The Real Green Revolution Organic and Agroecological Farming

The Real GreenR e v o l u t i o n

Nicholas Parrott &Terry Marsden

Department of Cityand Regional Planning, Cardiff University

Organic and agroecologicalfarming in the South

Greenpeace Environmental Trust

Canonbury Villas, London N1 2PN, United Kingdomwww.greenpeace.org.uk/trust

February 2002

Published by Greenpeace Environmental Trust

Canonbury Villas, London N1 2PN, United Kingdom

Registered Charity No. 284934

© Greenpeace Environmental Trust 2002

A catalogue record of this book is available from the British Library

ISBN 1 903907 02 0

Design by Paul Hamilton at One Another

Printed in the United Kingdom by Russell Press

Printed on 100% post-consumer recycled paper

Front cover image © Pasha Saale

Back cover image © 2001-Greenpeace/Lopez

1The Real Green Revolution

Table of contents

F o r e w o r d 4

Food security for all the world’s people

Dr Doug Parr, Greenpeace Chief Scientist

A c k n o w l e d g e m e n t s 8

1 Methodology and approach

1.1 Context 1 0

1.2 Aims and objectives 1 0

1.3 Scope and definitions 1 1

1.4 Research methods 1 6

2 The world grows organic.

2.1 Estimating the extent of global organic production 1 8

2.2 External stimuli for the development of organic agriculture 2 1

2.3 Towards a typology of incentives and constraints to‘grow organic’ 2 3

3 Regional perspectives

3.1 Africa 3 6

3.2 Asia 4 5

3.3 Latin America 5 1

4 Key themes

4.1 Productivity and sustainability 6 1

4.2 Organic agriculture and diversity 6 6

4.3 Natural methods of enhancing soil fert i l i t y 7 3

4.4 Natural regimes of pest and disease control 8 0

4.5 Markets and premia 9 0

4.6 Cert i f i c a t i o n 9 3

4.7 Institutional and political issues 9 8

4.8 Social and cultural issues 1 0 1

5 Conclusions and recommendations

5.1 Creating a coherent ‘alternative’ agricultural movement. 1 0 7

5.2 Promoting OAA: defining objectives 1 0 8

5.3 Global research and advocacy 1 0 8

5.4 Building local capacity. 1 0 9

B i b l i o g r a p h y 1 1 2

Glossary of abbreviations and acronyms 1 2 8

Appendix 1 – Electronic re s o u rces for OAA 1 3 0

Appendix 2a – Research institutes and consultancies 1 3 7

Appendix 2b – NGOs and producer gro u p s 1 3 8

E n d n o t e s 1 4 4

2

List of case studies

Case Study 1 The Chagga Home Gardens (Mt. Kilimanjaro, Tanzania) 14

Case Study 2 Organic cotton production in India, Peru and Mali 24

Case Study 3 Cuba: towards a national organic regime? 27

Case Study 4 World Food Day Farmers’ and Fishermens' Movement (Indonesia) 30

Case Study 5 Ambootia Tea Estate (Darjeeling, India) 35

Case Study 6 Zaï: a traditional method for restoring degraded land 39

Case Study 7 Organic and ethical banana production 58

Case Study 8 New developments in rice production 63

Case Study 9 Ecological land restoration in Ti g r a y 77

Case Study 10 Sekem (Egypt) 93


List of tables and figures

Table 1 Key aims, principles and management practices of organic farming 12

Table 2.1 Certified organic land by country (hectares) 19

Table 2.2 Certified organic land by country (% of agricultural land) 19

Table 2.3 IFOAM members by country 20

Table 2.4 Incentives and constraints to organic farming 23

Table 2.4 The sustainable agriculture and rural development prize 26

Table 3.1 Organic farming statistics for Africa 37

Table 3.2 African organic agricultural products on international markets 37

Figure 3.1 Illustration of Zaï or planting pit 39

Figure 3.2 The push-pull method for controlling maize stemborer 42

Table 3.3 Organic farming statistics for Asia 45

Table 3.4 Organic farming statistics for Latin America 52

Table 4.1 Examples of yield increases attributable to adoption of OAA 62

Table 4.2 Risk reduction strategies of traditional farmers 66

Table 4.3 Annual soil loss (tons/ha) at Ibadan, Nigeria 67

Table 4.4 Effects of A. Albida on millet yield in Senegal 69

Figure 4.1 Influence of trees on maize cropping in Tlaxacal (Mexico) 72

Table 4.5 Nutrient management strategies 75

Table 4.6 Plants with pest controlling propert i e s 78

Table 4.6 Premia generated by organic producers 81

Table 4.7 A flow chart for identifying synergies in OAA research 99

Table 4.8 Textures of folk knowledge 102

4

Foreword

Food security for all the world’s people

Dr Doug Parr, Greenpeace Chief Scientist

The crisis in Argentina in late 2001i l l u s t rated again a frustrating and unjustreality: there is no direct relationshipb e t ween the amount of food a countryproduces and the number of hungry peoplewho live there. In 2001, Argentina harve s t e denough wheat to meet the needs of bothChina and India. Yet A r g e n t i n a ’s people we r eh u n g r y. Argentina's status as the wo r l d ' ssecond largest producer of GM crops –l a r g e ly for export – could do nothing tos o l ve its very real hunger problems at home.For fifty years conventional agriculture hasbeen getting less and less sustainable.Chemical pesticides, fertilizers and hy b r i dseeds have destroyed wildlife and cropd ive r s i t y, poisoned people and ruined thes o i l . N ow that the organic movement istaking off in the industrialised wo r l d ,g ove r n m e n t s , international agencies andglobal agribusiness corporations must stoppromoting this destructive system in theS o u t h . I n s t e a d , there must be coherent andlong-term support – in practice as well as inprinciple – to enable the nascent ecologicalfarming movement in poorer countries tocontinue to grow into the future.

The world is on the brink of a second ‘Gre e nRevolution’, which – unlike the first – has thepotential to truly live up to its name. This is nota revolution in biotechnology; still less has itanything to do with genetic engineering.Instead, it is a global move towards ecologicala g r i c u l t u re, which promises to both feed ag rowing world population and to do sosustainably – without compromising the needsof future generations to feed themselves.

Working in tandem with nature andencouraging biodiversity and local self-re l i a n c e ,this new trend towards organic anda g roecological farming is vibrant thro u g hAfrica, Latin America and Asia. Although

still largely overlooked by policy-makers, thismovement presents a hopeful alternative to aworld that would be dominated by corporatea g rochemical giants and monoculturala g r i c u l t u re. And, as this re p o rt shows, org a n i cf a rming is not simply a passing fad forconsumers in the rich world. Put into practicein the South, it can increase food security,reduce poverty and protect enviro n m e n t a lre s o u rces for the future – unlike itsconventional alternative.

Organic increasing

This re p o rt identifies some of the positivet rends currently emerging, for example:

• Latest estimates of land managed accord i n gto ecological principles vary from 15.8 to 30million hectares (equivalent to about 3% ofagricultural land in the South).This figure would almost certainly be muchhigher if de facto organic agriculturepracticed by traditional subsistence farm e r sw e re to be included.

• Two thirds of new members of theI n t e rnational Federation of Org a n i cAgricultural Movements (IFOAM) come from the South.

• I n t e rnational agencies – principally the UN’sFood and Agriculture Organisation (FA O )and the Centre for Trade and Development( U N C TAD) – have woken up to thepotential of organic farming in raisingf a rmers’ incomes, creating jobs andenhancing food security.

• Cuba has been moving towards anationwide organic system, and 65% of itsrice and nearly 50% of fresh vegetables arenow produced org a n i c a l l y. Argentina nowhas the largest area of land under org a n i ccultivation of any country in the world afterA u s t r a l i a .


Greater diversity

Maintaining agricultural biodiversity is vital toensuring the long-term food security of all thew o r l d ’s people. This re p o rt also shows thata g roecological farms exhibit a much gre a t e ra rray of biodiversity than conventionalchemical-dependent farms, with more tre e s ,a wider diversity of crops and many diff e re n tnatural predators which control pests and helpp revent disease. In many parts of the South, thediversity of crop species on organic anda g roecological holdings typically numbers inthe hundreds, in stark contrast to them o n o c u l t u re encouraged by conventionalsystems. For example:

• Indigenous farmers in Peru cultivate m o re than three thousand diff e rent types of potato.

• M o re than five thousand varieties of sweetpotato are cultivated in Papua New Guinea.

• In West Java, re s e a rchers have identifiedm o re than 230 species of plant within a dualc ropping system, which includes‘ a g ro f o re s t ry’ home gardens and outfields. In Mexico, the Huastec Indians managea number of plots in which up to 300species are cultivated. Areas around thehouse may contain between 80-125 usefulspecies, many with medicinal pro p e rties.

This diversity is maintained through traditionalseed-swap networks, which are now beingextended and encouraged by the organic anda g roecological movement. Whilst globalindustrial agriculture has led to a situationw h e re the world’s population gets 90% of itsfood calories from a mere 15 species of cro p s ,o rganic and agroecological farmers arep roviding a vital service in maintaining geneticdiversity for the future –a service increasingly threatened by genetically-modified pollution and corporate biopiracy.The maintenance of a wide range of cro p sp rovides food security throughout the year, ano v e rwhelmingly important consideration for

peasant farmers, who are intuitively aware of the dangers of monocropping.

Working with ecology

This re p o rt shows how organic anda g roecological approaches to agriculturea re helping to conserve and improve farm e r s ’most precious re s o u rce – the topsoil. In contrastto the problems of hardening, nutrient loss ande rosion experienced by conventional farm e r s ,o rganic managers across the South are usingt rees, shrubs and leguminous plants to stabiliseand feed the soil, dung and compost to pro v i d enutrients, and terracing or check dams top revent erosion and conserve gro u n d w a t e r.T h e re is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ strategy, and thebest approach varies with local expertise andecological conditions.

Increasing yields

The widespread assumption that converting too rganic means a decline in yields has beenp roven to be false, a conclusion support e dby overwhelming evidence contained in thisre p o rt. Case studies from many diff e re n tcountries – involving radically diff e re n tpractices, local conditions and crops – showdramatic increases in yields as well as benefitsto soil quality, a reduction in pests and diseasesand a general improvement in taste andnutritional content of agricultural produce. For example:

• In Brazil the use of green manures and coverc rops has increased yields of maize bybetween 20% and 250%.

• In Ti g r a y, Ethiopia, yields of crops fro mcomposted plots were between three and five times higher than those treated onlywith chemicals.

• Yield increases of 175% have been re p o rt e df rom farms in Nepal adoptinga g roecological management practices.

• In Peru the restoration of traditional Incan

t e rracing has led to increases in the order of150% for a range of upland cro p s .

The importance is not just that yields arei n c reased – important as that undoubtedly is –but that the increases are much more under thec o n t rol of the farmers and communities thatp roduce them, in contrast to a high inputagricultural model where the benefits go to theequipment and chemical manufacturers andseed merc h a n t s .

Economic drivers

A c ross the South, engagement with thelucrative and rapidly growing organic foodsmarket in the industrialised world is still themain driving force behind the development ofthe certified organic sector. Organic cert i f i c a t i o ncan generate big premia for primary pro d u c e r s ,especially from export markets. Although someg o v e rnments are now recognising the exportpotential of organic produce, its developmentso far has been driven almost exclusively by theNGO sector – often despite official hostility.

Remaining challenges

This re p o rt goes on to show that some keychallenges remain, however. These include thefollowing issues:

• Hostility from conventionally mindedS o u t h e rn governments and establishedcorporate and bureaucratic interests are stillholding back the potential of organic anda g roecological agriculture .

• Many Southern-based NGOs pro m o t i n go rganic and agroecological approaches facecrippling funding shortages, and arep revented from continuing their work oftenfor want of very small amounts of money incomparison to that spent in the pro m o t i o nof conventional agriculture.

• Mechanisms for transferring indigenousknowledge from one locale to another needf u rther development and re s o u rcing.

• The overwhelming majority of Southerno rganic produce is still sold as unpro c e s s e dp r i m a ry commodities, leaving poore rf a rmers still exposed to the vagaries ofworld markets, and meaning that thebenefits of processing and value-addingremain in the Nort h .

• Much Southern-based organic production isfor export to the industrialised world,raising the issues of ‘food miles’ and howbest to protect local food security and self-reliance. However, local and nationalo rganic markets are developing in manyp o o rer countries, notably Brazil, Egypt andA rg e n t i n a .

• E x p e rtise in certification is stillo v e rwhelmingly concentrated in theindustrialised world, and achievingc e rtification is a major barrier to manyf a rmers in poor countries who lack literacyand other skills and facilities necessary.

What is needed

This re p o rt makes some clear and practicalrecommendations for how organic anda g roecological agriculture should be support e dand promoted. Some of these are highlightedb e l o w.

• G o v e rnments in the South should re t h i n kthe promotion of artificial pesticides andf e rtilisers on poorer farmers thro u g hextension workers, subsidies and mediacampaigns, and at the very least re m o v esome of the barriers to NGO activity thatc u rrently hinder the growth of the org a n i c ss e c t o r. At best, Southern governments shouldbegin to re-orient their priorities –educational, institutional and legal –t o w a rds promoting ecological andsustainable agriculture.

• W h e re de facto o rganic farming is practised,it is vital to help farmers develop self-confidence in their traditional knowledge sothat they do not immediately switch tochemicals once they can aff o rd them, as a

6


result of having been told for years thatindustrial farming is ‘more modern ’ .

• Security of land tenure is essential forf a rmers to have sufficient incentive todevelop long-term organic managementstrategies, and in areas where inequalityof ownership is especially pronounced landre f o rm will be necessary for ecologicalf a rming to become widespre a d .

• Much greater support must be devoted tothose grassroots NGOs and projects that arethe driving force behind the development ofo rganic agriculture in the South. Thisre q u i res a further mobilisation withinN o rt h e rn-based agencies to develop theirown projects and work with Southern - b a s e dp a rtners, and – crucially – greater financials u p p o rt from the relevant funding bodies.

• Various successful projects are beginning totransfer the economic benefits of foodp rocessing to organic farmers in the South.These include the making of fruit intoc o n s e rves in the Andes to the extraction ofsunflower oil from hand-powered mills inKenya. More re s o u rces and investment inthese frequently low-tech solutions couldhave significant paybacks for ecologicalf a rmers acro s sthe Third Wo r l d .

• Better links need to be fostered betweend i ff e rent disciplines and approaches withinthe ‘alternative’ agricultural movement –bringing together (for example) fore s t e r s ,re s e a rchers, livestock producers andh o rticulturalists in regional, national andi n t e rnational networks.

• The development of certification capacity inthe South – by governments working intandem with established NGOs – needsto be boosted to prevent the need for costlye x t e rnal inspections.

• Joined-up thinking between the organic andfair trade movements could be crucial in

how the movement develops over thecoming years, and developing synerg i e sbetween social and environmental objectives.

• In addition, an agreement within the org a n i cmovement itself is needed on the inclusion ofwider social and environmental criteria suchas ‘food miles’ and workers’ rights.

Looking to the future

The dominant international worldview amongstpolicy-makers and opinion-formers still holdsthat food security for a growing worldpopulation can only be achieved by pro m o t i n gever more intensive chemical-dependenta g r i c u l t u re. The evidence from this re p o rt isthat this viewpoint is dangerously flawed.F i r s t l y, the relationship between food securityand food production is complex – faminesoccur because people lack the money to buyfood, not solely because their own crops havefailed. Secondly, chemical-dependent agricultureis fundamentally unsustainable. It exchangesl o n g - t e rm ecological health (involving issueslike biodiversity and topsoil quality) for short -t e rm productivity gains, and new developmentsin the genetic manipulationof plants and animals are set to worsen thisd i s a s t rous trajectory. Third l y, food securityis endangered by encouragement for farm e r sto opt for high yielding mono-crops re q u i r i n gsubstantial inputs. If the crops fail farmers arein danger of losing their land to cover baddebts – further contributing to rural-urban driftin the South.

U l t i m a t e l y, we believe the key aim at a practicallevel must be to knit together the diff e re n taspects and drivers of the organic anda g roecological approach into a cohere n ti n t e rnational movement which is capable ofp roviding an alternative to the conventionalsystem. As ecological agriculture becomes moresuccessful economically, and an incre a s i n gnumber of farmers throughout the South decide– independently or with assistance from NGOs– to jump off the chemicals treadmill, thechances of this real Green Revolutionsucceeding become greater every day.

8

A c k n o w l e d g e m e n t s

We extend our grateful thanks to thefollowing individuals who have helped withthis project, primarily through responding toour survey, but in other instances throughhelping us make contact with key individuals,providing access to libraries and databases,and acting as translators.

Jacqueline Haessig Alleje (Rizal Dairy Farms,Philippines), Mustafa Akyuz (ETKO,Turkey), Kossi Ahonyo (Centre de Promotiondes Initiatives de Base et de l’Environnement,Togo), Marta Astier (Interdisciplinary Groupfor Appropriate Rural Technology, Mexico).

Reena Bansal (Ambootia Tea Estates, India),D avid Barkin (Universidad AutonomaM e t ropolitana, Mexico), Birgitt Boor ( B i o h e r b ,G e rm a n y ) , Angelina M. Briones ( M A S I P E G ,P h i l i p p i n e s ) , Edith Lammerts van Bueren(Louis Bolk Institut, Netherlands), H e l e nB r o u t s chert ( C a rd i ff University), Kath Burton(Soil Association), E ve rard Byer ( Trinidad andTobago Organic Agriculture Movement).K. Cadoret (Henry Doubleday ResearchAssociation),

Tadeu Caldas, (Ecotropic, UK), DanielMones Cazon (FAEA, Argentina), OscarMendieta Chavez (Assoc. de Organisationesde Product Ecologicos de Bolivia), FernandoCruz (Cosecha del Sol, Mexico).

Alexander Daniel (Institute for IntegratedRural Development, India), Sue Edwards(Institute for Sustainable Development,Tigray, Ethiopia), Marck van Esch (BoWeevil, Holland), Bo van Elzakker (Agroeco,Netherlands), Lal Emmanuel (NagenhiruFoundation, Sri Lanka).

Caporali Fabio (Universitia degli studia dellaTuscia, Viterbo, Italy), Ali Faisal (Hyderabad,India), Luciano Florit (Universidade Regionalde Blumenau, Brazil), Komla Foly(Groupement des Jeunes pour l’Entraide et le

Development, Togo), Mª Fernanda de A. C.Fonseca (Brazil).

N M Abdul Gaffar (Stassen Natural Foods,Sri Lanka), Yvan Gautronneau (INRA, Lyon,France), Maheswar Ghimire (EcologicalServices Centre, Nepal), Boghos Ghougassian(Middle East Centre for the Transfer ofAlternative Technology, Lebanon), Nicolienvan der Grijp: (Vrije Universiteit,Amsterdam), Papa Gueye, (Fédération desAgropasteurs de Diender, Senegal), CarolynFoster (University of Wales, Aberystwyth).

Rob Hardy (Soil Association), Dr. ZahidHossain (Proshika, Bangladesh), Liz Hoskins(Gaia Foundation).

Rosie Jackson (Soil Association), PaulineJones (Kitty Seed Project, Gambia), MariamJorjadze (Elkana, Georgia).

J.G. Kanyi (Green Farming Group, Kenya),J.J. Kanjanga (Lipangwe Organic ManureDemonstration Farm, Malawi) NicholeKenton, (IIED), Mustafa Koc (RyersonUniversity, Canada) Avaz Koocheki (Collegeof Agriculture, Ferdowsi University, Iran) JonKoshey (Spices Board of India)

Mao Lamin (Zhejiang Camel TransworldOrganic Food Company Limited, CHINA),Nic Lampkin (University of Wales,Aberystwyth). Marcos Lena (Brazil) HuafenLi (Agroecology Research Institute, ChinaAgricultural University), Judy Longbottom(IIED), Emile Lutz (Planeta Verde, Brazil).

Friedel Mallinckrodt (SARD Prize), Ju s t oMantilla (Ecological and Medicinal PlantInstitute, Peru ) , P. M a r i a s e l vam ( P e o p l e ’sAgricultural Farm, Tamil Nadu, India), L a u raMartinez ( C a rd i ff University), P r o f . Pe t e rMidmore (University of Wales, Abery s t w y t h ) ,Luiz Carlos Mior ( C a rd i ff University),B. Mohan (Indian Bio Organic Te aA s s o c i a t i o n ) .


Elizabeth Nabanja-Makumbi ( M i rembe SelfHelp Organisation of Uganda), M a m s e e dyNjai (Gambia Agricultural Extension Serv i c e ) ,Gunnel A xelsson Nycander ( S w e d i s hI n t e rnational Development Agency).

S u n ny Okwudire (Regfos Gre e nCommission, Nigeria).

Suzanne Padel (University of Wales,Aberystwyth), Fernando Pia (CIESA,Argentina); Carlo Ponzio (Sultan OrganicFarm, Egypt), Kranti Prakash (RagavendraNiwas, India).

Vanaja Ramprasad (The Green Foundation,Bangalore, India), Sarath Ranaweera(Biofoods, Sri Lanka) C. Sundara Rao(Enfield Agrobase, India), Paul Richards(Wageningen Agricultural University, TheNetherlands), Esther Roycroft (HenryDoubleday Research Association) GuidoRuivenkamp (Wageningen AgriculturalUniversity, The Netherlands).Abdoulaye Sarr (Recours a la Terre, Senegal),Guillermo Scarlato (CIEDUR, Uruguay),Carsten Schuettel (Rapunzel, Germany),Albert Schwarz (Shiré Highland OrganicGrowers Organisation, Malawi), NadiaScialabba (FAO), Jata Shankar (Mana Seva,India), Vandana Shiva, Research Foundationfor Science, Technology and Ecology, India)C. Shastry, (Phalada Agro ResearchFoundations, India), Richard Soita (HopeCommunity Development Programme,Kenya), Erika Sosa (GreenAqua, Ecuador),Roland Sturm (Hess Natur-Textilien).

Laura Thornton (DfiD).

Narayana Upadhyaya (Skal, India), Fr.Gregorius Utomo, (The World Food DayFarmers' And Fishermen's Movement OfIndonesia).

Ong Kung Wai (HUMUS Consultancy andMarketing, Malaysia), Fred Wajje (WorldVision, Uganda), Stokely Webster

(Greenpeace), Anna J. Wieczorek (VrijeUniversiteit, Amsterdam), Jean Marc von derWeid (Assessorias e Servicios a Projectos emAgricultura Alternitiva, Brazil), JohnWilkinson (Brazil).

Virginia Zeneteno (Organic Chile Certifier),Anke Zimpel (University of Wales,Aberystwyth).

Particular thanks are due to Bernward Geierand Camilla Toulmin (of IFOAM and IIEDrespectively) who generously acceptedinvitations to referee this report. We areindebted to them for their insights and adviceon improving the content and presentation ofthis report. Any outstanding errors remainthe responsibility of the authors.

The authors welcome feedback andcomments on this report which can beaddressed to [email protected]

10

1 – Methodology and approach

1.1 – Context

At the dawn of the twenty-first century twocompeting agricultural models arepositioning themselves in an attempt to winloyalty, support and commitment fromfarmers, policy makers and consumers(Marsden, 2001). One, a biotechnology-ledextension of the Green Revolution, holds thepromise of feeding the world throughimproved yields, greater resistance to diseasesand greater efficiency through themanipulation of the genetic structure ofplants (Pretty, 1998). Critics argue that therisks involved in releasing GMOs into theenvironment are unknown and unpredictable(ESRC Global Environmental ChangeProgramme, 1999). Moreover, particularlyin the South, the adaptation of GMOtechnology implies a huge and unacceptabletransfer of intellectual property rights (andthus power) from farmers to seed companiesand laboratories (Shiva, 2001).

The other model, which we explore here, oforganic and agroecological farming is basedupon developing and maximising the use oflocally available natural resources tomaintain and build soil fertility and to deterpests and diseases. It is a decentralised,bottom-up approach to improvingagricultural capacity that relies upon,promotes and celebrates diversity. Critics ofthis approach claim that reliance on naturaland often traditional, production systemswill prove inadequate in the task of feedingthe world either now or in fifty years time –when world population levels are predictedto have doubled (Pinstrup-Andersen, 2000).

The ghost of Malthus appears to still hauntdebates about food security, despitew i d e s p read recognition that it is not foodp roduction per se which determines whetherthe world is fed or not (Grolink, 2000), butthe political and economic stru c t u res whichp rovide, or deny, access to ‘food entitlements’

(Sen, 1986). In this sense arguments as towhether diff e rent forms of agriculture, suchas GM, intensive or organic systems can ‘feedthe world’ are somewhat simplistic (Geier,1998). Other significant interm e d i a ry factorsinfluence access to, and distribution of, foodon the global and regional scales, and withinindividual communities (Wo o d w a rd, 1998).This said, diff e rent models of foodp roduction do play a role in shaping theseentitlements: through making use of diff e re n tmixes of labour and capital (and incre a s i n g l ynowadays, intellectual pro p e rty); of locallyp roduced and imported inputs and; diff e re n tmarket orientations.

Such differences are also reflected in theresearch structures that help inform anddevelop these different models. Conventionalagricultural research tends to belaboratory/experimental farm based, oftenaiming at producing universally applicable,context-breaking solutions (e.g. hybridseeds). Organic research, by contrast, tendsto be more diffuse, ‘farm based’,participatory and draws upon localknowledge and tradition. Significantly, it isalso focused upon ‘public goods’, resourcesand techniques that are not readilypatentable but which are, generally, freelyavailable. This may significantly contributeto explaining why organic research attractsonly a fraction of investment from privatesources compared to conventional andbiotechnological approaches.

1.2 – Aims and objectives

This report was commissioned to provide anoverview of the ‘state of the art’ of organicand agroecological farming systems in the‘South’ (see below for an explanation of thisterminology). The primary focus of thereport is on identifying systems, technologiesand methods which are proving effective inincreasing yields, eliminating (or significantlyreducing) the need for chemical inputs and(as a ‘second tier’ objective), in increasingfarmer incomes.


The aims of the report are:

• to identify specific (and recentlydeveloped) projects/systems and, throughthis, identify possibilities for developingand supporting initiatives that havehitherto been neglected or underdevelopedat both research and project level;

• (in line with the above) to seek to identifygaps in current knowledge and support;

• to provide indicators of likely futuredevelopments (both in research agendasand project development).

In meeting the first aim we provide a broadoverview of the state of development ofOrganic and Agroecological approaches(OAA) across the South, focusing oncountries where a critical mass has begun todevelop and where innovative newapproaches are being put in place. Weidentify a number of case studies where OAAis presently proving successful in meeting arange of diverse objectives: improving yields,food security, farmers’ incomes and healthstatus, and reversing established patterns of land degradation. We identify in ourrecommendations potential avenues forassisting with the development of OAA:building links with existing research andextension networks, engaging withestablished grassroots NGOs, andstrengthening effective advocacy of the needfor, and benefits of, OAA amongst policymakers, farmers and consumers.

Identifying gaps in knowledge has proven amore challenging task. The nature of OAA,rooted in specific ecological, agronomic andcultural contexts, militates against identifyingsingle key research issues that can provideuniversal solutions. For this reason we havenot singled out specific research issuesrelating to say, soil fertility or pestmanagement. Our overriding impressionfrom the literature reviews and responses toour survey is that the main priorities of those

engaged with OAA are twofold: those ofdisseminating existing knowledge throughtraining, participatory research andexperimentation, and differentiating OAAproduce through effective yet economiccertification processes.

Recent years have witnessed a surge ofinterest in and rapid development of OAAin many parts of the South. The convergenceof several sets of interests (commercial,developmental, and environmental) aroundthe OAA agenda is in itself encouraging.After years of being marginalised OAA isbecoming increasingly accepted by the‘mainstream’. The most significantmanifestation of this is the recognition bythe UN Food and Agriculture Organisation(FAO) of the role that OAA can play inpromoting ‘sustainable agriculture’. Giventhis growth of interest we anticipate asignificant expansion in both levels ofproduction and the ‘knowledge base’surrounding OAA in the very near future.This notwithstanding, there remainsignificant practical and attitudinal barriersto its further expansion.

1.3 – Scope and definitions

For the purpose of this study we havestepped aside from debates over whatconstitutes a ‘developing’ or ‘Third World’country and opted for a broad geographicaldefinition of the ‘South’: one which coversall of Africa, Asia (with the exception ofJapan), Latin America and the Caribbean.This approach gives us the scope to examinea wide range of organic and agroecologicalpractices existing in different climatic,topographic and socio-economic situations.The systems and methods that we haveexamined vary significantly from, at oneextreme, those that primarily meet householdfood requirements where surpluses arebartered or sold, to market (often export)focused production systems. These differentorientations imply quite different rationalesamongst producers and lead us into a

12

discussion of the similarities and differencesbetween organic farming and agroecology.

Legal definitions of organic produce arecodified in a number of formal standards thatdefine the regimes that producers (orp rocessors) need to work within in order toclaim organic status. Globally there are morethan 100 diff e rent organic cert i f i c a t i o nsystems in place (Van Elzakker, cited inScialabba and Aubert, 1998). Of gre a t e s ti m p o rtance are the international standard s :the EU Organic Directive Regulation (CEC,1991), the IFOAM (International Federationof Organic Agricultural Movements) BasicS t a n d a rds (IFOAM, 1999) and the guidelinesp roduced by the FAO/WHO CodexAlimentarius Commission (1999).1 By naturethese are prescriptive, defining the applications(e.g. pesticides and fertilisers) and pro c e s s e s(e.g. irradiation and genetic modification)which are and are not permitted in fooddescribed as ‘organic’. These standards arec o n c e rned primarily with consumer pro t e c t i o nand intended to provide unambiguousguarantees to consumers who are in generalp re p a red to pay premium prices for org a n i cp roduce. Detailed analysis of these standard s ,and of the diff e rences between them, serv e slittle purpose here. Of more interest are thecharacteristics, principles and workingpractices involved in organic pro d u c t i o n ,2

which we explore below.

One widely used definition of organicproduction is that provided by the UnitedStates Department of Agriculture (USDA):

‘A production system which avoids or largely

excludes the use of synthetic compounded

fertilisers, pesticides, growth regulators and

livestock feed additives. To the maximum

extent feasible, organic farming systems rely

upon crop rotations, animal manures,

legumes, green manures, off-farm organic

wastes and aspects of biological pest control

to maintain soil productivity and tilth, to

supply plant nutrients and to control insects,

weeds and other pests.’

(USDA, 1980 cited in Scialabba andAubert1998)

Table 1 (below) expands on this definition byexploring some of the key aims, principlesand management strategies employed inorganic agriculture.

Table 1: Key aims, principles and

management practices of organic farming

Aims and principles

To develop, as far as possible, closed flows of

nutrients and organic matter within the farm and

t h e re f o re promote the ecological resilience of the

f a rm unit.

Maintenance and improvement of soil fert i l i t y

• Mixed livestock and arable farming

• Use of farm compost, mulches and green manure

• Recycling and composting of vegetative matter(including ‘off - f a rm’ materials)

• Use of crop rotation, fallows and strip cro p p i n g

• Use of nitrogen-fixing plants

• Mixed cropping to maintain soil cover andmaximise nutrient availability

• Use of deep-rooting plants to recycle nutrients

• Agro f o re s t ry

• Use of contour bunds, terracing and othermechanical methods to prevent soil loss

Pest and disease control

• Crop rotations and interc ropping (both of diff e rent species and geni)

• Companion planting

• Use of resistant varieties

• Use of alleopathic / antagonistic plants

• Use of physical barriers (e.g. tree breaks or insect traps)

• Use of natural pesticides

• Use of biological controls, such as pre d a t o r s

• C o n t rol of carr i e r s

• Hand picking

Adopted from Harris et al.., (1998)and Scialabba, (1999)


Notably both the definition and the key aims,principles and management practices pro v i d e dabove make no re f e rence to social justice oreconomic viability, both of which are keyf e a t u res in determining the acceptability ofOAA to consumers and producers alike. The importance of these issues is addre s s e dlater in the paper – for the moment we (likethe authors above) confine ourselves todiscussing the agronomic aspects of OAA.

The characteristics and management principlesdiscussed above are not solely restricted too rganic farming. ‘Conventional’ farmers maywell employ some of these techniques. Forexample, livestock and/or green manures areused in many ‘conventional’ farming systemsas a means of building or maintaining soilf e rt i l i t y. However, they are increasingly beingreplaced by artificial inputs, as the logic ofspecialisation in a globalised market placefavours the development of monoculturalf a rming systems at the expense of mixed ones.

Innovations in organic farming methods(often driven by the need to meet standards)have a relevance that potentially extendsbeyond the organic sector (FAO, 1998 p.9).In Israel, for example, greenhousemanagement techniques pioneered by organicfarmers have now become widely adopted byconventional farmers (Raviv, 2000).3

Similarly, principles of community ecologydeveloped to control pests in Europeanorchards have also benefited ‘conventional’growers (Brown 1999a and b). Whileconventional producers may adopt someorganic techniques, organic farming remainsdifferentiated from conventional approachesby virtue of its exclusive reliance on naturalmethods of building soil fertility andcombating pest and diseases.

Agricultural systems that rely exclusively onnatural methods of building soil fertility andcombating pests and diseases fall into twocategories: certified organic production,which has been inspected and is verified as

‘organically produced’, and de facto organicproduction. Certified organic productionforms the basis of what is now aphenomenally rapidly growing market. This may however represent just the tip ofthe iceberg in terms of land that is managedaccording to organic precepts but is notcertified as such. Such de facto organicfarming appears to be particularly prevalentin resource-poor and/or agriculturallymarginal regions where local populationshave a limited engagement with the casheconomy. In such situations, farmers havelittle alternative but to rely upon locallyavailable natural resources to maintain soilfertility and to combat pests and diseases.In some instances sophisticated systems ofcrop rotation, soil management and pest anddisease control have evolved solely on thebasis of traditional knowledge. The first casestudy in this report, of the Chagga HomeGardens in Tanzania (see over) provides anexample of an intensive, sustainable, multi-functional organic system. Such systems areassociated with remote areas, often involvingculturally homogenous populations.Although primarily subsistence-oriented,these systems often also produce a range ofcash crops.

As in many instances there is no off i c i a lrecognition of the organic status of this land,t h e re are very few reliable estimates of theextent to which de facto o rganic farming ispractised in the South. Estimates of the extentof de facto o rganic farming vary widely. Ouri m p ression is that the amount of land in theS o u t h f a rmed on this basis exceeds, pro b a b l yby a significant factor, land that is form a l l yc e rtified as being org a n i c .4 Kotschi (2000),claims that ‘80% of re g i s t e red organic land

in the Third World has not undergone any

change in management practice’, s u g g e s t i n gthat there is a large pool of org a n i c a l l ymanaged land which is not recognised as such,that could readily be certified if marketconditions perm i t t e d .

14

De facto organic farming is an approach thatis embraced and celebrated by agroecology.This approach shares much common groundwith the ‘standards-driven’ organic model.Both promote a ‘closed system’ approach,use multiple and diverse cropping and relyon biological sources for building soil fertilityand controlling pests and diseases.Agroecology, however, is more specificallyrooted in the experience of the South

(particularly Latin America), and placesgreater emphasis in ‘acknowledging the

socio-cultural and ecological co-evolution

and inseparability of social and natural

systems’ (Norgard, 1987). Thus, agroecologycontains a more explicit social componentthan the organic approach, whose focus ismore upon verifiable technical standards.Further, agroecological research is morestrongly orientated towards the socialsciences, embodying a ‘human ecology’approach (Glaeser, 1995). Agroecologicalresearch is more culturally specific and moreexplicitly adopts a ‘farmer first’ philosophy.Agroecological systems do not howeverprovide internationally recognised standardsand therefore do not provide the sameopportunities for attracting market premia ascertified organic systems. While some tensionexists between the ‘standards driven’approach of organic production, and themore culturally relativist approach ofagroecology, practitioners and advocates ofthe two approaches share a broadly commonphilosophy and agenda, and in manyinstances work closely together.

Case study 1: the Chagga Home Gardens

(Mt. Kilimanjaro, Tanzania).

The Chagga Home Gardens provide anexcellent model of integrated and sustainableland management systems that use a minimumof external inputs. The Chagga people farmthe southern and eastern slopes of Kilimanjaro(900-1900m above sea level). Most also havelowland plots on the drier plains, within 20kmof their home gardens. These are mostly used

for staples (e.g. millet, beans and sorg h u m )and fodder. It is their home gardens that are ofp r i m a ry interest as they embody many keyelements of organic and agro e c o l o g i c a lmanagement strategy. The features of theChagga Home Gardens include:

• Capture of snowmelt water for irrigationthrough an elaborate system ofchannelling

• A diversity of cropping for cash andconsumption purposes, including bananas(15 varieties), coffee, yams, beans,medicinal plants, bees and livestock (seebelow)

• Maintaining cattle, pigs and poultry thatprovide both protein and manure.(Mammals are stall-fed with fodder fromthe trees and grasses from the plain andthe manure recycled, providing anongoing source of fertility)

• A design to maximise diversity – elaboratepatterns of vertical zoning exist –providing niches within the gardens fordifferent species and a range of sunny /cooler conditions

• The use of a wide range of woody species(Fernandes identifies and lists thefunctions of thirty nine), many of whichare multifunctional, providing fruit,fodder, fuel and medicines as well asnutrients and crop protection

• Cropping patterns designed to maximisecontinuity of yield

• Bees, used to provide honey and forpollination.

The area is one of the most denselypopulated in rural Africa with about 500people per square kilometre. Average plotsizes are small, just over 1 hectare, andsupport households with, on average, 9


family members. The system has beenmaintained in a stable form for more than100 years. Although individual crops maysometimes fail, multiple failures areunknown. Growing a range of cash crops(bananas, coffee and, in extremis, timber)also provides some protection against marketprice fluctuations. While there are someconcerns that the system is approaching itsproductivity limits within the presentmanagement regime, strategies for furtherenhancing management techniques may yetbe developed. Some believe that theprinciples of this management system couldbe successfully transferred to similar uplandareas in other parts of Africa: particularlyRwanda, Ethiopia and Kenya, although localcultural and ecological differences wouldneed to be taken into account.

( S o u rces: Fernandes (undated), Harrison (1987),Küchli (1996))

A third approach, incorporating elements ofboth the organic and agroecological models,is that of ‘sustainable agriculture’. This hasbeen a focus of activity and research withinthe ‘development’ field for at least a decade.It is focused around three core principles:those of ‘ecological soundness, social

responsibility and economical viability’

(Thrupp, 1996). Many projects andprogrammes under the rubric of sustainableagriculture explicitly aim to eliminate orreduce the use of artificial inputs, use localresources to build soil fertility and increasediversity within farming systems (forexamples of such projects see Thrupp 1996;Whiteside 1998; Pretty and Hine 2000b).However, both the organic andagroecological movements experience someunease about the looseness of definitionsembraced by sustainable agriculture. As withmany other applications of the term‘sustainability’, tensions can often arise overoperational definitions of ‘ecologicalsoundness’, ‘social responsibility’ andeconomic viability (Butler-Flora 1998).Rosset and Altieri (1997, p.283) argue that

sustainable agriculture is an extremely weakform of agroecology, which ‘fails to address

either the rapid degradation of the natural

resource base, or resolve the debt trap and

profit squeeze in which many farmers find

themselves trapped’.

Sustainable agriculture may be likened toa broad church, which attracts a diversecongregation with a range of different ‘corebeliefs’. They include those whose primaryconcerns are with ecology and ‘farmer first’approaches, but also ‘high –tech advocates

who propagate a second green revolution

with gene technology and a new generation

of agrochemicals’ (Kotschi, 2000 p.653).The attempt to include all these interestsunder a single defining banner leads tosustainable agriculture ‘lacking a clear

profile’ (ibid.) and lacking clear indicatorsor definitions of how it differs from‘unsustainable agriculture’.

These disagreements aside, org a n i c ,a g roecological and sustainable appro a c h e sto agriculture share common methodologicaland theoretical ground in their use ofp a rticipative approaches to agricultural(and rural) re s e a rch and development.This participative approach to re s e a rch anddevelopment has, in the last two decades,g rown into a significant discipline in itsown right, generating a substantial bodyof literature. (For examples of work in thisa rea see: Haverkort et al.. 1991; Alders e t

a l . . 1993, Conway 1985; van Ve l d e h u i z e n ,1997; Gündel 1998; Pretty et al.., 1999 andBainbridge et al.. 2000). With a focus on thei m p o rtance of traditional knowledge and oninnovation, experimentation and diffusion ofagricultural techniques, this body of literaturecontains much of relevance to understandinghow OAA can be better promoted, and wedraw upon it where it specifically relates too rganic / agroecological systems.

In this report we focus both on ‘whole farm’systems, and on individual techniques. Whilst

16

the first group represents exclusively organicor agroecological approaches, the lattergroup may form component parts of organic,agroecological or sustainable farmingsystems, be transferable across all threeagricultural approaches and, in many cases,also be applicable to conventional and moreintensive systems.

1.4 – Research methods

The information presented in this report hasbeen generated by a desk-based literaturereview, supplemented by a semi-structuredsurvey of organic organisations, NGOs andacademics and a selected number of face-to-face and telephone interviews. Details areprovided below of the work undertaken ineach of these three areas.

Literature reviewsThe literature relating to organic andagroecological farming is spread acrossa number of sources. At the outset three coresources of literature were identified: theorganic movement’s own publications(particularly those from IFOAM), those ofdevelopment and environment agencies,and broader academic literature. In additiona number of electronic information resourceswere visited, including remote accesscatalogues, the Web of Science and the Indexof Theses.5 Keyword searches wereundertaken on ‘organic farming’ and‘agroecology’. Between them these sourcesprovided threads into a varied and eclecticrange of fields of literature.

The role and potential of OAA in the Southis attracting interest from a range ofdisciplinary backgrounds including:agricultural, plant and soil science, rural andthird world development, rural sociology,geography and marketing. Moreover, theliterature is spread across a range of types ofsources: academic journals, tradepublications, conference proceedings andagency reports. As the study progressed webecame increasingly aware of the importance

of ‘grey literature’ in providing current andinformed commentary on developments inthe field. Many key texts were only identifiedas a result of the survey that we conducted.Many were e-mailed to us as ‘works inprogress’ or internal reports prepared asfunding bids or project evaluations and notoriginally intended for publication. Weacknowledge the invaluable contribution ofthe many individuals and agencies who tookthe trouble to assist our project in this way.Thus, in drawing together this literaturereview we have tapped into, and sought tosynthesise, a highly fragmented but rapidlygrowing knowledge base.

SurveyIn addition to the literature search a surveywas undertaken of organic organisations,development and environmental agencieswith an involvement in OAA, and informedacademics. The initial sample frame for thesurvey was compiled from the IFOAMmembership directory (IFOAM, 2000), fromwhich we selected all IFOAM members inthe South, together with those in theindustrialised world claiming to have activeinvolvement in the South. Relevantdevelopment and environmentalorganisations and academics with a knowninterest in the field were identified and addedto the list. Requests for information werealso sent out on the networks of theInternational Sociological Association RC40group and the food network of theInternational Human Development Project.Throughout the project, a ‘snowball’ effectwas generated as feedback from these initialcontacts continued to generate furthersuggestions of individuals and organisationsto contact and which continued to elicitresponses throughout, and beyond, thecontracted period of research.

Given the time constraints of this project,and the broad range of interests of theorganisations and individuals whom wewished to contact, the survey itself was


carried out on an informal, semi-structuredbasis. In preference to a questionnaireformat, which may well have limited thetypes and range of responses elicited, a letterwas written (and translated into French,Spanish and Portuguese) outlining the projectand requesting details of projects, goodpractice, policy and research issues. Morethan 400 copies were sent out throughoutDecember 2000 and January 2001 (the vastmajority by email) and more than 150responses received by the end of February.

Interviews and visits In addition to the literature review andsurvey, a limited number of visits were madeto institutions identified as having specialistknowledge or expertise relevant to this study.These are listed below. In most cases thesevisits had the dual purpose of using libraryresources and meeting with informedindividuals working at those institutes –in all cases these interviews were of aninformal nature.

• The Welsh Organics Centre, Aberystwyth(Nic Lampkin, Suzanne Padel, PeterMidmore and Anke Zimpel)

• Voluntary Services Overseas, London

• International Institute for Environmentand Development (Camilla Toulmin, JudyLongbottom and Nichole Kenton)

• The Gaia Foundation, London (LizHoskins and Sue Edwards, Institute forSustainable Development, Tigray)

• International Human DevelopmentCentre, Amsterdam

• University of Cordoba (Prof. EduardoGuzman)

• The Soil Association, Bristol (Rob Hardy)

In addition to these, a visit was made toBiofach (the World Organic Trade Fair) heldat Nürnberg, Germany in February 2001.This proved particularly fruitful, enablingcontact to be made with many producersfrom the South and with representatives fromseveral leading international organicorganisations.6 These meetings andconversations significantly helped shape thefinal structure and emphasis of the report.

18

2. The world grows organic

2.1 – Estimating the extent of global organic

production

Only in recent years has published dataregarding the extent of organic agriculturein the South become available. TheInternational Trade Centre (ITC) recentlypublished a directory on products andmarket development in the organic sector(1999) with the aim of fostering tradeopportunities, especially for developingcountries. This provides a country-by-country analysis of organic production anddemand, together with details of availableproduce and the principal trading anddevelopment organisations. It also providessome details (though sketchy in places),about the profiles of ‘non-certified’ activity.

More recently the German organicorganisation, Stiftung Ökologie & Landbau(SÖL) published a statistical digest of globalorganic production (Willer and Yussefi,2000, 2001). These figures provide the basisfor a more comparative analysis of the extentof organic production in different parts ofthe world (see tables 2.1. and 2.2, below forsummaries). A further useful data source isthe annual IFOAM members Directory(IFOAM, 2000), which lists members bycountry, thereby permitting proxy estimatesof activity rates.7

The FAO has also prepared a number ofstudies of organic systems on a global scale(FAO, 1998, 1999, 2000a; Scialabba 1999,2000; Scialabba and Aubert, 1998).8 Theyhave recently commissioned a number ofspecialist reports and are in the process ofconstructing a database of organic literature(FAO, 2001). Thus the literature providingglobal perspectives on OAA, while notextensive, is rapidly growing and is likely to be more substantial in forthcoming years.

