Susan Kaaria

Harmonizing the agricultural biotechnology debate for the benefit of African farmers

The intense debate over agricultural biotechnology is at once fascinating, confusing and disappointing. It is complicated by issues of ethical, moral, socio-economic, political, philosophical and scientific import. Its vocal champions exaggerate their claims of biotechnology as saviour of the poor and hungry, while, equally loudly, its opponents declare it as the doomsday devil of agriculture. Sandwiched between these two camps is the rest of the public, either absorbed or indifferent. Biotechnology issues specific to the African public must include crop and animal productivity, food security, alleviation of poverty and gender equity, and must exclude political considerations. Food and its availability are basic human rights issues—for people without food, everything else is insignificant. Although we should discuss and challenge new technologies and their products, bringing the agricultural biotechnology debate into food aid for Africa where millions are faced with life-or-death situations is irresponsible. Agricultural biotechnology promises the impoverished African a means to improve food security and reduce pressures on the environment, provided the perceived risks associated with the technology are addressed. This paper attempts to harmonize the debate, and to examine the potential benefits and risks that agricultural biotechnology brings to African farmers. Key words : Agriculture, biotechnology, biotechnology debate, biotechnology and Africa, biotechnology issues, food security, poverty alleviation. African Journal of Biotechnology Vol.2(11) 2003: 394-416

The Resources-to-Consumption System: A Framework for Linking Soil Fertility Management Innovations to Market Opportunities

Recent paradigms in soil fertility management research have evolved from the initial reductionist approaches of nutrient replenishment to embrace a more holistic integrated soil fertility management (ISFM) approach that goes beyond soils to address the full chain of interactions, from resources to production systems, to markets and policies. It is now recognized that the adoption of ISFM technologies critically depends on market opportunities. It is argued that without well functioning markets, the adoption of ISFM innovations will remain limited. This paper examines this “market-led hypothesis” that linking farmers to better market opportunities will provide incentives for adoption and re-investment in ISFM innovations. This hypothesis is tested with empirical data from cross-sectional household surveys and action research on linking farmers to markets in selected sites in Malawi, Uganda and Tanzania. Analysis revealed mixed results, with significant differences based on gender, wealth categories, crops and areas. On one hand, there is evidence that better access to markets and increased income led to positive investments in agricultural inputs, increased fertilizer use and soil conservation measures. On the other hand, for the majority of women and poor farmers, particularly in Uganda, re-investing in ISFM was not even among the first three priorities, compared to other livelihood needs (buying or renting more farmland, livestock, paying school fees and buying clothes). The paper outlines a novel approach for demand-driven and market-led ISFM research for development. This approach termed the Resource-to-Consumption offers a practical framework to link ISFM research to market opportunities identification in a way that empowers farmers to better manage their resources and offers them incentives to invest in soil fertility improvement. The success of this approach is highly dependent on the development of effective quality partnerships with research and extensions systems, government and non-governmental organizations, business support services, farmer communities and the private sector; and building multi-institutional and trans-disciplinary research for development teams, with complementary skills and expertise. The paper suggests four key areas that need concerted efforts by a variety of stakeholders (i) improving output and input market access; (ii) participatory technology development; (iii) strengthening farmers’ institutions, and (iv) influencing policy change

Can markets deliver the dual objectives of income generation and sustainability of natural resources in Uganda

In this study, we set out to determine whether strategies used to link farmers to markets resulted in household level livelihood and NRM impacts measured by the participation in the market and the value of sales from the markets. Farmer to market linkages have improved livelihoods in developing countries due to policy, institutional and implementation strategies, however, equal emphasis has not been placed on investments in Natural Resource Management (NRM). Areas with high market access have often been cited as the highest in soil nutrient depletion, while input markets and labour required for land management are scarce at community level. We established a higher human capacity through formal education and technical skills built through extension and training services provided by the institutional affiliation which enabled support to specific enterprise production. We also observed increased commercialization through increased number of crops sold to the market through more than one marketing channel, including food and cash crops which compete with one another. Investment in NRM was low despite increased income.