In the 1960s and 1970s, a “green revolution” of agricultural modernisation swept through many Asian countries, helping farmers and transforming economies as it went.
While similar attempts at the time yielded poor results across Africa, today a new wave of green revolutions is being implemented, in countries such as Malawi, Zambia, Uganda, Kenya and Ethiopia. This time, the policies have been hailed as transformative development successes by the IMF and the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (Agra).
The policies, which aim to promote modern seed varieties and inputs to boost the production of marketable crops, are seen as a major strategy to reduce poverty in sub-Saharan Africa. These are justified by governments and donors as an essential response to rising populations, limited land and the need for growth to fuel more general development.
In Rwanda, the key component of this strategy is the Crop Intensification Programme, which was initiated in 2008 and is now in its third phase. The programme favours crop specialisation over diversity, dictating which single crop each Rwandan farmer can grow in each of the two main growing seasons and distributing modern seeds and subsidised chemical fertilisers.
But there is good reason to question these policies and whether Africa can copy Asia’s green revolution success. The conditions facing African countries today are very different from those in Asia some 40 years ago.
Alongside fellow researchers, I spent months talking to villagers in three mountainous areas in western Rwanda to hear about important changes in their lives. The testimonies were quite incongruous with more official accounts of policy impacts.
Farming is more than income generation
In western Rwanda, farmers traditionally cultivate up to 60 different types of crops. They plant and harvest in overlapping cycles to subsist and minimise chances of hunger. And the associated social systems encompass a way of life central to people’s knowledge and culture.
The mix of crops changes with subtle differences in soil, slope and altitude. Trade and patterns of labour follow these gradients. Each day droves of villagers take sugar cane uphill to trade for potatoes, labourers head to an area knowing there are crops to be harvested and deep relationships are formed.
For these reasons farmers consider living a good life to be dependent not purely on income but on their access to farm land, good social relations and their autonomy to make decisions about how to use their resources.
Researchers argue similar modernisation programmes in Malawi, Kenya, and Uganda are also showing negative results.
Farming policy in Rwanda argues that agriculture there should be focused towards specialisation and to manage the land and use it in an efficient, uniform manner. Yet revealing the common perspective on the ground, one farmer told us: “We have no ability to oppose decisions made by the government. They tell us to plant crops in the wrong season. They’ll say, ‘Grow beans now’ and everyone here knows it’s the wrong time to grow them.” The policies designate which crops are to be grown in which region and aim to drive widespread use of new seeds and input technologies.
We interviewed 165 individuals in eight villages, in three different parts of western Rwanda. A further 50 people took part in group discussions held in each village. Participants feel this policy is a very real risk to their control over their land. Some 10% had seen the government take land previously for conservation or reallocation to refugees. Others said they had seen non-approved crops destroyed by local officials.
The result we saw was that the long-standing knowledge of soils, ecological gradients and associated social as well as economic interactions have, in a flash, been replaced with rules and administrative boundaries.
Who wins and who loses?
Importantly, our study reveals that in Rwanda only a minority – about one-third of relatively wealthy landholders – were able to comply with enforced modernisation. For those households, increases in production and income could be substantial: 16% of wealthier households had been able to increase their land holdings, despite facing some of the highest population densities in mainland Africa.
But taking part in the new scheme is not easy and benefits are not guaranteed. Modern seeds cannot be used without fertiliser for which people need to take credit to pay for. That requires the confidence to be able to pay money back at the end of the season and to manage to feed your family in the meantime. To comply involves taking a leap of faith.
The poorer you are, the higher that risk is. Fears of harvesting nothing and the potential for the government to seize the land means many choose to sell up. In recent years 12% of households had become landless labourers.
As they shift from subsistence to dependence on income from intermittent and arduous labouring opportunities, people’s incomes might actually increase, yet they are stripped of their most valued resource: land. Instead of helping the poorest farmers, the policies serve to exacerbate landlessness and increase inequality.
Implications for agriculture in Rwanda and beyond
Traditional farming practices are not necessarily superior to any form of modernisation or innovation, but innovation must target the needs of rural smallholders and involve their participation.