The SÖL reports (Willer and Yussefi, 2000& 2001) provide valuable early estimates

of the extent of organic production on aglobal basis. Drawing upon the ITC report(1999) and other data sources, they identifyaround 15.8 million hectares of land aroundthe world that are managed organically.Argentina is clearly the largest certifiedorganic producer in the South with 3 millionha. (1.77% of its total agricultural land)under organic production. This accounts foralmost 19 % of total global organicallymanaged land. Other Latin Americancountries account for around 1.3% of theglobal total of organically managed land.Africa and Asia account for only fractionsof a percent (0.14% and 0.33% respectively)(Willer and Yussefi, 2001, p.28).9

Whilst these figures provide a usefulo v e rv i e w, there are evident omissions in thedata. For example, there is no data for manycountries known to be exporting org a n i cp roduce to the industrialised world. Wa l a g a(2000) identifies a number of Africancountries which are known to be export i n go rganic produce but which do not appear inthese tables. These countries include: Algeria,Benin, Burkina Faso, Comoro Islands, IvoryCoast, Madagascar, Morocco, Mozambique,Senegal and South Africa (see table 3.2). Suchd i s c repancies occur due to a number offactors. In part there is the problem of a timelag in data collection. Even in the EU, whichhas a strong data gathering capacity, it isd i fficult to collate information that is lessthan two years out of date (Foster, pers.comm.). The rapid expansion of cert i f i e do rganic production in the South and them o re limited capacity for data collectionmean that the figures provided in Tables 2.1and 2.2 are almost certainly undere s t i m a t e s .Other factors may play a key role: the costand other constraining factors of cert i f i c a t i o n(discussed in section 4. 6), means that suchdata is only likely to be collected for landw h e re much, or all, of the crop is destined fore x p o rt markets. The only likely exceptions tothis are those few countries that haveestablished their own (IFOAM accre d i t e d )


c e rtifying bodies, where certification costs arelikely to be more in line with the premia thatp roducers can expect to obtain on localm a r k e t s .1 1 O rganic production systems whichwork on a ‘trust’ basis, agroecological andtraditional ‘de facto’ o rganic systems will notbe included in these figures. Between themthese are likely to significantly outweighf o rmally certified holdings.1 2

An alternative approach to gauging levels ofOAA is through analysis of IFOAM(International Federation of OrganicAgricultural Movements) membership figures

(see Table 2.3, over). These provide a usefulproxy method for estimating levels of OAA,which cover both certified and informal,‘de facto’ approaches. Although in somecases IFOAM membership figures forindividual countries correspond with theamount of certified organic land, there aremany instances where they do not. Forexample, IFOAM has members in manycountries that are not identified as havingany certified organically managed land.Some of these countries (notably Kenya,Senegal, Venezuela, the Philippines and SouthAfrica) have a relatively high number of

Table 2.1 – Certified organic land by country (hectares)

Latin America A f r i c a A s i a

>1 Million ha. A rgentina (3M)

100,000 – 1 M ha. B r a z i l

25-100,000 ha. M e x i c o

5-25,000 ha. P a r a g u a y, Peru , Tunisia, Uganda Tu r k e y, China, JapanCosta Rica, Bolivia, G u a t e m a l a

1-5,000 ha. El Salvador, Chile, Tanzania, Egypt, Papua New Guinea10 , Nicaragua, Uru g u a y Z i m b a b w e Israel, India, Ta i w a n

<1,000 ha. Suriname, Colombia C a m e roon, Mauritius, Republic of Kore a ,M a l a w i Sri Lanka, Honk Kong,

Lebanon, Philippines

Known existence of E c u a d o r, Honduras Burkina Faso, Ghana, P a k i s t a no rganic production but Z a m b i af i g u res not available

Adapted from Willer and Yussefi, (2000 & 2001)

Table 2.2 – Certified organic land by country (% of agricultural land)

Organic land as % of

domestic agricultural total Latin America A f r i c a A s i a

> 1% A rgentina (1.77%)

0.5 – 0.99% Papua New Guinea

0 . 1 5 - 0 . 5 % Costa Rica, El Salvador, M a u r i t i u s J a p a nSurinam, Guatemala

0 . 0 2 5 - 0 . 1 4 % P a r a g u a y, Mexico, Tunisia, Egypt, Uganda Tu r k e y, Republic ofBrazil, Peru K o rea, Lebanon

< 0 . 0 2 5 % Bolivia, Nicaragua, Tanzania, Camero o n , Sri Lanka, China, IndiaChile, Uru g u a y, Zimbabwe, MalawiC o l o m b i a

Adapted from Willer and Yussefi, (2000 & 2001)

20

IFOAM members, yet there is no dataavailable for organically managed landwithin these countries. Many of theorganisations affiliated to IFOAM are quiteevidently community and/or peasant farmingorganisations who would be unlikely to haveto have much engagement with exportmarkets. Thus the IFOAM Directoryarguably provides a more realistic assessmentof levels of the existence of non-exportoriented OAA within individual countries.Differences between data contained in tables2.1 and 2, and table 2.3 offer clues as tocountries where de facto organic agriculturemay be practised on a significant scale.13

Such deductive reasoning is useful since thereare few other ways of identifying the extentand existence of de facto organic farming.Our literature review and survey bothstrongly suggest that OAA is practised moreextensively than official certification figuressuggest. Opinions vary significantly (seechapter 3) as to the extent to which de facto

organic farming is practised, although thebalance of views suggests that the amountof de facto organically managed land almostcertainly outstrips ‘certified’ organic land,probably by a considerable amount. Informaluse of OAA appears to be concentrated inspecific countries and particularly in certaintypes of area (discussed in section 2.3below). It is often a ‘hidden’ form ofagriculture, rarely the subject of interest fromgovernment extension agencies and onlysometimes the focus of development and aidprojects. It is likely to be oriented primarilytowards local and regional markets, whichfurther obscures information gathering as tothe extent to which it is practised. In viewof these factors, the development of anydefinitive global estimates of the extent of de

facto and uncertified OAA is an unlikelyprospect in the foreseeable future.

One recent report partially fills this gap byproviding estimates of the amount of landmanaged according to precepts of

Table 2.3 – IFOAM Members by Country

No. of IFOAM members Latin America A f r i c a A s i a

3 9 I n d i a

1 8 A rgentina

1 6 K e n y a C h i n a

1 0 S e n e g a l

9 Venezuela P h i l i p p i n e s

8 Chile, Mexico

7 B r a z i l Burkina Faso, Egypt Tu r k e y

5 B o l i v i a South Africa Sri Lanka

4 E c u a d o r, Peru Malaysia, Pakistan

3 Costa Rica, Guatemala, Benin, Cameroon, Indonesia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Paraguay Congo, Ghana, Malawi, T h a i l a n d

Togo, Uganda, Z i m b a b w e

2 Columbia, Uru g u a y Bangladesh, Israel, Vietnam

1 Cuba, Trinidad and Algeria, Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, Korea, To b a g o I v o ry Coast, Lebanon, Palestine,

M a d a g a s c a r, Mali, Ta i w a nNigeria, Somalia, Ta n z a n i a

Adapted from IFOAM (2000)


‘sustainable agriculture’. Pretty and Hine(2001a) undertook a major survey thatidentified 208 sustainable agriculture projectsand initiatives, involving almost 9 millionfarmers, managing almost 30 millionhectares of land on a ‘sustainable basis’. The authors estimate that this is equivalentto c. 3% of arable and permanent croplandin Asia, Africa and Asia. Some reservations,however, should be expressed over thecomprehensiveness and interpretation ofthese figures. The great majority (70%)of land that they identified as sustainablymanaged is under new ‘zero-till’ and cropcover management regimes which are notnecessarily either organic or agroecological.Moreover, as the authors point out, in mostinstances the ‘conversion’ to such methodshas occurred in the 1990s. Thus theemphasis of this data is very much on‘projects and initiatives’, with the inevitableimplication that sustainable, agroecologicaland organic systems that have beendeveloped by farmers, independently ofdevelopment agencies, extension services orNGOs are likely to remain unrecorded.

In conclusion, large and probablyunanswerable questions remain over theextent to which OAA is practised in theSouth, particularly on an informal basis.In the remainder of this section we turnour attention to identifying the main factorswhich are driving the growth of OAA,examining the role of external stimuli andthe incentives for, and constraints upon,farmers in the South adopting OAA.

2.2 – External stimuli for the development

of organic agriculture

In recent years there has been a rapid gro w t hin the interest shown by the South in thepotential of OAA. Two thirds of the re c e n tg rowth in IFOAM membership is due to newre c ruits from the South (La Prairie,1 4 cited inScialabba & Aubert, 1998). Several vectors ofthis growth can be identified, market forc e sbeing among the most important. Rapidly

g rowing demand for organic produce in theindustrialised world is opening up newmarket opportunities for producers in theSouth (FAO, 1999; ITC, 1999). In re s p o n s e ,a new breed of ‘ecological entre p re n e u r’ ise m e rging, seeking out producers able top rovide consistent supplies of org a n i cp roduce to specified quality standards. This process involves identifying or, in manyinstances, setting up producer groups whoa re willing and able to meet this demand. In so doing these entre p reneurs often becomeinvolved in areas traditionally associated withagricultural extension or developmentalwork, providing training, re s e a rch andsometimes credit facilities.

Many of the entrepreneurs involved inpromoting the growth of ‘certified’ organicproduce across the South are based in theindustrialised world. Swiss, German, Britishand Dutch companies and individuals areparticularly active in seeking sources oforganic produce. Some Southern-basedentrepreneurs and community groups arealso recognising this potential. However,state support for promoting organicproduction remains limited to a fewcountries (notably a few countries in SouthAmerica, Turkey, Tunisia, Egypt and China).

Few Southern countries have put in placemeasures to safeguard and support theirorganic farming systems (i.e. legislation andextension services). Fewer still havedeveloped the capacity to undertakecertification activities, and most work of thisnature is undertaken by Northern-basedconsultancies (see section 4.6 for a moredetailed analysis of the issues that this givesrise to).15 Increasingly, trade promotionorganisations, such as the InternationalTrade Centre (Geneva) and the Centre forthe Development of Industry (Brussels) arebecoming involved in promoting anddeveloping organic linkages between the‘First’ and the ‘Third’ worlds.

22

National and international developmentagencies are a second force that isencouraging the adoption of organicproduction in the South. Here the primaryconcerns are with enhancing food security,increasing farmers’ incomes and halting (orreversing) environmental degradation. Suchprojects often, but by no means always,focus on maximizing use of local resourcesand knowledge in order to achieve theseaims. Some projects promoted under thisagenda will be wholly organic, but themajority of such projects are neitherexplicitly, nor wholly, organic, although theymay incorporate significant elements oforganic practice within them.

The role of organic farming as a ‘developmentstrategy’ has been gaining increasing cre d i b i l i t yin recent years. In 1996 a UNCTAD re p o rthighlighted the role that organic agriculturecan play in trade, environmental impro v e m e n tand social development in the third world.Although the re p o rt expressed some misgivingsabout economic viability and technicalf e a s i b i l i t y, it concluded that:

‘Organic production has an undeniable edge

over conventional farming in terms of its

beneficial impact on the environment and

human health. Moreover, it can also

contribute to higher incomes, better food

security and creation of employment.’

(UNCTAD, 1996)

The report also commented upon the‘flawed’ basis upon which comparisons are made between conventional and organicagriculture, stating that:

‘if an internalisation of environmental and

social costs and benefits were to take place,

organic farming would appear economically

justifiable’ (ibid.).

Since then the role of organic agriculture hasbeen recognised by FAO, who in 1999included it within their sustainable

agriculture programme , recognising that:16

‘it plays an important role in developing

innovative production technologies,

providing new market opportunities for

farmers and processors, and generally

focusing attention on environmental and

social concerns. COAG (the FAO’s

Committee on Agriculture) will consider the

need for an FAO-wide, cross-sectoral

programme on organic agriculture that

would provide information and discussion

forums on production and trade, supply

advice and technical assistance, develop

standards and use pilot projects to improve

organic farming techniques.’

(Eric Kueneman,17 1999)

Since adopting organic agriculture within itsremit, the FAO has developed a mediumterm plan intended to raise the profile andsupport the development of organic farmingsystems through developing disseminationand networking vehicles, commissioningstudies, and providing effective decisionsupport tools (FAO, 2001).18 However, theFAO’s support for organic farming maintainsan element of caution. For example, inseveral publications they argue for partialconversion to offset potential loss of yields.

Other government-financed developmentagencies are also taking a keen interest inorganic systems as a tool for development.In the UK, DfID recently commissioned theHenry Doubleday Research Association(HDRA) to undertake reports into farmerdemand and potential for development oforganic farming in sub-Saharan Africa(Harris et al.. 1998) and on managementof manure in the Kenyan Highlands (Lekasiet al.., 1998). A forthcoming DfID handbookfor advisors will contain information onevaluating organic projects. A furtherpublication on the role of ‘sociallyresponsible’ business as a development toolwill include a chapter on organic production(Agroeco, 2001, van Elzakker, pers. comm.)


The German, Swiss, Swedish, Belgian andDutch government development agenciesare all sponsoring research and/or projects,which have led (or are intended to lead)to the establishment of commercially viableexport-oriented organic developmentprogrammes.19

A third driving force behind the growth ofOAA is the ‘nature conservation’ agenda.Though less significant than the previoustwo, it is still worthy of mention. Ourliterature survey highlighted a number ofexamples where nature conservationorganisations are working closely with localfarmers who live in or close to areas ofsignificant nature conservation interest (seefor example, Stein 1996; Flores-Escudero;Panuncio; Pryor; Vreeland, all 2000). Herethe aim is to maintain the integrity oflandscapes, habitats and biodiversity, and atthe same time ensure that local communitiesare able to maintain or improve theirlivelihoods. The recent Vignola Declarationand Action Plan (in Stolton et al., 2000a;2000b) marked the beginning of what mayprove to be a powerful coalition of interestsbetween the international organic and natureconservation movements (Stolton & Dudley,2000). On a commodity (rather than site-specific basis) the World Wide Fund forNature (WWF) has established a Fresh Water

and Cotton project, which specificallyaddresses the potential of organic cottonfarming practices – reflecting concern aboutthe impacts of cotton on water cycles (WWF,1999; Bärlocher, 2000).

In some respects therefore, we are witnessinga blurring between what might be regardedas developmental/environmental andcommercial approaches to promoting OAA.Many of the development and environmentagencies are adopting a market-orientedapproach in an attempt to secure bettermarket prices for organic produce. At thesame time many ecological entrepreneurs aretaking on some responsibilities of extensionworkers, and are providing training, adviceand sometimes credit facilities to theirproducer groups.

2.3 – Towards a understanding of incentives

and constraints to ‘grow organic’

All these external influences must bec o n s i d e red in the light of how OAA coincidesor conflicts with farmers’ perceptions of therisks and benefits involved in diff e rent farm i n gstrategies. In a summary of the potential ofo rganic farming in Africa, Walaga (2000)identifies a range of incentives and constraintson farmers’ adopting organic practices.We use this typology as a basis for discussionof the topic in a more global context.

Table 2.4 – Incentives and constraints to organic farming

I n c e n t i v e s C o n s t r a i n t s20

Disillusion with ‘Green Revolution’ technologies and G rowing rural populations place traditional forms of an awareness of the dangers of intensive agriculture , a g r i c u l t u re under strain and encourage moves including re s o u rce degradation. t o w a rds intensification.

The (increasing) cost of Green Revolution The high cost of certification (especially in re g a rd to technologies makes them inaccessible to the larg e local wages / incomes) undertaken by outside majority of farmers. o rg a n i s a t i o n s .21

O rganic farming draws upon (and valorises) Low literacy levels in rural areas make re c o rd -indigenous knowledge. keeping a pro b l e m .

The influence of the environmental and development Lack of trade liberalisation in some countries movements has led to organic systems being p revents development of export markets.i n t roduced to combat erosion and desert i f i c a t i o n .

G rowing awareness that international org a n i cmarkets offer premia and the opportunity for farmers to increase incomes.

F rom Walaga (2000)

24

2.3.1 – Incentives for adopting OAA

Disillusion with ‘Green Revolution’technologiesThis is most likely to affect farmers withdirect experience of participation inconventional chemical-dependent farmingsystems that have given rise to whatPaarlberg (1994) terms ‘second generationrural environmental problems’. Theseinclude:

• diminishing returns from repeatedpesticide and fertiliser applications

• deterioration of soil and water quality

• health-related problems

• declining groundwater levels

• loss of biodiversity

• increased risk of crop disease.

P a rt of the problem lies in the toxic natureof many forms of pesticides and fert i l i s e r s ,but is compounded by inadequate methods oftechnology transfer. For example, one re p o rtf rom Algeria suggests that only a smallminority of hill farmers read and followi n s t ructions that accompany purc h a s e da g rochemicals (Moali-Grine, 2000).

The problems outlined above have provedparticularly acute in relation to cotton, whichaccounts for 2.4% of global arable land but24% of the insecticide market (Bärlocher,2000). Despite the intensity of agrochemicaluse in conventional cotton projects, organicapproaches to cotton growing have beendeveloped in many parts of the world,creating environmental and economicbenefits (see case study 2, over). Another ofour case studies, of a tea estate in India, alsohighlights the health and environmentalbenefits of switching to organic production.Managers at the Ambootia Tea Estate (seecase study 5) identify reductions in

respiratory illness amongst the workforce,improvement in the quality of drinking waterand the improved stability of steep hillsidesas three key benefits flowing from theirconversion to biodynamic practices. Secondgeneration environmental problems such asthese have often coincided with declines in(or stagnation of) yields obtained fromintensive farming practices and/or decliningworld market prices. Individually, or incombination, these forces are influencingmany farmers engaged in commodity-orientated production to jump off thetreadmill of conventional agriculturalproduction and convert to more sustainablemethods.

Case study 2 – Organic cotton production in

India, Peru and Mali

Cotton is one of the most demanding ofcrops in terms of pesticide and insecticideapplications. The effect of these onwatercourses, human health and ecosystemdiversity has increasingly become a cause ofconcern (Myers and Stolton, 1999). In manyareas cotton pests are becoming increasinglyresistant to spraying, and despite increasedfrequency of pesticide applications, farmersface declining yields. One response is a shiftto organic cultivation, as shown in thesethree case studies.

The Maikaal Bio-Cotton Project, MadhyaPradesh, IndiaIn 1992 an alliance between local farmers,their local spinning mill, sales agents and anorganic consultancy set about creating anorganic cotton project. Farmers wereexperiencing severe pest problems, despiterepeated pesticide applications: whitefly haddeveloped pesticide resistance and manyfarmers were abandoning cotton productionaltogether, due to declining returns andtoxicity problems. Government researchersand extensionists were sceptical of theinitiative and suggested changing cropsrather than method of production. There


were no other certified organic projects inIndia at the time, and a feeling that theproject was attempting the impossible.

In the first year an experimental plot wasestablished at the mill’s own small farm, to act as a reference point for farmers.The following year two hundred farmersjoined the trial, applying a range of solutionsthat had been developed through a series ofmeetings between consultants and farmers.Seven years later more than one thousandfarmers, cultivating more than 15,000 acres,have joined the scheme. Organic cotton isthe main crop, accounting for around halfof this. It is grown in rotation with a widerange of food crops.

An extensive infrastructure has been createdto support the project. There is a team ofbio-agricultural extension officers located ineight extension centres, which serve betweeneight and fifteen villages each. Regularmonitoring is undertaken and practical andtheoretical training is offered to farmers. Arange of biodynamic and organic techniqueshave been developed. These include the useof trap and host crops (the latter to providehabitats for predators), compost making anduse of biodynamic preparations. The latterare prepared locally (generating more jobs),and credit for farmers and distribution isarranged. Farmers have a guaranteed marketand receive a 25% premia.

Participant evaluation seven years after theproject was initiated showed a remarkablydiverse set of achievements:

• Average cotton yields on participatingfarms are on average 20% higher thanon neighbouring conventional farms.These tend to increase with length ofparticipation in the programme.

• Yields of other rotational crops (wheat,soya and chilli) are equal to or up to 20%higher than those on conventional land.

Sugar cane yields are 30% higher. Sugarmills also pay a premia for the organiccane as it has a higher sugar content.Other products, particularly wheat, attractlocal market premia because of itssuperior taste.

• Soils have become softer and more cru m b l yand do not crack as much in the dry season.F a rmers attribute this to composting, whichleaves residual fertility in the ground fornext year’s crop. Composting also re d u c e sthe need for weeding, as it re d u c e savailability of weed seeds.

• Irrigation requirements have been reduceddue to the increased moisture-retainingcapacity of the soil.

• Pest incidence has been reduced to aminimum. Pest control management isnow one of the least important discussiontopics at meetings. Natural predators arenow very common on organic land andfarmers have learned how to monitor andencourage their development. Some havedeveloped these techniques so successfullythat they no longer need to purchasebiodynamic preparations. By contrast,conventional farmers are facing increasingpest incidence.

• Most of the farmers have been usingbiodynamic preparations on their landfor seven years and are happy with theresults.

• Labour requirements are substantiallyreduced and production costs for organiccotton are 30-40% of those forconventional production.

• Given the reduced costs, equivalent / higheryields and market premia, farmers’ marg i n sa re now significantly higher than before.

• Wider, knock-on effects have beenobserved. Farmers not involved in the

26

project have halved their pesticide use.Shops that previously sold pesticides nowalso sell products acceptable within abiodynamic system, and some merchantshave joined the project, solely sellingorganic and biodynamic inputs.

(Caldas, 2000a; Baruah, 2000)

Organic and native cotton in Peru

Two diff e rent ecological cotton-gro w i n gregimes are being established in Peru – one inthe arid coastal lowlands, the other in theAndes. They have very diff e rent characteristicsand have been developed for diff e rent reasons.

Most cotton production in Peru is in the aridcoastal plain and therefore utilises irrigation.Production has been in serious decline,influenced by changing policy, markets,patterns of land tenure and problems withpests and disease. By 1993 production haddeclined to less than a quarter of its 1963levels, and yields (per ha.) had declined by5%. Faced with these problems many coastalstrip farmers are turning to organic cottonproduction. These farmers are achievingyields 10-20% higher than the nationalaverage (although not too much should beread into these benefits as this group areconsidered to be more innovative andproductive farmers). By utilising varietiesthat produce high quality fibre (in terms ofstaple length, strength, fineness andwhiteness) they are able to generate marketpremia on quality grounds and through useof organic methods have reduced the need topurchase external inputs.

In the High Andes, traditional swidden systemsof Native Indians continue to make use ofP e ru ’s unique naturally pigmented varieties ofcotton, ensuring their survival. Growing cottonin a humid environment at high altitude posesa number of problems and these varieties area rguably best suited to such enviro n m e n t s .Low crop density and a shifting pattern ofcultivation minimise problems with pests.

Yields are relatively low, about half ofconventional systems, but cotton is ofteni n t e rmingled with other crops. The uniquepigmentation of these varieties, which come ina variety of hues (including greens, browns andpurples), offers a potential for generatingp remia prices, re g a rdless of formal org a n i cstatus (most of these systems are de facto

rather than certified organic).

( Vreeland, 1996)

Organic cotton production in Mali

Cotton is a significant cash crop in Mali,contributing 10% of GDP and 50% of exportrevenues. Mali is the largest producer of cottonin sub Saharan Africa, with more than half amillion hectares given over to its pro d u c t i o n .As in other areas this has given rise to anumber of health and ecological problems. Inresponse to these problems, Helvetas (the SwissAssociation for International Development)u n d e rtook a feasibility study and in thefollowing year initiated trial organic plotsinvolving 10 producers.

Yields in the first year were around half ofthose on the conventional plots maintainedby the same farmers. Methods of pest controlusing neem extract were experimented with,but were not entirely successful. Input costswere significantly reduced, but labour costsrose. Despite poor yields in the first year, allthe farmers involved plan to continue withthe scheme, which will be expanded toinclude 30-40 farmers in 2000.

( S o u rce Valenghi et al., 2 0 0 0 )

The inaccessibility of ‘Green Revolution’technologiesIn many countries the cost and availability ofhybrid seeds and agrochemicals has become amajor constraining factor on their use. Ones u rvey from two regions of Kenya showedthat the pro p o rtion of farmers usinga g rochemicals more than halved (from 97%to less than 40%) over the 1990s (Wa c h i r a ,2000). This decline is often a direct result of


the removal of state subsidies and others u p p o rt mechanisms such as distribution(Scoones and Toulmin, 1999, p.60). Much ofthe literature and many responses to ours u rvey suggest that in many areas (andespecially poorer marginal ones with limitedmarket access) the use of artificial inputs isdeclining from an already low base, almoste n t i rely due to economic circumstance. Harr i set al.’s study (1998) of the potential ofo rganic farming in sub-Saharan Africac o n f i rms the importance of this factor. Tw ot h i rds of farmers using organic methods saidthat they did so because they cannot aff o rdf e rtilisers, pesticides or medicines for animals.

The financial risks associated witha g rochemical use can be severe. In India thenumber of peasant farmers committingsuicide because of debt problems (and, in abitterly ironic twist, often using pesticides todo so), has become a national scandal (Shivaet al., 2000). In another instance we heardof farmers in Tigray incarcerated due toc rop failures that prevented them fro mpaying debts on chemicals and seeds(Quinones, et al.. 1997 cited in Scoones and Toulmin, 1999; Edwards, pers. comm.).Such experiences are driving many farm e r sto adopt a less intensive and often de fa c t o

o rganic approach to farming. Wi t h o u tdoubt, the largest-scale and most-studiedexample of an economically driven shift too rganic farming methods is that of Cuba(see case study 3).22,23

Case study 3 – Cuba: Towards a national

organic regime?

Cuba has often been cited as an example of the first country to attempt a nationwideconversion to organic agriculture. Theseclaims may be an exaggeration, but theCuban experience in shifting from a highlyintensive, export-oriented, plantation-basedagriculture to a lower input mixed system offarming which embodies many elements oforganic practice and meets most domestic

food needs is, nonetheless, instructive.

Cuba was driven to make such changes byc i rcumstance rather than choice. The collapseof the Soviet bloc, its main customer for sugar(at rates well above world market prices),meant it was no longer able to purc h a s eexpensive inputs or, more import a n t l y, importfood to meet domestic re q u i rements (60% ofCuban food re q u i rements were pre v i o u s l yi m p o rted). In response to this crisis Cuba hasdeveloped a number of programmes, whichtake it at least part of the way down the ro a dto being organic.

One of the key changes made in this respecthas been the development of a programme of Biological Pest Control. Cuba had threerelative advantages in this field: a strongscientific community, long-standingexperience in this field (some biological pestcontrol techniques have been in use since the1930s) and a research programme thatalready prioritised this area. As a result Cubais now without doubt established as a worldleader in this area. Solutions that have beensuccessfully developed include:

• Lixophaga diatraeae – a parasitic fly usedin nearly all sugar cane areas since the1930s to control cane borer.

• Trichogramma – a genus of parasiticwasps used to control lepidopteran pests(butterflies and moths– principally Mocislatipes) in improved cattle pasture andmore recently used in tobacco, tomato,cassava and other crop systems to controlHeilothis spp.

• Pheidole megacepheal – a species ofpredatory ant used to control the sweetpotato weevil, which has an efficacy rateof up to 99%.

• Bacillus thuringiensis – a bacteria effectiveagainst many lepidopteran pests on arange of crops including cabbage,

28

tobacco, corn, cassava, squash, tomatoesand improved grassland. It is also provingeffective against mosquito larvae thatcarry human diseases.

• Beauvaria bassiana – effective againstcoleopteran pests (beetles) such as thesweet potato and plantain weevils.

Little reliable data is available concerning thevolume of production or the efficacy of thesetreatments. Their method of production isof some interest, as they are produced inmore than 200 ‘artisanal’ production units,spread around the country and specialisingin products

required in their area. They employ amixture of graduate technicians and highschool graduates and are probably the onlyplaces in the world where ‘the sons anddaughters of local campesinos make modernbiotechnological products for local use’(Rossett and Benjamin, 1996).

This system is not without its weaknesses:quality control can be difficult to managewithin a decentralised system, and shortagesof raw materials (both natural andmanufactured) can hinder production. In thefirst few years following the US-led embargo,Cuba’s crop yields fell dramatically and therewere significant food shortages, especially forprotein. Since that time there have beenmarked differences in the success of thedifferent sections of agricultural economy.Production in the private sector (a mix ofindividual campesinos and co-operatives)recovered rapidly and now exceeds pre-crisislevels. Here, peasant farmers drew upontraditional knowledge (of their parents andgrandparents), and the agricultural ministryran agricultural workshops to help peoplerediscover (and then disseminate) thisknowledge, which has been supplemented by access to new biotechnology in a fruitfulmarriage of science and tradition.

The highly centralised state farms did notfare well in adjusting to the change toorganic agriculture, the logic of large-scaleplantations and centralised managementbeing antithetical to the principles of organicmanagement. In 1993 Cuba radicallyreorganised some state farms into smallco-operative production units, still ownedby the state and required to meet productiontargets, but managed on a decentralised basiswith surpluses free to be distributed as co-opmembers saw fit. The number of draftanimals (oxen) has more than doubled overthe past five years, reflecting the need tominimise fuel imports and providing valuablesources of fertility. In addition, family-runfood gardens (Autoconsumos) in cities havebecome an important source of food supply.

Despite these moves towards a more org a n i csystem of agriculture, the system retains adependency on artificial fertilisers and bre a k i n gup a long established mono-crop plantationeconomy is a lengthy process. Despite this65% of Cuba’s rice and nearly 50% of fre s hvegetables are now produced org a n i c a l l y.Many of the technological and managementpractices adopted here may have a bro a d e rrelevance for other regions and countries.E x p o rts of biocides and technical know-howand the publication of a Journal ‘AgriculturaO rganica’, all contribute to Cuba playing aleading role in the organic movement.

( S o u rces: Rossett and Benjamin 1994, Echevarr i aet al. 2000a & b; Institute for Food andDevelopment Policy 2000; Scialabba, 2000,K i l c h e r, pers. comm.)

Valorising indigenous knowledge The cultural importance of organicagriculture and agroecology lies in theirability to draw upon and validate local andtraditional forms and sources of knowledge(Kotschi, 2000). This point is frequentlyreinforced throughout the literature(especially that of agroecology) and is atheme that frequently occurs within our casestudies. A number of important consequences


flow from this. First, it emphasises theimportance of participatory development,where ‘learning from’ farmers is asimportant, if not more so, than ‘teaching’them. Second, it implies an end to unilateraltechnology transfer from the industrialisedNorth to the South (Kotschi, 2000). Third,it implies an engagement with the valuesystems of rural communities, which willalmost inevitably extend beyond mere issuesof agricultural productivity and embrace awhole range of other activities, strategiesand values that promote household security.Finally, it promotes and reinforces localculture and know-how and thus helps buildcommunity self-confidence and their capacityfor addressing other issues (Boshoff, 2000).

The influence of the environment anddevelopment movements The influence of Northern-baseddevelopment and environment movementshas already been discussed above (in section2.2). We should not, however, overlook therole of indigenous Southern-baseddevelopment and environmental NGOs. In

the absence of proactive government policiestowards OAA, NGOs are of criticalimportance in promoting the uptake of OAAthrough research, training, education andpolitical lobbying. Section 3 of this reportcontains numerous examples of the activitiesof such groups in Africa, Asia and LatinAmerica. Case study 4 (over) illustrates theactivities of one national group in Indonesia,which is involved in promoting organicagriculture as well as a range of other‘farmer first’ development strategies.

Indigenous NGOs have a number ofparticular strengths. First, they areestablished to address specific issues and doso from a culturally rooted context. Second,they are more inclined to have a longer-termperspective on the issues than Northern-based NGOs. Finally, by using local capacity,they are less likely to raise expectations whena project is set up or to create ‘projectdependency’ (Kanyi, Okwudire, Schwarz, allpers. comm.). However, in many cases theyare seriously under-resourced. Throughoutour survey we received many responses from

Table 2.4. The Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development Prize

2000 St. Jude Training Centre for Sustainable Integrated Agriculture (Uganda) Geo Farm (The Philippines) P rogram of Ecological Agriculture of GIRA (Interd i s c i p l i n a ry Group for Appropriate Rural Te c h n o l o g y )(Mexico)

1 9 9 9The Indian Institute for Integrated Rural Development (IIRD) (Maharashtra State, India)The Infanta Community Development Administration Inc (ICDAI) (The Philippines) The African Network for Development of Ecological Agriculture together with the Ghana Organic AgricultureNetwork (GOAN)

1 9 9 8ADASF/Gallé (Mali) CET/CLADES (Chile) Bio-Dynamic Institute for Rural Development (Brazil)

1997 Egyptian Bio-Dynamic Association (EBDA/SEKEM) The Sustainable Agriculture Programme (ASAP) in the International Institute for Rice Research (TheP h i l i p p i n e s )H a rmonie du Développement du Sahel Group (Mali)

1996 Agricultural Renewal Consortium in India for a Sustainable Environment (ARISE)The Kenya Institute of Organic Farming (KIOF)The Cuban Organic Farming Association (ACAO)

SARD (2001)

30

NGOs unable to realise their projects andprogrammes due to a lack of funding – often,by industrialised country standards, involvingvery small amounts of money.

Knowledge in the industrialised world ofNGO activity in the South can never hope to be complete, but this re p o rt has identifieda number of diff e rent and innovative pro j e c t s .One Nort h e rn initiative to help pro m o t erecognition of the achievements of SouthernNGOs working in this field (which alsop rovides them with some financial assistancein the form of prize money)is the Sustainable Agriculture and RuralDevelopment Prize (SARD). This prize,initiated in 1997 by a German agro n o m i s t ,F rederick von Mallinckrodt, is ana g roecological equivalent of the ‘RightLivelihood Aw a rds’ and helps draw attentionto the successes and achievements of SouthernNGOs (Ecology and Farming, 2001).

Case study 4 – World Food Day Farmers’ and

F i s h e r m e n ’s’ Movement (Indonesia)

This case study focuses on the activities ofone Southern NGO, to illustrate how thesupport and development of organic farmingforms part of far broader ‘farmer first’ ruraldevelopment strategies. Though organicagriculture is important it is also inextricablyinterwoven with other developmentobjectives and strategies.

The (Indonesian) World Food Day Farmers’and Fishermen’s Movement (WFDFFM)is part of an international movementcelebrating the role of, and contributionmade by, food producers across the world. It was founded in October 1990 on the firstcelebration of World Food Day, whichcoincides with the founding of the FAO.These annual celebrations continue to bea focal, festive event in the calendar, whenlocal, regional and national events are held.These festivals help farmers and fishermenexperience a sense of global solidarity.

They also act as important publicity andrecruitment opportunities.

The main aims of WFDFFM are set out in‘The Ganjurun Declaration’. They includepromoting sustainable patterns ofproduction and consumption and, throughthese, promoting ‘total sustainable humandevelopment’.

The main activities in which the WFDFFMSecretariat is involved include:

• 'Gaduhan': an initiative that helps poorfarmer groups obtain cattle, with the aimof increasing incomes and soil fertility.The WFDFFM loans cattle to farmersgroups for two breeding seasons. Theprogeny are then shared.

• Community-based seed bank: this activitybegins by helping develop farmers’awareness of the importance of theirseeds. Trial farms / plots are thenestablished with farmers’ groups toexperiment with seed and plant breeding.Results are discussed after harvest and thefavoured crops are saved in a village seedbank. The final stage is that of breedingand distributing the seeds. As well asdeveloping seed banks, this activity alsodevelops local capacity in seed breeding.

• Assistance with organic/sustainablefarming: this programme explains thedrawbacks of conventional farmingsystems and provides advice, assistanceand visits to demonstration organic farms,so farmers can learn alternative methodsfor themselves.

• Promoting ‘alternative’ marketing:through an attempt to build alternativemarketing links, based around theJapanese teikei model, adapted to localsituations.

• Advocating farmers’ rights: WFDFFM


advocate farmers rights in the face ofincreased pressure from companiesseeking to register intellectual propertyrights over commonly held and usedgenetic resources.

( S o u rce: Utomo, pers. comm.)

Premia market opportunities The incentives off e red by premia exportmarkets have been explored above, in section2.2. But there is a potential for domesticmarkets also providing incentives for farm e r sto adopt organic practices, although this islimited at present. . Incomes in mostdeveloping countries are low and the mostp ressing issue for many is that of securingaccess to food. In addition there is a lack ofa w a reness of the potential health issuess u rrounding intensive agriculture pro d u c t i o n ,a widespread perception that ‘all food iso rganic’ and poor infrastru c t u res – all ofwhich contribute to constraining the gro w t hof domestic markets. Strong internal marketsfor organic produce are beginning to emerg ein some countries, most notably Brazil,A rgentina and Egypt. . In China there is ag rowing demand for the half way house of“ g reen food”, in which only non-persistent,non-toxic and non-accumulativea g rochemicals are used in limited quantities(Li, et al.. 2000). In many other countries (seesection 3, below) there are signs of thee m e rgence of a health-conscious org a n i cmarket and of producers mobilising to meetthese demands. In general however, cert i f i e do rganic produce finds its principal outlet (andc e rtainly attracts more substantive premia) ine x p o rt markets. For farmers (especially small-scale ones), the problems of how to identifyand gain entry to these markets re p resent amajor constraint. The potential for developings t ronger home markets is illustrated in casestudy 10 on Sekem in section 4.5.

2.3.2 – Constraints on adopting OAA

The constraints that Walaga (op. cit.)identifies around conversion to organicfarming are mostly focused around problems

of entry to export-oriented markets (e.g. costof certification, low literacy levels and lackof trade liberalisation). These can representreal barriers and are dealt with in some detailin sections 4.6 and 4.7. There are a numberof other more fundamental constraints to theadoption of OAA, which we address below.24

Lack of knowledgeAlthough the importance of local knowledgeas basis for developing OAA has beendiscussed, there are many situations wheresuch knowledge either does not exist or hasbeen lost. There is a clear difference withinthe literature between those who emphasisethe value, extent and, sometimes,sophisticated level of local understandingof OAA principles and techniques, and thosewho argue that such knowledge is oftenpartial, incomplete or lacking altogether. Inthis vein, Harris et al. (1998, p.1) found that:

‘Isolated techniques are sometimes practised,

(but) there is a general lack of an integrated

approach to soil fertility and crop protection

management and under-exploitation of the

full range of techniques which would

maximise the benefits of locally-available

natural resources’.

They also reported that more than 60% of farmers claimed that it was lack ofknowledge that prevented them adoptingorganic methods, four times more than forany other single cause (ibid. p. 12). Yet, thesame group of authors (Lekasi et al. 1998) in discussing manure management in theKenyan Highlands also reported that‘farmers reveal an impressive range of ideas

for the management of solid manures’.

These apparently contradictory observationssuggest that there are a wide range ofdifferent pre-existing knowledge levels ofOAA, which are likely to be both processand culturally specific. It is certainly notpossible to generalise about either a wealthor an absence of indigenous knowledge.However, it would appear that in many

32

circumstances lack of knowledge, inadequatetraining and lack of extension facilities act asmajor constraints to the adoption of OAA.

Economic and political advocacyPolitical and economic structures andinstitutions play a significant role indetermining the choices available to farmersand their knowledge of the available options.As mentioned earlier many governments havehistorically helped subsidise and distributeagrochemicals in order to increaseagricultural productivity. Whilst suchintervention is generally declining, manygovernments still exhort their farmers tomake use of agrochemicals through mediacampaigns and the advice proffered byextension workers.

Elias (2000 p.77) quotes the example of Mr.Munae, a farmer in the Ethiopian lowlands,whose farm was used as a demonstrationplot by the local extension services. He didhis own comparative trials with organic andinorganic fertilisers and concluded thatorganic inputs were superior. They improvedthe texture and water retaining capacity ofthe soil, were locally available and avoidedindebtedness. He wanted to stop usingartificial fertilisers altogether, but theextension staff forbade him from doing so,or from telling other farmers about hisfindings, for fear that it would reduce thereceptiveness of the local community to thefertiliser package that they were promoting.Whilst this may be an unusual and extremeexample, it highlights how deeply ingrainedprofessional and institutional resistance toOAA development can be.

The purpose of this report is not to providea comparative assessment of agriculturalpolicy in the South. However, such policiesclearly impact on the support, both practicaland ‘moral’, that OAA is likely to receivefrom national and regional governments.The country profiles in section 3 providesome examples of governments who are

being supportive of (or sympathetic to)organic farming and agroecology. In areaswhere pro-OAA policies have been adoptedthey can make a substantial contribution inproviding appropriate research and extensionservices, creating an affordable regulatoryinfrastructure and promoting exportopportunities. In most instances suchgovernmental interest in OAA is driven by adesire to tap into the economic opportunitiesthat organic produce offers. The non-marketbenefits, such as natural resourceconservation and protecting the livelihoodsof resource-poor farmers, are less oftenrealised or pursued (Scialabba, 2000). Inmany more cases the attitudes of othergovernments range from the unsympatheticto the outwardly hostile. The perception ofthe superiority of agricultural‘modernisation’ remains a powerful influenceamongst many politicians, policy-makers andfield workers, and is a formidable barrier tothe more widespread adoption of policiesthat would help the spread of OAA.

The recent recognition by the FAO oforganic agriculture as a useful mechanism forpromoting sustainable agriculture may gosome way to softening attitudes towardsOAA on a global scale. On a more localisedbasis, authorities in some districts andregions where organic pilot projects havebeen established have been persuaded not o run campaigns promoting fertiliser andpesticide use, in order to avoid sendingcontradictory messages to the farmingcommunity (Edwards, pers. comm.). In othercases, district authorities who were initiallyopposed to organic projects havesubsequently adopted ‘pro’-OAA policieswhere the beneficial results of these projectshave been visible (van Elzakker and Tulip,2000). Despite these small gains, the task oflegitimising OAA – which in many circles isseen as representing a reversion to tradition –may prove to be a long and uphill struggle.

One important constraint holding back the


adoption of OAA is the shift in the re s o u rc i n gof agricultural support services that OAAappears to re q u i re. Under the present system,both re s e a rch and extension facilities can beat least partially underwritten by profits fro msales of seeds and agrochemicals. Theemphasis of OAA on developing closed cyclesand using locally available re s o u rces re s t r i c t s(though does not completely negate) thescope for selling inputs to farmers. A shift toOAA would appear to imply higher levels ofpublic funding to support re s e a rch andextension work. Yet in many cases theses e rvices are already under strain. Badejo,(1998) notes that in some parts of Nigeria theratio of extension workers to farmers is inexcess of 1:17,000. Even where these figure sa re not so unfavourable, extension workersa re often ‘poorly motivated, demoralised and

o v e r- s t retched because of lack of

i n f r a s t ructural support such as vehicles for

t r a n s p o rtation and inadequate transport

allowances’ (ibid. p. 217).

In addressing the issue of advocacy, the roleof the agrochemical industries and seedsuppliers cannot be ignored. Whilst notwishing to enter into the realms of debateregarding the ethics or business practices ofthese companies, the strength of theirinfluence on agricultural practice should notbe overlooked. They are able to send clearmessages to farmers via advertisinghoardings and the advice of salesmen andmerchants.25 At the same time they will havea clear interest in influencing governmentpolicy to create a climate that is favourableto their trading activities.

2.3.3 – Assessing incentives and constraints

according to farm type

The relative contribution of the factorsoutlined above in influencing uptake of OAAwill not be uniform but will vary accordingto the situations faced by individual farmers.Harris et al.’s (1998) study of sub-SaharanAfrica usefully identifies a range of differentscenarios likely to affect farmers’ potential

interest in adopting OAA. These hingearound combinations of two factors: the levelof farming intensity and the marketorientation of existing systems (ibid. p.7).They identify three broad types of (small-scale) farming systems according to thesecriteria:

Farmers practising unimproved traditionalfarmingThis group relies largely, if not completely,

on fallowing to maintain soil productivity.These farmers tend to be in remoter ruralareas where population pressure is low andthere is only limited engagement withmarkets. These farmers have limited accessto agrochemicals and are likely to haverelatively little motivation to innovate, atleast while their traditional systems show noadverse effects. In these situations somescope may exist for identifying andpromoting simple organic techniques,especially for enhancing soil fertility.26

Farmers engaged with markets and usinglimited amounts of agrochemicals This group is thought to be typical of the

vast majority of small-scale African farmers.Having reached the limits of productivitythrough traditional means, the farmers haveintegrated new technologies (usuallyagrochemicals) with traditional ones. Use ofagrochemicals has been quite limited, andfarmers have not normally been exposed totheir negative effects and thus have a limitedawareness of the comparative advantagesand disadvantages of organic and inorganicsystems. Many farmers within this grouphave withdrawn from (or significantlyreduced) fertiliser use as prices have risen,but at the same time lack an awareness ofhow to intensify their use of locally availableresources. There is a considerable potentialfor developing programmes to encourageorganic techniques amongst this group.

Farmers practising intensive agriculture This group relies heavily on agro c h e m i c a l s ,

34

but also employs ‘sophisticated and intensive’o rganic techniques of soil fert i l i t ymanagement. They appear re l a t i v e l yu n i n t e rested in adopting exclusively org a n i ctechniques, although they are likely to haveo b s e rved the negative side effects of intensivea g rochemical use. There is potential fordeveloping more intensive soil fert i l i t ytechniques amongst this group, although theiri n t e rest in adopting OAA may vary accord i n gto the cost of artificial fert i l i s e r. This gro u pconsider organic pest and disease contro lmethods to be ineffective and further re s e a rc hand more conclusive field trails would bere q u i red to convince them otherwise. Mores t rongly market-orientated than the otherg roups, these farmers would be more likely toadopt organic practices in response toevidence of changing consumer demands.

We find this framework a useful one, butbelieve that there is a case for including twofurther categories of farming systems,outlined below.

Traditional intensive farming systemsThese systems have often evolved inrelatively remote areas where farmers have,by virtue of necessity, developedsophisticated, complex, productive and self-sustaining agricultural systems. These areoften associated with ‘tribal’ and minoritycultures. Whilst primarily sustenance-oriented, they also often contain elementsof cash cropping. These systems can beregarded as repositories of traditionalknowledge, with a potential fortransferability. Our first case study, of theChagga Home Gardens in Tanzania, providesone such example. Other examples can befound in different parts of the developedworld including South America and Asia (seefor example: Jiménez-Osornio and Silvia delAmo; 1986; Silvia del Amo, et al. 1986;Faust, 1996 and Ross, 1996).

PlantationsAt the other end of the spectrum we findtraditional export-oriented plantations,usually producing a single commodity.Whilst the monocultural nature of thesesystems appears to run contrary to many ofthe principals of organic farming, there aremany factors that may encourage plantationowners to consider adopting OAA. Asmarket (and often export) orientedenterprises, they are more attuned to marketsignals, aware of growing demand fororganic produce in the industrialised world,and face the possibility of declining yields (orfinancial returns) from established systems ofintensive cropping. Although a shift to OAAimplies a major re-adjustment of the farmingsystem (and the introduction of more diversecropping patterns), plantations often havethe financial and professional resources toexperiment with such a transition. The casestudy of the Ambootia Tea Estate in India(over) illustrates the benefits and problemsof undertaking such a conversion.

