of interactions between the various biotic and abiotic components. By assembling a functional biodiversity it is possible to initiate synergisms which subsidize 8 agroecosystem processes by providing ecological services such as the activation of soil biology, the recycling of nutrients, and the enhancement of beneficial arthropods and antagonists, and so on (Altieri and Nicholls 1999). Today there is a diverse selection of practices and technologies available, and which vary in effectiveness as well as in strategic value. Various strategies to restore agricultural diversity in time and space include crop rotations, cover crops, intercropping, crop/livestock mixtures, and so on, which exhibit the following ecological features: 1. Crop Rotations. Temporal diversity incorporated into cropping systems, providing crop nutrients and breaking the life cycles of several insect pests, diseases, and weed life cycles (Sumner 1982). 2. Polycultures. Complex cropping systems in which two or more crop species are planted within sufficient spatial proximity to result in complementation, thus enhancing yields (Francis 1986, Vandermeer 1989). 3. Agroforestry Systems. An agricultural system where trees are grown together with annual crops and/or animals, resulting in enhanced complementary relations between components increasing multiple use of the agroecosystem (Nair 1982). 4. Cover Crops. The use of pure or mixed stands of legumes or other annual plant species under fruit trees for the purpose of improving soil fertility, enhancing biological control of pests, and modifying the orchard microclimate (Finch and Sharp 1976). 5. Animal integration in agroecosystems aids in achieving high biomass output and optimal recycling (Pearson and Ison 1987). All of the above diversified forms of agroecosystems share in common the following features (Altieri and Rosset 1995): 9 a. Maintain vegetative cover as an effective soil and water conserving measure, met through the use of no- till practices, mulch farming, and use of cover crops and other appropriate methods. b. Provide a regular supply of organic matter though the addition of organic matter (manure, compost and promotion of soil biotic activity). c. Enhance nutrient recycling mechanisms though the use of livestock systems based on legumes, etc. d. Promote pest regulation through enhanced activity of biological control agents achieved by introducing and/or conserving natural enemies and antagonists. Research on diversified cropping systems underscores the great importance of diversity in an agricultural setting (Francis 1986, Vandermeer 1989, Altieri 1995). Diversity is of value in agroecosystems for a variety of reasons (Altieri 1994, Gliessman 1998). ! As diversity increases, so do opportunities for coexistence and beneficial interactions between species that can enhance agroecosystem sustainability. ! Greater diversity often allows better resource-use efficiency in an agroecosystem. There is better system-level adaptation to habitat heterogeneity, leading to complimentarity in crop species needs, diversification of niches, overlap of species niches, and partitioning of resources. ! Ecosystems in which plant species are intermingled possess an associatonal resistance to herbivores as in diverse systems there is a greater abundance and diversity of natural enemies of pest insects keeping in check the populations of individual herbivore species. ! A diverse crop assemblage can create a diversity of microclimates within the cropping system that can be occupied by a range of noncrop organisms- 10 including beneficial predators, parasites, pollinators, soil fauna and antagonists – that are of importance for the entire system. ! Diversity in the agricultural landscape can contribute to the conservation of biodiversity in surrounding natural ecosystems. ! Diversity in the soil performs a variety of ecological services such as nutrient recycling and detoxification of noxious chemicals and regulation of plant growth. ! Diversity reduces risk for farmers, especially in marginal areas with more unpredictable environmental conditions. If one crop does not do well, income from others can compensate. Applying agroecology to improve the productivity of small farming systems. Since the early 1980s, hundreds of agroecologically-based projects were promoted by NGOs throughout the developing world which incorporate elements of both traditional knowledge and modern agricultural science, featuring resource-conserving yet highly productive systems, such as polycultures, agroforestry, and the integration of crops and livestock, etc. Such alternative approaches can be described as low-input technologies (e.g., Sanchez and Benites 1987), but this designation refers to the external inputs required. The amount of labor, skills, and management that are required as inputs to make land and other factors of production most productive is quite substantial. So rather than focus on what is not being utilized, it is better to focus on what is most important to increase food output- labor, knowledge and management. Agroecological alternative approaches are based on using locally available resources as much as possible, though they do not reject the use of external inputs. Farmers cannot benefit from technologies that are not available, affordable, or appropriate to their conditions. Purchased inputs present special problems and risks for less-secure farmers, particularly where supplies and the credit to facilitate purchases are inadequate. The analysis of dozens of NGO-led agroecological projects show convincingly that agroecological systems are not limited to producing low outputs, as some critics have