Negative results for the poor are emerging from similar policies in Malawi, Kenya, Ethiopia and Uganda. It is not enough to assume that improvements in the national economy will trickle down to the poor. Ultimately, reducing poverty and hunger through farming innovation in Rwanda requires working with poor farmers – not against them. S.The guardian
 |
| A young tea picker in the province of Byumba, Rwanda |
The policies, which aim to promote modern seed varieties and inputs to boost the production of marketable crops, are seen as a major strategy to reduce poverty in sub-Saharan Africa. These are justified by governments and donors as an essential response to rising populations, limited land and the need for growth to fuel more general development.
In Rwanda, the key component of this strategy is the Crop Intensification Programme, which was initiated in 2008 and is now in its third phase. The programme favours crop specialisation over diversity, dictating which single crop each Rwandan farmer can grow in each of the two main growing seasons and distributing modern seeds and subsidised chemical fertilisers.
But there is good reason to question these policies and whether Africa can copy Asia’s green revolution success. The conditions facing African countries today are very different from those in Asia some 40 years ago.
Alongside fellow researchers, I spent months talking to villagers in three mountainous areas in western Rwanda to hear about important changes in their lives. The testimonies were quite incongruous with more official accounts of policy impacts.
Farming is more than income generation
In western Rwanda, farmers traditionally cultivate up to 60 different types of crops. They plant and harvest in overlapping cycles to subsist and minimise chances of hunger. And the associated social systems encompass a way of life central to people’s knowledge and culture.
The mix of crops changes with subtle differences in soil, slope and altitude. Trade and patterns of labour follow these gradients. Each day droves of villagers take sugar cane uphill to trade for potatoes, labourers head to an area knowing there are crops to be harvested and deep relationships are formed.
For these reasons farmers consider living a good life to be dependent not purely on income but on their access to farm land, good social relations and their autonomy to make decisions about how to use their resources.
Researchers argue similar modernisation programmes in Malawi, Kenya, and Uganda are also showing negative results.
Farming policy in Rwanda argues that agriculture there should be focused towards specialisation and to manage the land and use it in an efficient, uniform manner. Yet revealing the common perspective on the ground, one farmer told us: “We have no ability to oppose decisions made by the government. They tell us to plant crops in the wrong season. They’ll say, ‘Grow beans now’ and everyone here knows it’s the wrong time to grow them.” The policies designate which crops are to be grown in which region and aim to drive widespread use of new seeds and input technologies.
We interviewed 165 individuals in eight villages, in three different parts of western Rwanda. A further 50 people took part in group discussions held in each village. Participants feel this policy is a very real risk to their control over their land. Some 10% had seen the government take land previously for conservation or reallocation to refugees. Others said they had seen non-approved crops destroyed by local officials.
The result we saw was that the long-standing knowledge of soils, ecological gradients and associated social as well as economic interactions have, in a flash, been replaced with rules and administrative boundaries.
Who wins and who loses?
Importantly, our study reveals that in Rwanda only a minority – about one-third of relatively wealthy landholders – were able to comply with enforced modernisation. For those households, increases in production and income could be substantial: 16% of wealthier households had been able to increase their land holdings, despite facing some of the highest population densities in mainland Africa.
But taking part in the new scheme is not easy and benefits are not guaranteed. Modern seeds cannot be used without fertiliser for which people need to take credit to pay for. That requires the confidence to be able to pay money back at the end of the season and to manage to feed your family in the meantime. To comply involves taking a leap of faith.
The poorer you are, the higher that risk is. Fears of harvesting nothing and the potential for the government to seize the land means many choose to sell up. In recent years 12% of households had become landless labourers.
As they shift from subsistence to dependence on income from intermittent and arduous labouring opportunities, people’s incomes might actually increase, yet they are stripped of their most valued resource: land. Instead of helping the poorest farmers, the policies serve to exacerbate landlessness and increase inequality.
Implications for agriculture in Rwanda and beyond
Traditional farming practices are not necessarily superior to any form of modernisation or innovation, but innovation must target the needs of rural smallholders and involve their participation.
Negative results for the poor are emerging from similar policies in Malawi, Kenya, Ethiopia and Uganda. It is not enough to assume that improvements in the national economy will trickle down to the poor. Ultimately, reducing poverty and hunger through farming innovation in Rwanda requires working with poor farmers – not against them. S.The guardian
@Habimana Jean Claude
No comments:
Post a Comment