S u m m a r y

A number of complex, interacting factorsinfluence the way in which organic andagroecological farming practices are takingroot, or becoming re-established, in theSouth. On the one hand there are farmerswho are consciously adopting organicmanagement strategies in order to gainmarket advantage or improve food security.On the other hand, there are probably manymore who are jumping off the agrochemicaltreadmill largely for economic reasons, butsometimes due to adverse health andenvironmental impacts. This latter grouprepresents a clear potential ‘organicconstituency’. However, their withdrawalfrom agrochemical use does not necessarilymean that they have the skills or knowledgebase to introduce productive OAA. Therelative size of this group and the potentialthat they have for implementing organicmanagement techniques are both relativelyunknown quantities.


Case study 5 – Ambootia Tea Estate

(Darjeeling, India)

The Ambootia Tea Estate covers 350hectares and is one of many tea gardens inthe foothills of the Himalayas. In commonwith most other estates it has faced decliningyields as a result of over-intensive farming.Depletion of soil fertility and decreasedresistance to disease were major concerns.Labour relations were also very poor, as amudslide had recently destroyed the livingquarters of many plantation workers. Facedwith these issues a new management team(with a historical association with thegarden) decided to adopt a socially andenvironmentally sustainable approach tothe estate and with some assistance havedeveloped a biodynamic management systemthat also meets fair trade requirements.

Key features of the farming system include:

• use of locally-gathered compost: making2,100 tonnes of compost per year;

• almost doubling the size of the dairy herd,providing additional milk and manure;

• use of leguminous species to providenutrients and ground cover and of localherbs for biodynamic preparations;

• extensive tree planting to provide shadeand stabilise the hilly land;

• using soil covers and contour planting toprevent run off – the harvesting of the soilcover plants provides compost material;

• promotion of ecological diversitystrengthens natural pest control leading toincreases in ladybirds which feed on majorpests, such as thrips, aphids and redspiders;

• embarking on an extensive programme ofpruning and replacing unhealthy plants –pruned areas are treated with BD barkpaste, a biological disease inhibitor.

The initial years of conversion saw a 17%drop in output, but this was offset by higherprices achieved through access to fair trademarkets. Development of a new pruningregime is beginning to bring yields back totheir former level, but it will be some timebefore this regime is established across thewhole plantation. Ambootia Teas now havebiodynamic and fair trade certification andnew product lines are being developed. Withthe additional resources two 100KWhydroelectric schemes are in preparation tohelp meet the Estate’s electricity requirementsand help stabilise landslide prone areas.

Ecologically, the shift to biodynamic methodshas significantly improved immunity todiseases, reduced problems of soil erosionand risk of landslide and increased retentionof soil moisture (in an area with veryseasonal rainfall). The social benefits havealso been substantial. A shift to using localresources has increased labour demand by35%. Milk supplies have increased,improving workers’ diets and allowing themto augment their incomes. The abandonmentof pesticide use has helped improve waterquality and reduced the prevalence ofrespiratory diseases.

( S o u rce: Maxted Frost (1997) and R. Bansaal(pers. comm.))

36

3 – Regional perspectives

This chapter builds upon the information on global organic production provided insection 2.1. It outlines levels of organicactivity on the three Southern continents and describes in more detail a range ofcurrent initiatives and projects in countrieswhere OAA appears to be attaining a criticalmass. These profiles are not comprehensiveoverviews of all the organic initiatives withinthe selected countries. Such analysis wouldrequire more detailed and in-depthinvestigation. What it does do is provide asnapshot of some of the high-profile successstories from within these countries. Much ofthis information, particularly regarding thework of NGOs, was derived from responsesto our survey and to our knowledge has notbeen bought together before.

3.1 – Africa

Africa is the poorest of the continents andthe one which has most frequently (and oftenhorrifyingly) suffered from food shortagesand famines. Increasing population pressure,diminishing soil fertility and, in many areas,irregular patterns of rainfall combine tocreate difficult circumstances for farmersattempting to meet present and projectedfood needs. The ‘Green Revolution’ has hada limited impact in Africa, and muchagricultural production is small-scale,traditional and unimproved. Some argue that the introduction of high technologyagriculture into Africa has not only failed to resolve existing problems but has actuallymade the situation worse, contributing to therapid development of new kinds of problems.These include:

‘marginalization, the raising of export

production, a falling level of self sufficiency,

and an increase in environmental problems’

(Njoroge, 1997)

Yet at the same time, there are also highlyproductive and intensively-farmed areas

producing a range of crops for internal andexternal consumption. Many countries arehighly dependent on overseas earnings fromcommodity exports and their agriculturalpolicies often reflect this. At present thereis very little certified organic productionwithin Africa. Table 3.1 (over) shows themost recent statistics for organic productionin countries for which data is available. This suggests that only ten African countriesare presently engaged in organic production, and provides details of activity in only seven.In terms of certified land, Tunisia, Uganda,Tanzania and Egypt emerge as the mainactors. Madagascar, Cameroon and Egyptfare well in terms of the number of farmsand farmers involved. It is likely that thesefigures were incomplete at the time ofpublication and, given the growth of interestin sourcing organic produce, are likely tonow be quite outdated. Table 3.2 (over),shows that the range of organic produceexported from African states (in 1999)suggest a wider engagement with organicfarming than the figures derived from Willerand Yussefi.

Exports to the industrialised world, and in particular Europe, are likely to accountfor a large proportion of certified organicproduction in Africa. Domestic markets arerelatively underdeveloped due to acombination of low incomes, a generalperception that most agricultural produce is organic, and a poor infrastructure.Exceptions to this are South Africa, whichhas a growing organic market (and importsfrom neighbouring countries) and Egypt,where Sekem have been at the forefront ofdeveloping a strong domestic demand, andmarket their produce (organic teas, cottonand phytoceuticals) to around 10,000outlets. Other attempts to develop localmarkets are being fostered in parts of WestAfrica (Anobah, 2000; Crole-Rees, 2000)and there is evidence of informal marketsdeveloping in Senegal (Anon, 1999).


Table 3.1. Organic Farming Statistics for Africa

Country (date of data) no. of farms h a . % of ag. land mean farm size (ha)

C a m e roon (1999) 3 0 3 7 1 9 0 . 0 1 2.4

Egypt (1999) 2 2 0 2 6 6 7 0 . 0 8 1 2 . 1

Madagascar (1998) 1 0 0 0 - - -

Malawi (1998) 2 8 0 0 . 0 0 2 4 0 . 0

Mauritius (1995) 3 1 7 5 0 . 1 5 58.3

South Africa (1998) 3 5 - - -

Tanzania (1998) 4 0 0 0 0 . 0 1 -

Tunisia (1999) 9 0 8 0 0 0 0 . 0 9 8 8 . 9

Uganda (1999) 7 0 0 0 5 2 5 0 0 . 0 6 0 . 7 5

Zimbabwe (1999) - 1 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 5 -

adopted from Willer and Yussefi (2000 & 2001)27

Table 3.2 – African organic agricultural products on international markets

Product / Country A L G B E N B . F. C A M C O M E G Y G H A I . C . M A D M A L M A U M O R M O Z S . A . TA N T U N U G A Z A M Z I M

Av o c a d o s # #

B a n a n a s # #

Cashew Nuts #

C o c o a # # #

C o c o n u t # #

C o ff e e # # #

C o t t o n # # # # # #

Dried Fru i t # # # # #

H e r b s # # # # # #

H o n e y # # # #

Olive oil #

Palm Oil #

P i n e a p p l e s # # # #

S e s a m e # # # #

S p i c e s # #

S u g a r # #

Te a #

Va n i l l a # #

Ve g e t a b l e s # # # # #

Abbreviations for countries: Algeria; Benin; Burkino Faso; Cameroon; Comoros; Egypt; Ghana; Ivory Coast; Madagascar; Malawi; Mauritius; Morocco;Mozambique; South Africa; Tanzania; Tunisia; Uganda; Zambia; Zimbabwe.

38

While some question marks remain over theextent of certified organic farming in Africa,there is more uncertainty over the extent towhich de facto organic agriculture ispractised. Willer and Yussefi (2000) claimthat much agricultural produce sold onconventional markets in Africa is in practiceorganic, although it is rarely certified assuch. The Ghanaian Organic AgricultureNetwork (GOAN), estimates that there arearound 250,000 families in south and eastAfrica farming around 60 million hectares on an organic basis. GOAN claim that thesefarmers produce double the average yields of conventional or traditional farmers (citedin Scialabba, 2000). Anobah (2000)estimates that over one third of West Africanagricultural produce is organically produced.

In contrast, one recent survey of farmingpractices in sub-Saharan Africa (Harris etal.., 1998) found organic farming to beextremely uncommon:

‘ We found no examples of organic farming

to standards specified in developed countries…

T h e re was little understanding of the concept

of organic farming as a holistic approach to

a g r i c u l t u re… Understanding of the inter-

relationships of component parts of the

f a rming system was also limited… However,

some farmers did appreciate such interactions

and farmers did use organic techniques to

v a rying degrees, but without perceiving this to

be organic farming.’ (i b i d . p . 2 )

The same authors also found:‘Use of agrochemicals is widespread amongst

f a rmers throughout [sub-Saharan Africa].

Amongst [those surveyed] there is little

evidence of knowledge and adoption of soil

f e rtility management and crop pro t e c t i o n

practices of a non chemical nature . ’(i b i d ., p.1)

At the same time we have come across studiesand received several responses to our surv e ywhich suggest that in many African countriesthe use of artificial inputs is relatively low.

Whilst these global perspectives cast asomewhat contradictory picture, ouri m p ression is that the low use of art i f i c i a linputs is due more to the high price of, and/ord i fficulty in obtaining, fertilizers and pesticidesrather than a result of conscious decisions toadopt organic techniques. (See for exampleH a rris et al., 1998, Scooles and To u l m i n ,1999; Wachira, 2000). In the remainder ofthis section we focus upon those countriesw h e re OAA is being more consciouslyp romoted, where it appears to be gaining a ‘critical mass’, and where successful andinnovative strategies are being developed.

Burkina Faso was the first African countryto host the biennial IFOAM InternationalScientific Conference, where the Declarationof Ouagadougou, which states that ‘organic

agriculture in developing countries is not a

luxury but a precondition for attaining food

security’, was launched (see Djigma et al..1989). Rediscovery of traditional techniques(such as Zaï – see case study 6, over) haveproved of benefit in restoring desertifiedland, improving yields and establishing foodsecurity. Their use is now spreading toneighbouring countries. There is evidence of some governmental support for organicinitiatives through the Ministry for PeasantCo-operative Action (Ouedraogo, 1989a). In addition a number of NGOs, women’sand farmers’ organizations are involved inpromoting organic, participative agricultureprimarily for environmental and foodsecurity reasons (Ouedraogo, 1989b). The Ligue des Consommateurs inOuagadougou promotes organic agricultureand defends consumers’ rights (ITC, 1999).More recently a pilot centre for technologicaltraining in organic food processing has beenset up by AVAPAS under the aegis of theIFOAM OA2002 programme.


Case study 6 – Zaï: A traditional method for

restoring degraded land

Zaï (or tassa) is a traditional agriculturalmethod used in Burkina Faso to restore aridand crusted areas of fields. The techniqueinvolves making seed holes 20-30 cm wideand deep and using the earth to make araised ‘demi-lune’ barrier on the downslopeside. Compost and/or natural phosphate isplaced in each hole and sorghum or milletseeds planted when it rains. This techniqueimproves the organic structure of the soil,helps retain moisture and, throughpromoting termite activity, increases waterfiltration into the soil. The crops are plantedrelatively densely to increase ground coverand prevent water loss throughevapotranspiration. Stones removed from thefield while digging the holes are often usedto make contour bunds to further stabilizethe soil and reduce run-off and erosion.

Estimates of the success of this techniquev a ry, but all suggest very favourable re s u l t s .Ouedraogo (1989a) estimates yield increases of 30-35% and emphasizes the resilience ofthis system especially in dry years. Otherre p o rts suggest that Zaï, combined withcontour bunding, can lead to yield incre a s e sf rom an average of 150-300 kg/ha to 440kg/ha in a dry year and 700-1000 kg in awet one. Reij (1996) estimates that thefamilies using these techniques move from anaverage cereal deficit of 644 kg p.a.(equivalent to more than a 6 months h o rtfall) to a 153 kg surplus.

The system is labour intensive and best suitedto farms with a labour surplus. Because ofthis it is also generating new opportunities forwork locally, encouraging some young men tostay in the region rather than migrate to thecities in search of work. In Burkina Fasosome 100,000 hectares of degraded land havebeen re s t o red over the past decade. Use of thetechnique has largely spread via word of

mouth, even to neighbouring countries suchas Niger, where some 5,800 hectares ofdegraded land has been re s t o red using thesame technique. Thus this simple andtraditional technique is proving of multiplebenefit in increasing yields, re s t o r i n gdegraded land and, by generatingemployment opportunities, helping slow thep rocess of rural/urban migration.

( S o u rces: Harrison 1987; Ouedraogo 1989a;Hassan 1996; Kassaogué et al.. 1996; Ouedraogo& Kaboré 1996; Wedem et al. 1996; Reij et al.1996; Pretty & Hine; 2001b)

Figure 3.1 – Illustration of Zaï or planting pit

Source: Kassaogué et al.. (1996)

Egypt has what is probably the mostdeveloped organic sector in North Africa.Initial interest in organic production wastriggered as a reaction to increasing healthproblems experienced by farmers and ruraldwellers from pesticide poisoning, and cottonyields remaining constant or declining despiteincreased use of pesticides. Aerial spraying ofcotton is now banned in Egypt and muchpest control now done through the use ofpheromones, even though systems are notwholly organic (Scialabba, 2000).

40

The NGO Sekem has been responsible formost of the early development of the organicmovement in Egypt (see case study 10). Itestablished its first biodynamic farm in thelate 1970s and has since helped build up thebiodynamic movement. It has established theEgyptian Biodynamic Association, whichoffers training and extension services forbiodynamic farmers and those consideringconversion, and an independent certificationagency: the Centre for Organic Agriculturein Egypt (COAE). More recently a secondorganic NGO, the Egyptian Centre ofOrganic Agriculture (ECOA), was establishedto promote the organic sector, providetraining and support for organic farmers,promote conferences, seminars and researchand act as a local certification and inspectionbody (El-Araby, 1999). ECOA are alsoestablishing an international presence, havingrecently run workshops and trainingseminars in Tunisia and Palestine, helpedestablish an organic project in Bosnia andtrained organic inspectors from eight otherAfrican countries (ibid.).

Egypt now has more than 200 organic andbiodynamic farms, covering more than 2500hectares. Many of these farms are ‘desert’farms, using irrigation from the Nile. Theygrow a wide variety of crops, including fruit,vegetables, cereals, spices and tea, as well asnon-food crops such as cotton and medicinalplants. While much produce is exported,primarily to Europe, there is also strongdemand within Egypt and other parts of theArab world for a number of products. Todaythe majority of Sekem’s production is aimedat domestic markets, which offers it theopportunity to add value through processingrather than exporting commodities. In theearly days Sekem’s ratio of domestic sales toexports was 1:4. It has now reversed this andonly exports 20% of its produce, relying ondomestic markets for the large majority of itssales (Abouleish, 2001).

Ghana. The Ghanaian Organic AgriculturalNetwork (GOAN) is a grouping of organicNGOs. They were joint winners of the SARDprize in 1999 and have worked actively withthe Henry Doubleday Research Association(HDRA) in developing a range ofprogrammes to support OAA. The Ghanaiangovernment provides some support services,including research, but these are inadequatelyfunded (Scialabba, 2000). The country has afavourable climate and produces a widerange of fruits and vegetables. ITC (1999)claim that there is very limited use ofchemical inputs in Ghanaian agriculture anda strong potential for developing a thrivingorganic sector. There is some demand fororganic produce in Accra. Water resourcedisputes (arising from deforestation andinappropriate farming) led to theestablishment of one organic farming project,combined with forestry, nurseries andtraining. The system brings rewards (premiafor organic cashews) and is leading from ashift from slash and burn to sedentaryagriculture (Scialabba, 2000).

Kenya has a very active organic sector, withmore IFOAM members than any otherAfrican country, the majority of these beingNGOs. There was a strong response to oursurvey from Kenyan organizations and arelative wealth of literature and case studiesregarding the development of OAA in Kenya.One of the leading organizations in Kenya isthe Kenyan Institute of Organic Farming(KIOF), founded in 1987 by Dr. Njorogye inresponse to the problems of declining yieldsfaced by small-scale but highly intensive andproductive farmers in the Kenyan highlands.KIOF’s mission is fivefold, including:training, extension, informationdissemination, external consultancy andoutreach (Stolton, 1997). Methods advocatedby KIOF include composting, double deepdigging and water harvesting. KIOF offerstraining and extension facilities and to date ithas trained over 200 farmer groups withover 5000 individual members (Ker, 1995;


International Development Research Centre,1997). Its training programmes range fromweek-long courses for interested farmersthrough to a one and a half year certificatecourse for school leavers.

KIOF was one of the first winners of theSARD prize. It has recently been involved in a re s e a rch project with the Dutch-basedconsultancy Education Training Consultantsto assess the potential and limitations ofo rganic farming in diff e rent agro e c o l o g i c a land socio-economic conditions within Kenya.Prior to this study it had been assumed thato rganic farming was most suited to ‘highpotential’ agricultural areas. The studyshowed that medium potential areas are alsov e ry suitable for organic agriculture. Thisstudy found that maize cultivation usingcompost alone fared significantly better thanthat with manure / fertilizer mixtures (Stolton,1997). Overall, organic systems were found tobe producing good yields, significantly out-p e rf o rming conventional systems in somea reas in terms of grain yields, net cash benefitsand re t u rns to labour and capital. It alsofound that women were particularly drawn to organic farming systems (Scialabba, 2000).

The Association for Better Land Husbandry(ABLH) is another NGO promoting low-costmethods of conservation-based farming. Itfocuses on developing local skills, knowledgeand social co-operation to developsustainable agricultural systems. Its approachrequires nearly no cash investments, butinstead considerable initial labour input. It particularly promotes the use of doubledug beds, incorporating compost, animal andplant manures. Members of groups workingwith ABLH find that the investment made intheir land provides a better return thantaking outside jobs: it enriches the soil andenables them to grow vegetables well into the dry season. One review (of 26 districtsinvolved with the scheme), found that 75%of households have attained all-year foodsecurity, and the proportion buying invegetables has declined from 85% to 11%.

Greater continuity of food supply has led toa noticeable improvement in children’s healthand a reduction in susceptibility to disease(Pretty and Hine, 2001b).

Kenya is also blessed with a number ofinternational research institutes with acommitment to promoting sustainableagriculture. Some of their work is havingmajor impacts in promoting organic farmingmethods within Kenya and creatinginitiatives that are being taken beyond itsborders. The International Centre for InsectPhysiology and Ecology (ICEPE)28 has donepioneering work in controlling ‘stemborer’,which causes major yield losses in subsistencecereal production throughout sub-SaharanAfrica. It has developed a push–pull systemfor controlling damage to maize andsorghum. Field margins are planted with‘trap crops’ that attract stemborer: the twomost successful species used have beenNapiergrass (Pennisetum purpureum) andSudan grass (Sorghum sudanensis). The cropsthemselves are inter-planted with molassesgrass (Desmodium uncinatum) and twolegume species: silverleaf (D. intortium) andgreenleaf (S. hermonthica).

The International Research Centre intoA g ro f o re s t ry (IRCAF) is currently doingre s e a rch and extension work on the use ofleguminous tree fallows such as S e s b a n i a

Sesban, Crotolaria Grahamiana and Te p h ro s i .

These species recycle up to 150 kg of nitro g e nper tree per annum – enough to significantlyi n c rease soil fertility and pro d u c t i v i t y. IRCAFhas also introduced a tree species ( C a l l i a n d r a

c a l o t h y r s u s ) f rom Mexico which pro v i d e sanimal fodder at a low cost, thereby incre a s i n gmilk and manure yields. Farmers who haveadopted this species on their holdings talk of a move from ‘subsistence’ to ‘sustenance’a g r i c u l t u re (Collis, 2000). Elsewhere in Kenya,the Coffee Research Council has introduced a species of naturally pest-resistant coff e e(discussed in section 4.2) which has now beenadopted by one third of small coffee gro w e r s .

42

Figure 3.2 – The push-pull method for

controlling maize stemborer

(Source: ICIPE (2001))

According to local sources (Mulagoli, pers.comm.), the emphasis of the governmentagricultural extension service is primarilyupon meeting food security needs, withexport promotion being a secondary priority.The government has a long tradition ofsupporting soil and water conservationmeasures and since the start of the 1990s has moved towards whole river-basin watercatchment strategies, utilizing participatorytechniques to engage the farmingcommunities on their own terms (Pretty andHines, 2001b). Moreover, ‘the ministry

extension service includes organic farming

messages in its training curriculum’ (ibid.).Since 1998 some government programmeshave been introduced to provide support forfarmers reverting to organic managementstrategies. This includes the development of‘farmer extension workers’ whose plots oftenserve as demonstration farms. Thus thegovernment’s position on organic agricultureis moving from one of hostility to one ofsupport (Wachira, 2000).

Senegal has an active NGO sector with moreIFOAM members than any other Africancountry, with the exception of Kenya. The1989 IFOAM conference in nearby BurkinaFaso presented an opportunity for several

Senegalese NGOs to publicize their work.Badji (1989) describes an urban rubbishcomposting project in Louga (population70,000) in the Sahel. The scheme wasdeveloped as a reaction to the decliningadequacy of traditional techniques(fallowing, straw burning and use of manure)to cope with pressure for growing morefood. Component activities of the projectinvolved collection and sieving of rubbish(93% of rubbish from samples wascompostable), experimenting withcomposting techniques and evaluating thechemical and physical properties of thecompost. Though short on qualitative data,the paper notes three main benefits:improved sanitation in the town; creationof a productive green belt, which alsoprotects against desertification; and thecreation of new jobs and market gardeningopportunities.

Since this time the US-based Rodale Institutehas become involved in promoting urbancomposting schemes in Senegal. It wasrecently awarded the ‘President’s NationalPrize’ for work with women’s groups ondeveloping composting techniques. It is alsoinvolved in regenerating agricultural areascharacterized by sandy soils. It conductsprojects with around 2000 farmers in 59groups promoting stall-fed livestock,composting systems, use of green manures,water harvesting systems and rockphosphate. Yields of millet and peanuts haveincreased dramatically by 75-195% and 75-165% respectively. Because the soils have agreater water retaining capacity, fluctuationsin yields are less pronounced between highand low rainfall years.

Thiam and Dieng (1989) provide an accountof a market gardening project in the fertile‘Niayes’ coastal strip area of Senegal, set upin response to problems of agrochemical useand declining soil fertility. The projectincludes manuring and biological pestcontrol regimes, field afforestation and


monitoring production data. At the time ofwriting, more funding had been obtained toextend the project with the aim ofdisseminating the results through theextension service. Monneveux (1989) reportson a peasant-centred developmentprogramme in which local peasants identifiedthe social, economic and environmentalpressures that they were facing andintroduced a programme of measures toaddress them. These included theintroduction of a composting/manuringscheme, a nursery and tree planting to fencefields – reducing erosion and providingprotection against livestock.

Today a number of indigenous NGOspromoting OAA are operating in Senegal.These include Recours à la Terre, which runsa 5 hectares organic demonstration gardenand experiments with organic techniquesappropriate to the marâichage. These includesoil fertility, water conservation techniquesand experimentation with species thatprovide protection against salt winds. It hasengaged in joint projects with the Institut deRecherche Agricole on the use of Sesbania

(a nitrogen fixing bush species), the bananaproducers group of Senegal and regionalproducer groups (Sarr, pers. comm.)Elsewhere the Federation des Agropasteursde Diende is engaged in experimenting withimproved composting techniques (includingthe use of fish meal) and in developing ricecultures in saline and poor farming areas(Gueye, pers. comm.). In addition Senegal isthe home of one of the regional offices ofAgroecol, a centre which gathers anddisseminates information about OAA acrossWest Africa. .

South Africa has had an organic farmingmovement for many years, although it hasgrown in ‘fits and starts’ (Geernat, pers.comm.). The leading organic organization isthe Biodynamic Agricultural Association ofSouth Africa. The government is committedto promoting intensification but has also

issued draft legislation to enable organicand biodynamic certification. Local effortsare afoot to set up a national certifying bodyto reduce costs. A few larger farmers are nowbeginning to get involved as they recognizeopportunities here, but few smaller farmersare pursuing this approach, seeingconventional intensification as the line tosuccess (ibid.). South Africa is also a marketdestination for organic produce from nearbysouthern African states, particularlyMozambique.

There are also several NGO projects ofinterest, most with an emphasis on buildingfood security. Auerbach (2000) describes apilot project in which an existing wetlandhas been used as a reservoir, yielding enoughwater to irrigate 3 hectares of previouslyrain-fed land. Combined with organicmanagement practices (composting andmulching), farm income increased from1,000 rand to 30,000 rand per year. Thispilot project is now being extended to sixty-five other sites within the same rivercatchment area.

Boshoff (2000) describes the activities of theFood Garden Foundation, which encouragespoor households to adopt trench gardeningmethods using domestic and locally-availablecompost materials. Their activities helpprovide food security, improved health andadditional income to almost 300,000 peoplein Guateng Province (one of the poorest inSouth Africa). The programme also helpsrestore soil fertility, conserve water andempowers people.

Tu n i s i a is trying to take advantage of itsp roximity to the EU market. It has developeds t a n d a rds that comply with EU ones andestablished a national commission for org a n i ca g r i c u l t u re. Budget allocations include helpwith up to 30% of investment costs tof a rmers and 70% of certification costs overthe first five years. One constraint facedwithin Tunisia is a poor supply of org a n i c

44

f e rt i l i z e r, but re s e a rch is being undertaken as how to best utilize waste from the foodp rocessing industry (Scialabba, 2000)

Uganda is highly dependent on agriculture,which accounts for 45% of GDP, andemploys 80% of the population. Coffee isa major crop, accounting for 40-70% ofexport earnings. In the past, politicalinstability over two decades hinderedagricultural modernization, and inconsequence fertilizers and pesticides are notwidely used except on tea, coffee and otherexport crops (e.g. tomatoes and salads). Ingeneral, most farms are small-scale andorganic by default. Many small farmers donot keep livestock and therefore face aproblem in building and maintaining soilfertility. The government is deeply committedto modernizing agriculture, to drawing it outof subsistence mode, eradicating poverty andincreasing capacity for agri-food processing.However, they intend doing this along aconventional high input/output model. At thesame time state support is being cut back, so responsibility for extension will fallincreasingly to the private sector. Theseelements of policy are antithetical to thedevelopment of an organic movement whichfeels it could otherwise fill the government’sobjectives of reducing poverty and hunger.The task facing the organic movement inUganda is to convince the state and farmersnot to go down this path but to focus ondeveloping natural methods of building soilfertility and controlling pests (Wajje, 2000).The Ugandan organic movement held its firstconference in January 2001 to mobilizesupport and unity across the sector. It intendsto set up a certification committee, whichaims to develop domestic capacity forstandard setting and certification.

Organic coffee, sesame and cotton arealready grown and exported (van Elzakker and Tulip, 2000). One project, run by the theLango Co-operative, has more than 12,000farmers in 266 villages involved in growing

organic cotton and sesame over more than100,000 acres. This project was initiated bya foreign development agency but hasexperienced problems through growing toofast. For example, it has had problems insecuring access to markets and providingsufficient infrastructure – both in terms ofstorage and processing capacity andextension facilities. Management of theproject has recently been taken over by BoWeevil who are trying to put the project backon a sound footing and seeking the necessaryfinances to provide the infrastructure to meetthe expectations of farmers who haveconverted to organic production. TheUgandan organic movement believes that 10-15% of Uganda’s coffee exports couldrealistically be certified as organic within 5-10 years (Wajje, 2000), but the lessons ofLango show it is not only the farmingelement that needs to be developed in orderto establish successful schemes.

There is also a strong NGO sector promotingorganic agriculture within Uganda. Luyiga(1997) identifies thirty NGOs directlyinvolved in this field. Church organizations(of a number of different denominations) areheavily represented and play an importantrole in fostering rural development. TheDepartment of Social and EconomicDevelopment (SED) is one such organization.It runs an organic demonstration farm andhas trained over 300 animateurs and almost1600 farmers in soil fertility techniques, soiland water conservation, agroforestry, pestcontrol methods and the role of livestock.Those who have been involved in the projecthave noticed increases in food productionand household nutritional status (Luyiga,1997). Other NGOs include the AnziaceniIntegrated Rural Development Project inArua, which works with school drop-outs –teaching them the principles of sustainableagriculture and environmental protection –and the Bukonzo Sustainable AgricultureDevelopment Association, which promotesorganic dairy farming in Kasese (ibid.). More


recently the Kulika Charitable Trust hasrelocated to Kampala, where it intends toprovide year-long training courses in organicmethods (Cadoret, pers. comm.).

3.2 – Asia

Asia is the world’s largest and most populouscontinent. Many areas, particularly in thesouth and south-east, are densely populatedand there is high pre s s u re on land use. ‘Gre e nRevolution’ technologies have taken root inthese countries to a far greater extent thane l s e w h e re and in consequence a shift too rganic agriculture may be more pro b l e m a t i cthan in other areas. Willer and Yu s s e f i ’sf i g u res (2001) show that Asia’s share of globalo rganic production is very small, although thisis almost certainly a gross underestimate of defacto organic production.

Table 3.3 (over) shows that Turkey has themost developed organic sector, with morethan twice as much land in organicproduction as any other Asian country.Limited as they are, these figures suggest thatin general, holding sizes are small: 5 hectaresor less in all cases except the Philippines.ITC’s report (1999) suggests that organicproduction is more widespread than the data

that SÖL has collected, although this mostlyoccurs on a very small scale.

Data on IFOAM members (see Table 2.4)roughly corresponds with these statistics.India has by far the highest representationof IFOAM members (39), followed by China(16), the Philippines (9), Turkey (7), SriLanka (6), Malaysia (5) and Pakistan (5).ANGOC’s Directory (1997) of NGOsinvolved in promoting sustainable agriculturereveals a somewhat different pattern, withother countries having a high level of NGOactivity: Thailand (with 41 identified NGOs),Cambodia (23), the Philippines (20)29,Bangladesh (14), Nepal (9) and India (8).

Although the formal organic sector in Asiais relatively undeveloped at present, thereare signs that it is a rapidly growing areaof activity. China, India, Malaysia, thePhilippines and Thailand are all workingtowards establishing national standards inorder both to facilitate export opportunitiesand to satisfy domestic demand.Organizations in China and Thailand areamong the few from the South to haveapplied for IFOAM accredited certificationstatus (IFOAM, 2001).

Table 3.3 – Organic farming statistics for Asia

Country (date of data) No. of farms h a . % of ag. land Mean farm size (ha)

China (2000) 8 5 0 8 0 . 0 0 2

Hong Kong (2000) 8 1 2 2 1 5 . 2 5

India (1999) 3 0 4 1 7 1 1 0 . 0 0 1 5 . 0

Japan (1999) 5 0 8 3 0 . 0 9

Kazakhstan (1998) 2 0

Rep. of Kore a30 ( 1 9 9 8 ) 1 , 2 3 7 9 0 2 0 . 0 4 0 . 7 3

Lebanon (1999) 1 0 0 0 . 0 3

Papua New Guinea (1995) 4 6 2 5

Philippines (1999) 9 9 5 1 0 . 6

Sri Lanka (1999) 1 7 2 5 5 0 0 . 0 2 3 . 2

Taiwan (2000) 1 2 4 0

Turkey (1997)31 7 , 5 0 0 1 8 , 0 0 0 0 . 0 5 2 . 4

adopted from Willer and Yussefi (2000 & 2001)32

46

Japan re p resents one of the largest globalmarkets for organic produce, estimated at $3billion (Masuda, 2000), much of which isi m p o rted. This re p resents an import a n tmarket opportunity for south-east Asiano rganic producers. Japan’s organic sector hasits own individual characteristics, with tenc e rtifying bodies all employing diff e re n ts t a n d a rds. It also has a tradition ofc o m m u n i t y - s u p p o rted agriculture schemescalled teikei, which provide very strong linksbetween producers and consumers(Hashimoto, 2000). Teikei systems are re p u t e dto have more than 1 million regular customers( m o re than 1% of the population), yet haveno formal certification processes, re l y i n ginstead on mutual trust. They potentiallyp rovide a model for alternative ways ofdeveloping organic markets based on closepersonal contact and mutual trust, whichavoid the need for certification processes.

As in the previous section we provide here anumber of ‘snapshots’ illustrating initiativesand developments in OAA in a selectednumber of countries. These profiles draw onpublished and ‘grey’ literature and responsesreceived to our survey.

Bangladesh has been facing a situation ofstagnant or declining yields for a number ofyears, despite increasing fertilizer application.Proshika, a local NGO, has been trying tointroduce agroecology to the country since1976. By 1988-99 around 10,000 farmershad received formal training in ecologicalagricultural practices. Proshika finds that theissues involved in promoting agroecology arecomplex. There is limited availability of fuelfor cooking, which places competing andmore urgent demands on manure and cropresidues. Proshika encourages farmers to usegreen manure crops, compost, quickcompost, rice straw and water hyacinth asalternative methods for developing soilfertility. There is also a move to afforestingfarmland to provide fodder, fuel and livingfences (Hussein, 2000).

China. The growth of organic agriculture inChina in recent years has been phenomenal.According to Chinese sources, certifiedorganic production (which was non existentin 1995) now exceeds 40,000 hectares(Organic Food Development Centre- OFDC,2001). There are now more than 100enterprizes certified as growers, processors orexporters (ibid.), producing nearly 100varieties of organic produce (OFDC,undated). There are several dedicated organicprocessing and export companies. Zhengfangand Wei (2000) estimate that around 10,000farming families in China are now involvedin organic production and that the currentexport value of the organic sector exceeds£12 million, and shows an annual growthrate of 30% (OFDC, undated).

China is in the unusual position of havingtwo separate certification systems, run bytwo different government departments.‘Organic Food’ is run by the EnvironmentalProtection Agency. The Ministry ofAgriculture runs ‘Green Food’, a scheme withtwo categories: ‘A’ which allows limitedagrochemical use (if of low toxicity andpersistence), and ‘AA’, equivalent to IFOAMbasic standards (Li, et al.. 2000). While thetwo schemes were set up separately, there areindications that the two agencies are nowworking more closely together.

The OFDC have established an eight yearcollaborative programme with the GermanDevelopment Agency (GTZ) developingnational certification and labellingprogrammes, providing extension andtraining services and building links withagricultural universities (OFDC, undated). To date, branches have been established in18 provinces and demonstration farms in 28provinces. In addition they have organizedseven national workshops on organic fooddevelopment and four training courses fororganic inspectors (OFDC, 2001). Theypublish two quarterly magazines (OrganicFood Times and Organic Fields Newsletter).


A separate organic food advisory centre wasestablished in 1999 to provide research andadvisory services.

C h i n a ’s interest in developing an org a n i csector is primarily driven by a desire toi n c rease foreign earnings. However, there isalso recognition of the environmental andp o v e rty alleviation benefits implicit inadopting OAA. To date, state-initiatedp rojects have attempted to avoid areas wheret h e re is intensive agrochemical usage, focusingupon areas where the social benefits will beg reatest and conversion less problematic.

The development of a viable organicagricultural sector is not without problems,even when the state is able to mobilizeconsiderable resources and draw upon thelegacy of a network of co-operatives withestablished chains of command and oftencommon processing and/or marketingfacilities. The costs of certification representa major problem, as do the differingrequirements of different certification bodies.Literacy levels and requirements fortranslation also raise handicaps to theeffective communication and disseminationof ideas (Zhengfang & Wei 2000). Inaddition, there is a need to strengthentechnical support. The physical remoteness of much of rural China makes it difficult formany areas to engage with export-orientedproduction (Lamin, pers. corr.). There is asignificant potential for developing thisorganic production. ITC (1989) suggests that30% of the tea from Anhui and Zhejiangprovinces could relatively easily be convertedto organic produce. One Chinese company,Chaoda Modern Agricultural Holdings Ltd,intends to promote high technologybiological farming and through this ‘become

the flagship of China’s agriculture strategy

and to rank among the 500 largest

enterprises in the world within ten years’. Itscurrent plans include trebling the amount ofland it currently has in organic productionby the end of 2002 (Chaoda Modern

Agricultural Holdings Ltd, 2000). For theChinese the allure of premia markets in thedeveloped world is clearly a major incentivefor shifting towards organic production.

I n d i a. In some respects India can be re g a rd e das one of the homes of organic agriculture .At the turn of the century Lord AlbertH o w a rd, a colonial administrator who wassent to India to help ‘modernize’ agriculturaltechniques, developed an interest intraditional Indian agriculture. He re t u rned toBritain a convert to natural farming practices,going on to become one of the founders ofthe Soil Association (Research Foundation for Science Technology and Ecology andNavdanya, 2000). Equally the concepts ofo rganic agriculture resonate strongly withtraditions of Ay u rvedic medicine and theGandhian philosophy of ‘sarvodaya’, whichemphasizes self-reliance (Daniel, 2000).

At present India does not have any form a lc e rtification system in place, and pro d u c edestined for export is mostly certified bye x t e rnal agencies.3 3 Initial discussions havetaken place between the government andp roducers, processors and exporters, but theestablishment of a fully-fledged org a n i cagency is expected to take several more years(Sathayanarayana, 2000, Wai, pers. comm.).For the time being the Indian government hasplaced responsibility for developing theo rganic sector with the Agricultural andP rocessed Foods Export DevelopmentAuthority (Mohan, pers. corr.), a decisionwhich speaks volumes about how theg o v e rnment perceives the role of org a n i cf a rming in India. Other export - f o c u s e dagencies, such as Indian Spice Board and theTea Board of India, are already supportive ofo rganic farming – having recognized itse a rning potential. Some specialist groups haverecently emerged, such as the Indian Bio Te aO rganization and the Peermade DevelopmentS o c i e t y, an organic spice farmers consort i u mbased in Kerala (George, 2000).

48

India has a number of high profile, largescale organic production facilities andnetworks. This report profiles two Indiancase studies – the Ambootia Tea Estate andthe Makaii bio fibre project. Othersignificant projects include:

• The Dooars Tea Plantation in Bengal,producing half a million kilograms of teap.a. (Mohan, pers. corr.);

• The Peermade Development Society,whose membership has risen from lessthan 200 to more than 1000 between1997 and 1998 (George, 2000), and;

• Enfield Agrobase, a private company inTamil Nadu, with 175 acres of organicfarms. At present this group of farmsgrows cashews, mango, coconut,sugarcane, groundnut, sesame and paddyrice and maintains a herd of fifty cattle formilk and manure. The farms haveestablished facilities for processing jaggeryfrom sugarcane, for processing coconut oiland shelling and grading coconuts. Theyintend to expand to 500 acres in the nextyear and to establish facilities forprocessing cashews. All of their produce ispresently aimed at domestic markets asthey feel that they are too small tocompete on international markets (Rao,pers. comm.).

Such examples represent only the mostvisible facet of organic production withinIndia, and are almost certainly only the tip of the iceberg. Despite official support forthe ‘Green Revolution’, traditional farmershave maintained a resistance to adoptingsuch techniques. In such a vast and variedcountry it is difficult to estimate the extent ofde facto organic production, especially assuch forms of agriculture have been neglectedby development and extension services. Someresponses to our survey suggest that de factoorganic farming is extremely widespread.One survey respondent estimated that 40%

of farmers (i.e. 5 million) in his part of Biharfarm organically, a practice assisted by theannual flooding of the river (the Nepli),bringing tons of topsoil from the Himalayasand providing a convenient, if notsustainable, source of fertility (Prakash, pers.comm.). Venkatesh (in Institute forIntegrated Development, 2001), estimatesthan only in one in five dryland farmers inIndia use chemical inputs, the great majorityrelying upon manure and green compost formaintaining soil fertility.

Notably India has almost twice as manyIFOAM members as any other developingc o u n t ry, and a large majority of these areNGO advocates of OAA, working to developtechnical, advisory and logistical support forI n d i a ’s farming community. The Institute forIntegrated Rural Development in India is oneof the main NGOs involved in pro m o t i n gOAA. It provides training and extensions e rvices, runs a three year diploma course ino rganic agriculture, and has been involved insetting up local organic food markets. InJ a n u a ry 2001 it promoted the first all-IndiaO rganic conference (ibid.). The Researc hFoundation for Science, Technology andEcology adopts a more overt lobbying ro l eand has published a series of publicationsquestioning the wisdom and sustainability ofchemical-dependent farming practices (Shivaet al. 2000, Shiva, 2001).3 4 It also pro m o t e so rganic practices, particularly the maintenanceof biodiversity through seed exchangenetworks (Shiva et al. 1995). We re c e i v e dre p o rts about a recently published all-Indiand i re c t o ry of NGOs engaged in sustainablea g r i c u l t u re, but were unable to locate this.

Some local commentators (Mohan, pers.corr., Faisal, pers. corr.) criticized the lack ofresources made available to conduct scientificresearch into technical aspects of organicfarming. Whilst not doubting that this is anunder-resourced area we did nonetheless findevidence of some significant researchcapacity and interest in this area through


independent institutions and the academiccommunity. The Central Arid Zone ResearchInstitute (CAZRI) in Rajasthan hasundertaken work in encouraging thedevelopment of organically grown medicallybeneficial plants (Sharma, 1998) and inintegrated resource management forsustained crop production (Gupta andAgarwal, 1992). The Central ResearchInstitute for Dryland Management in AndhraPradesh has also undertaken research ongreen manuring (Reddy et al.. 1991). Guptaand Patel (1992a & b, 1993a & b, 1994,1995, 1996, all cited in Stoll 2000), havewritten extensively about farmer innovationsin Gujarat State. A Bangalore-based NGO(Agriculture, Man and Ecology) is centrallyinvolved in IFOAM’s global researchprogramme in the sustainability of differentfarming systems in different parts of theworld (Chinnakonda and Lanting, 2000). Arecent Tamil language publication(Srinavasan et al. 2001) argues the case foreco-farming and provides detailed examplesof crop and pest management.

There is some evidence of a growingdomestic demand for organic produce (Baksi,2001). Most trade in organic produce is doneon the basis of ‘self- certification’ and mutualtrust (Prakash, pers. comm.), although moreorganized attempts at building more visibleoutlets for organic produce are nowemerging (Daniel, 1999; Sathayanarayana,2000). With a substantial middle class thereis undoubtedly a potentially large demandfor such produce.

N e p a l is a remote and landlocked kingdom,with one of the lowest levels of per capitaGDP in the world. Significant pro p o rtions ofthe population are rural based and dependentupon agriculture for their livelihoods.A c c o rding to Sharma (2000), agriculturalp roductivity is in a state of decline.G o v e rnment response to this problem appearsv e ry mixed. On the one hand the state hasadopted plans to increase use of art i f i c i a l

f e rtilizers sixfold over the next 20 years. On the other it has recognized the adversee n v i ronmental effect of such chemicals andhas stated that it will not encourage farm e r sto use hazardous pesticides (Ghimire, pers.comm.). The desire to avoid the use ofpesticides has led to the creation of IntegratedPest Management (IPM) schools being set upin 26 districts (Sharma, 2000).

One criticism of state agricultural policy isthat it is nationally focused and does not paysufficient attention to the significant regionalvariations that exist within Nepal. Forexample, the intensity of farming variessignificantly between the upland areas, whereforestry resources can be drawn upon, andthe intensively populated and cultivatedplains, where farms have to rely more uponfarm sources for building soil fertility (ibid.)Equally these different farming systems havedifferent levels of market engagement. Inremote upland areas transport andcommunication networks are virtually non-existent and the exchange and bartering ofcommodities within and betweencommunities is the main form of exchange.Lowland areas have a stronger engagementwith markets and some non-certified organicproduce is traded, particularly to the touristand hotel sector in Kathmandu and otherpopular destinations. Only very limitedamounts of high value produce (e.g. tea,coffee and spices) is certified and tradedinternationally (ibid.).

One of the main NGOs promoting OAA isthe Ecological Services Centre, which claimsto have worked with more than 10,000farmers. The approaches that it promotesvary according to agroecological zones. Inhill regions, where significant ‘off farm’resources may be used, the emphasis is onagroforestry, homestead gardening,composting, green manuring and natural pestcontrol. In lowland regions, soil fertilitymanagement through composting and greenmanuring and natural pest control methods

50

are the main priorities. Other organizationsinvolved in promoting OAA in Nepal includethe Institute for Sustainable Agriculture, thePermaculture Group and the NepalCommunity Support Group (ibid.).

S h a rma suggests that significantly impro v e dyields have been obtained through conversionto agroecological approaches, quotingi n c reases of up to 175% in some instances.H o w e v e r, details of crop types and changes inmanagement practices are not provided.

The Philippines. The formal organic sector inthe Philippines is small. It does howeverp roduce around 20,000 tonnes per year ofo rganic coffee (Cannono, 2000) and somemuscovado sugar (Haessig Alle, pers. comm.).Some coffee and sugar is also produced underfair trade labels. Some vegetables, fruits andd a i ry produce are produced for localconsumption, although rarely certified aso rganic. The main markets are within anda round Manila (ibid.), although production isstill on a small scale, it is growing at 10-20 %per year and could be substantially acceleratedby government support (Canono, 2000).

Interest in OAA is largely driven by ‘NGOs,

eco-friendly advocates and religious

organizations’ (ibid.). Most of the research inalternative farming methods, training,extension and marketing activities is beingdone by NGOs and farmers’ organizations.Publicly-funded research institutions anduniversities remain firmly rooted in research,development and extension for conventionalagriculture and, more recently, supportingthe commercialization of GM crops (Briones,pers. comm.).

There are numerous self-help groups in thePhilippines practising OAA. They include:BIND, which is working with peasantfarmers in Negros Occidental, providingcredit facilities and training in ecological pestmanagement, lowland rice cultivation,composting and recycling. More than 500

families are involved in the projects andaround 2000 hectares have been converted to organic methods (de la Merced, 2000).MASIPAG has initiated a farmer-scientistpartnership since 1986, which works directlywith small farmers on alternative ways ofconducting research, training, education andmarketing. The British VSO program is alsoinvolved in sustainable agricultural activities(Briones, pers. comm.) The InternationalInstitute for Rural Reconstruction, set up in1960, also exists to promote OAA. Waiidentifies several exemplary Filipino NGOinitiatives, including Agtalon, AVDF andAlter Trade. Sampson et al. (2000), reporton a project in Negros, where a group offormer hacienda workers bought their estateand have converted it to a green village usingorganic agriculture.

Responses from the Philippines indicated that although there is an impressive array of NGOs actively promoting OAA, the sumtotal of their eff o rts does not make muchi m p ression in such a large and populousc o u n t ry. This is especially the case since mostfunding remains directed toward thep romotion of conventional and industrialagricultural production (Briones, pers.comm.). Assistance with setting up domesticc e rtification capacity is re g a rded as a highpriority by those in the commercial and NGOsectors (ibid. and Haessig Alle, pers. comm.).

T h a i l a n d. Organic farming in Thailande m e rged in the 1980s as a grassroots farm e rreaction to the effects of chemical-dependentf a rming (Phinthupan, 2000). It is part of ab roader agenda for developing altern a t i v ef o rms of agriculture, which includes moresustainable and equitable (i.e. fair trade)a p p roaches. The Alternative AgricultureNetwork, which has 85 member NGOs, hasc reated Organic Agriculture Cert i f i c a t i o nThailand (ACT) to establish a domesticbenchmark for organic produce. Green Netwas set up as an alternative tradingo rganization in 1994. It handles over 300


p roduct lines, including organic food,handicrafts and fair trade products. Thevolume of fair trade rice that it exports hasi n c reased from 15,000 to 225,000 tonnes perannum over the ten years leading up to 2000.It is also promoting fair trade projects withp roducers of soy beans, organic vegetablesand palm sugar (Panyakul, 2000). Org a n i cp roduction in Thailand is still re l a t i v e l ylimited. Phinthupan (2000) identifies 85c e rtified organic farmers, managing 160h e c t a res with a further 90 hectares inconversion, although the number farming on ade facto basis is certainly larger than this. TheBangkok Post recently ran an article outliningthe development of organic farming in ChiangMai Province. Assisted by the ThailandR e s e a rch Fund, the group is attempting todevelop mixed organic farming systems, localoutlets and is seeking certification. This re p o rtillustrates the difficulties as well as benefits ofchanging production methods, as manyf a rmers have become disheartened by theirinitial lack of pro g ress. Those who have stuckwith the project are beginning to enjoy thebenefits of a more productive system, saferfood for their families and premia on localmarkets (Anon, 2000a).

Elsewhere in Asia, Sri Lanka appears to havea relatively well-developed organic sector,with more than 4000 smallholders currentlyengaged in certified organic production,mostly of herbs, spices, fruits, nuts and tea(Williges and Sauerborn, 2000). There arealso several NGOs, such as Gami SevaSevana and the Nagenahiru Foundation,involved in promoting organic practices as aform of rural development strategy (Wai,pers. comm., Emmanuel, pers comm.). Thereare also signs of emerging organicmovements in Korea (Anon, 1995), Malaysia(Singh, 2000), Pakistan (Wai, 1995) andVietnam (Caldas, 2000b).

In the Middle East a number of initiatives areunderway. In Turkey, the government hasincreased its policy interventions to support

organic production and trade. Working toEU standards, it has independent certificationstatus and a dedicated research group(Scialabba, 2000). In Iran, concern aboutlevels of pesticide use (as residues areinhibiting exports) has led to a phasedwithdrawal of subsidies on their use. The government has undertaken a feasibilitystudy on global organic agriculture to test itsrelevance to Iran and established a NationalCommittee to consider the type of support tooffer peasants (ibid.) One group of producersin Iran is involved in manufacturing rosewater. Previously involved in poppy growing,they now find that organic production ismore profitable (Hardy, pers. comm.). In theLebanon, the Middle Eastern Centre forTransfer of Alternative Technology(MECTAT) is trying to encourage the growthof the organic sector. It is an active memberof IFOAM and is applying for EUdevelopment aid to help establish an organicsector (Ghougassian 2000).

3.3 – Latin America

As indicated earlier, Latin America has themost developed organic sector in the South.Table 3.4. provides more detailed inform a t i o nabout numbers of farms, land under org a n i cmanagement and average farm size.

Argentina stands apart from the other LatinAmerican countries with 3 million hectaresof land under organic management. Thismakes it the country with the second largestamount of organically managed land in theworld after Australia (Willer and Yussefi,2001). Other countries in Latin America withsubstantial amounts of organically managedland include Brazil and Mexico, both ofwhich have more than 85,000 hectares.Costa Rica and Surinam both have morethan 0.25% of their agricultural land underorganic production. Notably there isrelatively little recorded certified land in theCaribbean, where there is reliable data foronly three countries.

52

Latin America exhibits great contrasts interms of the size of organic holdings,reflecting in large part the highly inequitabledistribution of land, which is a feature ofmuch of the continent. In some countries theaverage size of holdings under organicmanagement is extremely large – cocoaplantations of more than 3,800 hectares inBolivia, and average unit sizes of 3000hectares in Argentina (mostly due to thelarge size of organic ranches in the pampas).By contrast, average organic holding sizes inColombia, Mexico and Costa Rica are allunder 2.5 hectares. Farmers working onthese very different sized holdings facedisparate challenges in their agricultural andmarketing practices.

Much Latin American agricultural pro d u c t i o nis export-orientated (Berdegué & Escobier1997) and this is reflected in the org a n i csector (ITC, 1999; Willer and Yussefi, 2001).The main organic export crops include canes u g a r, cocoa, coffee, cotton, fruits, grains,

maté, dairy and meat products, honey andwool (ITC, 1999). Organic production hasdeveloped especially rapidly in Arg e n t i n a ,with a fifty-five fold increase in the pastdecade. Mexico and Brazil have also seen arapid development in their export markets.The Interamerican Development Bank (BancoInteramericano de Desarrollo), has re c o g n i z e dthe importance of the organic sector, re c e n t l ypublishing a re p o rt on the sector as part of itsGlobal Project series (Marsden et al. 2000).Though primarily export-orientated, there isg rowing domestic demand (O’Connor andSilva, 1999) and many superm a r k e t s ,especially in Argentina and Brazil, stocko rganic produce. In other areas local marketsand box schemes provide links betweenconsumer and pro d u c e r. There is curre n t l ymuch sociological interest in the mechanismsbeing employed to develop links betweenconsumers and producers (Florit 2000;Fonseca et al. 2000a; Fonseca and Te i x e r a ,2000; Guivant et al., 2000; Paula et al..,2000). For small-scale producers, especially

Table 3.4 – Organic farming statistics for Latin America

as % of mean farm

C o u n t r y no. of farms total ha. ag. land size (ha)

A rgentina (2000) 1 , 0 0 0 3 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 0 . 2 2 3 0 0 0 . 0

Bolivia (1997) 3 8 0 0 0 0 . 0 2 2 6 6 6 . 7

Brazil (1999) 1 , 2 0 0 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 0 . 0 4 8 3 . 0

Chile (1998) 2 0 0 2 , 7 0 0 0 . 0 2 1 3 . 5

Colombia (1999) 1 8 5 2 0 2 0 . 0 0 0 4 1 . 1

Costa Rica (1995) 4 , 0 0 0 9 , 0 0 0 0 . 3 2 2 . 3

Dominican Republic (1997) 1 , 0 0 0

El Salvador (1996) 4 , 9 0 0

Guatemala (-) 7 , 0 0 0

Mexico (2000) 2 7 , 2 8 2 8 5 , 7 6 7 3 . 1 3 . 1

Nicaragua (-) 1 , 4 0 0

Paraguay (1998) 1 9 , 2 1 8

P e ru (1999) 2 , 0 7 2 1 2 , 0 0 0 0 . 0 4 5 . 8

Surinam (1998) 2 5 0 0 . 2 8

Trinidad and Tobago (1999) 8 0

U ruguay (1999) 1 5 0 1 , 3 0 0 0 . 0 1 8 . 7

adopted from Willer H. and M. Yussefi. (2000 & 2001)


those in more marginal areas and oftenlacking formal certification, the challenge ofhow to successfully market ecological pro d u c eis a pressing one. Many innovative forms ofassociation and co-operation are emerging assmall-scale farmers group together to findeconomic ways of marketing their produce.

The profile of IFOAM members within LatinAmerica shows a higher pro p o rtion ofc o m m e rcially-oriented organizations than forAfrica or Asia. This is largely due to higherlevels of engagement with export markets,but also partly due to the fact that manyNGOs in Latin America involved inp romoting OAA align themselves morereadily with agroecology networks ratherthan the ‘formal’ organic movement (Barkin,pers. comm.). While there is considerabledata available on certified org a n i cp roduction, there is much less ona g roecological production which has yet to besubject to ‘comprehensive or systemic’ studies( Wilkinson, pers. comm.). Latin America hasa long-standing tradition of de facto org a n i ca g r i c u l t u re which dates back at least twomillennia through the Inca civilization andbeyond. Many native Indian peoples are nowconsciously aligning themselves to the org a n i cand agroecological movements, re c o g n i z i n gthe market opportunities and renewed self-respect that they bring.

Altieri (2001) provides some examples of therange and effectiveness of de facto organicagricultural systems being promoted byNGOs in Latin America. These initiativesnow involve almost 100,000 farmingfamilies/units and cover almost 1.5 millionhectares of land. Specific projects identifiedby Altieri include the following:

• A project in the Honduras, whichemphasized soil conservation practicessuch as drainage and contour ditches,grass barriers and rock walls, and the useof organic fertilization methods and led toa tripling or quadrupling of yields. The

1000+ families participating in the projecthave seen their production increase to alevel sufficient to meet their annual foodrequirements, and other local NGOs arenow adopting and disseminating thesetechniques. This is beginning to haveknock-on effects, enabling farmers todiversify from staple to cash cropproduction, raising wage levels by 50%for the landless and near landless andreversing a long-established trend of ruralout-migration.

• The re-establishment of traditionalpatterns of Incan agriculture, which arebeing promoted by a number of NGOs.These include the re-establishment ofraised bed systems at altitudes often up to4000m. These systems traditionallyproduced bounteous harvests in adverseclimatic conditions. Reconstruction ofterracing, canal networks and of raisedbeds requires major initial investment oflabour but contributes to significantincreases in yields and farmer incomes.

• In Cuba, the Organic AgriculturalAssociation (ACAO) has played a lead ro l ein establishing integrated farming systemsin the province of Havana. These systemsincorporate a number of key agro e c o l o g i c a lf e a t u res, including tree planting, plannedc rop rotation, polycultures and use of gre e nm a n u res. These have resulted insignificantly higher yields and, as thesystems have become established, indiminishing labour re q u i re m e n t s .

• In the highlands of Bolivia, the use ofbonemeal and phosphate rock andintercropping with nitrogen-fixing Lupinspecies (L. mutablis) have significantlycontributed to increases in potato yields.

Altieri’s work provides evidence of thetangible benefits of agroecological projectswithin Latin America, which significantlycontribute to increased yields and incomes

54

for resource-poor farmers and enhancesustainability. Despite the impressivenumbers of farmers engaged in formal OAAprojects, they represent only a tiny fractionof Latin America’s estimated 16 millionpeasant farming units (Altieri, 2000). In viewof this, there is considerable scope to‘promote the right policies and institutional

partnerships that can scale up ecologically

based agriculture so that its multi functional

impacts are spread across the rural

landscapes of Latin America’ (ibid. p.630).In the remainder of this section we outline

a range organic and agroecological initiativeswithin a sample of Latin American countries.

Argentina’s interest in organic productionbegan in the 1980s and it is now the secondlargest organic producer (in terms of landmass) in the world. The country has nowdeveloped a significant competitive edge overits rivals. It is the only country in the Southto have obtained ‘Listed Country’ status withthe EU, which greatly facilitates exportprocedures, as the certification systems ofListed Countries are regarded as equivalentto EU standards.35 It is also one of the veryfew Southern countries to have a certificationbody (Argencert) with IFOAM accreditation.

There has been significant state support indeveloping the organic sector in Argentina.The government was one of the first in theSouth to pass legislation regarding organicstandards, and national and regional levels ofgovernment provide marketing support forexport-led organic production. Recently anumber of national and regional agenciescame together with MAPO (MoviemientoArgentino para la Produccion Orgánica) toproduce a promotional CD, showcasingArgentina’s organic sector and potential(MAPO, 2001).

Hager and Balbi (2000) estimate Arg e n t i n a ’so rganic production to be currently worth $20million, 85% of which is exported. More than90% of organic land is dedicated to livestock,

mostly beef cattle, but also some sheep andd a i ry. The organic beef sector in Arg e n t i n ahas grown particularly rapidly. This is part l ydue to the existence of the fertile grazinglands of the ‘pampas’, but also attributable tof a rmers’ attitudes. Many of the farmers whohave converted to organic production inrecent years have longer-standing membershipof the Association for the Promotion ofIntensive Rotational Grazing (APPRI), set upin 1965 to develop ecological managementsystems for herds and pastureland. With along history of resisting the use of syntheticchemicals and the routine use of antibiotics,these farmers were already predisposed toadopting organic management practices( H a rr i e t - Walsh, 1998). Export markets are akey to the success of organic livestockp roduction. The Argentinean beef sector shipsup to 2000 kilos of prime beef per week toBelgium, sends an eleven tonne container toItaly every six weeks and 700 kilos of primebeef to Swiss Air on a monthly basis (ibid.).

The main organic crops in Argentina includesunflowers, olives, wheat, soya beans andf ruits (ITC, 1999). Argentina is alsodeveloping a significant capacity forp rocessing organic food. Pais (1996) identifiessome of the lines now being produced inA rgentina, often in significant quantities:

• 2 million litres of olive oil per year fromthree major processors

• daily milk sales of two and a half millionlitres through ‘La Serenisima’

• 150,000 litres of wine produced perannum by Valle Orgánico

• 200 tonnes of wheat used annually in anorganic bakery

• Organic honey production in excess of 40tonnes per annum.


The commercial development of the organicsector in Argentina is perhaps the greatsuccess story of the organic sector in theSouth. Yet there is also much interest in therole of small scale agroecological schemes asa means to promoting the livelihoods offarmers in impoverished and marginalizedregions. A system of organic orchards hasbeen established by Pro-Huerta with supportfrom the Ministry of Social Development.This is designed to improve nutritional statusof the poorest rural communities and hasbenefited 2 million people since 1996(Scialabba, 2000). In Patagonia, whichexperiences harsh climatic conditions and hasseen significant rural exodus over the pastdecade, the Centre for Investigation andTeaching on Sustainable Agriculture (CIESA)has been involved in developing small bio-intensive plots designed to maximize foodyield using minimal external resources. Theirexperiments in using double dig methods onplots of less than a hectare yield sufficientproduce to feed a family of four for sixmonths, and create a cash income of $2-3,000 from vegetable sales. Productivity onthese plots increases over time as the organicsoil content of the soil increases. CIESA iscurrently working with the provincialgovernment to extend this work and sustainrural livelihoods (Pia, 2000). Other NGOsactive in promoting OAA as a mechanism forrural development include the EnvironmentAction and Study Centre (CEAA) and EcoVer (Harriet-Walsh, 1998).

B ra z i l has a tradition in organic agriculturegoing back to 1973 and today has a larg enumber of co-operatives, smallholders andcompanies practising organic farming. Mostc e rtified produce is destined for export. Themain export commodities include fru i t s ,vegetables, wheat, tea, coffee, sugar, nuts,sesame, palm oil and essential oils. There isalso a growing internal demand (ITC, 1999).Finding ways of developing and accessingi n t e rnal markets is particularly important forsmall-scale producers who are less likely to

have the means to engage with the pro c e d u re sn e c e s s a ry to acquire formal certified status.Despite having a relatively large area off o rmally certified land and its ownc e rtification body (Instituto Biodinamica),Brazil has only recently establishedp rovisional regulations defining org a n i cp roduction methods (Fonseca, pers. comm.).3 6

As the largest country in Latin America,Brazil contains a wide variety of ecological,climatic and agricultural conditions and itmakes little sense to talk of nationalpriorities or programmes. Significant interand intra-regional variations in incomelevels, land holdings and (farmers’) access toresources mean that both market anddevelopment-led approaches to promotingOAA have relevance. This country profilefocuses on a few of many projects currentlyin place across Brazil.

The Rio Agroecology Network (RAN) wasset up in 1998 as a partnership between anumber of governmental and non-governmental organizations all working topromote agroecology. Its objectives included:strengthening the role of agriculture in theregion, promoting greater sustainability andimproving farmers’ income, increasing thesupply of organic produce, training farmersand technicians in agroecological cultivationsystems and consolidating an existingreference centre on agroecology andappropriate technology. The network hastwo main arms. One is concerned with thesocial economy, with a focus on participatorydiagnostics, market research anddissemination. The second has a moretechnological focus, developing integratedagroecological systems, participatory fieldresearch and validation of technologies,certification and the production ofagroecological inputs. After just two yearsthe project has recorded a number ofsuccesses. The number of certified organicfarmers in the region have increased fromtwenty to almost one hundred and fifty.

56

The local university has seen seven theses onagroecology completed, with eighteen morein progress. Food with the regional organiclogo is now available in several supermarketsin the city of Rio and there is a growingdemand for organic produce within the state.However, the project is a relatively short-term one (in terms of external funding), andhas experienced a number of organizationalproblems largely related to the differinginstitutional cultures of the organizationsconcerned and the issues involved inreconciling these (Fonseca et al.., 2000a).

In the north-east of Brazil, a region dominatedby large-scale sugar cane plantations, AS-PTAhave been involved in promoting the ‘Paraiba’p roject. This aims to promote the sustainableuse and conservation of natural re s o u rces andi n c rease farmers’ incomes. Over a few yearsthey have succeeded in establishingcommunity seed banks for beans and yams,the latter particularly significant as ano p p o rtunity for farmers to access ani m p o rtant market for cash crops. Thes c h e m e ’s other priorities include helping installdomestic water storage facilities for sixtyhouseholds and developing and testing newa p p roaches to livestock management anda g ro f o re s t ry techniques. Local confidence andcapacity is increasing. As with many NGOp rojects, it is small-scale in nature and lacksthe re s o u rces to expand its influence so as tomake a significant impact on rural povert y( S i d e r s k y, pers. comm.).

In the southern state of Santa Catarina, theState Extension and Research Service workswith farmers. The focus of their work is onsoil and water conservation in micro-watersheds, using contour grass barriers,contour ploughing and green manures. Somesixty different crop species, leguminous andnon-leguminous, have been experimentedwith. These are inter-cropped or plantedduring fallow periods in a wide variety ofcropping systems. The experiments have hadmajor impacts on yields, soil quality, levels

of biological activity and water-retainingcapacity. Yields of maize and soybeans haveincreased by 66%. Significant labour savingshave been achieved through a reduction inthe need to plough and weed. Reviews of this work suggest that maintaining soil coveris more important in combating erosion thanmore intensive methods such as terracing orbunding. More than 38,000 farmers havebenefited from these services since 1991(Guijt cited in Altieri, 2001).

In the hot and dry Ceara region anotherNGO, ESPLAR, has been involved in a state-wide agroecology development programmepromoting a training programme for villageleaders. This programme has resulted inadoption of a number of agroecologicalpractices across the state, including:

• Return of arboreal cotton cultivation tomixed cropping systems. Together withintegrated control of boll weevil this hasenabled restoration of abandoned cottonfields.

• Enriching grazing areas with selectedvarieties of seed, permitting a 50%increase in stocking rates.

• The introduction of herbaceous legumesfor fodder in crop mixtures and rotationsystems, and

• The use of small dams to provideirrigation for vegetable production.

(von der Weid, 1994, cited in Altieri, 2001).

Costa Rica has almost 4,000 organic farmsand with the exception of Argentina has thehighest proportion of land under organicmanagement of any country in LatinAmerica. Bananas are the main crop,although cocoa, coffee, fruits, vegetables,herbs and spices are also important.According to ITC (1999), there is a stronginterest in organic agriculture in the country.The University of San José has a research


programme on organic agriculture andseveral other research projects are beingcarried out under the auspices of NGOs.

The Costa Rican government has a historyof combating environmentally damagingagricultural development.37 This approachhas translated into active support for theorganic sector. The Ministry of Agriculturehas recently established an organicdepartment and has drafted regulations onorganic production, labelling andcertification. The organic producers’association has established a nationalprogramme and a certification agency.They are working in collaboration with thenational coffee institute to develop facilitiesfor processing organic coffee. The CostaRican Chamber of Commerce promoted anorganic trade fair between 1995 and 1997 in collaboration with GTZ, the Germandevelopment agency (Geier, 1996). TheConsortium of Coffee Co-operatives ofGuanacaste and Montes del Oro is acoalition of six coffee co-operatives in aremote rainforest area of Cost Rica providingan example of a joint organic/fair tradeinitiative. It has developed a partnership withEqual Exchange (USA) and exports over 4million pounds of coffee at guaranteed fairtrade prices to North America. The benefitsinclude additional incomes to the farmer andpreservation of the surrounding rainforest.

Chubb (2000) writes of a 3000-plus hectarecitrus estate, owned by the CommonwealthDevelopment Corporation (a UKgovernment-owned corporation) in the northof the country that recently converted morethan 500 hectares to organic production. The estate already contained many fingers offorest (following the lines of watercourses),breaking up the plantations and allowing afree flow of flora and fauna (includingnatural predators) into the citrus groves. A history of regular application of fertilizerand herbicide had acidified the soil, whichrequired routine applications of limestone.

Soil organic content had decreased from 5%to 2% and the lack of ground cover createdthe potential for soil erosion. Strategies forreplenishing the soil included addition ofchicken manure (available only in limitedquantities) and developing composts usingcitrus residues from the processing plant.One of the main issues that faces themanagement is the question of how to re-establish ground cover without creatingcompetition for available nutrients. Locallyoccurring grasses have been sown in anattempt to provide ground cover and the siteis being monitored for the effects on localinsect populations. The attempt to converta perennial monoculture system to organicproduction is not straightforward and thereis a need to exchange information andresearch findings from similar enterprizes.

The Dominican Republic has been involvedin organic agriculture since 1982. It is animportant producer of organic coffee,bananas and sugar. Organic bananaproduction first began here in 1989 and nowinvolves 2,500 small farmers (see case study7, below). A co-operative of 12,000 familieshas converted half of its sugar production toorganic methods. It is estimated that around20% of the Republic’s fruit and vegetableexports are now organically produced andthe premia generated are making a majorimpact in alleviating poverty in rural areas(Holderness et al. 2000).

Involvement in these new markets has led to the development of producer co-operatives, whose work extends beyondagricultural issues and covers ruraldevelopment in a broader sense. ITC (1999)identifies nine groups involved in producingand/or marketing organic produce, most ofwhom have a broader rural developmentrole. GRAN has about 1000 farmers spreadacross 12 villages. It supports organic andbiodynamic agriculture and provides credit,technical and marketing assistance andcertification services. Conacado is another

58

producer group promoting organicagriculture, which has a membership ofaround 2000 small and medium size farmersinvolved in coffee and cocoa production.

M ex i c o has a very active organic sector, andis Latin America’s biggest supplier of org a n i cc o ffee. Russell (2000) estimates that there isc u rrently 55,000 hectares of land undero rganic management and 28,000 re g i s t e re dp roducers. 98% of organic producers aresmallholders, although there are also somel a rge fincas engaged in organic cocoa, sugarand coffee production. Organic pro d u c t i o nc u rrently generates $70 million per year ine x p o rt earnings. Joint ventures between US-based importers and small producers arecommon, especially important in pro v i d i n gspecialized inputs such as seeds, packingmaterials, agronomist advice andc e rtification (Scialabba, 2000). Mexico’sp roximity to the US and its membership ofN A F TA both contribute to its ability to tapinto this important export market. TheF o rest Stewardship Council has its heado ffice in Oaxaca and has a high pro f i l ewithin the country.

The Ministry of Social Development isparticularly supportive of organic agricultureand provides assistance to several producergroups. AMEA (Assn. de AgricultoresEcológicos) was founded in 1992 to providean umbrella organization for the organicmovement. It has influenced the Ministry ofAgriculture to develop a regulatoryframework for organic agriculture. This wasestablished in 1995 and amended in 1997. Anational certification body was established ataround the same time. However, the Mexicanregulatory framework has not achievedequivalence with EU standards, so externalinspection agencies are still used for producedestined for European markets. SomeEuropean buyers and certifiers have now setup regional offices in Mexico, includingNaturland, the world’s largest coffee certifier.

The organic sector in Mexico is thought tohave a good potential for growth (ITC, 1999).T h e re are extreme disparities of wealth withinMexico and many farmers, especiallyindigenous peoples, face extreme poverty anda lack of re s o u rces. In many instances fairtrade schemes which offer access to credit and non-exploitative access to processing andmarketing facilities have been seen as morerelevant to the problems of the rural poor. Insome instances these may be joint fairt r a d e / o rganic initiatives. The collaborationbetween Equal Exchange and the Union ofIndigenous Communities of the IsthmusRegion (UCIRI) is one example. UCIRI werethe first group of farmers in Mexico to exportc o ffee under a fair trade label. Since thenincomes for the 3000 farmers in 53 villageshas doubled, enabling them to establish thefirst public bus service, the only publics e c o n d a ry school in the area and build acommunity health clinic. They have also builttheir own community-owned clothing factory(Equal Exchange, 2000). Other co-operatives,such as Unión de Ejidos Maravillas Te n e j a p aand Campesinos Ecológicas de la Sierr aM a d re de Chiapas (both in Chiapas) ares t ruggling to gain entry for their org a n i cp roduce in export markets (ITC, 1999).

Case study 7 – Organic and ethical banana

p r o d u c t i o n

Bananas are the fourth most important foodcrop in the world in terms of value ofproduction. They are grown both as a stapleand an export crop. More than 85% ofbananas sold on the world market comefrom Latin America and the Caribbean, atrade which generates export earnings ofmore than $4 billion for the region. Morethan 80% of bananas destined for exportcome from large plantations usingconventional farming methods and relyingheavily upon chemical fertilizers and sprays.There are environmental concerns about theeffects of intensive farming and deforestationin these areas, which are exceptionally rich in


wildlife and are often described as‘biodiversity hotspots.’ There are also socialconcerns over working conditions withinplantations and over the effect ofliberalization of global markets in exposingsmall-scale producers, especially in theCaribbean, to competition from larger scale,more cost-efficient plantations. In responseto these concerns a number of differentcertification schemes are emerging. Theseinclude organic, fair trade and‘environmentally friendly’ labels, andcombinations of these.

The Dominican Republic has been animportant innovator in organic production.Its experiences hold valuable lessons forother countries in the Caribbean consideringadopting pro-organic policies. In 1999 aworkshop on the production and marketingof organic bananas was held to review theexperiences of the Dominican Republic andassess their relevance and replicabilityelsewhere in the Caribbean. A number oftechnical and social issues were identified:

• Problems of controlling Black Sigatoka, afungal disease, which affects bananas. TheCavendish variety, one of the most widelygrown varieties, is particularly susceptibleto this disease, but can be substituted byother more resistant varieties.

• The urgent need to provide training tofarmers considering conversion. Onerecommended avenue for this is theselection of ‘leader farmers’ as focal pointsfor training and using them to disseminatethis knowledge in their communities.

• The use of producer co-ops to overcomecertification costs was recommended, aswas the development of links between theorganic and fair trade movements, toimprove market access and premia. Wherepossible the same certifiers should be usedto reduce costs.

The Windward Islands were identified as a particularly favourable area for organicbanana production. With a relative absenceof Black Sigatoka, they also have an existingbanana culture, networks of farmersassociations and young farmers who appearinterested in pursuing organic production.The removal of ‘favoured trading’ status withthe EU provides an incentive for these islandsto seek alternative markets and there is apossibility of linking organic production witheco tourism initiatives.

Elsewhere in Latin America the RainforestAlliance and Fairtrade LabellingOrganization have joined forces to create the‘Better Banana Project’ (BBP), the world’slargest eco-labelling system for bananas.Criteria for inclusion cover environmentaland social considerations. These include:

• Eliminating use of the most harmfulpesticides and encouraging overallreduction in pesticide use.

• Implementation of soil conservation,waste management and wildlife protectionplans and reforestation programmes,particularly along stream edges.

• Provision of decent wages, safetyequipment and training for workers, andof medical care, housing and educationfor the families.

To date more than 150 farms, across fourcountries (Ecuador, Panama, Colombia andCosta Rica) have joined the scheme. Betweenthem they cover 74,000 hectares. Dozensmore small farms in Honduras andGuatemala have enrolled and are in theprocess of complying with requirements. BBP production now exceeds 60 millionboxes per year, about 10% of the totalexport production in Latin America and theCaribbean. Some of the largest bananaproducers have joined the scheme. ChiquitaBrands International are committed to

60

certifying all of their plantations by the endof 2001, and Reybancorp, the second largestbanana producer in Ecuador, has also signedup to the scheme. The scheme is not onlyaimed at large plantations but also includesmany co-operatives of smaller producers.

The interplay and competition between these different labelling systems may raiseinteresting questions, as organic systems

compete with ‘environmentally friendly’ones, and both attempt to set minimumsocial criteria for inclusion within theirlabelling programmes. Consumer andcustomer recognition of these differentbrands will prove to be a particularlyimportant test.

( S o u rces FAO, 2000b & c; Holderness et al. 2000;Scialabba 2000; Wille, 2000.)


4 – Key themes

In this section we explore the main benefits of, and obstacles to, the uptake of OAA in theSouth. The first four of these themes relate tothe natural world, focusing on agriculturaland ecological aspects of OAA. First, weexamine evidence re g a rding comparativeyields from OAA and conventional systemsand discuss alternative approaches toevaluating farm perf o rmance. Second, we turnto look at what we believe to be a keydefining characteristic of OAA, the pro m o t i o nand maintenance of agro b i o d i v e r s i t y, that isbiodiversity within farming systems. We thent u rn to examine issues of promoting andmaintaining soil fertility and of natural form sof pest and disease control.

The second set of themes relates to the socialworld and examines the social, economic andpolitical benefits and challenges associatedwith the adoption of OAA. In the firstinstance, we look at the issues of trade andmarket premia, paying particular re g a rd to the question of the orientation of trade(between local and international markets), and the implications that this has forp roducers wishing to develop the capacity toadd value at a local level. We also examine thecomplex and sometimes contentious issuess u rrounding certification where there appearto be inherent tensions between maintaininge ffective and verifiable quality assurancewithout inhibiting the participation of smallp roducer groups. In the final two sections werevisit some of the questions raised in pre v i o u schapters that concern ‘macro’ and ‘micro ’influences on the adoption of OAA. Theserange from the policy orientations ofg o v e rnments to more finely-textured localfactors. We pay particular attention to thei m p o rtance of developing appro p r i a t emethods for tapping into existing layers ofknowledge where it exists, augmenting itw h e re re q u i red and promoting its transfer,w h e re it is incomplete or absent.

4.1 – Productivity and sustainability

OAA differs from conventionally intensivea g r i c u l t u re in that it seeks to achieve optimalsustainable yields rather than maximizingoutput. Perceptions of the potential ofo rganic farming to meet world food demandhave largely been based upon the experience(in the industrialised world) of conversionf rom one system (and set of aims) to theo t h e r. Transitions to organic farming havet h e re f o re often resulted in a net loss of yieldsbeing re c o rded, often by as much as 15%( G rolink, 1999). These declines are mostmarked in the initial years of conversion,when soil fertility needs to be built up and thef a rmer has to learn new managementstrategies. They are also more noticeable withsome crop types, particularly grain. In theindustrialised world, declining yields and theresultant loss of income to the farmer canoften be compensated for through acombination of state subsidies (justified one n v i ronmental grounds) and premia foro rganic produce. With the exception of thep remia available through export markets,neither of these safety nets is generallyavailable in the South. Thus, a conventionalwisdom has emerged that countries withp ressing food security problems would be illadvised to contemplate a shift to org a n i cpractices and that farmers would suffer ifthey were to adopt these practices (seeWo o d w a rd, 1998). FAO identify this aspossibly the single biggest factor holding backthe development of the organic movement:

‘most people in all kinds of areas, including

scientists, researchers, extension workers and

politicians strongly believe that organic

agriculture is not a feasible option to

improve food security’. FAO (1998, p.12)

This belief however is largely misplaced, as itis underpinned by the erroneous assumptionthat farmers in the South will be convert i n gf rom ‘intensive’ systems. In what is pro b a b l ythe majority of instances, this is not the case.What then is the effect of switching from non-

62

intensive, and often under-capitalized farm i n gsystems to organic methods? There is as yeti n s u fficient evidence to provide conclusiveanswers, largely due to the relative infancy ofthe organic movement and the lack ofcomparative re s e a rch in this area (Scialabba,1998). In general however, it is thought thatOAA can bring significant increases in yieldsin comparison to conventional farm i n gpractices. Compared to ‘Green Revolution’f a rming systems, OAA is thought to beneutral in terms of yields, although it bringsother benefits, such as reducing the need fore x t e rnal inputs (Grolink, 2000).

In this re s e a rch we have found many examplesw h e re the adoption of OAA has led tosignificantly increased yields. Table 4.1 (over)p rovides examples of such evidence. Whilst nota comprehensive review of comparativestudies, it does suggest that in manyc i rcumstances the adoption of OAA cansignificantly increase yields, particularly incomparison to unimproved traditionalpractices. Case study 8 (over), provides a moredetailed illustration of two new approaches torice cultivation which have had significantimpacts on yields and disease resistance.

Table 4.1 – Examples of yield increases attributable to adoption of OAA

Altieri (2001) quotes several examples from Latin America where adoption or re c reation of OAA has re s u l t e din significantly increased yields for farmers. In Brazil the use of green manures and cover crops inmaize/wheat cropping systems has led to increases in yields of between 20-250%. Similar yield increases formaize crops have been achieved in Guatemala and Honduras through the use of soil conservation and gre e nmanuring. In Peru, the restoration of traditional Incan terraces has led to increases in the order of 150% in arange of upland crops. In Mexico, Oaxacan co-operatives have seen similar yield increases in their coff e eh a rvest through adaptation of composting, contour planting and terracing.

Edwards (2000) c o m p a res figures from composted, chemically fertilized and unimproved (control) plots inTigray from 1997-8 (see case study 9). In all instances composting led to yield increases of between 3 and 5times the untreated plots. Yields on the composted plots were generally better than on the chemicallyf e rtilized ones. Figures in parenthesis show the range of yields for composted plots in comparison toa rtificially fertilized ones: Barley (+9 / -0.5%); Wheat (+20 / -0.2%); Maize (+7 / -21%); Tef (+107%); Finger millet(+3%); Kerka’ta (-8%). Due to shortages of compostable material, only half the recommended rate of 16tonnes / ha. of compost was applied on most plots and the full potential of the organic approach was notrealized in these trials.

Hödtke, et al. (undated) experimented in Brazil on interc ropping maize with legumes (Vigna unguiculata andCanavalis ensiformis) and ploughing these back in as green manures. They found that grain yield and totaln i t rogen content of leaves were significantly incre a s e d .

Ogol et al. (1999) found that alley cropping systems in Kenya reduced pest numbers in comparison tom o n o c ropping and yields were higher despite planting densities in the alley cropping systems being 25%l o w e r.

Rist (2000) re p o rts on AGRUCO’s development and extension work with ‘de facto’ organic farmers in Bolivia,which has increased potato yields by 20% and more.

Sharma (2000) re p o rts yield increases of 175% on farms in Nepal adopting agroecological managementstrategies (crops not specified).

Soto-Pinto et al. (2000) studied outputs from shade-grown coffee production in Mexico and found thatshaded groves had yields 23-38% higher than exposed plots. The role of trees in harbouring predators ofpests and diffusing sunlight are thought to be the main contributory factors.

Wai (1995) re p o rts on work at a demonstration farm on reclaimed saline land near Lahore (Pakistan). Thisincorporated a number of techniques including fish farming, aff o restation and a biogas digester forf e rmenting slurry and manure. Rice yields were 23% greater than under conventional systems and wheatyields 25% higher.


Case study 8 – New developments in rice

production

Two recent developments in rice productiontechniques from different sides of the globeshow the importance of innovation andexperimentation with new techniques forgrowing the most important staple crop inthe world.

System of Rice Intensification (SRI)M a d a g a s c a rSRI was initially discovered by a developmentaid worker, Father Henri du Laulanie, andhas been subsequently developed by an NGO,Associacion Tefy Saina, and two MalagyUniversities. Its methods have led toremarkable increases in yields, from the 2-3tons per hectare common in most parts ofM a d a g a s c a r, to yields of 6, 8, or 10 tons perh e c t a re. This has been achieved on nutrientdeficient, acidic soils. SRI uses commonlyavailable germplasm but changes ricecultivation techniques in fundamental ways,described below.

• The first of these was discovered byaccident, as a result of attempting todouble production from a seed nursery inresponse to a drought that threatened toshorten the growing season. Rice seedlingswere transplanted after 15 days, asopposed to the normal 30. The plants didso well that the technique was repeatedagain in subsequent years and furtherexperiments were done planting at 12, 10and 8 days, all producing positive results.

• The second change in practice is plantingsingle seedlings rather than theconventional practice of planting groups oft h ree or four, which is designed to ensures u rvival of at least one or two plants. Morec a re has to be taken with single planting,but if done properly it encourages stro n g e rand more vigorous plants, thro u g hreducing intra-species competition.

• The third change is that of spacing plantsmore widely apart, at densities of 15-20per square metre as opposed to the 50-100 common in other systems. Thisprovides individual plants with a largerarea from which to draw nutrients and theopportunity to develop a more robust rootsystem.

• The fourth change is that of periodicdrying of fields. From observation anddiscussions with local farmers, FatherLaulanie began experimenting withperiodic drying of fields so that they werenot continually submerged. It is thoughtthat this changed practice contributes toplant development through increasingaeration and subjecting the plant toperiodic (but not excessive) stress, whichencourages growth.

• This system involves more regular weedingthan flooded paddy systems, whichs u p p ress weed growth. Experiments haveshown that greater frequency of weedingalso helps plant development due tog reater aeration of the roots of the plant.

• Finally, SRI is practised using manuresand composts. Initially chemical fertilizerswere used, but as prices rose in the 1980sexperiments with compost wereundertaken. It has not yet been establishedwhether compost and natural fertilizersare more or less effective in this systemthan artificial inputs.

IRS has evolved over almost twenty years inMadagascar and been used in many differentecological and climatic conditions. Farmersusing SRI on the borders of a national park(with particularly poor soils) have recordedyields 50-60% higher than those ondemonstration farms in fertile areas managedby private companies experimenting withinput intensive systems and hybrid seeds.Labour inputs for SRI are significantly higherthan under conventional systems, but are

64

more than rewarded. Farms with labourshortages find that it is more profitable tocultivate part of their land under SRI ratherthan the whole farm under conventionalmanagement techniques. While spectacular,the successes of SRI have not yet been fullyexplained. Uphoff provides rationales forsome of the success of this approach, thoughothers require further research andexplanation. Regular weeding and aerationappear to be strongly correlated with yields,but the synergies between the differentelements of the management techniques arenot yet fully understood. More critically, SRIhas not yet been experimented with, nor theresults replicated, outside Madagascar.Agronomists have arguably been wary oftaking up research that challenges orthodoxpractice. The rice research community is nowbeginning to respond to these challenges byattempting to replicate and explain thesesuccesses. The evolution of these systemsillustrates the potential of farmer / NGO-ledexperimentation to evolve new farmingapproaches with potentially widerapplicability.

( S o u rce: Uphoff, 1999; Pretty and Hine, 2001b)

Intercropping as a strategy against diseaseThe second innovation is a system of inter-cropping developed by Prof. Chris Mundt(Oregon State University) and theInternational Rice Research Institute.Farmers in Yunnan Province (China), werepersuaded to interplant their traditionalsticky rice crop, prone to the fungal diseaserice blast, with a disease resistant hybrid.The two varieties were planted in alternatingblocks and the hybrid seeds acted as firewallagainst the disease. In the first year of theexperiment rice blast was reduced by 94%and yields were up by 89%. Neighbouringtownships joined the experiment thefollowing year and by the end of this period,60,000 ha of rice were being grown by thismethod. Fungicides (previously applied eighttimes a season) were no longer required andit was found that the larger the experimental

area, the more effective the techniquebecame. Gross income per hectare increasedby 15%, not including savings on fungicides,and there was a reduction of fungicide runoffinto local water-courses. Though notnecessarily an organic production system, theexperiment demonstrates the benefits of theapplication of one of the principles of OAA –the promotion of diversity.

( S o u rce: Stott, 2000)

Indicators used to evaluate conventionalagriculture often give primacy to single cropyields as the main criterion of efficiency. Yetsuch measures are often inappropriate forboth organic and traditional forms offarming. As noted earlier, traditional farmersare often more concerned with avoiding riskrather than maximizing output. Farmersoften sow different varieties of the same cropto insure against the risk of drought ordisease. They do so knowing that their yieldswill be lower, but that they are minimizingexposure to the calamity of losing a wholeharvest. Equally, farmers may well chooselower-yielding grain varieties if they haveother desirable characteristics. For example,in India many farmers choose varieties of ricethat produce good quality fodder forlivestock and an acceptable grain yield(Shiva, 1995, p.85).

Single crop yields are not the only criteria bywhich agricultural productivity should bejudged. Other ‘output based’ approaches suchas net farm pro d u c t i v i t y, re t u rn to capital,land or labour, are also important indicatorsof farm pro d u c t i v i t y. These measures arelikely to be more relevant to small-scalef a rmers growing a range of crops, often fro mlimited re s o u rces. One study in South Indiac o m p a red seven paired farms (one ecologicaland one conventional) with similara g roecological characteristics and marketorientations. It found no significant economicd i ff e rences between the two sets of farm s ,with gross income and margins, variablecosts, net cash income, days of labour per


land unit and re t u rns to labour all within asimilar range. The two sets of farms did,h o w e v e r, vary in a number of other re s p e c t s .Ecological farmers cultivated a broader rangeof crops with more mixed interc ro p p i n g ,systems using a wider range of species andm o re varieties of the same species. Theecological farmers were less dependent upone x t e rnal sources of nutrients and used a widerrange of techniques to maintain soil fert i l i t yon a larger and more efficient scale. Therew e re no significant diff e rences between yieldson the two sets of farms, with the exceptionof rice yields, which were higher on theecological farms (der We rf 1993).

Whilst comparative evaluations of farmproductivity are important in assessingreturns to farmers in the short to mediumterm, broader and longer term measures ofsustainability also need to be considered. Ofparticular interest are those which take intoaccount the ‘environmental services obtained

from complex, integrated agroecological

systems featuring many crop varieties

together with trees and animals’ (Altieri,2001, p.1). Conventional measures of farmoutputs and returns tend to neglect thesenon-monetized aspects of farm productivity,although they are critical in maintainingproductive capacity. New measures are beingdeveloped which take such features intoaccount. A partnership project betweenIFOAM, LEISA and FAO is developing auniversal methodology for comparing farmperformance against parameters ofsustainability.38 The factors considered in thismodel include: capital assets; renewableenergy use; energy, water and nutrientbalances; organic vs. chemical nutrients;organic matter applied; market dependence;external input dependence; area under trees;number of species; and degree of mixedcropping (Witte 1999). In addition, widerimpacts of the farm and farming system areconsidered, including: agriculturalbiodiversity; environmental impacts; financialperformance (productivity of land, labour

and capital); and social aspects (e.g. equity,community participation, food self-sufficiency) (ibid.).

The aim of this approach is not to provide a ‘single index’-based comparison betweendifferent farming systems (which wouldinevitably involve value judgements aboutthe weighting given to different measures),but to be able to compare how differentfarming systems perform according to thesecriteria. Use of the FARMS programme(Chinnakonda, 1997) enables intra and inter-regional comparisons to be made againstbaseline sustainability criteria

Studies employing this methodology arec u rrently being carried out with part n e ro rganizations in ten countries across theSouth: in Africa (Ethiopia and Kenya); Asia(China, India, Nepal, The Philippines, SriLanka) and Latin America (Costa Rica, ElSalvador and Nicaragua). Some initial re s u l t sf rom the first phases of these comparatives u rveys were presented at IFOAM 2000.Chinnakonda and Lanting (2000) describesome of the initial findings. They identify somegeneral criteria of sustainability where org a n i cf a rms perf o rm better than conventional ones.These include energy use, nutrient sourc e s ,mixed cropping and the generation oflivestock feed. In low-rainfall areas, the use of organic matter is a crucial determinant ofs u s t a i n a b i l i t y, as it plays a central role inhelping reduce loss of soil moisture. In humidzones with high levels of tree cover, botho rganic and conventional farms exhibit highlevels of biodiversity. Organic andconventional farmers within the same are a salso exhibit similar levels of dependency one x t e rnal inputs and markets, suggesting thatp revailing market systems influence theseparameters more than the farming methodsadopted. Intere s t i n g l y, the study also found alower participation rate of women andsucceeding generations within organic farm s ,leading the authors to question thesustainability of organic farms as enterprizes.

66

These findings are pre l i m i n a ry and based upona limited number of case studies wheres u fficient data has been gathered andp rocessed. This re s e a rch programme, still in itsearly stages, has the potential for providing a‘system’ rather than output-oriented analysis ofthe perf o rmance of agricultural appro a c h e s .3 9

In time, it may provide a more informed basisfor evaluating the contested benefits anddrawbacks of organic and conventionalf a rming systems in a range of agro e c o l o g i c a lcontexts. Some of the diff e rences in theparameters may only become visible in thelonger term. Indicators such as soil fertility and biodiversity can only really be assessedover the medium to long term. Others, suchas yields and re t u rns also re q u i re a longer- t e rmperspective and need to be averaged over anumber of years, as they are influenced byexogenous factors such as climate and, in thelater instance, market conditions.

4.2 – Organic agriculture and diversity

The maintenance and promotion of diversityis arguably the single key definingcharacteristic of OAA. According to Altieri(1999) there are a number of reasons whydiversity is important within individualagroecosystems.

‘Research suggests that the level of internal

regulations of function in agroecosystems is

largely dependent on the level of plant and

animal diversity present. In agroecosystems,

biodiversity performs a variety of ecological

services beyond the production of food,

including the recycling of nutrients,

regulation of microclimate and local

hydrological processes, suppression of

undesirable organisms and detoxification

of noxious chemicals.’ (p.19)

The emphasis that proponents of OAA layupon maintaining and enhancing diversity isin stark contrast with the monoculturalapproach favoured by industrial models ofagriculture. It has much more in commonwith traditional farming systems whichemploy strategies which ‘have more to do

with minimizing the risk of failure rather

than maximizing yield per se’ (Kinnon andBayo, 1989 p.58). Two specific forms of ‘riskreduction strategy’ employed by traditionalfarmers across the world are set out in Table4.2 (over). Each has a compelling logic fortraditional farmers and emphasizes theimportance of maintaining sustained yields inpreference to maximizing outputs.

Different levels of sophistication may exist inthe employment of both phased and mixedcropping regimes. In some cases, simplecombinations of two or three crops may beused to spread risk, maintain soil cover,suppress weeds, increase soil fertility and/ordeter pests. An illustration of howagrobiodiversity at this simple level helpsmaintain ecosystem stability is shown inTable 4.3, which compares annual rates oftopsoil loss in Nigeria under a monoculture

Table 4.2 – Risk-reduction strategies of traditional farmers

Mixed planting: Phased planting

E n s u res a continuing and varied supply of food Minimizes risks, especially from climatic t h roughout the year. u n c e rtainties.

I n c reases overall production units per area. P rovides phased harvests.

Helps reduce incidences of pests and diseases. Evens out labour demand over the year.

Enables planting to take account of soil variations. Reduces land preparation costs

P rovides soil cover against ero s i o n . P rovides ground cover.

Assists with weed control and reduces labour inputs.

Adopted from Kinnon and Bayo, (1989)


of cassava and under a joint cassava/maizeregime. On slopes of 5% or more the inter-cropping system resulted in soil loss ratesbetween 30-40% less than the monoculture,as the former provides more effective andcontinuous ground cover. Thus inter-cropping has an important role to play inhelping safeguard the existence of theprimary natural resource upon whichagriculture depends – the topsoil.

Intercropping can also have major benefitsfor weed control, a major problem in mostagricultural systems. In some places thelaborious work of hand-weeding can accountfor more than 80% of labour demand intraditional low input farming systems(Abbiw, 1989). In other areas the labourrequired for weed control constrains theamount of land that families choose to farm.Use of cover crops or ‘live mulches’ cansignificantly reduce the burden of weeding,freeing up time for other, more productiveactivities. Blench (1997) identifies a numberof leguminous species which are being usedto improve fallows and control weeds.Species used include the velvet bean (Mucuna

spp.), jack bean (Canavalia ensiformis),

tropical kudzu (Pueraria phaseoloides), andperennial peanuts (Arachis pintoi). Thepractice of using velvet bean is to controlimperata grass (Imperata spp.), which isspreading throughout Togo, Benin andColumbia. Velvet and jack beans are beingused in Panama to control paja blanca(Saccharum spp) and nutgrass in severalother countries. In Nepal, gandhejhar is leftin fields until ploughing starts. It stabilizes

the topsoil and reduces runoff, suppressesother weeds, is used as fodder or bedding for animals and then returned to the land ascompost (Pandeya, 1995).

Studies by the International Institute ofTropical Agriculture have found that basiccereals (such as maize and cassava)intercropped with ‘Egusi’ melon(Cucumerospis mannii) need weeding onlyonce every two to three weeks instead ofweekly. The ground cover provided by the‘Egusi’ suppresses weed growth until themelons are harvested, by which time thecereals have established themselves anddeveloped their own canopies (Akobundu,1993). Other experiments have shownmulching to reduce weed biomass by up to90% (Thijssen 1995). Mulching can alsocontribute to changes in the composition ofweeds. In an inter-cropping system (involvingGliricidia, Leucaena and Cassia species) inKenya, weed composition changed fromgrasses to broad-leaved weeds, which are fareasier to control (ibid.).

The effectiveness and choice of intercroppingsystems depends upon many factors. Blench(1997) argues that the multi-functionality ofthese crops are important factors indetermining their attractiveness to farmers.Many of these crops, such as the ‘Egusi’melon, the high altitude scarlet runner bean(Phaseolus coccineus) and the widely usedvelvet bean (Mucuna spp.), also producefood for human consumption. Othersprovide animal feed. In Campeche (Mexico),the seed of the velvet bean is cooked, ground

Table 4.3 – Annual soil loss (tons/hectare) at Ibadan, Nigeria

Cassava

Slope (%) Cassava only and maize Difference

1 3 3 0 %

5 8 7 5 0 4 3 %

1 0 1 2 5 8 6 3 2 %

1 5 2 2 1 1 3 7 3 8 %

Aina et al. (cited in Kinnon et Bayo, 1989).

68

and mixed with maize to provide pig fodder,and while most leguminous mulches do notgraze well, they can be cut and used forfodder after even months of drought (ibid.and Abbiw, 1989).

At a more complex level, experimentsconducted by the International Centre forInsect Physiology and Ecology (see section3.1) illustrate how mixed cropping and theuse of ‘host’ and ‘trap’ crops can contributeto pest control, suppress weeds and providevaluable additional forage for cattle. Moresophisticated practices such as ‘alleycropping’, involve planting parallel lines oflegumes, staple crops and bushes, togetherwith nitrogen fixing and/or fruit bearingtrees. Such systems are widely employed indifferent parts of the world, with alleycropping methods recorded in Brazil(Bertalot et al.., 2000), Cameroon (Adesinaet al., 2000), Kenya (Ogol et al., 1999),Nigeria (Cashman, 1987) and Sri Lanka(Sangakkara and Ratnayake, 1989). Kho(2000) suggests that alley intercroppingwould be viable in around 15% of land inthe tropics. He suggests that such systemshave significant benefits for nitrogenretention/accumulation, but not for othernutrients. Alley cropping can have somedrawbacks in that trees may compete withcrops for scarce water supplies.

Trees can play a key role in helping maintainthe diversity and productivity of farms. AsEdwards (2000, p.8) notes:

‘In windy areas the windbreak effect of trees

can significantly reduce the loss of water

through evapotranspiration. Trees also

maintain and restore soil fertility and control

erosion. Their leaves can be used as fodder

as well as for composting. They provide soil

cover when the pruned branches and leaves

are left on the soil. These increase soil

nutrients, suppress weeds and improve soil

structure. Tree roots help bind the soil

together and promote the infiltration of

water. The deep rooting systems of trees help

recycle nutrients by returning leached cations

to the soil as leaf litter. The ability of certain

species to survive the dry season and

maintain their green leaves means that there

will be active roots in the soil when there is

a flush of mineralized nitrogen at the start of

the rains. The roots act as a safety net

capturing the nitrogen that would otherwise

be leached away.’

Trees also serve other functions, providingthe farm with fuel and constructionmaterials, attracting birds and wildlife and‘providing shade for livestock and people’(Kenyan farmer, quoted in Collis, 2000). InKenya the International Research Centre intoAgroforestry is doing research and extensionwork on the use of leguminous tree fallowswhich recycle 100-150 kg nitrogen per treep.a.. They have also introduced species fromMexico, which provide animal fodder at lowcost, increasing milk and manure yields (seesection 3.1). In the area around Debre Zeit(Shoa Province, Ethiopia), self-seeded AcaciaAlbida trees are maintained by peasantfarmers who recognize their capacity toenrich and stabilize the soil and providefodder (Harrison, 1987). Research fromSenegal (see table 4.4), shows the beneficialeffect of this species on millet protein yields.Islam and Weil (2000) found thatreafforestation with acacia species inBangladesh significantly improved soilquality. However a similar study in CostaRica found agroforestry systems had notsignificantly improved soils compared toadjacent pastureland (Tournquist, 1999).This suggests that agroforestry is not auniversal panacea. In general however,intercropping of trees and annual cropsproduces a number of beneficial synergies,illustrated in Figure 4.1 which shows theinfluence of trees on the growingenvironment of maize in Tlaxacal, Mexico.

Despite the known beneficial effects of treesin the farm environment, tree cover in arid


zones is being lost at an alarming rate.Climate change, pressure from overgrazingand the over-riding need for fuel are allcontributory factors. Once lost, tree cover isusually difficult to re-establish. Moreover, thedivision of administrative responsibilitiesbetween farming on the one hand andforestry on the other, means that there israrely much governmental support fordispersed tree planting programmes. SomeNGOs, such as the Green Belt Movement in

Kenya (Maathai, 1986) have a specific focuson encouraging tree planting on acommunity basis. Other institutes, such asthe International Centre for Research intoAgroforestry (Collis, 2000) and the HenryDoubleday Research Association (Harris etal., 1989) undertake research and extensionwork on the tolerance and effectiveness ofdifferent species of tree. Badejo (1998)identifies more thirty species of trees endemicto savannah ecosystems, which play a major

Table 4.4 – Effects of A. Albida on millet yield in Senegal

Near tree trunk Edge of tree canopy Outside tree canopy

Millet protein yield (kg/ha) 1 8 0 8 4 5 2

f rom Charreau and Vidal (cited in Kinnon et Bayo, 1989)

Figure 4.1 – Influence of trees on maize

cropping in Tlaxacal (Mexico)

( f rom Farrell, 1984, reprinted in Farrell, 1987)

70

role in increasing fodder available tolivestock, provide coppicing materials and inmany instances have nitrogen-fixing capacity.

One piece of research from South India,comparing seven pairs of ‘conventional’ and‘ecological’ farms found that the greatestdifference in the agronomic characteristics ofthe farms was the density of tree cover.Ecological farms had an average tree densityof almost 200 per hectare, but conventionalones less than 40 per hectare (der Werf,1993). This suggests that organic farmersmore fully appreciate the multi-functionalbenefits of trees than their conventionalcounterparts. Our impression is that there isinsufficient research in this area, thatextension services are lacking and that bothactivities are poorly integrated withagricultural development programmes.

A g ro f o re s t ry provides an example of the mostdiverse and complex type of agro e c o s y s t e m .A g ro f o re s t ry systems consciously mimic them u l t i - s t o reyed patterns of surrounding fore s t s .They have nearly closed cycles of biomass andnutrient production, provide year- ro u n dsupplies of food, and permanent ground cover( H a rrison, 1987). Crops are grown atd i ff e rent heights, with the tree canopymanaged so as to provide both shaded andsunny areas. The density of vegetation assistswith microclimatic regulation in terms oft e m p e r a t u re, humidity and rainfall absorption.The case study of the Chagga Home Gard e n sp rovides but one example of the complexityand diversity of agro f o re s t ry systems. Hampl(2000, p.427) describes the complexity of atypical agro f o re s t ry spice field in Zanzibar:

‘The highest layer of 20m height is composed

of coconut trees and various fruit trees such

as malayan apples (Eugania jambos), mango

fruit (Mangifera indica), jackfruit

(Artocarpus heterophylla) etc. The

succeeding layer of clove trees is about 12-

15m high; below that grow papayas (Carica

papaya), banana trees and often Glyricidia

sepa with pepper. Pepper as a climbing plant

particularly suits to be integrated into

agroforestry systems (sic); it climbs on fruit

trees most of the time. This way the farmer

makes double the profit from one area (fruits

and spices) and takes no economic risk in

case of bad pepper prices. The bottom layer

is planted with low growing species, in terms

of spices, cardamom (which prospers in

woody structures), ginger or turmeric; in

terms of fruit pineapple or starchy plants like

colocasie (Colacasia esculenta) and cassava

(Manihot esculenta).’

General overviews of the extent and range ofagroforestry across the world can be foundin Farrell (1987) and Egger (2000). Whilethere is a long history of research in this area(see for example; Ruthenberg, 1971), it wasuntil recently thought that ‘these systems

(while) of great historic interest, could not

provide any advice for actual agricultural

development’ (Egger, op. cit.). TheInternational Centre for Research inAgroforestry (ICRAF) in Nairobi exists topromote and disseminate information andresearch in this field.

A g ro f o re s t ry systems tend to be more closelyaligned with agroecological than org a n i cp roduction, although several ‘agro f o re s t rysystems’ are organically certified, includingthe Chagga (for their coffee) and the Meru(for dried herbs). ‘Shade-grown’ coffee andcocoa, even if not certified as organic, alsogenerate premia from enviro n m e n t a l l y -minded consumers in the North andcontribute to maintaining biodiversity (Johns,1999). Soto-Pinto et al. (2000) identify severalbenefits of shade-grown coffee pro d u c t i o nsystems in Mexico, which help reduce pestp roblems and, through filtering excessivesunlight, contribute to yield increases. Theycalculate optimal shade cover as beingbetween 23 and 48% with yields declining athigher shade densities, although this figurep robably varies according to heat/sunlightintensities in diff e rent climatic zones.


Although agroforestry systems normallyresult from human management of existingforests, there are several examples of suchsystems being established from cleared land.In Burma in the 1930s, the landless poorwere encouraged to plant food crops for aperiod of four years on cleared forest land.No rent was charged for the use of the plot,instead the farmers were obliged to plant andprotect young trees for this period, thusenabling regeneration of the forests. InBrazil, recent experimental work usingagroforestry techniques has led to therehabilitation of cleared land into productiveand diverse usage, without the use ofexternal inputs (Peneireiro et al.., 2000).

A g ro f o re s t ry systems generally exhibit a g reat range of species diversity. For example,the Chagga cultivate 39 species of woodyt rees and shrubs, and 15 varieties of bananasin their home gardens (Fernandes, undated).In West Java, re s e a rchers have identified morethan 230 species of plant within a dualc ropping system, which includes‘ a g ro f o re s t ry’ home gardens and outfields(Christanty et al., 1986 cited in Blench,1998). In Mexico, the Huastec Indiansmanage a number of plots (home gard e n s ,f o rest plots, and agricultural and fallowfields) in which up to 300 species arecultivated. Areas around the house maycontain between 80-125 useful species, manywith medicinal pro p e rties (Alcorn, 1984, citedin Altieri, 2001). Local knowledge of thep ro p e rties and characteristics of such adiverse range of species re p resents asignificant re p o s i t o ry of knowledge, oftenorally maintained, which has potential globalsignificance. In this respect the discipline ofethnobotany has much to contribute to thep romotion and dissemination of knowledgere g a rding OAA.

The diversity of species maintained withintraditional farming systems is in starkcontrast to the dominant pattern of intensiveagricultural practice, in which ‘15 varieties of

plant species worldwide provide 90 per centof the calories used to feed the world’ (Souleet al., 1990, cited in Kirschenman, 1998). In this respect, it might be argued that poorpeasant farmers do more to maintain globalbiodiversity and the resilience of the genepool than publicly and privately fundedinstitutions put together. They do so out self-interest. The use of what Blench (1998)terms ‘minority and neglected species’ is anecessary survival strategy for many farmers,especially those maintaining a livelihood inharsh, marginal environments.

‘(Minority) species are strongly associated

with marginal environments; regions where

extreme heat, poor soils and access problems

make the large scale production of world

crops and livestock uneconomic. These

(species) play a disproportionately large role

in food security strategies. Plants that will

grow in infertile or degraded soils, and

livestock that will eat degraded vegetation,

are often critical to household nutritional

strategies.’ (ibid.)

Recent years have seen a growing interestamongst Southern-based NGOs indeveloping and maintaining seed exchangenetworks. In so doing they are formalizing a strategy that resource poor farmers havepractised for millennia. In Peru for example,indigenous farmers cultivate more than threethousand varieties of potato. More than fivethousand varieties of sweet potato arecultivated in Papua New Guinea (Shiva,2001). In southeast Ethiopia, the Konsocultivate 49 species of plant, shrub and tree,and 24 different species have been countedwithin one 0.2 hectare field (Harrison,1987). Such diversity has only been achievedthrough constant exchange, development andexperimentation with seed varieties, wherepeasant farmers select and adapt the mostsuitable varieties to grow under a range ofconditions. Today more formalized, better-documented, approaches to seed exchangeare being developed.

72

Several of the NGOs responding to oursurvey see their work in developing seedexchange networks as a key activity, crucialto maintaining the productive resource baseavailable to farmers (see, for example, casestudy 6 on the World Food Day Farmers’and Fishermen’s Movement in Indonesia). Inmany cases, seed exchanges are organizedthrough ‘market days’, where farmers canbring seeds and swap experiences (Shiva,1995; Intermediate Technology ResearchGroup, 1999). In other cases there is anemphasis on building national databasesfrom existing, but often orally maintained,local and regional knowledge. For example,in India, Navdanya have established aCommunity Agricultural BiodiversityRegister. This has been developed to facilitateexchange of information, protect endangeredplant varieties and most importantly,establish intellectual property ownershiprights for the Indian peasantry (Shiva, op. cit.p.78).40 Shortly after its establishment it hadalready recorded 250 varieties of rice in useby peasant farmers across India, as well asdozens of varieties of other grains and pulses.

Whilst the use of traditional seeds andvarieties has a very important role withinOAA, this does not mean that there is norole for the development of new species.Indeed there is a potential for developingsynergies between traditional and scientificapproaches. A new coffee variety, Ruiri 11,

which is pest-resistant and does not requireany chemical spraying, has been developedby the Coffee Research Foundation. Aftersome initial scepticism this variety has nowbeen adopted with considerable success byone in three Kenyan smallholders (Gathimbu,2000). Successes such as this appearrelatively isolated however, with SouthernNGOs increasingly vigilant to the threat of‘biopiracy’ (Shiva, 1985)

The importance of species diversity as astrategy within organic, agroecological andtraditional farming does not just apply to

plants, but also to livestock. Animals play ac rucial role in the strategies of many peasantf a rmers, converting otherwise inediblevegetable matter to protein, providing much-needed manure and also often acting as beastsof burden. Their role in recycling nutrientsand maintaining soil fertility is part i c u l a r l yi m p o rtant and is considered below.

As with crops, the conventional focus uponhigh-yielding animal species, which alsooften require high inputs, has led to theneglect of ‘minority species’ which are oftenmore adapted to local habitats andagroecological circumstances (Blench, 1998).The FAO has documented 5,000domesticated livestock and poultry breeds, ofwhich one third are in danger of extinction.It is believed that these indigenous species arecurrently disappearing at a rate of one aweek (Anon, 2001). In many instances suchspecies play a central role in maintaining theeconomic well-being and cultural identity ofmarginal farming or pastoralist communities(see for example Köhler-Rollefson; Rathore;Yakshi et al.., all 2001). Locally preferredspecies, which require low inputs and areadapted to specific socio-ecological nichesare often neglected from researchprogrammes (Blench, 1998).41 Suchprogrammes often focus upon issues such ashow to introduce and adapt species that haveproven successful under high input systems inthe industrialised world (ibid.). In so doingthey ignore both the multifunctional role ofanimals within the domestic economy andthe inappropriateness of promoting highinput/high output into low input economies.

In India, attempts are being made to preserveand reintroduce indigenous species and toimprove and develop relevant (and low cost)animal husbandry techniques (Daniel, 1989;Harbola and Kumar, 2000; Köhler-Rollefson;Yakshi et al. and Rathore, all 2001). A recentinternational workshop, held in Rajasthanand involving NGOs, herders, scientists andothers, discussed the relevance of local


livestock breeds for sustainable ruraldevelopment. This workshop led to theissuing of the ‘SADRI Declaration’, whichacknowledges the importance of indigenousbreeds for rural development in India andrecommends a series of measures designed toenhance the survival and well-being of thesespecies and the peoples who depend uponthem (Anon 2001a). Elsewhere theimportance of ethnoveterinary medicine isbeginning to receive scientific recognition(Mathias, 2001a). An annotated bibliographyof ethnoveterinary medicine is due to bepublished by the Intermediate TechnologyGroup in London.42

Two other complementary and synergisticproduction systems are also worthy ofmention – those of aquaculture andapiculture. Both have long establishedtraditions in many different parts of theglobe. Bergleiter and Stiedle (2000) explorethe potential of organic aquaculture systemsand Stoll (2000, p.96) notes that rice/fishinter-cropping is particularly effective inprotecting rice against stemborer andplanthoppers, and also reduces numbers ofleafhoppers and leaffolders. Fish also helpreduce the prevalence of a number of ricediseases and viruses such as sheath blight,bacterial leaf blight and rice stripe. Publishedevaluations of sustainable rice/fish culturesystems exist for Thailand (Mackay et al..,1986) and Bangladesh (Thrupp, 1996). InEcuador an organic shrimp farmingenterprise has recently been established(Bergleiter, 2001), an innovation which isattracting interest from other parts of theworld, not least because of the oftencatastrophic consequences of conventionalshrimp harvesting on mangrove eco-systems.Apiculture (bee-keeping) also plays asignificant role in farm ecosystems,particularly via the important role of bees in helping pollination (Weiler, 2001).

In recognition of the vital role of biodiversityand its pre s e rvation, the Italian based Slow

Food movement recently established a prize to honour and re w a rd individuals activelyinvolved in this field (Scaffadi, 2001). Of thosenominated for the first annual prize in 2000,half are involved in promoting traditionalknowledge systems of agriculture and/ormethods of production in the South. In 2000,nominated projects of this kind included:

• A company pasteurizing and selling milkfrom nomadic herdsmen in Mauritania

• two biologists working in Mexico topreserve an indigenous species of fish andthe ecosystem on which it depends

• the promotion of traditional vanillacultivation in Mexico

• maintenance of an endangered bee speciesin Turkey, which produces a unique formof honey.

4.3 – Natural methods of enhancing soil

f e rt i l i t y

Maintenance of soil fertility under organic and agroecological approaches is ap a rticularly complex topic, involving a widerange of variables. Natural variations in soiltypes, climate, mineralization rates andc ropping systems all affect levels of soilf e rtility and trends of nutrient depletion oraccumulation. The availability of localre s o u rces (both on and off - f a rm) for buildingand maintaining fertility helps determine therange of viable strategies for the maintenanceand improvement of soil fert i l i t y. Socialfactors influence the social appro p r i a t e n e s sand acceptability of diff e rent soil fert i l i t ymanagement techniques. These will include:the intensity of existing farming practice;s t ru c t u re of farm holdings (including tenureand the availability and division of labour);levels of local knowledge and social co-operation; and the existence, or otherwise, of technical support. Unlike conventionala g r i c u l t u re with its ‘one size fits all appro a c h ’ ,t h e re are no single recipes for success and

74

‘extensive experimentation work and

c reativity are re q u i re d ’ ( FAO, 1998, p.10).

Traditionally in many areas, especially inmore arid zones, soil fertility has beenmaintained by extended fallow periods, often in association with slash and burntechniques. However, with growingpopulation pressures these fallow periods are in many cases becoming shorter (or non-existent) and more proactive strategies formanaging soil fertility are required. Thesemay draw on traditional practices and localmaterials, rely on industrial inputs, or amixture of the two. Hilhorst and Muchena(2000) identify a number of different soilnutrient management practices available tofarmers (see Table 4.5, over). Although thisrange of practices was identified as part of astudy of nutrient dynamics in Africa, it doesseem to reasonably comprehensively coverthe range of options open to farmers.42 43

We use it here as a basis for discussion ofsome of the issues and constraints involvedin using natural techniques as the basis formanaging soil fertility.

The effectiveness and popularity of thetechniques described below will varya c c o rding to natural and social constraintsand opportunities. In hilly areas, and/or thosewith heavy periodic rainfall, construction ofbunds and terraces may well be the mosti m p o rtant mechanism for preventing ero s i o nand maintaining the presence of topsoil.H o w e v e r, the willingness of farmers to investin these labour-intensive solutions is likely todepend on a number of factors – especiallytheir security of tenure, for there is little pointin investing heavily in land improvements ift h e re is insecurity over land rights. Such alack of security can also be a disincentive forother labour intensive approaches, such ast ree planting or double dug beds.

The availability of livestock can play a keyrole in determining soil fertility managementstrategies available to farmers. Livestock play

a key role in transforming otherwise inediblegrasses and crop residues into manure (andprotein). This role is especially importantwhen animals are grazing marginal orotherwise unproductive land. Mixed farmingpatterns incorporating livestock and croppingare commonplace across the globe (but rarein humid tropical zones, owing to theprevalence of tryponosomiasis) and might beregarded as forming the basis of sustainableorganic farming practice. In some areas, suchas Java, farmers attach as much importanceto the manure produced by livestock as tothe protein. Their strategies for managinglivestock are geared towards maximizingmanure production; essential to ‘maintaining

one of the world’s most intensive smallholder

farming systems’ (Tanner et al. 2000). Themanagement of animal waste and its use inpromoting soil fertility is a key topic in itsown right (see, for example, Lekasi et al..1998, for a discussion of strategies amongstupland farmers in Kenya). The issue ofmaintaining soil fertility in areas that cannotsupport large ruminants is more problematic.

The inclusion of artificial fertilizers in Table4.5 (above) is useful, in that it highlightssome of the advantages and disadvantagesimplicit in their use, and by extension someof the constraints and incentives toconverting to OAA. This is an importantissue to consider in seeking to understandhow farmers evaluate between the range ofoptions open to them. For farmers, moreconcerned with obtaining a decent harvestthan with ecological purism, artificialfertilizers are another potential tool availableto support their struggle to make a livingfrom their land. Cost and limited availabilitymay often be constraints on their use, butthere are other disadvantages too: they needannual applications, can get washed away inheavy rains, potentially damage crops in dryperiods and contribute to a hardening of thesoil. However, their consistency and the easeof transporting and applying them can makethem an attractive option in some situations,


Table 4.5 – Nutrient management strategies

Nutrient management strategies Advantages and relevance Disadvantages and constraints

1. Adding nutrients

1.1 Fallowing Traditional method often Population pre s s u re leaves lessassociated with cut and burn . land available to fallow (or for

less time). In response, farmers have sometimes moved to less p roductive soils and accelerated soil degradation. Cut and burn is now discouraged by many g o v e rn m e n t s .

1.2. Use of mineral fert i l i z e r s Encouraged by many Need to be purchased g o v e rnments, often thro u g h in advance. Price incre a s e ssubsidy or state org a n i z e d have restricted use in manydistribution systems. Easy to places: often they are usedt r a n s p o rt, apply and of only on cash crops, whereconsistent quality. the outlay will be recouped.

They re q u i re annual application. F a rmers may be aware of some negative effects on soil quality, especially in dry areas where theymay harm (burn) crops.

1.3. Use of rock phosphates Helps recapitalize soils Works best in combination with t h rough a one-off application. other fertility techniques C u rrently being promoted in (chemical or organic). Africa under a number of Distribution systems have pro v e dd i ff e rent schemes. inadequate. Use of phosphate notAn indigenous re s o u rce to fully understood by farm e r s .several developing countries.

1.4. Inflows of nutrients from grazing I m p o rtant and traditional M o re available to wealthier farmtechnique of maintaining soil households who own (more) f e rtility which eff i c i e n t l y cattle. Livestock less common inutilizes local re s o u rces. humid areas due to problems of

disease.

1.5. Cultivation of nitrogen-fixing crops Mixed cropping incorporating As pre s s u re on land incre a s e s ,legumes has a long tradition. legumes are given lower priorityUse of nitrogen-fixing tre e s in cropping system. and leguminous specieswithin or on the edge of fieldsis being pursued in somea reas, often with considerablesuccess.

2. Minimizing nutrient loss Advantages and relevance Disadvantages and constraints

2.1 Controlling erosion, ru n T h e re is a long tradition of Historically such approaches haveo ffand leaching p reventing soil ero s i o n often been top down and not

t h rough building bunds and been adequately maintained in t e rraces. In many are a s ‘post project’ phases. They arei n t e rest is being re v i t a l i z e d labour intensive processes andas soil erosion and nutrient mobilizing re s o u rces can be loss become more pre s s i n g p roblematic. c o n c e rns.

2.2 Trees in fields A traditional approach that Only practised in some areas. Incan help stabilize soils, fix other areas extension workers nutrients, create fertile niches have encouraged tree clearance. in fields and provide timber,fodder and shelter.

76

2.3 Double dug beds Double digging aerates the Ve ry labour intensive and onlysoil, improves water absorption generally used on high value and retention, pro m o t e s cash cro p s .s t ronger root growth andencourages more ready uptakeof nutrients.

3. Managing internal flows

3.1 Use of manure, slurry & urine See 1.4. above. Techniques for See 1.4 above. managing animal wastes varyconsiderably according tointensity of system and assetsof individual farm e r s .Applications do not need tobe made annually.

3.2. Recycling and composting Widely used and on the Labour intensive and bulky to o rganic materials i n c rease, particularly amongst t r a n s p o rt (especially when

f a rmers with little or no holdings are dispersed). livestock. Applications do not Sometimes availability is limited.need to be made annually. Quality can be variable. Often

selectively used, particularly on ‘home gardens’.

3.3. Incorporating cro p I m p roves soil fert i l i t y, water Not widely used (in Africa).residues into the soil holding capacity and other C rop residues more often

soil characteristics. used for fodder. Labour intensive if done manually.

4. Increasing efficiency

of nutrient uptake Advantages and relevance Disadvantages and constraints

4.1 Selecting crops to match Popular and widely used R e q u i res detailed knowledge of soil fertility levels technique- which accords with soils and plant characteristics.

mixed cropping strategies.

4.2 Concentrating nutrients Widely used in response to As above.in certain fields c rop types and accessibility

of diff e rent parts of the farms. Often used at a micro level – selectively impro v i n gthe quality of small areas.

4.3 Managing application of nutrient Makes careful use of scarc e Can be labour intensive.to crops (organic or artificial inputs) re s o u rces by fertilizing

s e l e c t i v e l y, e.g. placingcompost in a pit under theZaï system.

F rom Hilhorst and Muchena (2000)

particularly, as Hilhorst and Muchena note,in remote ‘bush’ fields.

Organic techniques for improving soilfertility have a number of competingattractions: they often can be made on thefarm (thus obviating the need to purchaseinputs), their effects last for more than oneyear, they help improve the moistureretaining capacity of the soil and improvesoil structure. Composting can alsosignificantly help with reducing weed

problems by cooking the seeds (Dalzell et al.,1987; Ozores–Hampton 1998). But in someareas competition for biomass can be severe.Overgrazing and the need for fuel (bothwood and dung) can both exert extremepressures on local bio-productivity, leading tonet nutrient loss and reducing the amount ofavailable compostable and recyclable organicmaterials.46 Buerkeri et al.. (2000) argue,quite logically, that where soils have a lowand declining nutrient status, recycling per secannot add to this. They go on to argue that


in such situations, inputs of artificialfertilizers are necessary to build up soilfertility (p.21). Given that these communitiesare likely to be resource poor in the firstplace, it is not apparent how they wouldafford such inputs. It is not clear either, thateven if they were donated, whether suchinputs would represent the most appropriateform of assistance. Use of nitrogen-fixingleguminous species would arguably provide amore sustainable solution than ‘fertilizerfixes.’ Other soil amendments, such as rockphosphate, might be used to remedy otherforms of nutrient deficiency. In eastern Africareasearch has identified shrubs (Tithonia

diversifolia and Lantana camara), whichcontain high proportions of both nitrogenand phosphorous in their leaves and so canmake a useful mulch and address nutrientdeficiencies (Niang, 1996).

Natural techniques for replenishing the soilcan also be used to help stabilize swiddenagriculture. In the north of Guatemala,farmers previously engaged in slash and burnhave found that through planting velvet beanthey can grow maize on the same fields yearafter year, with some long term increases inproductivity (Blench 1997). In Ghana,farmers are adopting an unusual approach to stabilizing fertility – one involves denselyplanting Leucaena trees (up to 30,000 perhectare) and lightly burning them every year-a practice which has enabled farmers to growmaize on the same land for 20 years insuccession (ibid.).

Organic and agroecological systems certainlydo not provide panaceas for areas withdepleted and declining nutrient status.However, as two of our case studies (inBurkina Faso and Tigray) show, they cansignificantly help address problems ofdeclining soil fertility. In so doing, they focusupon building up local productive capacity(both ecological and social), rather thanrelying upon external inputs. Case Study 9(over) provides an illustration of how

ecological land management techniques andwater conservation are helping to bring backhope to marginal farming communities in thehighlands of Tigray.

Case study 9 – Ecological land restoration in

Tigray

Tigray is the northernmost province ofEthiopia. More than 85% of its populationdepend upon agriculture. As a result ofserious land degradation crop yields are low.The Tigray Agriculture Bureau (TAB) hasadopted the ‘Sasakowa Global 2000’package as a solution to these problems. This is based on high input-demandingvarieties and chemical fertilizers. TheInstitute for Sustainable Development (ISD),has entered a partnership with TAB toexperiment with alternative approachesincluding compost making and soil andwater conservation through physical andbiological means.

Four small pilot areas (about 50 hectare seach) were selected to be re p resentative ofconditions within Ti g r a y. Three were in, oradjacent to, mountainous areas and sparselypopulated. Soil quality and fertility levelsvaried between the areas, being poor in twoand relatively good in one. All hadexperienced problems of vegetation loss fro mhillsides and were experiencing significantp roblems with gullying and soil erosion. Inone case, gullies were eating away at farm e r s ’fields. The fourth area was more fertile, moredensely populated and has a high cattled e n s i t y. It was chosen due to its location onthe edge of the only lake in Ti g r a y. This lake issituated in a closed basin, with no outlet, hasa good stock of fish and attracts many wildb i rds. This site was selected due to concern sthat intensive agrochemical usage would harmthe ecology and productivity of the lake.

TAB seconded an experienced extensionworker to work as animateur and co-ordinator for these villages, who was put

78

through an intensive OAA orientationprogramme. Meetings were held in villages to identify issues and possible solutions.Many villages adopted schemes thatcontained similar features. Check dams werebuilt in the gullies, wherever possible, toreduce run off and erosion. Small reservoirsformed behind these and the water retainingcapacity of the soils around the gullies wasvastly increased, leading to a spectacular re-vegetation of the banks and significantimprovements in size and yield of cropsclosest to the gully. Stone bunds wereintroduced to slow down erosion. Trenchbunds, incorporating compost, have alsobeen constructed. Sesparai sesban busheswere planted to help fix nitrogen, providefodder to animals and stabilize the soil.

T h e re is very little tradition of composting in Tigray and villagers were initially re l u c t a n tto adopt this technique. Some villagers,h o w e v e r, were pre p a red to experiment, andothers, seeing their success, followed suit insubsequent years. Compostable materials arein short supply, mostly derived from localweeds and kitchen waste. In some instancesgrass seeds were collected from hilltops andsown locally to increase compostable material.In others, villagers used small amounts ofn i t rogen fertiliser to encourage the growth oflocal grasses and form a basis for composting.

All villages have seen an increase in yields, inthe range of crops that they can grow and inthe vegetative stru c t u re. Farmers have learn tthat they don’t need to manure plots everyy e a r, as they do with artificial fertilizers. Onevillage worked together to build a communalcompost pit. They ran their own experimentsin one dry season, finding that compostedc rops thrived (due to increased water re t e n t i o ncapacity of the soil) but that art i f i c i a l l yf e rtilized ones ‘burnt out’. Although thecomposting levels that they are using are onlyhalf the recommended rates, yields from thesefields often exceeded those from art i f i c i a l l yf e rtilized ones (see Table 4.1, above).

ISD have found that it is easier to work inpartnership with villages that are ‘on theedge’. They have little to lose and areprepared to experiment. Even so,compensation is available if the experimentdoesn’t work. Most villages have well-structured committees who will discuss theways and means of implementing schemesbeforehand. Through discussion, potentialadverse effects are more likely to berecognized. Travelling seminars anddemonstration farms are proving usefulmethods of dissemination. On the evidenceof the success of these four pilot villages,another 40 have now come forward todevelop OAA solutions to environmentaldegradation and declining yields. TAB haveagreed not to promote Sasakowa Global2000 technologies in experimental villagesand are beginning to take an interest in thepotential of the schemes.

( S o u rce: Edwards, 2000 and interv i e w )

Strategies required to address the problemsof restoring marginalized or degraded landneed to draw upon local knowledge andtraditions, upon experience of dealing withsimilar situations in other geographiclocations and upon awareness of prevailingecological and socio-cultural constraints.Steiner (1998), Scoones and Toulmin (1999),and Hilhorst and Murchena (2000) allprovide examples of where such strategieshave successfully been deployed.

Three further strategies for improving soilfertility are worthy of mention, althoughthese are not discussed in Table 4.5 above.First is the use of (solid) human waste. The omission of this from Table 4.5 isunderstandable, as this practice is extremelyrare in Africa, due to cultural aversion forworking with human excrement. However in many other parts of the world, especiallyAsia, there is a long-standing traditions ingathering and recycling ‘night soil’. We weresurprised to find very little mention of thispractice in our literature survey. We only


came across one paper which stressed theimportance of utilizing human waste as anintegral part of closing nutrient cycles(Cheong and Cheong, 2000). We can onlyspeculate as to whether this is due to thepractice being largely abandoned, or whetherit is one that is rarely written about it. Wesuspect that it is probably the latter and feelthat this is an important gap in the literature.Issues of management of night soil ondifferent spatial scales (i.e. household, villageand peri-urban), on safe compostingtechniques and the benefits which suchpractices bring appear to be very littlereported. Further research, documentationand dissemination of such practices may wellbe of value.

A further source of fertility inputs, widelyavailable in urban and peri-urban areas ist h rough the recycling of biodegradable wastematerial. Several successful urban compostingschemes have been set up in Senegal (seesection 3.1 above) which utilize waste fro mdomestic sources and markets. In much of theSouth the pro p o rtion of organic matter withinthe waste stream is relatively high. Allison etal. (1998), recently conducted a global re s e a rc hp roject on the recycling of compostable urbanwaste. They identify a number of successfulp rojects as well as a range of constraints –technical, logistical and social – facing suchinitiatives. More recently a workshop was heldin Accra on the same theme (Pay and Kunze,1999). In other instances, compostablematerial is re c o v e red from food pro c e s s i n gactivities (see for example, Kufa et al.., 2000).Solutions such as these are generally moreapplicable to urban and peri-urban are a s ,which often generate high volumes of org a n i cwaste and frequently have pressing foodsecurity needs. The intensification of locala g r i c u l t u re and promotion of the efficiency ofkitchen gardens through the use of locallyavailable organic waste could bring significantbenefits as demonstrated by the Food Gard e nF o u n d a t i o n ’s activities in South Africa( B o s h o ff, 2000).

A third mechanism for promoting soil fert i l i t yis through the use of purchased org a n i ccompounds – e.g. concentrated plant extracts.This is unlikely to be a viable solution for poorf a rmers and to some extent runs against theclosed cycle philosophy of organic pro d u c t i o n .Such an approach may nonetheless pro v euseful in rectifying mineral or nutrientdeficiencies on a one–off basis. In our webs e a rches we found several companies based inthe South specializing in the manufacture ofsuch products, providing evidence of ane m e rging market for these products.

In summary, there is a wide range of naturaland organic techniques available to farmersfor maintaining soil fertility. Their relevanceto good farming practice lies not only inmaintaining soil fertility, but also helping tobuild soil structure and water retentioncapacity. The use of manure, mulches,composts and nitrogen-fixing species is notrestricted to farmers who rely on OAA but isalso widespread amongst farmers who useagrochemicals. The benefits of suchtechniques are widely appreciated by farmersof all types across the world. Improvingknowledge about, and access to informationconcerning the efficacy of differenttechniques is likely to have widespreadbenefits for the global farming community.Two projects currently under way offer thepromise of substantially improving access toknowledge in this field. One, a jointprogramme between Wye College andUNESCO’s Tropical Soil Biology and FertilityProgramme in Nairobi, is building an organicresource database containing details ofnutrient content, decomposition rates andother key features of tropical plant specieswhich can be used for compost. Its aim is toadvance soil fertility improvement fromempirical knowledge to predictive practice.To date it has tested and registered over 300plant species and is inviting contributionsfrom other researchers (Palm et al.., 2001).At the time of writing the FAO is currentlyplanning a comparative survey of the

80

performance of different organic fertilizers(FAO 2001). Both these programmes arelikely to contribute to increasing theavailability of information on the relativebenefits of the use of natural techniques formaintaining soil fertility, thereby promotingthe objective of developing closed cyclefarming systems.

4.4 – Natural regimes of pest and

disease control

Regimes of pest and disease control underorganic management systems are highlycontext specific: different diseases and pestsmay attack different crops under differentclimactic conditions. In view of this, thissection of the report does not set out toprovide a comprehensive guide to pest anddisease control. Rather, it seeks to identifysome general principles of organic methodsof pest and disease control and illustratethese with some specific examples. In sodoing it draws heavily upon what isconsidered to be the authoritative guide tonatural crop protection in the tropics (Stoll,2000).47 48 Aimed primarily at fieldworkers,the book is divided into four main sections.The first provides guidance on how torecognize and guard against crop specificpests. The following two sections of theguide examine methods of protection in thefield and in storage. The final sectionprovides case studies of participatoryresearch projects that have enabled farmers,extension workers and scientists to developnew approaches to pest control. Theappendices of the book contain more than700 references to scientific papers, andidentify more than 60 web sites related tointegrated pest management (IPM),entomology, plant toxicology, ethnobotanyand methods of storage protection.

Preventive measures in the fieldSome examples of pest and diseasemanagement in the field have already beendescribed in earlier sections of this report.They include inter-planting and the use of

repellent and trap crops. In general, OAArelies upon preventive measures of pestcontrol in preference to curative ones. Stoll(ibid. pp. 88-92) identifies nine mainprinciples of preventive crop protection,summarized below.

Knowledge of agroecosystems: theagricultural ecosystem and the environmentin which it is embedded are the primaryfactors determining pest pressure on crops.

The following aspects are of particularimportance:

• The biology of pests and their enemies,including life cycles, breeding behaviour,feeding habits, etc.

• the seasonality of pests and their enemies

• the season and stage of development whenplants are most susceptible to attack

• conditions (climatic and physical) underwhich pests thrive

• alternate host plants, which will attract apest away from a crop, or harbour thepest at other times of the year.

While farmers may have some knowledge ofthese issues, they will rarely have it all. Forexample, farmers’ knowledge about the lifecycle and habits of predators is often far fro mcomplete, or they may not know aboutc e rtain forms of pathogen that can control orrepel pests. In such situations, the exchangeof diff e rent forms of knowledge, local andscientific, can generate new methods ofdealing with specific problems. It can alsolead to farmer experimentation on the moste ffective ways of applying solutions that havebeen found to be useful elsewhere. Themethods used to exchange knowledge andengage farmers in this process are part i c u l a r l yi m p o rtant. Stoll’s book contains eight casestudies on how synergies between local and


scientific knowledge have been generated(ibid. pp. 264-338). Elsewhere in the org a n i cand agroecological literatures a gre a temphasis is laid on part i c i p a t o ry appro a c h e sto exchanging knowledge, reflecting thegeneral importance of using appro p r i a t emechanisms for teaching and learning.

Healthy plants and soils: Plants that are overor under-nourished are more prone toinfestation. There is a close relationshipbetween the physiology of a plant, itslocation, soil structure, nutrient availability,type of agricultural practice and infestation.According to Chaboussou (1987, cited inStoll, p. 89), plants with high levels of watersoluble substances, such as sugars, aminoacids and glycosides in their cells are moreprone to attack as pests prefer to feed onthese substances. Field trials in Latin Americasuggest that crop infestation by stemborer,fall army worms and aphids is encouraged by high levels of application of nitrogenfertilizer (van Huis, 1982, cited in Stoll,2000). Farmers in Latin America have foundthat incorporating organic matter into thesoil provides an effective means of avoidingattack from white grub, which ignores theroots of crops if there is sufficient organicmatter in the soil. The relationship betweensoil treatment and the susceptibility of plantsto pests and disease is explored in moredetail in a number of papers in Allen and vanDusen (1986, pp. 553-606).

Natural rhythms and optimal planting times:Outbreaks of pests and diseases are oftenassociated with particular climatic conditionsthat may correspond with vulnerable stagesin the life cycles of a crop. Knowledge of thelife cycles of pests and disease can helpfarmers plan their planting so as to minimisedamage. Different strategies may beemployed and Stoll identifies severalexamples. In South East Asia, traditional ricegrowers only plant one crop in the rainyseason (even though it is possible to harvesttwice), so as to interrupt the life cycle of the

rice stemborer. Similarly, in Ghana, farmersonly plant maize in the main rainy season, as the crop suffers high infestation from stemborer in the lesser rainy season.

Crop rotation: This is one of the key featuresof OAA, important both for maintaining soilfertility and controlling pests. It isparticularly effective for controlling peststhat live within the soil, such as nematodes,wireworms and cutworms. Rotationinterrupts the life cycle of these pests andhelps prevent their numbers building up to a critical mass that could severely damage acrop. Rotation is also an important strategyfor maintaining soil fertility.

Mixed farming and diversification:Intercropping strategies, using ‘companionplanting’ techniques can be used to deterpests. These can work through a number of mechanisms:

• Physically camouflaging the main crop,e.g. planting bean seedlings amongst ricestubble, or beans amongst maize. InColombia, damage to beans from jassidsis reduced by two thirds by planting maize20-30 days before the beans: the maizeprovides shelter for the beans, making itharder for predators to identify them(Stoll, 2000 p. 90).

• Creating mechanical barriers that restrictthe dispersal of pests. For example, grassborders deter leafhoppers and in WestAfrica farmers dig small, steep sided pitsto provide physical traps for grasshoppers(Kinnon and Bayo, 1989).

• Creating physical environments whichdiscourage pests: for example aphids aremore attracted to cole crops grown on abare soil, as opposed to a weedy or morediverse background; red and opalcoloured plants deter some types ofinsects; mixing plant leaf shapes andtextures can also deter some pests.

82

• Masking or diluting the attractant stimuli(e.g. leaf shape, texture, or scent) of hostplants.

• Producing repellent chemical stimuli e.g.the strong odours of garlic, leek, corianderor basil.

• Diverting the pest to a more attractive‘trap crop’. For example, fruit borers canbe attracted away from tomatoes bymarigolds.

Host plant resistance and tolerance: Innatural systems plants rely upon their owndefences to ward off predators. These mayinclude chemical defences which are bittertasting and/or toxic. These self-defencemechanisms may take many forms: pests maybe deterred from feeding or laying eggs onthese resistant varieties, they may sicken afterfeeding on the host plant, or the host plantsmay be able to tolerate feeding and recoveragain. However, the orientation of breedingprogrammes towards high-yielding varietieshas contributed to a loss of these self-defencemechanisms. Seed exchange networks, whichpreserve indigenous varieties that may havepest resistant characteristics, are a usefulmechanism for maintaining and distributingthese more robust varieties. Science can alsoplay a role in helping develop pest resistantvarieties (for example the development ofRuiri 11,discussed in section 4.2. above).However, the development of successfulbreeding programmes for such varieties is a costly and lengthy process (Hillocks et al..,1996 cited in Stoll, 2000)

Managing natural enemies: Maintainingdiversity within an agroecosystem can alsohelp provide habitats and food sources forthe natural predators of pests. By managingthe farm environment in this way, the farmercan effectively recruit an ‘unpaid army offarm workers’, who will undertake much ofthe work involved in managing pests. Forexample, experiments from the University

of California found that cultivating strips of alfalfa increased the population of insect-eating spiders by a factor of ten (Rincon-Vitova, 1995, cited in Stoll, 2000 p.91).

In many areas ants have been found to beeffective in managing a range of differentpests. Sugar solutions can be used to attractant populations (as well as other usefulpredators, such as ladybirds and spiders). In one experiment in the Honduras, sugarwater solutions were applied weekly for thefirst five weeks after the maize crop emerged. On average twice the number of predatorswere found in the treated areas as in theuntreated ones, leaf damage was 35% less inthe treated areas and whorl infestation was18% less (Cañas and O’Neil, 1998, cited inStoll, 2000). Indian farmers employ a similarpractice of using a combined sugar/gheesolution to attract ants to control beetlespreying on mango trees (Gupta and Patel,1991, cited in Stoll, 2000).

F a rmers in Vietnam use weaver ants to contro lc i t rus pests. In two years of trials the antshave been shown to reduce infestation byc i t rus stinkbug by 94%, of swallowtailb u t t e rfly larvae by 92%, of citrus aphids by67%, and to reduce leafminer damage by12%. In addition, crops with a weaver antp resence also yield shinier fruit, and haveg reater appeal to consumers (Stoll, 2000,p.99). In Tanzania, farmers also use weaverants to protect fruit crops and encourage themto them colonize trees by building art i f i c i a l‘bridges’ with steel or plastic wires (ibid.p.100). In Kenya, farmers facing infestationsof caterpillars and grasshoppers will set trapsfor soldier ants and release them in the are athat they want cleared (ibid.). In other placesf a rmers attract birds to control naturalp redators. In India, turmeric rice is used toattract birds to castor fields infested withcastor semiloopers. When a suff i c i e n tpopulation of birds has been attracted and therice supply exhausted they then prey on thel a rvae of this pest (ibid.).


In other areas, natural predators may be bredand released into the wild in order to managepest populations or as agents for controllinginvasive weeds (see Julien, 1992 for details ofpotential of the latter strategy). In Cuba,different species of flies, ants wasps andbacteria are all bred and released in areaswhere there are specific predator problems(see case study 3). In sub-Saharan Africa onespecies of wasp (E. lopezi) has been identifiedwhich controls the mealybug, a major threatto cassava, one of the staple crops of the area(Kinnon et Bayo, 1989, p.67). This has beensuccessfully released in twenty-five countrieswith very successful results (Schulthness etal., 1997). Hoffmann et al.. (1998) identifypromising results from a programmeinvolving the release of leaf-feeding beetles(Leptinotersa texana) to control the spreadof silver leaf nightshade, an imported andinvasive species which has caused problemsin Southern Africa. Large-scale programmessuch as these last two involve co-ordinatingresources and research in ways that are notgenerally available to local farmer groups.

Field sanitation: This can be important incontrolling the life cycle of pests. Measuresmight include the removal or destruction ofprematurely fallen fruits (which may harbourpupae or larvae) and of infected harvestresidues. Trap crops should also be removedat appropriate times of the year so that theydo not harbour pest populations for thefollowing year. Stoll (2000) also identifiesdistance between infested fields and plantnurseries as a factor that can contribute tocross-infestation.

Social (collective) action: Some pests rangeover large territories and their numbers cannotbe managed effectively by farmers workingi n d i v i d u a l l y. Stoll illustrates how variegatedgrasshopper populations can be controlled byseeking out and destroying their nests (usuallyno more than 1 per square kilometre). If donee ffectively over a large area this can re d u c enumbers by 70-80%. Similarly in Vietnam in

1997-8 the government conducted a nationalcampaign against rodents, encouraging peopleto catch them and substantially re d u c i n grodent numbers.

P rotecting newly planted seeds: One of themost vulnerable times in the cropping cycle is when seeds have just been planted. Farm e r sadopt a range of mechanisms to increase thechances of survival of freshly planted seeds. In many countries, food particles are scattere da round or over seedbeds when they have justbeen planted to provide an alternative foods o u rce for ants. Farmers find that the smallerthe particles of food, the more effective thestrategy in ensuring that ants are kept awayf rom the crop (Stoll, 2000, p. 97).

It is common to soak seeds in water for a fewdays before planting them. This gives them asmall head start, and means that the seedbedshave to be protected for less time. In parts ofWest Africa, farmers select seed by soakingthem in a 10% salt solution with the ones thatfloat being discarded as damaged or diseased(Njai, pers. comm.). In the same area seeds areoften mixed with ash to give them a darkercolour and make it more difficult for birds tofind them. They may also be soaked in awater/neem leaf mixture to make the seedstaste bitter and unattractive to termites andother pests (Kinnon et Bayo, 1989). Stollre p o rts a number of methods of pre - t re a t i n gseeds before planting in order to make themless attractive to a range of pests. Theseinvolve soaking seeds in infusions of plantextracts (such as neem, gliricidia, papaya,sweet flag), cow dung slurry or petrol (inminute quantities), in order to make them less palatable to pests.

Botanical defence systems

In addition to these preventive measures anumber of plants are known to have pest and disease controlling properties. Theseplants can often be grown locally and therelatively simple preparations made in situ

84

by farmers themselves. Stoll identifies a rangeof plants and plant extracts, used in differentparts of the world to control insects andother pests. Table 4.6 (over) identifies theplants most commonly used to control pestsand diseases within the tropics.

Methods of storage protection

In areas of the world lacking modern daystorage facilities, such as refrigeration orcontrolled temperature/humidity granariesthe threat of losing crops after harvestingremains a significant one. According to FAOestimates around 15% of annual global foodproduction is lost in storage, almost half ofthat lost to pests and diseases in the field(FAO, 1998, cited in Stoll, p. 10). Whilstoften overlooked in the literature, storagetechniques remain a critical component interms of promoting global food security.

Many of the principles involved in successfulfood storage start in the field. Harvesting atthe correct time, when crops are less likely tobecome damp, and eliminating infestationsthat may already have occurred in the fieldare both critical factors. Choice ofappropriate species and varieties is alsoimportant. For example, some farmers prefertraditional varieties of maize, as the cobhusks have a more closed profile thanmodern day hybrids and provide betternatural protection from maize weevilinfestation. For grain, relative humidity is aparticularly important factor. Stoll (2000,p.231) suggests that grain should be stored at a humidity level of between 8-10%.Beyond this level the possibility of insectinfestation greatly increases. At 13%humidity the risk of mould developing isgreatly increased. (after Stoll, 2000)

Farmers often use a range of dryingtechniques. The simplest of these is exposureto sun and wind. Other more capital/labourintensive techniques, such as heating insimple ovens, boiling and drying, or use of

solar drying equipment can all be employedto accelerate the drying process or make itmore effective. Farmers may treat only partof their crop in these ways, using lessintensive methods for crops intended forshort and medium term domesticconsumption and paying extra regard to thatportion of the crop destined for longer termstorage (e.g. seed for next year).

Storage facilities may vary in size and scope,from communal buildings (such as the ricebarns constructed by the World Food DayFarmers’ and Fishermen’s Movement inIndonesia – see case study) to home builtsandpits or even gourds. Hygiene is always at a premium. The removal of old storedproduce, thorough cleaning and protectionfrom damp and rodents are all essentialpreparations. Checking produce andremoving damaged or potentially infestedgrain/vegetables is also an importantprecaution.

A number of different preventive approachesto infestation can be employed. Severalplants identified in Table 4.6 (above) areeffective against storage pests. Basil is used inseveral countries to suppress bean bruchids.Chilli is used in many forms to prevent cropinfestation. In Nigeria, farmers protectcowpeas by sprinkling chillies among them.In the Philippines, farmers dry and fumigatetheir grain at the same time by adding chilliesto the fire used for drying. The fish beanplant is used to control bruchid infestation inZambia and, in Latin America, muña iswidely used to protect stored potatoes.Neem, sweet flag and velvet leaf are otherbotanical sources used in differing quantitiesto protect against post-harvest infestation(examples from Stoll, 2000, pp 235-252).

Vegetable oils are often also used as amechanism for reducing risk of infestation.They include oils made from coconut, cotton,sesame, neem and other locally-availablespecies. Some of these oils have a toxic effect


Table 4.6 – Plants with pest-controlling properties

Field insects A B C D F B G a G i G l I P M l M m M g N P a P L P o P y Q R S S F Ti To Tu

American bollworm x x x x x x x

A n t s x x x

A p h i d s x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

A rm y w o rm x x x x x x x

Asian corn bore r x x

Avocado lacebug x

Banana pseudostem bore r x

Bean aphid x

Bean fly x

Bean pod bore r x

Bean pod weevils x x x

Beet arm y w o rm x

B e e t l e s x

Black carpet beetle x

Black rice bug x

Blister beetle x x

B rown planthopper x x x

B rown rice planthopper x x

Bunch caterpillar x

Cabbage aphid x

Cabbage looper x x x

Cabbagehead caterpillar x x x

Cabbage worm x x x

Castor caterpillar x x

C a t e r p i l l a r s x x x x x x x x x

C h rysanthemum aphid x

Codling moth x

C i t rus aphid x

C i t rus leaf miner x x x

C i t rus psyllid x

C i t rus red mite x

C i t rus scale x

C i t rus thrips x

Cockchafer gru b x

C o c k ro a c h e s x

C o ffee gru b s x

C o ffee gre e n s c a l e x x

Colorado beetle x x x x x

86


C o rn ro o t w o rm x

Cotton stainer x x x x x

Cotton semilooper x

Cucumber beetle x x

C u t w o rm s x x x x

D e s e rt locust x

Diamondback moth x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Eggplant fruit & shoot bore r x

E u ropean corn bore r x x

Fall arm y w o rm x x x

False codling moth x

F l e a s x

Flea beetle x x x x x x x

Flower thrips x

F ruit flies x x x

Gall midge x

Gram pod bore r x

G r a s s h o p p e r s x x x x

G reen bugs, x

G reen leafhopper x x x x x

G reen peach aphid x

G reen rice leafhopper, x x x

G reen scale x

G reen stinkbug x

H a i ry caterpillar x

H a i ry chinchbug x

H o u s e f l i e s x x

I m p o rted cabbage worm x x x x x

L a rge cabbage worm x x

Leaf beetle x

Leaf bug x

Leaf cutting insects x

Leaf eating caterpillars x

Leaf hoppers x x

Leaf miners x x x x

L o c u s t s x

Maize stalk bore r x

Maize stembore r s x x

Mango leafhopper x

M e a l y b u g s x



M e d i t e rranean fru i t f l y x x x

Melon aphid x

Melon fly x

Melon worm x x x

Mexican bean beetle x x x

M i g r a t o ry locust x x

M i t e s x x x x x x x

M o s q u i t o x

M o t h s x

M u s t a rd sawfly x

Onion thrip x

Oriental fruit fly x x

Oriental fruit moth x

Pink bollworm x

Potato aphid x

Potato jassid x

Potato tuber moth x x x

Red ants x

Red coffee mite x

Red crevice tea mite x x

Red pumpkin beetle, x

Red spider mites x

Red tea mite x

R h i n o c e ros beetle x

Rice bug x

Rice caseworm x

Rice gall midge x x

Rice leaf folder x x

Rice leaf ro l l e r x

Rice stalkbore r s x

Rice stembore r s x x x x

Rice thrips x

S a w f l i e s x

S c a l e s x x

S i l k w o rm x x

S l u g s x

S o rghum shootfly x

S o u t h e rn arm y w o rm x

Squash bugs x x

Spider mites x

88


S t e m b o re r s x x

Stink bugs x x

Sweet pepper weevils x

Tent caterpillar x

Te rm i t e s x x x

Ti c k s x

T h r i p s x x x x x x

Tobacco budworm x

White backed rice planthopper x x x

White cabbage butterf l y x x

W h i t e f l y x x x x x x

White gru b s x

Wi re w o rm x

R o d e n t s x

N e m a t o d e s

Root knot nematode x x

Va r i o u s x

Field diseases

B a c t e r i a x

Bacterial blight x

Basal stem ro t x

Bean anthracnose x

B rown leafspot on rice x x

B rown ro t x

C o ffee berry disease x

C o ffee ru s t x

Cucumber mosaic viru s x

Cucumber ringspot viru s x

Cucumber scab x

Downy mildew x

G rey leaf spot x

Kasahui (fungal disease of potatoes) x

Leaf curl viru s x

Leaf ru s t x

Mango anthracnose x

Mosaic viru s x

P o w d e ry mildew x x x

Rice blast x

Rust in beans and wheat x

Tobacco etch viru s x



Tobacco etch viru s x

Tobacco mosaic viru s x

Tobacco ringspot viru s x

Tomato blight x

Vi ruses (not specified) x

Fungal diseases

A s p e rhillus flavus x

Pyriculria ory z a e x

Storage insects

Aduki bean weevil x x x x

Angoumois grain moth x x

Black carpet beetles x

B ru c h i d s x

Cowpea weevil x x

Grain weevils x x

Khapra beetle x

L a rge grain bore r x

Lesser grain bore r x x x x x

Maize weevil x x x

Red flour weevil x

Rice flour weevil x x

Rice weevil x x x x x

Saw toothed grain beetle x

Wa rehouse moth x

(after Stoll, 2000)

on the predators themselves, others inhibitthe hatching of eggs and all make it harderfor eggs to be laid on the grains of thetreated crop.

I n e rt dusts, including sand, wood ash, kaolinand paddy husks are often used as atraditional method of storage for grains andvegetables. Their wide availability and the lowo p p o rtunity cost involved in gathering themmake them a particularly attractive storagemedium for poor farmers. For example, inWest Africa, farmers store beans in fine sandto protect them against beetle infestation(Kinnon et Bayo, 1989). Fine-grained part i c l e s

such as these are effective in inhibiting themovement of insects and pests, reducing theirchances of breeding and of laying their eggsw i d e l y. Some fine-grained particles abrade theskin/shell surfaces of pests, thus furt h e rweakening them. In Benin, farmers use acombination of these techniques, mixing drye a rth and chillies to protect their beanh a rvest. As with other organic techniques andmethods, experimentation andcommunication are key factors in pro m o t i n gand disseminating good practice for themanagement of both field and storage pests.

90

4.5 – Markets and premia

There has been a noticeable and rapidgrowth in the demand for organic food inrecent years, with the biggest markets andfastest growth rates occuring in theindustrialised world: the USA, Japan andparticularly the EU. Demand for organicproduce in some Northern countries hasalmost doubled in the past three years, andsome estimates suggest that the organic shareof total food retail sales could increase from1% to 10% over the next ten years(International Trade Centre 1999). Suchgrowth rates in food demand are almostunprecedented, and the organic sector isinevitably attracting many new entrants.Large multinational companies includingNestlé, McDonalds, Novartis, Heinz, Kraft,Unilever and General Mills are beginning todevelop organic lines or buying up existingorganic processors (Willis and Yussefi, 2000;Pollan, 2001). In Germany, 80% of babyfood is now organically produced and 30%of all bread distributed around Munich isnow organic (Geier, pers. comm.). Organicproduce is no longer a niche market, but isnow thoroughly in the economic mainstream.

This creates new opportunities for producersin the South to tap into potentially lucrativemarkets, especially through providing exoticand ‘out of season’ produce. Thisengagement with Northern markets is themain driving force behind the developmentof the certified organic sector in the South.Such is the demand in the industrialisedworld that many companies are activelyseeking out producer groups to supply them.Recognition of the commercial and foreignearnings potential of export-oriented organicproduction provides by far the mostimportant motivation in the South for stateinvolvement in promoting organicproduction (FAO, 1998; Scialabba, 2000). It is no coincidence that poorer countriesthat are geographically and culturally closestto the affluent markets of the North (e.g.Turkey, Tunisia, Mexico and Argentina), areoften those with the most developed organicsectors (Barkin, pers. comm.)

T h e re is much evidence to suggest that org a n i cc e rtification can generate significant pre m i afor primary producers. Table 4.6, below,p rovides some examples of premia achieved

Table 4.6 – Premia generated by organic producers

UNDP (1992) found that 9 out of 11 organic projects studied showed an increase in net income and only 2 ad e c rease. Deducting organic premia, 5 of the 11 showed higher re t u rns than non-organic farms.

Gugal (2000) identifies a group of organic/fair trade pepper growers in Brazil who benefit from 35-40%p remia.

van Elzakker & Tulip (2000) identify 15-30% premia gained by organic coffee, cotton and sesame producers inUganda and Tanzania, with a knock-on benefit of increasing local market prices.

Cheong & Cheong (2000) describe a village that has converted to organic production and also manufacture smedicinally beneficial teas made from local weeds for export to Japan. Farmers in this village earn fourtimes as much as conventional rice farmers in other parts of Korea.

Zonin et al.. (2000) discuss a farm e r-led agroecology project in the Erexim region of Brazil, which marketslocally and has resulted in significant increases in farmers’ incomes in an area previously subject tosignificant rural exodus as a result of lack of opportunities.

Faisal (pers. comm.) describes how rice grown on his own farm achieved a 30% premia on local Indianmarkets because of its better taste and quality, although it was not formally certified as org a n i c .

H a rdy (pers. comm.) describes an organic rosewater co-op in Iran, which is more profitable than pre v i o u spoppy growing related activities.

Myers (pers. comm.) describes a herb growing project in a remote and often inaccessible part of Kenya( M e ru) which is so successful that it is attracting economic migrants back from the slums of Nairobi.


by organic growers, mostly from exportmarkets but occasionally from domestic ones.

Despite these encouraging examples, there isan inherent danger in embarking upon atransition to organic farming solely becauseon the promise of premia for cert i f i e dp roduce. First, certification can often be ad i fficult obstacle to negotiate (see followingsection). Second, as commodity pro d u c e r shave found to their cost in the past,dependency on export markets is not risk-fre e .A decline in the rate of growth of demand inthe rich world, a rapid expansion of suppliesf rom the South and the possibility ofc e rtification pro c e d u res being discre d i t e d ,4 9

could all (singly or in combination) potentiallyu n d e rmine the benefits currently accruing toe x p o rt-oriented organic pro d u c e r s .

Organic production systems do howeveroffer some cushion against the vagaries andcentralizing tendencies of global markets.The nature of organic farming, with itsemphasis on mixed systems, means thatfarmers are less likely to be solely reliantupon one crop and less exposed in times ofcrop failure or oversupply and low prices.Because organic farming relies more onlocally-available natural resources and labourinputs than conventional agriculture, thebenefits are likely to be more equitablydistributed than under more capital intensivesystems. And in some instances farmersgrowing ‘minority species’ (who are morelikely to be small-scale producers in marginalareas) can, through niche marketing, achieveadditional competitive advantage throughselling organic ‘exotics’ (Blench, 1998). Forexample, in Latin America Mayan Indiansaccrue such advantages through marketingorganic Aloe Vera and Mayan oranges, athin-skinned and very sweet variety, whichare often processed into jams and preserves(Neugebauer and Mukul-Ek, 2000).

In many other respects however, organicagriculture in the South suffers from thesame structural handicaps as its conventional

counterpart. The overwhelming majority oforganic produce from the South is sold asunprocessed commodities or primaryprocessed foodstuffs. International tradetariffs, lack of capital to develop processingfacilities, and to a lesser extent, a lack ofawareness of rigorous levels of qualityassurance expected by Northern customers,all present significant barriers to producers in poorer countries being able to add valueto their produce. While there are someexceptions to this rule (for example high-value added phytoceuticals, aimed at nichehealth markets), the structure of the globaltrading economy makes it problematic forproducers in the South to engage withanything more than primary production.

A further handicap to engagement with worldmarkets is the general lack of infrastru c t u re inmany parts of the South. Several surv e yrespondents identified poor accessibility andcommunications as major barriers to entryinto export markets. This is a part i c u l a rp roblem for landlocked countries in Africa( S c h w a rz, pers. comm.), but one that occurs in many remote regions. In parts of China,w h e re much organic tea is grown, the harv e s thas to be carried down the mountain by handor pack animal (Lamin, pers. corr.). Equally,in the Gambia one attempt to establish anintensive farm up-country foundered becauseof the quality of the roads: ‘they were sending

out crates of tomatoes from the farm, but it

was nearly purée by the time it arrived in

Banjul’ (Njai, pers. com.).

Access to primary processing facilities and afocus on high value-to-volume ratio can helpovercome some of these obstacles. The Meruregion of Kenya is often inaccessible duringthe rainy season but a project for growingand drying herbs that can be delivered in thedry season when the roads are passable isimproving the incomes and opportunities forthe local community (Myers, pers. comm.)Simple processing facilities can open up newmarket opportunities. SAFLEG, in Togo,grow and dry organic pineapple for export as

92

‘health’ snacks and muesli ingredients. Withjuicing machinery they are able to use‘outgrade’ fruits to produce fresh juice forlocal markets (Centre for the Development ofIndustry, 1999). Simple processing facilitiesalso have other benefits. They permit longer-term storage, an important factor in areaswhere access is an issue. They can also bringecological benefits. Primary processingfacilities, close to point of production, willgenerate significant quantities of compostablewaste material that can be used to helpmaintain soil fertility instead of beingexported out of the region or country (see forexample Anobah 2000; Kufa et al.. 2000).

The importance of developing processingfacilities was highlighted in several responsesto our survey.50 Soita (pers. comm.) wrote ofthe substantial benefits to farmers within theHOPE Foundation in Kenya, who had beenable to acquire small hand-powered mills toprocess sunflower seeds into oil. This enabledfarmers to gain a far better return on theirproduce than they would otherwise receivefrom selling to a ‘middleman’. Simpletechnologies such as these can vastly improvethe earning capacity of small-scale farmers.In many cases, the difficulties involved inobtaining credit and sometimes accessingappropriate machinery often pose serioushandicaps to realizing this potential.

Several projects have recently beenestablished to develop local value-addingcapacity in the organic sector. In West Africa,pilot centres for technological training inorganic food processing have been set up inGhana, Burkina Faso and Senegal (Anobah,2000). In Mali, an association for naturallydrying mangoes intended for domestic andexport markets has been set up (Crole-Rees,2000). In the High Andes, efforts are beingmade to process fruits into conserves, whichhave better storage life and are more readilymarketed (Zaurez, 2000). Recognizing theimportance of this part of the food chain, theFAO is planning to undertake research into

organic methods of storage and processing(FAO, 2001).

There is a growing awareness of a pressingneed to stimulate and develop local marketswithin producing countries (Guivant, et al..2000). In Egypt, Sekem have pursued astrategy of developing local markets andcapacity for value-adding (see case study 10,over). There are however, evident difficultiesin building markets in countries where thevast majority of people live in poverty andoften struggle to satisfy basic nutritionalneeds. Equally, in much of the South theremay not be a strong awareness of thedifference between conventionally andorganically produced crops. These issuesnotwithstanding, many poorer countries dohave urban elites who may be prepared topay extra for the health, environmental ortaste benefits of organic produce. One studyin Santa Grossa (Brazil) found that ‘most

consumers were prepared to pay 20-30%

premia and change their shopping habits in

order to have agroecological produce’

(Santos et al.., 2000) [our emphasis].Interestingly this report found that one of the key determinants of people’s willingnessto pay was concern over the health impactsof agrochemical use on farm workers, anissue which rarely surfaces in discussionsabout the benefits of organic production inthe industrialised world. In Senegal, onecommentator found that some people preferorganic potatoes, as ones grown withfertilizers are thought to be too ‘fluffy’(Kenton, pers. comm.).

Tapping into consumer loyalties through a combination of taste, health andphilanthropic concerns does not necessarilyrequire certification, especially whererelatively direct marketing links can beestablished between producer and consumer.Such links might more readily be achieved inthe South, where food supply chains tend tobe shorter and relatively little processed foodis consumed. There are reports of informal,


trust-based, organic distribution networksspringing up in many poorer countries,including Senegal, (Anon, 1999) Brazil andArgentina (Florit, 2000; Willer and Yussefi,2001) and India (Baksi, 2001).

The ability to tap into premia exportsmarkets in the rich world may be a keydriving force behind the expansion of organicagriculture in the South at present. Howeverit is not the only benefit that accrues toproducers. As one group of farmers inMadhya Pradesh (India) testifies:

‘(When) asked what they would do if there

was no premium paying buyer for their

organic produce, they stated very

emphatically that they were producing better,

cheaper crops under their present system and

it would not matter if they were not attached

to an export chain.’ (Caldas, 2000a).

Case study 10 – Sekem (Egypt)

Sekem (meaning life force) is an Islamiccultural and social movement, based inEgypt, in which biodynamic farming plays akey role. The Sekem Farm was founded in1977 on 70 hectares of desert near Cairo.Under the guidance of a German agronomist,biodynamic methods adapted for theireffectiveness in arid zones were employed.This former desert site is now a thriving farmsupporting crops, livestock and bees. Sekemhas developed an organic agricultureadvisory service (the Egyptian BiodynamicAssociation), which through its extensionprogrammes, has contributed to theconversion of more than 150 farms covering4,000 hectares to biodynamic farmingpractices. In partnership with twointernational organic organizations it hasdeveloped an independent inspection andcertification body, the Centre of OrganicAgriculture in Egypt (COOA), subsequentlyappointed by the Egyptian Ministry ofAgriculture as the national accreditedinspection body.

Sekem’s activities are not restricted toagriculture and extension work, and it hasalso been involved in value adding activities.It has established its own fruit and vegetablepacking company that exports to the EU. Itcultivates plants with medicinal propertiesand has secured a licence with Weleda tomanufacture and market cosmetics in Egypt.It cultivates and manufactures phytoceuticalsand essential oils. It was also one of the firstorganizations in Egypt to start growingcotton organically, again adding value bymanufacturing and exporting finishedgarments. It now markets these productsunder four separate brands and is establishedas a ‘brand leader’ in these fields in Egypt.

Sekem is also actively involved in developingdomestic markets for its food, herbalremedies, cosmetics and clothes. It operatesits own shops in the suburbs of Cairo and itsproducts can be found in thousands of shopsacross Egypt. More than 65% of its produceis now sold domestically, distancing it fromthe uncertainties of the global marketplace.

With more than 2000 employees, Sekem isactively involved in cultural and socialdevelopment programmes, as well asp roviding benefits such as clinics, schools andk i n d e rg a rten to its members. It is widelyviewed as a major force for social change andi m p rovement within Egypt, the basis of whichis rooted within its successful biodynamica g r i c u l t u re and associated activities.

( S o u rce: Maxted Frost 1997, Abouleish, 2001).

4.6 – Certification

C e rtification is at the very heart of the pro c e s sof increasing organic pro d u c e ’s value, at leastwithin market economies. As with all form sof quality assurance, organic cert i f i c a t i o ns e rves to protect the propriety and re p u t a t i o nof the products concerned. Only thro u g hc e rtification can the standards associated witho rganic farming be protected from dilutionand misre p resentation. Yet at the same time,

94

it can also raise barriers to market entry. Thisaspect of certification is particularly keenlyfelt in the South, where the cost, complexitiesand logistics of the systems are fre q u e n t l yseen as providing real barriers to part i c i p a t i o nin organic markets. This issue was the focusof much debate at the most recent IFOAMc o n f e rence (Alföldi et al. 2000), where somecommentators likened the new cert i f i c a t i o nagencies to ‘a new breed of missionaries and

settlers’ (Boersma, 2000). There is also aw i d e s p read view that the ‘ i n t e r p retation of

c e rtification can be and is used as a trade

b a rr i e r’ (Suma, pers. comm.) and that‘existing approaches do not lend themselves

to participation by Southern stakeholders’

(Blowfield, 1999). Yet certification is an e c e s s a ry process, re q u i red to justify thep remia that consumers are pre p a red to payfor organic produce and which pro d u c e r sbenefit from. Indeed the issue of cert i f i c a t i o nand standards is so important that a newj o u rnal dedicated specifically to the topic hasjust been published.51

To understand the issues surroundingcertification systems, a brief discussion of themechanisms through which they operate isrequired. By way of example we focus uponthe European Union, which has the longestestablished international standard, grantingaccess to the world’s largest organic market.For producers located outside the EU thelegislation can be particularly complex. It offers three routes for organic producersfrom outside the region who wish to gainaccess to European markets. The first ofthese, intended as the principal mechanism, is for produce from ‘Listed Countries’. Toachieve this status, countries must haveenacted legislation equivalent to EUstandards and established a recognizedcertification body. Once approved by the EUthese bodies can then undertake all necessaryinspection work and issue certificates for allconsignments. However, the applicationprocess is lengthy, and ten years after the EUlegislation was passed only one Southern

country (Argentina) has acquired this status(Suma, 2000). A few countries, includingChina and Mauritius, are in the process ofapplying for Listed Country status. Mostcountries have yet to pass relevant legislationalthough some are in the process of doing so(Lernoud, 2000).

Producers in Listed Countries have arelatively quick and cheap method ofaccessing European markets. It does howeverrequire that government takes an interest andbecomes involved in establishing a regulatoryframework. Yet few governments in theSouth view the promotion of organicproduction as a priority. Many see it as amarginal activity, whose potential does notwarrant the time and expense necessary toput such structures in place. In othercountries, still committed to agricultural‘modernization’, the organic message mayfall on deaf ears. In such cases producershave to pursue other avenues to securemarket access. A second approach availableto producers in the South is the licensing ofindividual inspection bodies to operate in athird country at the request of an EUmember state. This approach has only beenused on one occasion (in Turkey) and theimplications of it have not yet been fullyexplored. In principle this method shouldoffer similar benefits to Listed Country status(Suma, 2000).

A third approach, known as the ‘back doormechanism’, was designed as a derogationfor importers but now accounts for 80% oforganic imports into the EU (ibid.). Underthis system, importers within member statesmay market organic produce if they canprove that the produce has been inspected bya system equivalent to the EU regulation.This creates opportunities for registeredcertifiers in industrialised countries to act asbrokers for importers, either by directlyinspecting producer groups and issuingcertificates or by setting up branch offices inthe South. As individual certifiers and EU


member states have slightly differingregulations, this can create a complicatedregulatory environment for producers. Forexample, import licences to individual groupsare issued for different time periods, rangingfrom five years to less than one year. Theproblems involved in gaining certificationcan lead to expensive and time-consumingproblems for producers (see in particular,Wilhelm 2001).52 Nycander (2000) recountsone such incident:

‘In September 1999, the first organic certified

Robusta coffee in Uganda was ready for

export. But when import clearance in the EU

was held up, the customer lost interest. Five

months later the two containers were still at

the factory in Kampala.’

A number of different and sometimescontroversial issues surround the inspectionand certification processes. These include:

• the current concentration ofinternationally recognized certificationbodies in the North

• the difficulty of agreeing protocols forinspection (particularly for large co-operatives)

• the difficulties that producer groups havein coming to terms with the detailedpaperwork necessary to satisfycertification proceedings

• the extent to which organic standardsshould incorporate social criteria (andthereby develop synergies with fair-tradelabelling)

• a broader range of ethical issuessurrounding organic production, relatedto issues such as food miles and‘seasonality’.

The remainder of this section addresses theseissues in turn.

One of the main issues of contentionsurrounding organic certification at present is the concentration of competence incertification in industrialised countries. Ofthe sixteen accreditation bodies recognizedby IFOAM, only three are located in theSouth (one each in Argentina, Bolivia andBrazil, IFOAM 2001).53 The lack ofcertification capacity in the South raises costand logistical barriers for producers. The costof certification, almost invariably theresponsibility of ‘First World’ certifiers canbe prohibitively expensive for many small‘Third World’ producer groups. Even whenlocals are employed to do much of theinspection work, average external inspectors’costs of around $300 per day (plus travelexpenses) are considerably more than theannual incomes of many of those whom theyare inspecting. Fonseca (2000) estimates thatthe cost of certification for small-holders inBrazil varies between 0.5 and 2.5% ofbusiness turnover, making it difficult forsome of them to maintain organic status.

Two diff e rent approaches to reducing thescale of this problem are currently beingdeveloped. In many instances industrialisedc o u n t ry certifiers are setting up re g i o n a lo ffices in the South and employing local staff .This brings a number of advantages: locals t a ff members will have more detailedknowledge of local social, agricultural andecological practices; they will command wagelevels commensurate with the value added bylocal organic production; and, by virtue ofhaving local offices, the certifiers will attractm o re custom. Whilst certification competencel a rgely remains a Nort h e rn monopoly, there isa growing trend for Nort h e rn-based cert i f y i n gagencies to sub-contract much of the work toS o u t h e rn-based offices. However, this doesnot negate the need for annual inspectionsf rom the ‘head office’.

96

A second approach for driving down costs of certification (and marketing) is throughthe formation of co-operatives and producergroups. This is common practice in manypoorer counties, particularly where there area large number of producers in the sameregion producing the same exportcommodities. The question of how tomanage the inspection of large producer co-ops has been a particularly contentious onein recent years. National (and individualcertifying bodies’) standards regarding theproportion of farms which should be subjectto external inspection vary substantially. Onethe one hand there is a (natural) desire tohave stringent inspection requirements beforegranting certification. Yet at the same time,this must be balanced by the economics ofinspection. Some producer co-ops in poorercountries may include several thousand smallfarms, scattered across several villages overareas of up to 10,000 square kilometres(Heidi, 1999). Recent debates have focusedaround the question of the percentage offarms that should be subject to externalinspection and the flexibility that should beattached to this.

Many certifying bodies argue that minimump e rcentage inspection rates are likely to beself-defeating targets. For example aninspection rate of 20% (the mid range ofc u rrent figures) would impose intolerablefinancial costs upon a producer co-operativewith, for example, 1200 members, yet wouldbe inadequate for a co-operative of ten ortwenty members. More o v e r, in the reality ofthe South any minimum inspection rate wouldbe likely to result in international inspectorsvisiting the most accessible (by road) farm sand neglecting distant farms which are onlyaccessible by foot. The danger of this scenariowould be that the accessible farms wouldbecome inspection ‘show farms’ and that far-flung farms would be subject to minimalinspection and regulation. A consensusappears to be emerging that the best solutionis to increase the capacity for internal contro l

systems, in which every farm is inspected bylocal inspectors, and limiting the role of theoutside inspector to that of primarily checkingthe efficacy of this system (Heid, 1999; Anon2001b). This approach however has yet to bea g reed or ratified. In the longer term theseissues might be resolved when developingcountries establish their own legislation andc e rtification authorities. At present most ofthe interest in establishing certification bodiesin the South comes not from governments butf rom NGOs (FAO, 2001), and the prospect ofe x p o rting countries having their ownc e rtification systems in place in the nearf u t u re seems re m o t e .

A further and related issue is that of thetechnical complexity of the certificationprocess. This can represent particularproblems in areas with low literacy rates,where certification forms and otherpaperwork may be difficult to understand.This problem may be compounded bylanguage and translation issues. Onecommentator claims that at least ten smallorganic producer groups in Mexico lost theirorganic certification in 1999 because of theirinability to deal with and process all therelevant paperwork (Boersma, 2000, p.571).The author contended (somewhatrhetorically), that not only do farmers haveto be literate to be organic farmers under EUrules but that they also require a computer tokeep up with the administration – clearly nota realistic option for most Mexicancampesinos. The development of locally-managed quality control and inspectionsystems (discussed above) may significantlyreduce this problem.

A further issue of contention is the sensitivityof standards of local situations and practices.Most organic standards have evolved in theindustrialised world under specific farmingsystems and are now being applied to verydifferent farming systems and socio-economiccontexts in the South. There is a clear tensionhere between the desire for flexibility, which


reflects local and traditional practices (asadvocated by agroecologists), and the need tomaintain standards that are respected indestination markets (the organic approach).Although there is some guardedness betweenthese two approaches, we have not foundany concrete examples of substances orpractices employed in agroecological systemsthat would not be permitted in organic ones.

There is a potential for such tensions to arise.The use of indigenous botanical extracts aspest and disease controls provide onepossible cause, as some of these are unlikelyto be known or tested in the North.54 UnderEU regulations preparations for pest anddisease control must be on an approved list(as opposed to fertility-promoting substances,which can be used as long as they are notproscribed (Hardy, pers. comm.)). As the costand time implications of testing such‘traditional’ materials is likely to be high, thismay act as a deterrent to the use oftraditional, geographically and culturallyspecific methods of pest and disease control.A second potential source of tension is theplanned removal (in 2004) of some non-organic compounds from the approved listsof substances. This includes copper-basedsubstances, which are often used to combatfungal disease. This change is likely to affectproducers in the North and the Southequally. On the balance of evidence that wehave discovered it is difficult to evaluatewhether there are real conflicts likely here orwhether resistance to standards is rooted in‘agroecologists’ aversion to the normative

organic approach’ (Caldas, pers. comm.).

A further substantive issue is the question ofwhether and to what extent standards shouldinclude social criteria. At present, organicstandards are almost exclusively process-oriented agricultural ones with little or nosocial content. Thus there is a limited basisfor guaranteeing that organic produce isgrown under conditions that are (dangersfrom pesticides and insecticides aside) any

less exploitative than some conventionalfarming systems. This creates something of adilemma, as there is a widespread acceptancethat organic consumers also wish to beethical consumers and often assume theproduce that they buy is ‘fair traded’. To alesser extent the reverse also holds true(Browne et al., 2000). These assumptions arenot necessarily correct, and accreditationunder both forms of certification can bringsignificant benefits. The Ambootia Tea Estatefound that the premia on fair trade tea madeup for losses in yield while they were in theprocess of conversion to a biodynamicsystem. Gugal (2000) reports on a fairtrade/organic producer co-op in Brazil,growing hot peppers for export and domesticconsumption, that yields a 35-40% premiaover and above normal market prices. InNicaragua, small-scale coffee farmers havebeen assisted to shift to organic/fair tradeschemes (and increase their incomes) by theCo-operative League of the United States(CLUSA) (Maxted-Frost, 1997). Yet atpresent only a limited amount of produce istraded under both labels (see EqualExchange, 2001; and case studies 5 and 7)and these often involve separate certificationprocedures, which adds to transaction costs.

For the most part, producers in the Southface uncertainty as to the relative benefits ofthese different accreditation schemes in termsof securing access to markets and addingvalue to their produce (FAO, 2000). Agrowing literature is emerging about thepossibility of joining the two schemestogether, or at least creating links betweenthem (Blowfield, 1999; Browne et al. 2000;Biofach 2001). This is especially relevant fortraditional plantation crops such as sugar,tea, coffee and bananas.

At present the organic movement seems to be keener to incorporate social values into its accreditation processes than the fair trademovement is to adopt practices of organicmanagement. Several organic certifiers (e.g.

98

the Soil Association) already have a policyregarding ‘social justice’ within theirstandards, although these are generally notwell developed. IFOAM has a chapter onsocial justice within its present standards,55

but wishes to strengthen it and make it morespecific. IFOAM is in negotiations with theFairtrade Labelling Organization (FLO) overthis issue (Cierpka, 1999; Biofach 2001) andthe FAO (2000a) recently held a seminar onintegrating the two systems in bananaproduction. This, while generally in favour ofdeveloping links between the twoapproaches, identified some difficulties indoing so successfully. In particular, trade-offswere identified between the ‘efficient’development of standards and stakeholderparticipation and between specificity instandards (which might disadvantage somegroups of farmers) and flexibility (whichmight undermine the credibility of thescheme). Thus while there are intentions ofachieving a closer alignment between the twoapproaches to certification, there are somedifficulties in doing so.

A final interesting twist in the discussionabout standards concerns the issues of foodmiles and seasonality. The organic movementhas long valued the importance of local andseasonal produce. However these concernshave rarely been codified into standards.With the increase in global organic trading,such values are at the risk of beingmarginalized (see, Köpke, 2000; Banks andMarsden, 2001), as food travels longdistances by fossil fuel-powered transport –producing pollution and contributing toclimate change. Questions are now beingasked as to whether existing standards cansatisfactorily incorporate issues such as ‘foodmiles’ and the substitution of domestic andseasonal produce with imports (Geier, 2001).With the growing involvement of largecorporations in the organic market andincreased competitiveness betweencertification bodies, it would appear unlikelythat issues such as these, which would

significantly expand the current legal scopeof organic standards, will be universallyaccepted.56 What might emerge from thisdebate is a ‘gold’ organic standard, whichincorporates these broader issues and wouldbe aimed primarily at ‘core’ organicconsumers.57

4.7 – Institutional and political issues

Certification issues aside, there are very realinstitutional and political barriers to thedevelopment of OAA. At present,governmental involvement in promotingOAA is quite rare and in most instancesmotivated by a desire to tap into the earningspotential of export markets. Other potentialbenefits of OAA, such as increasing foodsecurity, village self-reliance, environmentalresilience and biodiversity are rarelyconsidered as explicit reasons for itsadoption (Scialabba, 1998). Governments in the South are with few exceptions at bestindifferent and at worst hostile to thedevelopment of organic and agroecologicalfarming systems.58 Often such approachesrun counter to the policy initiatives whichthey are supporting or financing: initiativesthat frequently involve promoting theintensification of agricultural systems, usually through increasing the uptake offertilizer, pesticide and hybrid seeds. Inconsequence, the promotion of OAA in theSouth is almost exclusively led by NGOs and ‘ecological entrepreneurs’. In the case of non export-oriented production systems,under-resourcing of research and extensionactivities often proves a major constraint, aswith very few exceptions NGOs have limitedfinancial resources and scientific expertise(Vos and Plowright 2000).

Governments could play a significant role inadvancing the cause of OAA within theircountries. Areas of activity wheregovernments are arguably better placed thanNGOs in promoting OAA include thosewhich involve a more systematic and betterresourced (particularly in terms of scientific


expertise) approach to research andextension. Such areas of activity wouldinclude:

• Identifying areas where organic andagroecological approaches (including ‘defacto’ organic farming) are alreadypractised, the effectiveness of existingpractices, the depth of the knowledge andthe problems experienced.

• Identifying areas where traditional and/orchemical-dependent farming practices nolonger provide adequate solutions .

• Developing ‘bottom up’ capacity (e.g. fieldschools and demonstration plots) foraddressing problems identified in the twoitems above.

• Reorienting the priorities of state-fundedresearch and educational institutes so asto include topics and issues relevant toOAA.

• Exploration of the possibilities fordeveloping urban composting schemes todevelop the potential for producing offood close to population centres.

• Giving consideration to the marketpotential of OAA in both local andinternational contexts and in terms ofprimary and value-added produce.

• Providing support (legal and logistical) toenable the development of organicstandards and the capacity for carryingout inspection and certification workdomestically.

• Giving fuller consideration of the potentialrole of livestock (including poultry)aquaculture and agroforestry withinexisting cropping systems.

One frequently re c u rring theme within thel i t e r a t u re is the need not only for part i c i p a t i v e

re s e a rch, but also for re s e a rch which is trans-d i s c i p l i n a ry. For example, Vos and Plowright(2000) identify ‘a strong need for re s e a rc hthat integrates soil fertility and pestmanagement [since] farmers have a basicunderstanding of pest and soil fertility issues[but] little understanding of interactions[between the two]’. Indeed this call for trans-d i s c i p l i n a ry re s e a rch should arguably beextended to include four key and often inter-related objectives (see table 4.7 below).Rather than pursue these objectivesi n d i v i d u a l l y, there is often scope for adoptingmanagement strategies that produce synerg i e sbetween them. The importance attached tothe these objectives will clearly vary ind i ff e rent circumstances, as will the constraintsupon realizing synergies between them .

Table 4.7 – A flow chart for identifying synergies in

OAA research.

Growing recognition by internationalagencies (especially the FAO, and someforeign donors) of the potential for OAA toaddress a number of inter-related problemsmay, in the long term, result in governmentsin the South adopting a more sympatheticand pro-active approach to OAA. It is likelythat this will only occur on an incrementalbasis. On this, the macro-level, there is aneed for the organic and agroecological

100

movements to work together and develop acapacity for ‘global advocacy’, to publicizethe ‘how, what and why’ of OAA.

H o w e v e r, influencing established institutionsmay prove to be a long and slow pro c e s s .The spread of OAA poses threats to vestedi n t e rests, both financial and pro f e s s i o n a l .M a n u f a c t u rers and distributors of fert i l i z e r s ,pesticides, herbicides and hybrid seeds allhave a strong financial incentive inmaintaining the status quo. Similarly, policyadvisers and scientists who have dedicatedtheir professional careers to pro m o t i n gconventional agricultural ‘modern i z a t i o n ’a re unlikely to be sympathetic to newschools of thought and practice whichcontradict many of the premises upon whichtheir professional lives have been based.Both these sets of actors, there f o re, are likelyto raize objections to the advancement ofOAA. One of the major tasks facingadvocates of OAA will be overcoming thee n t renched prejudices which appear to bep revalent in many political, scientific andagricultural communities. However, thisb a rrier is not an insuperable one. The US-based International Fertilizer DevelopmentCenter (with a branch in Togo) has movedf rom a very pro - f e rtilizer stance to onewhich has a much more balanced appro a c hin favour of mixed organic and inorg a n i ca p p roaches to promoting soil fert i l i t y( Toulmin, pers. comm.).

B reaking down these prejudices will not,h o w e v e r, automatically result in a flow offunds for the promotion of OAA. In manycountries extension services are poorly fundedand motivated (Badejo, 1998) and there is alack of trained extension workers (FA O ,2000b). The extent of the problem variesbetween countries. For example, van Elzakkerand Tulip (2000) claim that extension serv i c e sin Tanzania and Uganda are virtually non-existent. By contrast, in neighbouring Kenyare p o rts suggest (see section 3.1) that acombination of government extension serv i c e s

and NGO activities provide a re a s o n a b l ygood advisory service on OAA to farm e r s .Thus diff e rent countries face very diff e re n tscales of challenge.

Any shift towards promoting OAA hasimplications for the funding and structures of extension and research facilities. Asknowledge about OAA and the resourcesthat it employs are both, almost exclusively,public goods, there is less incentive for theprivate sector to engage in or supportresearch and extension activities. A shifttowards OAA therefore implies a need forgreater public funding of these activities. Thisis not necessarily easily achieved when thereare many competing claims on governmentbudgets. Indeed, it is one that is likely onlyto be justified through providing hard,empirical evidence of the multiple benefitsthat a shift to OAA can bring.

Yet the spread of OAA is not solelydependent upon financing and training‘armies’ of extension workers. Alternativemodels can and are being employed. InKenya and India some NGOs train farmersin OAA techniques on the understanding thatthey will then go and train other farmers intheir locality, or use their plot as ademonstration farm (Njoroge 1996;Mariaselvam pers. comm.). This ‘snowball’approach has a potential for significantlydecreasing the costs of an extension serviceonce a basic structure is in place. Some of the more successful innovations in OAA mayneed very little institutional support tobecome accepted. The practice of digging zai(case study 6) has spread across and beyondBurkina Faso, largely via word of mouth –through farmers observing how successfulthe method is and deciding to emulate it. InChina, paddy farmers have spontaneouslyadopted ‘fire break’ cropping patterns as aresult of seeing their neighbours’ successeswith a simple and virtually cost-freetechnique (see case study 8).


A shift to OAA also implies changes in theways in which ‘know–how’ is transmitted,with a shift from vertical patterns ofknowledge transfer to horizontal ones.59

This implies involving different actors in the information exchange process and/orequipping them with different skills. In theSouth there is a particular need for extensionworkers to be able to combine ‘traditional’and ‘scientific’ forms of knowledge. This isnot always an easy balance to strike as‘scientific’ and ‘folk’ knowledge can takevery different forms. The latter is highlycontext dependent. The ability to understandpeasant knowledge systems and rationalitiescan challenge the scientific world view ofresearchers, who are more accustomed toseeking universally applicable solutions andless attuned to the resource constraints facedby small farmers. Reliance on contrastingforms of knowledge often leads to differentapproaches to resource management, asVivan (2000) demonstrates when comparingagroforestry management strategies preferredby agronomists and peasants in Brazil.Approaches to evolving the best of bothworlds are discussed in the following section.

4.8 – Social and cultural issues

Knowledge and other resources for

developing OAA

This report has identified what are oftencontradictory reports and interpretationsabout the cultural and knowledge-basedimplications of adopting OAA. On the onehand, many accounts extol OAA as fittingclosely with the priorities and cultural valuesof resource-poor farmers. Advocates of OAAargue that these approaches bring social aswell as agricultural and environmentalbenefits. They extend and ‘revalorize’traditional knowledge and practices and helpstrengthen social capacity and communityself-confidence. There are many examples offarming communities with sophisticatedlevels of knowledge and experience inmanaging complex agroecosystems. The case

study of the Chagga is but one example.Upawansa (2000) identifies more than 500indigenous practices that could informorganic and biodynamic practices in SriLanka. Gupta and Patel (1992a & b, 1993a,& b, 1994, 1995, 1996, all cited in Stoll2000) have written extensively about farmerinnovations in Gujarat (India). Norton et al.(1998) describe how the Zuni’s sophisticatedknowledge of local soil quality in NewMexico enables them to farm in an arid andinhospitable area.

On the other hand, many other re p o rt ssuggest that lack of information anda w a reness is the principal barrier to theadoption of OAA. In a survey of Africanf a rmers, Harris et al. (1998, p.1) found ‘ l i t t l eevidence of knowledge and adoption of

i m p roved soil fertility management and cro p

p rotection practices of a non-chemical

n a t u re ’ . F a rmers in this survey cited a lack ofknowledge of organic management techniquesfour times more frequently than any otherreason as the main reason for their non-adoption of OAA (ibid. p.12). Toulmin (pers.comm.) writes of how fifty years of chemical-dependent cotton growing in Mali have allbut destroyed local traditional knowledge.

Paradoxically, very contrasting levels ofknowledge can exist almost side by side.Verkerk (1998) writes of visiting two organicfarms within three kilometres of each otherin Zimbabwe. The first was organic bydefault and gave the appearance of near-dereliction: aphids were rampant on matureplants, there was clear evidence of nitrogendeficiency, no evidence of organic matterhaving been applied into the soil or ofattempts to control weeds, mulch the soil orprovide shade. The vegetables werediscoloured and malformed, and would havenot been acceptable on local markets. Bycontrast, a nearby organic farm had healthyplants and a thriving nursery, showedevidence of extensive composting andmulching and of successful pest management.

102

Similarly, the properties of Cassia

didymobotrya in treating skin and intestinalproblems in animals are well known inwestern Kenya but unrecognized in centralKenya, where ‘it is considered to be just a

shrub that smells bad’ (Thijssen, 1995).Thus, knowledge about OAA can varygreatly, even within confined geographicareas. Getachew (1996) confirms this,observing the highly fragmented nature ofknowledge about OAA, where different skillsare found in scattered localities with littlecross-reference or communication betweenthem. Though it may seem a paradoxicalsuggestion, information and awareness maysimultaneously represent the largest singleconstraint upon, and the most significantresource for, the development of OAA.

How then can we usefully conceptualize, andmore importantly assist with thedevelopment and transfer of such differing

levels of knowledge? Bentley (2000)addresses this problem in a systemic manner,providing a typology of folk knowledge,described in terms of textures. Based onwork from the Integrated Pest ManagementSchool in Honduras, he proposes fourdifferent types of farmers’ knowledge,summarized in Table 4.8 (below). Awarenessof these can help develop appropriatepatterns of information exchange betweenfarmers and extension workers.

Given the contrast between the great stores of knowledge in some areas and the almostcomplete absence in others, it would appearalmost impossible to make boldgeneralizations about the role of knowledgeand information as a resource for, or aconstraint upon, the development of OAA.The challenge lies in developing practices andnetworks that are able to gather anddisseminate local information, and

Table 4.8 – Textures of folk knowledge

Knowledge type E x a m p l e Ideal field worker response

T h i c k : i m p o rtant and easy to observ e . Honduran farmers know L e a rn from farm e r s .Local people may know more about m o re about wasp honey, Validate their knowledge andthe topic than scientists do. Local and how to harvest it, t e c h n i q u e s .knowledge can be empirically than entomologists do.verified by scientific methods. F a rmers also know about

non-lethal techniques forc o n t rolling bird predation, such as stringing tape fro mold cassettes, like ribbons,a c ross fields.

T h i n : u n i m p o rtant, but easy to observ e . Honduran farmers know After learning local systems,Local people know about a topic in a many pre d a t o ry insects by teach people the missing ideas.way that scientists can understand, but folk names, but do not Add to their folk knowledge.local knowledge is less complete than realize that they arethat of scientists. beneficial, natural, enemies

of herbivorous insects.

E m p t y : u n i m p o rtant and difficult Honduran farmers are Fill in the gaps in local knowledge, to observe. Local people know little u n a w a re of the existence teach them about the existence (andor nothing about the topic. of parasitic wasps. role of) parasitic wasps, etc.

G r i t t y : i m p o rtant but diff i c u l t The belief that insect pests Be careful. Avoid contradicting to observe. Local people have a re spontaneously beliefs unless it matters to the beliefs and perceptions that are generated by the use of p rogramme. Learn the belief and the at odds with scientific notions. insecticides and chemical reasoning behind it, which is often These ideas cannot be verified f e rtilizer is quite logical but based on incomplete by scientific methods. w i d e s p read amongst facts. Use local rhetoric to explain

smallholder farmers in he scientific perspective. Teach these Honduras. ideas with respect.

( S o u rce: Bentley 2000)


supplementing this with knowledge fromother areas.

This in turn raises the question of how topromote more context-sensitive forms ofresearch. There are many examples offarmer-oriented research and disseminationactivity projects (see for example Stoll, pp264-366). We noted earlier that participatoryfarmer research forms a significant sub-discipline in its own right. Some writersquestion how effectively and whole-heartedlythe lessons learnt from such research arebeing applied within the organic movement.Lockeretz (2000), for example, detectselements of rhetoric in claims ‘that organic

research is farmer-oriented, holistic, multi-

disciplinary and systems-oriented’, believingthat organic research methods currentlyemployed are ‘not significantly different from

conventional agricultural research’.

Undoubtedly the main issue in this regard isto develop research capacities that can helpsolve locally-identified problems. BecauseOAA is so context specific, both ecologicallyand culturally, there are no uniformsolutions. Problem analysis needs to be‘user’, rather than ‘resource’ specific(Scialabba, 1998). This in turn implies a needfor participatory, not top down, approachesto research. Sharing and enhancingtraditional knowledge in developingcountries is of critical importance in organicagriculture (FAO, 1998, p.9). As Altieri(2001, p.1) notes:

‘most agroecologists recognize that

traditional systems and indigenous

knowledge will not yield panaceas for

agricultural problems… but the most

rewarding aspect of agroecological research

has been that by understanding the features

of traditional agriculture, such as the ability

to bear risk, biological folk taxonomies, the

production efficiency of symbiotic crop

mixtures, etc., important information on

how to develop agricultural technologies best

suited to the needs and circumstances of

specific peasant groups has been obtained’.

The need to disseminate information abouttechnical aspects of organic farming (e.g.optimal patterns of rotation, varieties to use,optimal planting times, soil fertility and pestmanagement practices) is likely to be mostp ressing during early periods of conversion.L e a rning and using farmers’ vocabularies forpests, predators or soil characteristics arecritical elements of this communication pro c e s s(Steiner 1998, Meir, 2000). As OAA spre a d swithin a locality this knowledge should becomem o re widespread and part of ‘local folklore . ’Finding the re s o u rces to start communities offon this learning curve is arguably the mostp roblematic issue facing the development ofOAA in many parts of the world.

Knowledge is not the only re s o u rce that needsto be shared. In an earlier section we discussedthe importance of minority and endangere dspecies. Exchange of seeds has long been ani m p o rtant though informal form ofnetworking amongst traditional farmers. Inm o re recent times more formal Seed ExchangeNetworks (SENs) have been set up, such asPELUM (based in Zambia, and coveringSouth and East Africa) and Navdanya inIndia. Several of the NGOs who responded toour survey saw this as their most import a n ta rea of activity, as it maintains and expandsthe re s o u rce base on which locally-specificf o rms of agriculture depend.

Access to organic inputs can also beproblematic. Whilst organic farms shouldideally be able to draw on their ownresources to maintain soil fertility or controlpests, there are clearly occasions whenexternal inputs are needed. For example soilamendments (e.g. rock phosphate) may beneeded to rectify nutrient deficiencies. Inother cases the process of collecting orpreparing botanical treatments for pestinfestations may require skills, equipment orlabour inputs that individual farmers lack.

104

There is thus a need to develop marketingand distribution networks through whichsuch inputs can be acquired at reasonableprices. One successful example is thedevelopment of a neem seed processing unitin Kenya which provides ‘ready-to-use’ pestcontrol materials to organic farmers (Förster2000). In India, when the Maikaal bio-cottonproject grew to a critical mass, local traderswere influenced to start carrying biodynamicpreparations as well as or instead ofconventional ones in response to the risk ofgoing out of business (Caldas 2000a).

Employment, land tenure and the domesticdivision of labour

There is a general consensus that organicsystems require a greater labour input thanconventional farming, although labourrequirements are more evenly spread acrossthe year because of practices such as multi-cropping (Lampkin and Padel, 1994; FAO,1998b). Recent research goes some way tochallenging this view, at least as a universalgeneralization. Garcia and Brombal (2000)recently analysed labour requirements onconventional and organic farms in Sao PauloState (Brazil) and found no significantdifference in total labour requirementsbetween the two systems, although therewere differences in the timing of labourinputs (with the organic system being moreevenly spread). The main difference betweenfarm labour requirements was attributable tothe different crop types. Equally, data forlabour requirements gathered from India andNicaragua as part of IFOAM’s OA ’99Programme (see section 4.1., above), showedno consistent pattern of differences in labourdemand between organic and conventionalsystems (Witte et al., 2000).

Several of the projects and initiativesreviewed in this report suggest that theadoption of organic methods can generatenew employment opportunities. For example,in Burkina Faso, the digging of Zaï generates

new jobs, in Senegal the establishment of anurban composting scheme has had the sameeffect and in Meru (Kenya) the opportunitiescreated by an organic herb project attractedvillagers back from the city. These increasesare attributable to increased productivity,improved access to markets or strategies ofimport substitution and are a result of theimproved economic capacity created by theadoption of OAA. Many factors, such as thedegree of intensity of the existing farmingsystems, are likely to play a key role indetermining how adopting OAA affectslabour demand.

Security of land tenure can significantlyinfluence farmers’ willingness to invest eithertime or money in achieving long termimprovements in land fertility. Establishedland rights (not necessarily the same asownership) are a prerequisite for developingeffective long-term organic managementstrategies. Issues of equity of landdistribution and security of tenure willcritically influence farmers’ decisionsregarding the extent that they are preparedto invest in OAA techniques which may onlyyield long term benefits (Teshome, 2000).Even where land security is not an issue thephysical structure of farms may influence theextent to which farmers are prepared toadopt organic management strategies. Insome parts of the world, particularly whereradically different ecological and climaticzones exist in close proximity to another,farms may be dispersed across two or moreplots of land (e.g. ‘home gardens’ and bushfields’). Differences in accessibility may wellinfluence farmers’ willingness to engage infertility building techniques. For example,‘bush fields’ may be several miles from afarmer’s home, raising obstacles totransporting compost.

Domestic divisions of labour can alsoinfluence the uptake of organic systems and adopting OAA can, by the same logic,impact on domestic divisions of labour.


Traditionally many agricultural tasks aredivided along gender lines. To oversimplifysomewhat, men often assume responsibilityfor cash crops and women for the kitchengardens which feed the family. Commonlythese two different production systems aremanaged under different regimes, with scarcecash resources used to buy fertilizer for cashcrops and de facto organic systems employedon home vegetable gardens.

Given the frequent gender division betweenthese activities, it is argued that women aremore likely to be engaged with de factoorganic farming and will have a greateraffinity with organic approaches (Moali-Grine, 2000; Njai, pers. corr.),60 and mayhave pools of knowledge that can more fullybe drawn upon. Despite this, somecommentators point out that the role ofwomen in organic agriculture is oftenoverlooked, especially by extension services(Kinnon and Bayo, 1989; Kachru, 2000).

Women re p resent an important potentialconstituency for extension services, althoughbuilding effective contact with women org a n i cf a rmers can sometimes be pro b l e m a t i c ,especially in societies that are rigidly dividedalong gender lines. For example, in Zimbabwewomen growing organic cotton faced ap roblem in becoming certified producers, asthey traditionally have no land rights. A newmechanism, granting ‘Wi f e ’s SpecialExemption’ was created to meet cert i f i c a t i o nre q u i rements. Reliance on freely available localre s o u rces assisted these women to enter thecash economy without any initial investment –an extremely significant development in aregion where one third of households areheaded by women (Page, 2000).

In Kenya, participation in organic farminghas created a new status for women, withthose participating no longer feelingthemselves to be ‘just housewives, but family

managers who are economically empowered’

(Njoroge 1996, p. 27). In some instances this

has led to them taking control of the familyfarms, hiring labour and even purchasingvehicles to take produce to market.

‘Thinking organic’

We earlier argued that much ‘de facto’organic farming occurs by default, asresource-poor farmers cannot afford to buyartificial inputs. The question therefore arisesof whether farmers, driven solely byeconomic necessity, will start using artificialinputs if and when their circumstancesimprove. In other words, will organicmanagement prove to be a short-termpalliative that is abandoned for moreconventional practices in a few years time?

For many in the organic movement, theexercise is not merely one of increasing thenumber of certified (or ‘de facto’) producers’worldwide, but of winning over the heartsand minds of producers (and consumers) to a more ‘holistic’ and ‘inclusive’ world view –a world view which seeks to promoteecological and economic self-reliance. Onekey to this endeavour is that of strengtheningsocial capacity and self-confidence. Manyadherents of OAA believe that theseapproaches can play a key role in the Southin helping promote self-reliance and reducingdependency on the ‘expertise’, technologiesand markets of the industrialised world. Atthe same time OAA can help valorize localand traditional knowledge and practices. AsBoersma (2000) notes, ‘for native Indians

being an organic farmer is also an expression

of art and beauty.’

While such attitudes may be prevalentamongst those groups with an establishedtradition of organic farming, those who farmconventionally do not necessarily share them.Interviews by Harris et al. (1998, p. 9.)identify some resistance to organic farmingbecause it is perceived as requiring morework. One farmer in Tanzania wasreportedly reluctant to go organic as

106

‘collecting and preparing ingredients needed

for organic farming is tedious and time

consuming.’ Another in Ghana expressedsimilar views, stating that ‘the practice of

organic farming is tedious to undertake’. Bycontrast, one farmer in Senegal was delightedwith the benefits that organic farmingcreated. ‘Before, I used to spend 4200CFA

[about £5.00] on the fertilizer needed to help

bring on my crops: with biological farming I

spend almost nothing, except for some

manure and green compost. I am able to

spend that money on other things and it is

more than recovered through the sale of

biological produce’ (Anon 2000, p.8).Clearly attitudes towards the benefits anddrawbacks of organic farming vary as muchaccording to the individual temperaments offarmers as to other factors.

The extent to which adopting OAA helpsgenerate ‘alternative’ world views, wherebytraditional farmers and policy-makers viewindigenous knowledge and resources withpride as opposed to shame, is perhaps one ofthe key criteria in its ability to bring aboutlasting change. This broader sociallytransformative role of OAA is oftenoverlooked in discussions about its potential.It is nonetheless one that resonates stronglywith the development agenda in its widestsense. It is therefore in some respectsparadoxical that one of the main drivingforces for the adoption of OAA in the Southremains the prospect of a greater engagementwith markets in the North.


5 – Conclusions andrecommendations

5.1 – Creating a coherent ‘alternative’

agricultural movement

The evidence in this re p o rt suggests that there isa rapidly growing interest in the South in thepotential of OAA as a means for achieving anumber of objectives. These include:

• i n c reasing farmers’ incomes

• i n c reasing yields and productivity intraditional, marginal, agricultural systems

• i m p roving soil fertility and long termsustainability of farming systems

• reducing farmers’ dependency on art i f i c i a linputs and the exposure of rural populationsand environments to their side eff e c t s

• assisting with the restoration of degraded orabandoned land

• maintaining and improving biodiversity

• p romoting and valorizing local knowledgeand building self confidence.

Knowledge of the extent to which OAA ispractised in the South is far from complete.O fficial data relating to land under cert i f i e do rganic management suggests that org a n i cf a rming is still very much a minority activity.Only one country in the South (Argentina) hasm o re than 1% of its agricultural land undero rganic management. While such data may beincomplete, there is a far bigger gap in ourknowledge of the extent to which de factoo rganic and agroecological systems areemployed throughout the world. Evidencesuggests that these two latter approaches aremuch more widely practised than the form a lo rganic approach, although there is no re l i a b l emeans of estimating by how much.

Reasons for adopting these diff e re n t

a p p roaches vary significantly. Formal org a n i ca p p roaches to farming are generally adopted togain access to and/or competitive advantage ine x p o rt markets. Where governments areinvolved in promoting organic farming it isgenerally with the aim of boosting agriculturale x p o rt earnings. Other actors, however, arep romoting OAA for very diff e rent reasons. Arange of rural development and enviro n m e n t a lagencies and NGOs are beginning to use OAAas a tool to meet a range of bro a d e rdevelopmental and environmental objectives.The emphasis of diff e rent programmes andp rojects may vary, but there is evidence thatthey often yield multiple benefits. At the sametime farmers in many developing countries arewithdrawing, either partially or completely,f rom the ‘agrochemical treadmill’. Thus there isa clear convergence of interest between theagendas of diff e rent agencies and many farm i n gcommunities. Such a convergence could lead toa widespread uptake of OAA in what mightp rove to be a truly green ‘Green Revolution’. Inour opinion the potential of these individuala p p roaches and the synergies between them hasyet to be fully explored.

Because the issues and agencies driving theuptake of OAA are many and diff u s e ,i n f o rmation re g a rding the incidence andsuccesses of OAA, and the constraints it faces,is spread across many diff e rent sourc e s .D i ffering approaches to OAA, (e.g. cert i f i e do rganic, agro e c o l o g y, agro f o re s t ry, and ‘defacto’ organic practices adopted inru r a l / p a rt i c i p a t o ry development pro g r a m m e s )mean that there are many pro f e s s i o n a lg roupings who have knowledge and experienceof the issues, but who do not necessarily sharethese re s o u rces or experiences with colleaguesin other fields.

Rist (2000) identifies that the lack of co-o rdination and communication betweend i ff e rent disciplinary approaches (such asa g r i c u l t u re, livestock production, fore s t ry,a g ro f o re s t ry, re s e a rch, education andagricultural extension) provides a major

108

obstacle to developing more robust forms ofOAA and in communicating the benefits ofOAA to a broader audience. Greater cro s s -d i s c i p l i n a ry and cro s s - p ro f e s s i o n a lcommunication would significantly enhance thec o m p rehensiveness of current knowledge of thebenefits and potential of OAA. Whilst this maybe difficult to achieve on a global basis, it maybe possible to create linkages between diff e re n tp rofessional groupings on local, regional and, sometimes a nationalscale. This would be a valuable first stept o w a rds creating a more unified and cohere n t‘ a l t e rnative’ agricultural community, one whichs h a res broadly similar values but has yet tol e a rn to work together in the pursuit ofcommon goals – something which wouldenable it to share experiences and present am o re unified front to the world at large.

5.2 – Promoting OAA: defining objectives

A central objective of this re p o rt was to identifymechanisms through which relevant fundingand advocacy bodies might best engage withp romoting the development of OAA. Webelieve that there are two main avenuest h rough which such eff o rts could be channelled: through global advocacy ands u p p o rting grassroots initiatives. Eacha p p roach has its attractions and drawbacks (seeSchoones and Toulmin, 1999, in chapter 7 fora general discussion of these issues). Beforediscussing these approaches in any detail weraise a number of questions (below) re g a rd i n go rganizational capacity and priorities –questions that we feel will help org a n i z a t i o n sclarify the issues and choices involved inselecting the most appropriate approach (orcombination of approaches).

• Which geographic areas can we moste ffectively work in?

• How can we most effectively work (e.g.d i rect involvement in re s e a rch and pro j e c t sor financing and contracting others to dos o ) ?

• Which areas of work do we wish/feel bestable to support (e.g. pure and/orp a rticipative re s e a rch, promoting knowledget r a n s f e r, supporting training and extensionp rogrammes, assisting with the developmentof mechanisms for inspection andc e rtification, or education and advocacy)?

• What criteria will guide our choice ofinvolvement (e.g. promotion of conserv a t i o ni n t e rests promoting food security, re s t o r i n gdegraded land, promotion of specific OAAt e c h n i q u e s ) ?

• Do we have the capacity to build direct linkswith grass-roots organizations in the South,or would we rather work with ‘first world’institutions with proven expertise andexisting links?

• Do we wish to work in areas where OAAhas established itself and where there is abaseline of local expertise and institutionalc a p a c i t y, or to develop seed-corn projects inregions where OAA has yet to achieve a critical mass?

Such questions are best answered byo rganizations themselves in view of their aims,objectives and capacities – we do not pre s u m eto advise on such issues. What follows is adiscussion of two broad approaches top romoting OAA, those of advocacy andbuilding local capacity, which might be pursuedin isolation or combination.

5.3 – Global research and advocacy

In this re p o rt we have identified a range ofp rojects and initiatives that illustrate thebenefits and potential of OAA in a range ofd i ff e rent ecological, agricultural and socio-economic contexts. We have identified anumber of ways in which these methods anda p p roaches can address a range of pro b l e m sfacing farmers, rural (and sometimes urban)communities and policy-makers in the South.Yet we are acutely aware that the desk-based


n a t u re and relatively short time span of thisstudy have limited its scope andc o m p rehensiveness. We are also aware that there p o rt raises more questions than it can answer.We feel that further re s e a rch in this area haspotential in at least three respects, outlinedb e l o w.

F i r s t l y, we believe that such re s e a rch andadvocacy has value in informing the debateabout global food security, sustainability andthe relationship between the two. One of themain constraints on the development of OAAappears to be the attitudes of governments andother policy makers – who are often indiff e re n t ,and occasionally hostile, to OAA. The FA Onotes that there is a ‘widespread belief amongmany sections of society that org a n i ca g r i c u l t u re is not a feasible option fori m p roving food security’ (1998, p.12). This ita rgues is a major constraint upon gainingg reater support for OAA. The gro w i n grecognition aff o rded to OAA by intern a t i o n a lagencies (such as the FAO and UNCTAD) andf o reign donors may well result in govern m e n t sin the South adopting more sympathetic andp ro-active approaches to OAA. The org a n i cand agroecological movements could helpaccelerate this process through building up andmaintaining a capacity for ‘global advocacy’:publicizing the ‘how, what and why’ of OAA.The task of promoting diverse and self-re l i a n tsystems of food production becomes ever moreu rgent given the dominant trends ofcentralization and commodification within foodp roduction systems and the vested intere s t swhich promote these pro c e s s e s .

R e s e a rch of this nature is also of considerablepotential interest to practitioners in the field. Aswe noted earlier, one of the paradoxess u rrounding OAA is the variation in the levelsof knowledge available to diff e re n tcommunities. Gathering (and disseminating)i n f o rmation about best practice is one cru c i a lway of improving the knowledge base withinknowledge-poor areas.

Such re s e a rch would also be of potentiali n t e rest to the academic community, as itresonates with a number of key curre n tc o n c e rns within the social sciences including:

• How communities and decision-makers inthe South evaluate and implementcompeting models of ‘traditionalism’,‘ecological modernization’ and the (GM-led)‘second Green Revolution’

• How diff e rent ‘quality conventions’ arenegotiated and implemented along foodsupply chains and how these affect access to,and competitiveness within, markets

• The relevance and effectiveness of‘oppositional’ strategies to globalization andcommodification, particularly in relation toissues of agro b i o d i v e r s i t y.

In relation to the issues discussed in this re p o rt ,two potential re s e a rch areas emerge that mayp rove of interest to the rural developmentre s e a rch community:

• The existing common ground, tensions (andpotential for resolving these) between theo rganic, agroecological and sustainablea p p roaches to agriculture and specifically,how these are played out on the ground inp roject development and prioritization

• Whether and how OAA can develop as a‘paradigm of innovation’ which can build ane ffective strategy of re s e a rch anddevelopment capable of widely diffusing bestpractice while absorbing new lessons fro mthose areas where it is being adopted.

5.4 – Building local capacity

As well as developing a capacity for globala d v o c a c y, there is clear need for further supportin developing local abilities to implement OAAtechniques and systems. Two diff e re n ta p p roaches might be adopted which help tobuild such capacity. The first involves workingwith established Nort h e rn-based agencies

110

(consultancies, NGOs etc.) who haveexperience and links in the South. The secondinvolves working directly with grassro o t sNGOs in the South.

This study identifies a number of agencies witha proven track re c o rd in re s e a rc h i n g ,developing and disseminating inform a t i o nre g a rding organic and agroecological practices.Individually and collectively they have a wealthof experience in developing programmes forre s e a rch and development, training, extensionand marketing. A number of theseo rganizations are identified in Appendix 2a.They include re s e a rch institutes, intern a t i o n a lNGOs, and private sector consultancies. Mostof these agencies are dependent on extern a lfunding (from either the commercial or publicsectors) to carry out their work. Inevitably intheir work, they will have identified pro j e c t s ,schemes and initiatives which they feel meritf u rther investigation and/or development forwhich they may have been unable to attractfunding. Thus they are well placed to advise onspecific projects with development potential aswell as those that have a potential fort r a n s f e r a b i l i t y. Organizations with little priorexperience in this area are likely to find thatinstitutions such as these are well placed toi d e n t i f y, develop and execute projects andp rogrammes.

A second option available to org a n i z a t i o n swishing to involve themselves in this area isthat of building direct contact with NGOs inthe South. This is clearly the most attractiveoption in terms of providing value for moneyand producing direct benefits on the gro u n d .Yet it is also a relatively high-risk strategy, as itinvolves identifying and selecting groups whohave the administrative capacity to managefunds and to monitor and evaluate pro j e c tp e rf o rmance. Some govern m e n t a ldevelopmental agencies and many developmentcharities work on this basis (although moreoften they have local field staff overseeingp rojects). The projects that they finance mayinclude those with a significant OAA

component but are rarely solely, or evenp r i m a r i l y, geared towards these types of project.

Two private charities (SARD and the AmberFoundation) are primarily oriented toward ss u p p o rting NGOs and producer gro u p sinvolved in OAA. SARD have established anannual prize, worth $10,000 and normally splitbetween three winners every year. Thus theysimultaneously lend financial support tog r a s s roots NGOs and also publicize andcelebrate the successes and achievements ofNGOs in providing workable, sustainablesolutions.

T h roughout this project we identified a numberof grassroots organizations often in need offunding to develop projects and re s e a rc hinitiatives. Most frequently the concerns ofthese groups fell into one of three are a s :

• Developing educational/training/extensionand marketing facilities to support farm e r swishing to convert to organic anda g roecological methods of production

• Developing certification programmes so asto put OAA on a formalized basis in ord e rto maintain standards markets, thec redibility of organic produce in domesticmarkets and enable participation in exportm a r k e t s

• Building up infrastru c t u re to permit org a n i cand agroecological producers to add valueto and more effectively store or market theirp roduce.

Some NGOs and producer groups who re p l i e dto the survey took the opportunity to senddetailed (and sometimes costed) pro j e c tp roposals (although we assume that they werenot drawn up solely in response to our re q u e s tfor information). More commonly, theseo rganizations discussed plans and aspirationsand the problems of accessing funds to developtheir capacity as effective ambassadors forOAA. Appendix 2b contains summary details


of, and contacts for, NGOs responding to ours u rv e y. Inclusion within this list does not implyany seal of approval of the organizations onbehalf of the authors (nor does omission fro mit imply disapproval). Rather the list pro v i d e san overview of NGO activities. This information might be used to identifyd i rect opportunities for supporting grassro o t so rganizations or, more generally, to identify thepriorities of such groups with a view todeveloping programmes that effectively addre s sissues of prime concern.

112

B i b l i o g r a p h y

A b b i w, D. (1989) U s e f u l

Plants of Ghana. London, ITP u b l i c a t i o n s .

Abouleish, H. (2001).P resentation to seminar atBiofach 2001, Febru a ry,N ü rn b e rg, Germ a n y.

Adesina, A. A., D. Mbila, G.B. Nkamlue and D.Endumana (2000)Econometric analysis of thed e t e rminants of alley cro p p i n gby farmers in the forest zoneof South West Camero o n .A g r i c u l t u re, Ecosystems and

the Environment 8 0 ( 3 )p p . 2 5 5 - 2 6 6 .

Akobundu, I. O. (1993) Howweed science can protect soil.I n t e rnational Agricultural

Development 13(1) pp.7-9.

A g ro Eco (2000) Pro j e c t sh t t p : / / w w w. a g ro e c o . n l / a g ro e c o

/welkom.htm

A l c o rn, J. B. (1984) H u a s t e c

Mayan Ethnobotany. A u s t i n ,University of Texas Press.

Alders, C., B. Haverkort andL. von Veldhuizen (1993)Linking with farm e r s :

networking for low extern a l

input and sustainable

a g r i c u l t u re . IIED Readings inSustainable Agriculture .R u g b y. Interm e d i a t eTe c h n o l o g y.

Alföldi, T., W. Lockeretz andU. Niggli (Eds.) (2000). T h e

World Grows Org a n i c ,

P roceedings of the 13thI n t e rnational IFOAMC o n f e rence, Basle(Switzerland), August. Tholey-Theley (Germany) IFOAM.

Allen, P. and D. van Dusen(Eds.) (1986) G l o b a l

Perspectives on Agro e c o l o g y

and Sustainable Agricultural

Systems P roceedings of theSixth IFOAM Intern a t i o n a lScientific Conference, SantaC ruz, University of California.

Allison M., P. J. C. Harris, A.H. Hofny-Collins and W.Stevens (1998) A Review of

the Use of Urban Waste in

Peri Urban Interf a c e

P roduction Systems R u g b y,HDRA Publications.

Altieri, M. (1987)A g roecology: The Scientific

Basis of Altern a t i v e

A g r i c u l t u re. L o n d o n .I n t e rmediate Te c h n o l o g y.

- (1989) Agroecology: a newre s e a rch and developmentparadigm for worlda g r i c u l t u re. A g r i c u l t u re ,

Ecosystems and the

E n v i ronment 27 (1) pp.37-46.

- (1999) The ecological role ofbiodiversity in ecosystems.A g r i c u l t u re, Ecosystems and

E n v i ro n m e n t 74 (1-3) pp.19-3 1 .

- (2000) Multi-functionaldimensions of ecologicallybased agriculture in LatinAmerica. In Alföldi et al.

p p . 6 2 8 - 6 3 0 .

- (2001) ‘Applyinga g roecology to enhance thep roductivity of peasantf a rming systems in LatinAmerica’. Paper to Confere n c eon Reducing Poverty thro u g h

Sustainable Agriculture. DfID /University of Essex LondonJ a n u a ry 2001.

ANGOC (1997) S u s t a i n a b l e

A g r i c u l t u re in Asia 2.

D i re c t o ry of Org a n i s a t i o n s .

Quezon City (Philippines),Asian NGO Coalition.

Anobah (2000) Developmentof organic markets in We s t e rnAfrica In Alföldi et al. ( 2 0 0 0 )p . 4 3 3 .

Anon. (1995) Korea. E c o l o g y

and Farming S e p t e m b e rp p . 2 4 - 2 5 .

- (1999) Les jardins deColomban comme pre m i e rc e n t re d’essai. Dakar(Senegal) Sud 24.02.99.

- (2000a) Nort h e rn farm e r sa re setting standards for othersto follow in establishingsustainable mixed cro po rganic farms: org a n i ctrailblazers re w a rded for hardwork Bangkok Post 27. 11.00.

- (2000b) Neem patentrevoked: major victory againstb i o p i r a c y. Ecology and

F a rming Summer 2000 p.33.

- (2001a) Declaration to saveindigenous breeds. In E c o l o g y

and Farm i n g 27.


- (2001b) Account of thesmallholder workshop. InEcology and Farming 2 7 .

Auerbach, R. (2000) SouthAfrican ecological foodg a rdens using rainwaterh a rvesting, wetlands andmulches. In Alföldi et al.

Badejo, M. A. (1998)A g roecological restoration ofsavannah ecosystems.Ecological Engineering 10 (2)p p . 2 0 9 - 2 1 9 .

Badji, B. (1989) Va l o r i s a t i o nof urban rubbish withsimplified methods. Case ofUrban Environment Project inLouga (Senegal) in Djigma e t

a l . p p . 1 2 7 - 1 3 6 .

Bainbridge V. S. Foerster, K.P a s t e u r, M. Pimbert, G. Prattand I. Arroya (2000)Tr a n s f o rming Bure a u c r a c i e s ;

Institutionalising Part i c i p a t o ry

A p p roaches and Processes for

Natural Resourc e

Management; An Annotated

B i b l i o g r a p h y. London, IIED.

Baksi, R. (2001) NewPossibilities. The Hindu ( N e wDelhi) 21.01.01.

Banks, J. and T. Marsden.(2001) The nature of ru r a ldevelopment: the org a n i cpotential. Journal ofE n v i ronmental Policy andPlanning. 3 (2).

Barauah, R. (2000) TheMaikaal bio cotton pro j e c t(Madhya Pradesh, India). InAlföldi et al. p . 2 4 6 .

Bärlocher (2000) Fresh waterand cotton: how can theo rganic standard contribute tothe sustainable management off resh water re s o u rces andbiodiversity in agriculture? InAlföldi et al. p . 5 7 0 .

B e n t l e y, J. W. (2000) Themothers, fathers and midwifesof invention: Zamorano’snatural pest control course. InStoll pp.281-9.

B e rdegué, J.A. and G.E s c o b i e r. (1997) Markets and

M o d e rnisation: New

D i rections for Latin American

Peasant Agriculture. London ,IIED Gatekeeper Series no.p p . 8 7 .

B e rg l e i t e r, S. (2001) Org a n i cshrimp production. In E c o l o g y

and Farm i n g 27.

- and M. Stiedle (2000)O rganic aquaculture- achallenge for the org a n i cmovement. In Alföldi et al.

p . 5 8 0 .

B e rtalot, M., E. Mendoza, I.A. Guerrini and M. S.Rodrigues (2000) Gre e nm a n u re, composting, livingfences and establishment andmanagement of leguminoust ree species in cop and animalbased systems at Botucatu –S P, Brazil. In Alföldi et al.

p . 4 3 2 .

Biofach (2001) Organic, Fairand Slow Food: Three Pillarsfor a Common Roof? IFOAMSeminar at Biofach 2001,N ü rn b e rg (Germ a n y ) .

Blench, R. (1998) Neglectedspecies. In Ecology and

F a rm i n g September pp.28-9.

Blowfield, M. (1999) Ethicaltrade: A review ofdevelopments and issues.T h i rd World Quart e r l y 20 (4)p p . 7 5 3 - 7 7 0 .

Boersma F. V. (2000) Is itpossible to export org a n i cp roduce from third world tothe EU? In Alföldi et al. p . 5 7 1 .

B o s h o ff, A. M. (2000) Theimpact of organic foodg a rdens on household foodsecurity and health in urbanand rural communities inSouth Africa. In Alföldi et al.

p . 6 4 6 .

B rown, M. W. (1999)a)Ecology system approaches tomanaging insect pests of fru i t .A g r i c u l t u re, Ecosystems and

the Environment 7 3 ( 2 )p p . 1 0 1 - 2 .

(1999b) Applying principles ofcommunity ecology to pestmanagement in orc h a rd sA g r i c u l t u re, Ecosystems and

the Environment 7 3 ( 2 )p p . 1 0 3 - 6 .

B rowne, A. W., P. J. Harr i s ,A.H. Hofney-Collins, N.Pasiecnik and R.R. Wa l l a c e(2000) Organic pro d u c t i o nand ethical trade; definitionpractice and links. Food Policy

25 (1) pp.69- 89.

Buerkeri, A., M. Bagayogo, A.Bationo and V. Römheld(2000) Chances and limits ofo rganic and mineral soil

114

f e rtilisation strategies forsustainable crop production inthe Sudano-Sahelian zone ofWest Africa. In Alföldi et al.

p p . 1 8 - 2 1 .

Bunch, R. (1997) Achievingsustainability in the use ofg reen manures. I L E I A

Newsletter 13(3) p p . 1 2 - 1 3 .

Butler Flora, C (1998)Sustainability in agricultureand rural communities. Paperto conference on S u s t a i n a b i l i t y

in Agriculture: Te n s i o n s

Between Ecology, Economics

and Social Sciences. S t u t t g a rt ,G e rm a n y, October.

Caldas, T. (2000a) A glimpseinto the largest organic pro j e c tin Asia. Ecology and Farm i n g

M a rch p.18-20.

– (2000b) The next battle fors u rvival: organic initiatives inVietnam. Ecology and

F a rm i n g M a rch p.14-15.

Cañas, L. and R. J. O’Neil,(1998) Applications of sugarsolutions to maize and theimpact of natural enemies onf a l l w o rm. I n t e rn a t i o n a l

J o u rnal of Pest Management

44(2) 59-64.

Canono, J.F. (2000)Philippines: Organic Market

Brief 2000. GAIN ReportRP0015, USDA.

Cashman, K. (1986) Thebenefits of alley farming forthe African farmer and herhousehold. In Allen and vanDusen pp.231-237.

C e n t re for the Development ofI n d u s t ry (1999) Org a n i cP roducts: A Chance to bes e i z e d . P a rtnership 45,

B russels, CDI.

CEC (1991) CouncilRegulation on Org a n i cP roduction of AgriculturalP roducts and IndicationsR e f e rring thereto onAgricultural Products andF o o d s t u ffs, Bruxelles, CEC2092/91 24.6.91.

Chaboussou, F. (1987)Pflanzengesundheit und hire

Beeibnträchtigung. K a r l s ru h e( G e rmany) C.F. Müller.

Chaoda Modern AgriculturalHoldings Ltd (2000) MissionS t a t e m e n th t t p : / / w w w. c h a o d a . c o m /

Cheema Z. A. and A. Khaliq(2000) Use of sorg h u mallelopathic pro p e rties toc o n t rol weeds in irr i g a t e dwheat in a semi arid region ofPunjab. A g r i c u l t u re ,

Ecosystems and the

E n v i ronment 79 (2) pp.105-117.

Cheong, J. W. and C. L.Cheong (2000) Keepingancestors’ wisdom forsustainable farming and ru r a llivelihood: the case ofHanwoomool Farming Co-operative in Southern Kore a .In World Congress of RuralSociology p.279

Chinnakonda, D (1997)FARMS: Monitoring farmp e rf o rm a n c e . I L E I A

Newsletter 13 (3).

- and M. Lanting (2000)Measuring farm levelsustainability- IFOAM pro j e c t1 output. In Alföldi et al.

C h r i s t a n t y, L. O. S. Abdoellah,G. G. Marten and J. Iskander(1994) Tr a d i t i o n a la g ro f o re s t ry in West Java: theperangkan (home garden) andkebun-talun (annual pere n n i a lrotation) cropping systems. InM a rtin G. G. (Ed.) Tr a d i t i o n a l

A g r i c u l t u re in South East Asia:

A Human Ecology Perspective

p p .132-158 London andBoulder (Colorado) We s t v i e wP ress.

Chubb, (2000) 'Org a n i cconversion and itse n v i ronmental effects:A CostaRican case study'. E c o l o g y

and Farm i n g 23, p.28.

Cierpka (1999) Org a n i cf a rming and fair trade: whatbelongs together will gro wt o g e t h e r. In Ecology and

F a rm i n g Autumn 1999.

Colkusi, C.A. and B.Grüninger (2000) GMOcontamination monitoring ando rganic soybean pro d u c t i o n :experience of a small-scalep roducer group in ParanáState, Brazil. In Alföldi et al.

p . 5 9 6 .

Collis, B. (2000) Kenyanf a rmers drive food re v o l u t i o nKenyan Airways In Flight

M a g a z i n e no. 33.

Conway G. R. (1985)Agricultural Ecology andF a rming Systems Researc hAgricultural Systems Researc h


for Developing Countries.

Bangkok, Wi n ro c kI n t e rnational Institute forAgricultural Development.

C role-Rees, A. C. Marketingnatural dried fruits from lowincome countries: which wayto go? The case of naturaldried mangoes from Mali. InAlföldi et al. p . 5 3 0 .

Dalzell, H. W., A. J.Biddlestone, K. R. Grey andK. Thurairajan (1987) S o i l

Management: Compost

P roduction and Use in

Tropical and Subtro p i c a l

E n v i ronments. FAO SoilsBulletin 56, Roma (Italy)FAO.

Daniel, J. (1998) The re t u rn ofI n d i a ’s native cattle. E c o l o g y

and Farm i n g May 26-7

- (1999) Organic link. E c o l o g y

and Farm i n g S e p t e m b e rp p . 1 3 - 1 5

- (2000) Organic agriculturet h rough Gandhianperspectives Ecology and

F a rm i n g 2 4 .

Djigma, A, E. Nikiema, D.L a i ron and P. Ott (Eds.)(1989) A g r i c u l t u r a l

A l t e rnatives and Nutritional

S e l f - S u ff i c i e n c y. Proceedings of7th IFOAM Confere n c e ,Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso.

D u l l e y, R. D., M. Souza andA. Novoa (2000) Backgro u n d ,p resent actions and futurep rospects of the AAO(Associacao de Agricultura

O rganica), Sao Paulo Brazil. InWorld Congress of RuralSociology p.208.

E c h e v a rria, D., N. Pérez andM. Garcia (2000a)A g roecological practice andmotivations of producers ind i ff e rent forms of cattleactivity in a municipality inLas Tunas Province (Cuba). InWorld Congress of RuralSociology p.275.

- (2000b) Importance of landcattle organisations in puttinginto effect a project of org a n i csugar production. Wo r l dC o n g ress of Rural Sociologyp . 2 7 5 .

Ecology and Farming (2001)The SARD Prize, Ecology andF a rming 26. p.7.

E d w a rds, S. (2000) A Pro j e c t

on Sustainable Development

T h rough Ecological Land

Management by some Rural

Communities in Ti g r a y. Ti g r a y,Institute for SustainableDevelopment. (UnpublishedD o c u m e n t ) .

E g g e r, K (2000) The role andpotential of agro f o re s t ry forecological farming in thet ropics. In Alföldi et al.

p p . 4 2 1 - 4 .

El-Araby (1999) Egypt’s story.Ecology and Farm i n g . J a n u a ry1999 pp.9-11.

Elias, E. (2000) Soilenrichment and depletion inS o u t h e rn Ethiopia. In Hilhorstand Muchena pp.119-132.

Elwell, H. and A. Maas (1995)Natural Pest and Disease

C o n t ro l . Uppsala, SwedishUniversity of AgriculturalSciences.

van Elzakker, B. and A. Tu l i p(2000) Not aid but trade:e x p o rt of organic pro d u c t sf rom Africa. In Alföldi et al.

p p . 5 6 7 - 7 0

Equal Exchange (2000a)Mexico: working withindigenous farmers to supportcultural survival anda u t o n o m y.h t t p : / / w w w. e q u a l e x c h a n g e . c o

m/newpages/mexico.html

- (2000b) Our tradingp a rtners: helping small farm e r sbuild a better future for theirfamilies and communitiesh t t p : / / w w w. e q u a l e x c h a n g e . c o

m / n e w p a g e s / p a rtners.html

ESRC Global Enviro n m e n t a lChange Programme (1999)The Politics of GM Food:Risk, Science and Public Tru s t .Special Briefing no. 5,Brighton, University of Sussex.

FAO (1998) Evaluating thepotential of organic agricultureto sustainability goals. FA O ’sTechnical Contribution toI F O A M ’s ScientificC o n f e rence, Mar del Plata,A rgentina, November.

- (1999) Committee onA g r i c u l t u re, XVth Session,Item 8 Organic Agriculture ,Rome, FAO, January 25-29,h t t p : / / w w w. f a o . o rg / d o c re p / m e e

ting/X0075E.html

116

- (2000a) Committee onA g r i c u l t u re, XVIth Session,R e p o rt of theI n t e rd e p a rtmental Wo r k i n gG roup on Org a n i cA g r i c u l t u re, 26–30 Marc h .Rome, FA O ,h t t p : / / w w w. f a o . o rg / d o c re p / m e e

t i n g / 0 0 3 / X 8 7 4 3 E . h t m l

- (2000b) Report from Ad hocE x p e rt Meeting on Sociallyand Enviro n m e n t a l l yResponsible BananaP roduction and Trade. Marc h2000. Rome. FAO.

- (2000c) Banana Experts holdlandmark meeting at FA O .FAO News Highlightsh t t p : / / w w w. f a o . o rg / N E W S / 2 0

00/000402-e.htm

- (2001) Report from theI n t e rd e p a rtmental Wo r k i n gG roup on Organic Agricultureto the XVIth Session of theCommittee on Agriculture .M a rch. Rome, FA O .

FAO / WHO (1999)Understanding The Codex

A l i m e n t a r i u s

h t t p : / / w w w. f a o . o rg / d o c re p / w 9

114e/w9114e00.htm.

F a rrell, J. G. (1984) The Roleof Trees Within MixedF a rming Systems of Tlaxacal,Mexico, University ofC a l i f o rnia, Berkeley. MastersT h e s i s .

- (1987) Agro f o re s t ry Systems.In Altieri pp.149-158

Faust, R. H. (1996) AncientHawaii: a model of

sustainable agriculture. InKristensen and Høgh-Jensenp p . 1 0 6 - 9 .

F e rnandes, E. C., A. Oktingatiand J. Maghembe (undated)The Chagga home gardens: amulti storeyed agro fore s t ryc ropping system on Mt.K i l i m a n j a ro, Nort h e rnTa n z a n i a .h t t p : / / w w w. u n u . e d u / u n u p re s s / f

ood/8F073e/8F073E06.htm

F l o re s - E s c u d e ro P. (2000)C o n s e rvation of a fore s ts a n c t u a ry in Peru byimplementing an org a n i ca g r i c u l t u re and sustainabledevelopment programme forsmall farmers in the buff e rzone. In Alfödi et al. p p . 4 4 7 - 8

Florit, L. F. (2000) Pro d u c t i o nand consumption of org a n i cfoods as the socialc o n s t ruction of ‘NaturalN a t u re’ World Congress ofRural Sociology, p.260.

Fonseca, M, G. Chianka andP. Petersen (2000a)Development of ana g roecological re s e a rc hnetwork for organic vegetablep roduction and marketing.Rio de Janeiro, Federal RuralU n i v e r s i t y. Unpublished paper.

- M. Fernando and A. E.Feliconio (2000b) Thep roduction and commerc i a lnetwork of organic food inNatura Brazil: a way forcitizenship World Congress ofRural Sociology (2000)p . 2 5 6 .

- and Teixera, V. (2000)O rganic and institutionalmarkets: viable alternatives forfamily farmers. Wo r l dC o n g ress of Rural Sociologyp . 2 7 2 .

F ö r s t e r, P (2000) Developmentp rocess of a small scale Neemp rocessing plant: GTZexperience. In Stoll pp.321-3 2 6 .

G a rcia, M. A. and V. A .B rombal (2000) Time andlabour demand forconventional and org a n i cp roduction of lettuce, carro t sand broccoli. World Congre s sof Rural Sociology p.261.

Gathimbu, J.M. (2000)O rganic coffee production inKenya: the only hope forsmallholders. In Alföldi et al.

G e i e r, B. – (1996) Successfulfirst Biofair and Symposium inCosta Rica. Ecology and

F a rming J a n u a ry pp.19-21.

- (1998) World Org a n i cA g r i c u l t u re A g r i c u l t u r a

B i o d i n a m i c a 15 80 pp.36-40.

- (2001) Regional andseasonal. Ecology and

F a rm i n g 26 pp.8-9.

G e o rge, C. K. (2000) Exportof organic spices: Indianexperience. In Alföldi et al.

p.209.

G e t a c h e w, Y. (1996).Biodynamic and bio-intensiveg a rdening; an innovative andsustainable option to the


Ethiopian small-scale farm e r.In Kristensen and Høgh-Jensenp p . 2 1 7 - 2 2 1 .

Ghougassian, B. (2000) TheStatus of Organic Farming inthe Lebanon. Beirut, MiddleE a s t e rn Centre for theTransfer of Altern a t i v eTe c h n o l o g y. Unpublishedm i m e o .

G i l l e r, K. (2001) N i t ro g e n

Fixation in Tropical Cro p p i n g

Systems. Wa l l i n g f o rd, CABI.

G l a e s e r, B. (1995)E n v i ronment, Development

and Agriculture: Integrated

Policy through Human

E c o l o g y. London, UCL Press.

G rolink (2000) Org a n i cA g r i c u l t u reh t t p : / / w w w. g ro l i n k . s e / o rg _ a g r i

c u l t u re.htm

Gugal, V. A. (2000) Org a n i cp roducts and fair trade: thecase of family farming withina Community in Ilha do Ferro ,Municipality of Pão deAçúcar/Alagoas. Wo r l dC o n g ress of Rural Sociologyp . 2 7 1

Guijt, I. (1998) Assessing themerits of part i c i p a t o rydevelopment of sustainablea g r i c u l t u re; experiences fro mBrazil and Central America. InJ. Blauert and S. Zadek (Eds.)Mediating Sustainability

pp.100-128 Connecticut,Kumarian Press.

Guivant, J, A. C. Almeida, A.Meneghini, A. B. Oliveira, E.Dalmora, E. A. Wo l ff, M.Guszmán and S. Sart o r i(2000). O rganic pro d u c t s :

c reating new networks

between producers, consumers

and supermarkets. Wo r l dC o n g ress of Rural Sociologyp. 276

Gündel, S. (1998)P a rt i c i p a t o ry innovation

development and diff u s i o n :

adoption and non adoption of

i n t roduced legumes in the

traditional slash and burn

peasant farming system in

Yucatan, Mexico. We i k e r s h e i n( G e rmany), Morgraf Ve r l a y.

Gupta, A. K. and K.K. Patel(1991) Survey of farm e r’sinnovations in Gujarat Part 1Ants controlling mangoBeetles. Bihar (India) H o n e y

Bee 2 (1) p.7.

– (1992a) Survey of farm e r’sinnovations in Gujarat Part 2.Bihar (India) Honey Bee 3 ( 1 )p . 1 2 .

- (1992b) Survey of farm e r’sinnovations in Gujarat Part 4.Bihar (India) Honey Bee 3

(3/4) pp.15-17.

- (1993a) Survey of farm e r’sinnovations in Gujarat Part 5White grubs in fruit tre e s .Bihar (India) Honey Bee 4 ( 1 )p . 1 1 .

- (1993a) Survey of farm e r’sinnovations in Gujarat Part 6Rats in the granary. Bihar(India) Honey Bee 4 (1) p.12.

- (1994) Survey of farm e r’sinnovations in Gujarat Part 8Clay prevents termites and‘medh’ Bihar (India) H o n e y

Bee 5 (2) p.17.

- (1995) Survey of farm e r’sinnovations in Gujarat Part 14Pest control. Bihar (India)Honey Bee 6 (4) p.13.

Gupta, J.P. and R.K. Agarw a l(1992) Integrated re s o u rc emanagement for sustainedc rop production in aridregions of India. A m e r i c a n

J o u rnal of Altern a t i v e

A g r i c u l t u re 7(4) pp.157-160.

H a g e r, R. and M. Balbi (2000)A rgentina: Organic Food

R e p o rt. GAIN ReportAR0005. USDA.

Hample, J. (2000) Org a n i ccultivation of spices inZ a n z i b a r- an agriculturaljewel. In Alföldi et al. p . 4 2 7 .

Harbola, P. C. and S. Kumar(2000) Steps towards org a n i canimal husbandry: A casestudy of Kumaon Hills. InAlföldi et al. p . 3 3 4 .

H a rr i e t - Walsh, D. (1998)O rganic agriculture inA rgentina. Ecology and

F a rming September pp.12-17.

H a rris, C., P. Gates, H. Soare sand P. Thetsen (1989) Tre eand shrub legumes for aridand semi arid areas. In Djigmaet al. p p . 1 7 8 - 1 8 8 .

118

- Harris, P. J. C., H. D. Lloyd,A.H. Hofny-Collins, H. R.B a rrett and A. W. Bro w n e(1998) O rganic Agriculture in

Sub-Saharan Africa: Farm e r

Demand and Potential for

Development. C o v e n t ry,H D R A .

H a rrison, P. (1987) TheG reening of Africa.London,Paladin / IIED.

Hashimoto, S. (2000) Te i k e iSystem: An altern a t i v emarketing system in Japan.Ecology and Farm i n g , M a rc hp p . 9 - 1 1 .

Hassan, A. (1996) Impro v e dtraditional planting pits in theTahoua Department (Niger):an example of rapid adoptionby farmers. In Reij et al.

p p . 5 6 - 6 1 .

H a v e r k o rt, B. , J. van derKamp and A. Waters- Bayer(1991) Joining Farm e r s

Experiments: Experiences in

P a rt i c i p a t o ry Te c h n o l o g y

Development IIED Readingsin Sustainable Agriculture .R u g b y. Interm e d i a t eTe c h n o l o g y.

H e rren, H. (2000) O rg a n i c

R e s e a rch – An African Success

S t o ry. Video produced for theI n t e rnational Centre for InsectPhysiology and Ecology(ICIPE), Nairobi, Kenya.

Heid (1999) The weakest goto the wall. In Ecology and

F a rming Autumn.

Hilhorst, T. and F. Muchena(Eds.) (2000) Nutrients on the

Move: Soil Fertility Dynamics

in African Farming Systems.

London, IIED.

Hillocks, R. J., J. W. Logan, C.R. Riches, A. Russell-Smith,and J. Shaxson (1996) Soilpests in traditional farm i n gsystems in Sub Saharan Africa– a re v i e w, part 2;Management strategies.I n t e rnational Journal of Pest

Management 42(2) pp.253-2 6 5 .

Hödtke, M, U. Köpke, and D.L. Almeida (undated)Nutritional status, grain yieldand n-balance of org a n i c a l l yg rown maize interc ro p p e dwith green manure. Bonn,Institut für Org a n i s c h e nLandbau. h t t p : / / w w w. u n i -

b o n n . d e / i o l / m a rc o e . h t m

H o ffmann, M. and A.F rodsham (1995) N a t u r a l

Enemies of Vegetable Insect

Pests. C o rnell ExtensionPublications, Corn e l lUniversity CA., (USA).

H o ffmann, J. H., V. C. Moranand F. A. Simpson (1998)P romising results from firstbiological control pro g r a m m eagainst a solanaceous weed(Solanum elaeagnifolium).A g r i c u l t u re, Ecosystems and

the Enviro n m e n t 70 (2/3)p p . 1 4 5 - 1 5 1 .

H o l d e rness, M., S. Sharro c k ,E. Frison, and M. Kairo(2000) Organic banana 2000.To w a rds an organic bananainitiative in the Caribbean.R e p o rt on the Intern a t i o n a lWorkshop on the pro d u c t i o nand marketing of org a n i cbananas by smallholderf a rmers. h t t p : / / w w w. o rg a n i c -

re s e a rc h . c o m / re s e a rc h / P a p e r s /

banana.htm

van Huis A., R. S. Nauta andM. E. Vulto (1982) Tr a d i t i o n a l

Pest Management in

Nicaragua: A Surv e y

Wageningen, Venman andZ o n e n .

Hussein, Z. (2000) Pro s h i k a ’sexperiences on farm e r’sp e rceptions and practicest o w a rds introduced ecologicala g r i c u l t u re in Bangladesh. InAlföldi et al. p.681.

ICIPE (2001) ICIPE’s BusinessPlan and Research Outlook2001-2003. Nairobi, ICIPE.

IFOAM (1995) Dire c t o ry ofTraining and EducationO p p o rtunities for Tro p i c a lO rganic Agriculture Tholey-Theley (Germany) IFOAM.

- (1999). Basic Standards forO rganic Agriculture. Tholey-Theley (Germany) IFOAM.

- (2000). Organic AgricultureWorldwide. IFOAM Dire c t o ryof Member Organisations andAssociates 2001. Tholey-Theley (Germany) IFOAM.


- (2001) IFOAM Accre d i t e dC e rtification Bodies as ofF e b ru a ry 9th 2001.I n f o rmation Sheet, TholeyTheley (Germany), IFOAM.

ILEIA Editorial (1995)Between love and despair.ILEIA Newsletter 11(3) p.4-5

Institute for Food anDevelopment Policy / FoodFirst (2000) C u l t i v a t i n g

Havana: Urban Agriculture

and Food Security in Years of

Crisis. Oakland, CA. Institutefor Food an DevelopmentPolicy / Food First.

Institute of Integrated RuralDevelopment (2001) The ro a dto solidarity, Summary of firstNational Organic Confere n c e .Bidkin, Aurangabad, (India),IIRD. Unpublished summary.

I n t e rnational DevelopmentR e s e a rch Centre (1997)O rganic Farming (Kenya).h t t p : / / w w w. i d rc . c a / a d v e n t u re / o

rganic.html

I n t e rnational Trade Centre(1999) O rganic Food and

Beverages: world supply and

major European markets.

Geneva. UNCTAD / WTO.Also available on the Intern e tat h t t p : / / w w w, i n t r a c e n . o rg /

i t c n e w s / n e w s re l / 1 8 2 e n g . h t m

I n t e rmediate Te c h n o l o g yR e s e a rch Group (1999) In SituAgricultural BiodiversityC o n s e rvation Project 1.h t t p : / / w w w. o n e w o r l d . o rg / i t d g /

copv/abc.htm

Islam, K.R. and R.R. We i l(2000) Land use effects in at ropical forest ecosystem inBangladesh. A g r i c u l t u re ,

Ecosystems and the

E n v i ronment 79(1) pp.9-16.

J i m é n e z - O s o rnio J.J. and R.Silvia del Amo (1986) Anintensive Mexican traditionala g roecosystem: the Chinampa.In Allen and van Dusenp p . 4 5 1 - 4 6 2 .

Johns, N. D. (1999)C o n s e rvation in Brazil’schocolate forest; the unlikelypersistence of the traditionalcocoa agro e c o s y s t e m .E n v i ronmental Management

23 (1) pp.31-47.

Julien, M.H. (1992) B i o l o g i c a l

C o n t rol of Weeds: A

Catalogue of Agents and their

Ta rgets. Wa l l i n g f o rd CABI.

K a c h ru, A. (2000) Org a n i ca g r i c u l t u re and women: At h i rd world women’sperspective. Ecology andF a rming. March pp.20-1.

Kassagué, A., M. Momota, J.Sagara and F. Schutgens(1996) A measure for everysite: traditional soil and waterc o n s e rvation techniques on theDogon Plateau, Mali. In Reijet al. p p . 6 9 - 7 9 .

K e r, A. (1995). F a rm i n g

Systems of the African

Savanna: A Continent in

Crisis. O t t a w a .

Khan, Z. R., J. A. Pickett, J.van den Berg, L. J. Wa d h a m sand C. M. Woodcock (2000)Exploiting chemical ecologyand species diversity: stemb o rer and striga control formaize and sorghum in Africa.In Pest Management Science,

November 2000.

Kho, R. (2000) A general tre e -e n v i ronment crop interactionequation for pre d i c t i v eunderstanding of agro f o re s t rysystems A g r i c u l t u re ,

Ecosystems and the


Kinnon, F. and B. Bayo (1989)How can more appro p r i a t ef a rming systems be developed?In Djigma et al. p p . 5 8 - 6 7 .

Kirschenmann, F. (1990) Andis that the right question?Ecology and Farm i n g ,

September pp.22-23.

Köchli, C (1996) Forests ofhope: Tanzania- a secondg a rden of Eden. People and

P l a n e t

h t t p : / / w w w. o n e w o r l d . o rg / p a t p /

vol5_4/eden.html

K ö h l e r- Rollefson, I. (2001)Pastoralist, the livestockrevolution and organic animalh u s b a n d ry. In Ecology and

F a rming 2 7 .

Köpke, U (2000) Theevolution of enviro n m e n t a l l ysound sustainable farm i n gsystems: perspectives andvisions in Alföldi et al.

120

Kotschi, J. (2000) Povert yalleviation in the south: cano rganic farming help? InAlföldi et al. p p . 6 5 2 - 5 .

Kristensen, N.H. and Høgh-Jensen (Eds.) (1996) N e w

R e s e a rch in Org a n i c

A g r i c u l t u re. Proceedings of the

11th International Scientific

IFOAM Confere n c e ,

Copenhagen. Tholey-Theley,I F O A M .

Kueneman, E. (1999) COAG1999. A g r i c u l t u re 2 1 .h t t p : / / w w w. f a o . o rg / a g / m a g a z i ne / 9 9 0 1 i n t . h t m

Kufa, T., M. Abebe, P. Dubale(2000) The use of coff e ecompost and farm y a rdm a n u re in coffee nurserymedia amendments. In Alföldiet al. p . 2 8 2 .

Lampkin, N. and S. Padel(1994) Farm level perf o rm a n c eof organic farming systems. Inibid. (Eds.) The Economics Of

O rganic Farming; An

I n t e rnational Perspective.

Wa l l i n g f o rd, CABI. pp.201-29.

Lekasi, I. K., J.C. Ta n n e r, S. K.Kimani, and P. J. Harr i s(1998) Manure managementin the Kenyan highlands:practices and potential, Rugby,H D R A .

L e rnoud, P. (2000) Org a n i ctrade in Latin America. InL o c k e retz and Geier (2000).

Li, H., Y. Qiao, W. Wu, J. Liand F. Meng (2000) Pro b l e m sand recommendations for thec e rtification system for ChinaG reen Food and Org a n i cFood. In Alföldi et al. p . 5 7 7 .

L o c k e retz, W. (2000) Org a n i cf a rming re s e a rch today andt o m o rro w. In Alföldi et al.

p p . 7 1 8 - 7 2 0 .

- and B. Geier (Eds.) (2000)Quality and Communication

for the Organic Market.

P roceedings of the sixthIFOAM Trade Confere n c e ,T h o l e y - T h e l e y, Germ a n y.

Luyiga, I. (1997) Org a n i cf a rming in Uganda. E c o l o g y

and Farm i n g May p.18

Maathai, W. (1986) The gre e nbelt movement. In Ekins, P.(Ed.) The Living Economy: A

New Economics in the

M a k i n g . London, RoutledgeKegan Paul.

M a c k a y, K.T., G. Chapman, J.Sollows and N. Thongpan(1986) Rice-fish culture inn o rth east Thailand: stabilityand sustainability. In Allen andvan Dusen pp.355-370.

Mahalambe, N. (2000) Whato rganic agriculture cancontribute for sustainable foodsecurity in Mozambique. InAlföldi et al.

MAPO (2001) A rg e n t i n a

O rg a n i c a . Buenos Aries,MAPO. Promotional CD.

Marsden, T. (2001) EM orGM? Redefining a politicaleconomy of agri-food andrural development. Paper toAssociation of American

G e o g r a p h e r’s Confere n c e ,

New York. March 21st.

-, J. Banks and J. Roex (2000)P roduction, Markets,

Regulation and Techology in

the Organic Sector. P ro c i s u r :P royecto Global SerieDocumento No. 8.Montevideo, Organizácion yGestion de la IntegrációnTecnólógia Agropecuria yA g roindustril en el Cono Sur.

M a rtin, M, E. Mathias and C.M. McCorkle (2001)E t h n o v e t e r i n a ry Medicine: An

Annotated Bibliography of

Community Animal

H e a l t h c a re. London, ITDG.

M a rtin, F. W. (undated)C o n t rol of Weeds, Insects and

Diseases on the Small Farm

and Home Garden. M y e r s ,Florida, ECHO BasicD o c u m e n t s .

Masuda F (2000) Thedomestic organic market anddevelopment of nationals t a n d a rds in Asia. In Lockere t zW. and B. Geier.

Mathias, E. (2001a)E t h n o v e t e r i n a ry Medicine. InEcology and Farming 27


M a x t e d - F rost, T (Ed.) (1997)The Future Agenda for

O rganic Trade 5th IFOAM

I n t e rnational Conference on

Trade in Organic Products ,

C h r i s t c h u rch College, Oxford ,S e p t e m b e r.

M e i r, C. J. (2000) Learn i n gand changing: helping farm e r smove towards natural pestc o n t rol. In Stoll pp.264-279.

de la Merced E. (2000)O rganic farming; leading theway to sustainablecommunities in the 21stC e n t u ry: The Negro sOccidental, PhilippinesExperience. In Alföldi et al.

pp.647-650.

Moali-Grine, N. (2000)Ecodevelopment ofmountainous regions inKabylie (Algeria): Utopia orreality ? In Alföldi et al.

Monneveux, P., E. Savastanoand P. Jacolin (1989) To w a rd sa re s e a rch training actionabout soil fert i l i t y. A casestudy in the Sahele n v i ronment. In Djigma et al.

p p . 1 1 8 - 1 2 6 .

M o rgan, K. and J. Murd o c h(2001) Knowing networks:knowledge, power andinnovation in the food chain.G e o f o ru m 31(2) pp.159-173.

M u rr a y, D. (1995) C u l t i v a t i n g

the Crisis: The Human Cost of

Pesticides in Central America.

Austin, University of Te x a s .

Myers, D. and S. Stolton(Eds.) (1999) O rganic Cotton:

F rom Field to Final Pro d u c t

London, Interm e d i a t eTechnology Publications.

N e u g e b a u e r, B. and A. Mukul-Ek (2000) Trees for people: AMayan strategy towardo rganic agriculture. In Alföldiet al. p.428.

Niang, A. (1996) Puttingweeds to Work. In S p o re 6 5 .p . 6 .

Nicholls, C.I. and M. A.Altieri (1997) Conventionalagricultural developmentmodels and the persistence ofthe pesticide treadmill in LatinAmerica. I n t e rnational Journ a l

of Sustainable Development

and World Ecology 4 (2)p p . 9 3 - 1 1 1 .

N j o roge, J.W. (1996) Org a n i cf a rming lifts the status ofwomen; an African case study.Ecology and Farm i n g M a yp p . 2 7 - 2 8 .

- (1997) Organic Agriculturehas a place in Africa. E c o l o g y

and Farming. May pp.16-17.

N o rg a rd, R. (1987) Theepistemological basis ofa g ro e c o l o g y. In Altieri (1987)pp.21-28.

N o rton, J. B., R. R. Pawluckand J. A. Sandor (1998)O b s e rvation and experiencelinking science and indigenousknowledge at Zuni, NewMexico. J o u rnal of Arid

E n v i ro n m e n t s 39(2) pp.331-340.

N y c a n d e r, G. A. (2000)Securing Access to the EU

Market: Organic Export s

f rom Developing Countries –

Case study on Uganda. R e p o rtto Swedish Intern a t i o n a lDevelopment Authority(SIDA) Stockholm.

O’Connor L. and J. Silva(1999). O rganic Farming in

Brazil. GAIN Report BR9616, USDA.

Ogol, C., J. R. Spence and A.F reddie (1999) Maize stemb o rer colonisation,establishment and cro pdamage levels in a maizeleuceaena agro f o re s t ry systemin Kenya. A g r i c u l t u re ,

Ecosystems and the


O k w u d i re, S. (2000) Interc ropping and vegetableg a rdening in Jos Nigeria. InAlföldi et al.

Omili, J. M., K. A. Paton, J.A. Sindon and S. K. Ehui(1999) Monitoring changes inland use practices followingagrarian decollectivization inEthiopia. A g r i c u l t u re ,

Ecosystems and the

E n v i ro n m e n t 72(2) pp.111-1 1 8 .

O rganic Food DevelopmentC e n t re (undated) O rg a n i c

F a rming Development in

China. Nanjing (China)O F D C / S E PA / G T Z .

O rganic Food DevelopmentC e n t re (2001) An I n t ro d u c t i o n

to OFDC Nanjing (China)OFDC / SEPA.

122

Ouedraogo, A. (1989b) Zaï;Traditional Technique as as o u rce of Sahelian soilp roductivity increase. InDjigma et al. p p . 9 7 - 1 0 1 .

Ouedraogo, B. (1989a) 6S andP a rticipative Development. InDjigma et al. p p . 7 7 - 8 5 .

Ouedraogo, M. and V. Kaboré(1996) The Zaï: a traditionaltechnique for the re h a b i l i t a t i o nof degraded land in theYatenga, Burkina Faso. In Reijet al. p p . 8 0 - 8 4 .

O z o res-Hampton, M. (1998)Compost as an altern a t i v eweed control method.H o rt S c i e n c e 33(6) pp.938-9 4 0 .

P a a r l b e rg, R. (1994)C o u n t rysides at Risk: The

Political Geography of

Sustainable Agriculture .

Washington D.C. (USA)Overseas DevelopmentCouncil.

Page, S. (2000) ZamebeziValley organic cotton pro j e c t .In Stoll pp.305-313.

Pais, M. (1996) Arg e n t i n aEcology and Farming J a n u a ryp p . 2 1 - 2 .

Palm, C. A., C. N. Gachengo,R. J. Delve, G. Cadisch and K.E. Giller (2001) Org a n i cinputs for soil fert i l i t ymanagement in tro p i c a la g roecosystems: application ofan organic re s o u rce database.A g r i c u l t u re, Ecosystems and

the Enviro n m e n t 83(1) pp.27-4 2

Pandeya (1995) “ We love andp rotect it” ILEIA Newsletter

1 1 ( 3 ) .

Panuncio, M. C. (2000) Seedexchange networks in thehumid Peruvian highlands. InStolton et al. (2000a) pp.31-3 6 .

Panyakul, V. (2000) Fair tradeof organic rice: Experiencef rom Thailand. In Alfödi et al.

p . 5 3 2 .

Paula, L. A., N. M. Menesesand R. Charity (2000)Associative Economy inO rganic Agriculture. Wo r l dC o n g ress of Rural Sociology.

P a y, D. and D. Kunze (1999)"Closing the nutrient cycle forurban food security ande n v i ronmental pro t e c t i o n " .I n t e rnational Workshop onUrban and Peri-UrbanA g r i c u l t u re 2-6 August 1999,Accra, Ghana.h t t p : / / w w w. c i t y f a rm e r. o rg / a f r i c

a w o r k s h o p . h t m l .

P e n e i re i ro, F .M., R. R.Rodrigues and M. E. Fraga delSilva (2000) Agro f o re s t rysystems managed thro u g hnatural succession: a cases t u d y. In Alföldi et al. p.429.

Phinthupan, P. (2000) Buildingo rganic certification pro g r a m ;ensuring sustainablea g r i c u l t u re in Thailand. InAlföldi et al. p . 5 6 5 .

Pia, F. (2000) CIESA Project: abiointensive model for selfs u ff i c i e n c y, Patagonia,A rgentina. In Alföldi et al.

p . 6 6 1 .

Pickett, J. (1999) Pest contro lthat helps control weeds at thesame time. BBSRC Business.

April 1999.

P i n s t rup-Anderson, P. (2001)Global food security: review ofthe challenges. R e d u c i n g

P o v e rty through Sustainable

A g r i c u l t u re. DfID / Universityof Essex Conference, LondonJ a n u a ry 15th.

Pollan, M. (2001) ‘Goingo rganinc.’ The Observer FoodMagazine No.5. Augustp p . 4 2 - 4 7 .

P re t t y, J. (1998) Feeding theWorld? The Splice of Life

August / September 1998.

– and R. Chambers (1993)To w a rds a Learn i n g

Paradigm: New

P rofessionalism and

Institutions for Agriculture .

Institute of DevelopmentStudies, Discussion Paper 334.Brighton, University of Sussex.

- and R. Hine (2001a)Reducing poverty withsustainable agriculture : Areview of the evidence.Reducing Poverty thro u g h

Sustainable Agriculture. DfID /University of EssexC o n f e rence, London January1 5 t h .


- and R. Hine (2001b) Feedingthe world with sustainablea g r i c u l t u re : A summary ofnew evidence. R e d u c i n g

P o v e rty through Sustainable

A g r i c u l t u re. DfID / Universityof Essex Conference, LondonJ a n u a ry 15th.

-, I. Thompson and J. Scoones(1999) P a rt i c i p a t o ry

Monitoring and Impact

Assessment of Sustainable

A g r i c u l t u re Initiatives; An

I n t roduction to the Key

Elements. SARI DiscussionPaper 1, London, IIED.

P ry o r, A. W. (2000) Org a n i cc e rtified products as a basisfor sustainable management ofbiological re s e rves: Case studyof Guayuki biological re s e rv ein Paraguay. In Alföldi et al.

p . 4 6 5 .

Ranaweeera, A. S. and R. O.Thatill (2000) An eff e c t i v ec o n t rol system for smallf a rmer projects. In Alföldi e t

a l . p . 5 7 8 .

R a t h o re, H. S. (2001) Savingthe Camel in Rajasthan. InEcology and Farm i n g 27.

R a v i v, M. (2000) Can org a n i ca g r i c u l t u re serve as a modelfor sustainable agriculture? InAlföldi et al.

R e d d y, G. S., B.Venkateswarlu, K. P. Vi t t a land G. R . Shankar (1991)G reen leaf manuring as ana l t e rnative nitrogen source forcastor bean on marginal soilsof India. American Journal of

A l t e rnative A g r i c u l t u re 6(3)pp.132-138.

R e d d y, S.T., A. V. Daniel, M.Lanting and IFOAM pro j e c tteam (2000) Researc hmethodology for IFOAMP roject 1: part i c i p a t o rya p p roach. In Alföldi et al.

p . 4 3 5 .

Reij, C., I. Scoones and C.Toulmin (Eds.) (1996)Sustaining the Soil: Indigenous

Soil and Water Conserv a t i o n

in Africa London, Eart h s c a n .

R e s e a rch Foundation forScience Technology andEcology and Navdanya (2000)Ecological Agriculture :

Rejuvenating a Tradition of

Non Violence in Food

P roduction in the Third

Millennium. The First HowardMemorial Lecture, 2ndOctober 2000, New Delhi,R F S T E N .

R i n c o n - Vitova (1995)Biological pest control incotton. Organic Cotton

M o n i t o r 1(8)

Rist, S. (2000) Hidden org a n i cfood production : a newa p p roach for enhancingsustainable agriculture indeveloping countries. InAlföldi et al. p p . 6 5 7 - 6 6 0 .

Ross, E. (1996) Ecologicalpractices of agriculture of theisland of Chiloé. In Kristensen& Høgh-Jensen pp.128-130.

Rossett, P. and M. Benjamin(1996) The Greening of the

Revolution: Cuba’sExperiment with Org a n i cA g r i c u l t u re. San Francisco,Ocean Press.

Rosset, P and M. A. Altieri(1997) Agroecology versusinput substitution: afundamental contradiction ofsustainable agriculture. InSociety and Natural Resourc e s

10 (3) pp.283-295.

Rubens, C. J. and M. Lanting(2000) Methodologicalp roblems in comparativere s e a rch. In Alföldi et al.

p . 4 3 7 .

Russell, C. R. (2000). TheMexican market for org a n i cp roducts. GAIN ReportMX0016, USDA.

R u t h e n b e rg, H. (1971).F a rming Systems in the

Tropics. O x f o rd .

Samson, R., L. Amongo, E.Yap, T. Mendoza and L.Mulkins (2000) The FloraCommunity: a developinga g roecological village in thePhilippines that is gre e n h o u s egas friendly. In Alföldi et al.

p . 6 4 1 .

Santos, A. L., P. H. We i r i c h -Neto, J. L. Dremiski and V. N.Visbiski (2000) Consumer’sreceptivity for hort i c u l t u rewithout pesticides in PontaG rossa, Paraná, Brazil. Wo r l dC o n g ress of Rural Sociology.

124

Sangakkara, U. R. and H. H.Ratnayake (1989) Ecologicalbenefits of alley cropping: acase study. In Djigme et al.pp.211-222.

SARD (2001) The SARD

Prize. An Annual Aw a rd for

Sustainable Agriculture and

Rural Development.

h t t p : / / w w w. s a rd -

m a l l i n c k ro d t . d e / i n d e x . s h t m l

Sathyanarayana M. G. (2000)O rganic marketing in India –p rospects and problems. InAlföldi et al.

S c a ffadi, C. (2001) An awardfor biodiversity. Slow Food 2 0p p . 1 2 6 - 1 3 4 .

S c h o l e r, M. (2000) Coff e e -o rganic certification andlabelling. In Alföldi et al.

p . 2 8 0 .

Schulthness, F., P.Neuenschwander and S.Gounou (1997) Multitro p h i cinteractions in Cassava,manihot escunta, cro p p i n gsystems in the sub-humidt ropics of West Africa.A g r i c u l t u re, Ecosystems and

the Enviro n m e n t 66 (3)p p . 2 1 1 - 2 2 2 .

Scialabba N. (1999)O p p o rtunities and constraintsof organic agriculture: Asocio-ecological analysis.Course Outline for Socrates /Erasmus summer school onecological agriculture .h t t p : w w w. f a o . o rg / o rg a n i c a g / d

o c / S O C R AT E S 1 9 9 9 . h t m

- (2000) Factors influencingo rganic agriculture policies,with a focus on developingcountries. P roceedings of the

IFOAM 2000 Scientific

C o n f e re n c e , ( B a s l e ,Switzerland) Tholey-Theley( G e rmany) IFOAM.

- and Aubert, A, (1998)R e p o rt of FAO / IFOAM

meeting on Org a n i c

A g r i c u l t u re, M a rch 1998,Rome, FA O .

Scoones, I. and C. To u l m i n(1999) Policies for Soil

F e rtility Management in

A f r i c a . A Report pre p a red forthe Department forI n t e rnational Development.Brighton / London. IDS/IIED.

Sen, A. (1986) Food,economics and entitlementsLloyds Bank Review 1 6 0p p . 1 - 2 0 .

S h a rma, A. K. (1998). Ecof a rming of medicinal plants inthe arid tropics of India.Ecology and Farm i n g

September pp.24-5.

S h a rma, G. (2000) SustainingNepalese agriculture: thep e rm a c u l t u re (sustainablea g r i c u l t u re) approach. InAlföldi et al. p.680.

Shiva, V. (1995) B i o d i v e r s i t y

Based Productivity: A

Framework for an Altern a t i v e

Economic Assessment for

Sustainable Agriculture. D e l h i(India), Research Foundationfor Science, Technology andE c o l o g y.

– (2001), Yoked to Death:

Globalisation and Corporate

C o n t rol of Agriculture D e l h i(India) Research Foundationfor Science, Technology andE c o l o g y.

-, V. Ramprasad, P. Hegde, O.Krishnan and R. Holla-Bahr(1995) The Seed Keepers.

Delhi (India) Navdanya /R e s e a rch Foundation forScience, Technology andE c o l o g y.

-, A. H. Jafri, A. Emani andM. Pande (2000) Seeds of

Suicide: The Ecological and

Human Costs of Globalisation

of Agriculture . Delhi (India)R e s e a rch Foundation forScience, Technology andE c o l o g y.

de Silva, L. R. (2000) Smallf a rmer savings groups candevelop organic agricultureand support food security. InAlföldi et al. p . 6 5 1 .

Silvia del Amo, R., R. AguilarL o j e ro and M. Delgado Rueda(1986) The Tecallis: atraditional cultivation system.In Allen and van Dusenp p . 4 3 3 - 4 4 4 .

Singh, G. (2000) Malaysia’sO rganic Start. Ecology and

F a rming M a rch 16-17


Soto-Pinto L., I. Perfecto, J.C a s t i l l o - F e rnandez, J.C a b a l l e ro-Nielo (2000) Shadee ffect on coffee production atthe Nort h e rn Tzeltal zone inthe state of Chiapas, Mexicoin A g r i c u l t u re, Ecosystems and

the Environment 80(1) pp.61-69.

Soule, J et al. ( 1 9 9 0 )Ecological Impact of ModernA g r i c u l t u re in Carrolet, C. R.et al. (Eds.) A g ro e c o l o g y. NewYork.

Srinavasan, L., S. Saraswathiet al. (2001) SivannapanIntegrated Organic Farm i n g .Chennai (India) KesavaP e rumal Puram. (Reviewed inthe Hindu 21.01.01).

Stein, R. (1996) Integratingrural development and naturec o n s e rvation in Nort h e rnM a d a g a s c a r. Ecology and

F a rming. September pp.12-13.

S t e i n e r, K. G. (1998) Usingf a rm e r’s Knowledge of soils inmaking re s e a rch results morerelevant to field practice;experiences from Rwanda.A g r i c u l t u re, Ecosystems and

the Environment 69 (2)p p . 1 9 1 - 2 0 0 .

Stoll, G. (2000) Natural Cro p

P rotection in the Tro p i c s :

Letting Information Come to

Life. Weikersheim (Germ a n y )M a rgaf Verlag. Stolton, S.(1996) Land Te n u re E c o l o g y

and Farming J a n u a ry p.12.

– (1997) Fighting Drought inKenya. Ecology and Farm i n g

May p.19.

Stolton, S., B. Geier, and J. A.McNeely (Eds.) (2000a) T h e

Relationship Between Nature

C o n s e rvation, Biodiversity and

O rganic Agriculture. T h o l e y -T h e l e y, IFOAM/ IUCN /W W F.

- (2000b) Biodiversity andO rganic Agriculture. E c o l o g y

and Farm i n g . 22 pp.22-7.

S. and N. Dudley (2000)O rganic agriculture inp rotected areas: cre a t i n gp a rtnerships for development.In Alföldi et al. p p . 4 4 2 - 4 4 4 .

Stopes, C., B. Pearce, J.Clarkson & R. Kennedy(2000) What is the scope forusing acceptable org a n i cbiocides in organic plantp roduction? In Alföldi et al.

p p . 6 0 2 - 6 0 5 .

Stolton et al. (2000) inEcology and Farming.

Suma, N. (2001) D i ff e re n t

S t a n d a rds in Org a n i c

C e rtification. U n p u b l i s h e dR e p o rt.

Ta n n e r, J.C., S. J. Holden, E.Owen, M. Wi n a g roho and M.Gill (2001) Livestocksustaining intensivesmallholder crop pro d u c t i o nt h rough traditional feedingpractices feeding practices forgenerating high qualitym a n u re / compost in UplandJava. A g r i c u l t u re, Ecosystems

and the Environment 8 4 ( 1 )

p p . 2 1 - 3 0 .

Teshome, T. (2000) Resourc esaving technologies forEthiopian poor farmers. InAlföldi et al. p . 4 6 9 .

Thiam, A. and A. Dieng(1989) ‘Organic marketg a rdening experiment in the‘Niayes’ (Senegal)’. In Djigmaet al. p p . 6 8 - 7 6 .

Thijssen (1995) ‘Weeds andt rees’ ILEIA Newsletter 1 1 ( 3 )p p . 2 0 - 2 1 .

T h rupp, L. A. (Ed.) (1996)New Partnership for

Sustainable Agriculture .

Washington, D.C. Wo r l dR e s o u rces Institute.

Thurston, H. D. (1987) Slash /

Mulch Systems: Sustainable

Methods for Tro p i c a l

A g r i c u l t u re London, ITP u b l i c a t i o n s .

To rnquist, C. G., F. M. Hons,S. E. Keagley and J. Hagger(1999) Agro f o re s t ry systeme ffects on soil characteristics ofthe Sarapiqui region of CostaR i c a A g r i c u l t u re, Ecosystems

and the Environment 7 3 ( 1 )p p . 1 9 - 2 8 .

U N C TAD (1996) O rg a n i c

P roduction in Developing

Countries; Potential for Tr a d e ,

E n v i ronmental Impro v e m e n t

and Social Development.

Geneva (Switzerland),U N C TAD.

UNDP (1992) Benefits of

D i v e r s i t y. New York, UNDP.

126

Upawansa G. K. (2000)Indigenous farming practicesto improve organic andbiodynamic farming. InAlföldi et al. p.499.

U p h o ff, N. (1999) What canbe learned from the system ofrice intensification inMadagascar about meetingf u t u re food needs? Paper toc o n f e rence on S u s t a i n a b l e

A g r i c u l t u re: New Paradigms

and Old Practices B e l l a g i o ,(Italy) April.

Valenghi, D., J. Sanou, E.Togo and F. Konate (2000)O rganic cotton: firstexperiences of Helvetas inMali. In Alföldi et al.

von Veldhuizen, L. A. Wa t e r s -B a y e r, R. Ramiréz, D. Johnsonand J. Thompson (Eds.)(1997) F a rmers Research in

P r a c t i c e . IIED Readings inSustainable Agriculture ,R u g b y, Interm e d i a t eTe c h n o l o g y. , Verkerk, R.(1998) Pest management int ropical organic farming: a cryfor on farm re s e a rch. E c o l o g y

and Farming S e p t e m b e rp p . 2 6 - 7 .

Vivan, J. L. (2000) Diversity,f a rming Systems andecological knowledge: farm e r’sand technicians perc e p t i o n s .World Congress of RuralSociology p.419.

Vos J.G. and R. Plowright(2000) Crop Pro t e c t i o nP rogramme: Integrating PestManagement and Soil Fert i l i t yManagement: Final Report .Ascot, CABI Bioscience.

Vreeland, J. M. (1996)O rganic and native coloure dcotton from Peru. InKristensen and Høgh-Jensen1 3 5 - 1 3 9 .

- (2000) Systems and geneticdiversity in the high jungle ofP e ru. In Stolton et al. ( 2 0 0 0 a )p p . 4 1 - 2 .

Wachira, W. S. (2000)Tr a n s f o rming awareness intopractice; the role of org a n i cf a rming in Kenya. In Alföldi e t

a l .

Wai, O. K. (1995) Pakistan .Ecology and Farm i n g

September pp.25-26.

Wajje, F. (2000) O rg a n i c

a g r i c u l t u re in Uganda,

Unpublished Report ,Kampala, Uganda, Wo r l dVi s i o n .

Walaga C.(2000) Org a n i cagricultural trade: the state ofthe art in Africa. In Lockere t zand Geier..

Wedem J., Y. Doumbia, B.Sanogo, G. Dicko and O.Cisso (1996) Rehabilitatingdegraded land; Zaï in theDjenné Circle of Mali. In Reijet al. p p . 6 2 - 6 8 .

von der Weid J. M. (1994)A g roecology in Taua (AS-PTA )J o u rnal of Learnings 1 pp.23-3 7 .

We i l e r, M. (2001) Thei m p o rtance of bees in org a n i ca g r i c u l t u re. Ecology andF a rming 27.

der We rf (1993) Agro n o m i cand economic potential ofsustainable agriculture inSouth India. American Journ a l

of Alternative Agriculture 8 ( 4 )p p . 1 8 5 - 1 9 1 .

Wilhelm, W. (2001) Whenc e rtification gets out ofc o n t rol. Ecology and Farm i n g

26 pp.12-13.

Wille, C. (2000) News fro mthe front: banana ecolabellingp rogramme is world’s larg e s t .The Canopy. R a i n f o re s tAlliance h t t p : / / w w w. r a i n f o re s t -

a l l i a n c e . o rg / n e w s / c a n o p y / c a n 2

-00.htm

Willer H. and M. Yu s s e f i .(2000) Organic AgricultureWorldwide: Statistics andF u t u re Prospects. BadDurkheim (Germany), StiftungÖkologie & Landbau.

– (2001) Organic AgricultureWorldwide: Statistics andF u t u re Pro s p e c t sh t t p : / / w w w. s o e l . d e / i n h a l t e / p u b

likationen/s_74_ges.pdf. B a dDurkheim (Germany), StiftungÖkologie & Landbau.

Williges, U. and J. Sauerborn(2000) Organic tea pro d u c t i o nin Sri Lanka – A case study. InAlfödi et al. p . 2 8 1 .

Witte, R. (1999) Acomparison of diff e re n tf a rming systems. Ecology and

F a rm i n g , May pp.28-9.


Witte, R., D. Chinnakonda, S.T. Reddy, H. M. Lanting, C. J.Robbins, V. Gonzalez, F.S a l m e ron, M. Verschur and F.O rozco (2000) Farm levelcomparison of org a n i c ,conventional and traditionalf a rms in IFOAM’s OA’ 9 9P rogramme: first year’s re s u l t sre g a rding farmer self re l i a n c e ,nutrient balances and labour.In Alfödi et al. p.436.

Whiteside, M. (1998) L i v i n g

F a rms: Encouraging

Sustainable Smallholders in

S o u t h e rn Africa. L o n d o n ,E a rthscan.

Wo o d w a rd, L. (1998) Cano rganic farming feed theworld? Ecology and Farm i n g

September 20 p.1.

World Congress of RuralSociology (2000) Abstracts of

Xth World Congress of Rural

S o c i o l o g y. Rio de Janeiro ,August (Book and CD).

Worldwide Fund for Nature(1999) The impact of cotton

on fresh water re s o u rces and

ecosystems. Godalming, WWFB a c k g round Paper.

Yakshi, ANTHRA, GirjiinaDepeeka and GodavariAdivasi Tracts, Wo m e n ’s Gotti(2001) Conserving Anseelp o u l t ry. In Ecology and

F a rm i n g 27.

Zarauz, R. (2000) Fruits fro mthe Andes: from wild plants toecological agroindustrial rawmaterial- more than as simplequestion of demand. In Alfödiet al. p . 5 3 4 .

Zhengfang, L. and D. We i(2000) Organic cert i f i c a t i o nfor small farmers in China inAlföldi et al. p.572.

Zonin, W. J., A. C. GonçalvesJ n r., V. H. Pereira and V. P.Zonin (2000) Agroecology asan option for incomei m p rovement in the familyf a rming associations at‘ E rexim’ region, Brazil. Wo r l dC o n g ress of Rural Sociology.p . 2 0 6 .

128

Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms

A B L HAssociation for Better Land Husbandry

ACAOThe Cuban Association for Organic Agriculture

AG RU C OA g roecologiciá Universidad Cochabamba(Bolivia)

A P P R IAssociation for the Promotion of IntensiveRotational Grazing (Arg e n t i n a )

B B PBetter Banana Project

B DB i o d y n a m i c

C I E S AC e n t re for Investigation and Teaching onSustainable Agriculture (Arg e n t i n a )

C OA EC e n t re for Organic Agriculture in Egypt

D f I DD e p a rtment for International Development

E C OAEgyptian Centre of Organic Agriculture

E S R CEconomic and Social Research Council

E UE u ropean Union

FAOFood and Agricultural Organisation (UnitedN a t i o n s )

F L OF a i rtrade Labelling Organisation

G E TG reenpeace Environmental Trust

GM / GMO Genetically Modified / Org a n i s m s

G OA NGhanaian Organic Agriculture Network

G T ZDeutsche Gesellschaft für Te c h n i s c h eZusammenarbeit – (The Germany Agency forTechnical Co-operation).

H D R AH e n ry Doubleday Research Institute

I C I P EI n t e rnational Centre for Insect Physiology andE c o l o g y

I C R A FI n t e rnational Centre for Research inA g ro f o re s t ry (Kenya)

I F OA MI n t e rnational Federation of Org a n i cAgricultural Movements

I I E DI n t e rnational Institute for the Environment andDevelopment

I L E I AI n f o rmation Centre for Low-Extern a l - I n p u tand Sustainable Agriculture (The Netherlands)

I T D GI n t e rmediate Technology Development Gro u p

L E I S ALow External Input and SustainableA g r i c u l t u re

S R I


System of Rice Intensification (Madagascar)

I S DInstitute for Sustainable Development (Tigray)

I T CI n t e rnational Trade Centre (Switzerland)

K I OKenyan Institute of Organic Farming

M A P OMoviemiento Argentino para la Pro d u c c i o nO rg a n i c

N G O ( s)Non Governmental Org a n i s a t i o n ( s )

OA AO rganic and Agroecological Appro a c h e s

O F D CO rganic Food Development Centre (China)

S A R DSustainable Agriculture and Rural DevelopmentP r i z e .

S Ö LStiftung Ökologie and Landbau

TA BTigray Agricultural Bure a u

U C I R IUnion of Indigenous Communities of theIsthmus Region (Mexico)

U N C TA DUnited Nations Centre for Trade andDevelopment

U N D PUnited Nations Development Pro g r a m m e

U S DAUnited States Department of Agriculture

W H OWorld Health Org a n i s a t i o n

WFDFFM World Food Day Farmers’ and Fisherm e n ’sM o v e m e n t

W W FWorld Wide Fund for Nature

130

Appendix 1 – E l e c t ronic re s o u rces for OAA

A g ex p r o n tGuatemalan base export business.h t t p : / / w w w. a g e x p ro n t . c o m / i n g l e s . h t m

Agro Eco ConsultancyDutch based agroecological consultancy whohave experience in Africa, Latin America andAsia. They have involvement in Fore s t ry andthe EPOPA programme (Export Promotion ofO rganic Products from Africa) financed by theSwedish government agency, SIDA. They havealso contributed a chapter on evaluatingo rganic projects for a DfID handbook and havepublished material on developing org a n i ccotton systems. They have branch or associatedo ffices in Argentina, Uganda and Zimbabweand have worked in partnership with manyoverseas NGOs. h t t p : / / w w w. a g ro e c o . n l / a g ro e c o

A s s o c . de Organisaciones de ProductoresEcologicós de Boliv i aBolivian organic producers association. Site lists41 members (producers and consultants) anddetails of their publications, technical serv i c e sand forthcoming events.h t t p : / / w w w. m e g a l i n k . c o m / a o p e b /

B i o h e r bG e rman based consultancy working mostly int ropical countries supporting producers andp rocessors of organic, medicinal and aro m a t i cplants. They currently are involved in pro j e c t sin China. Madagascar and Bolivia. Othercountries in which they have experience includeNepal, Sri Lanka, Kazakhstan, Tanzania, Peruand Malawi. Their site also contains a dire c t o ryof third world organisations involved ono rganic production and marketing.h t t p : / / w w w.bioherb.de

B owe ev i lAssociated with the good food foundation Bo weevil (named after the Cotton Boll We e v i l )works with cotton producers in the South. Thissite also explains the problems of conventionalcotton production and is well illustrated.h t t p : / / w w w. b o w e e v i l . n l / e n g l i s h / b w _ f r a m e s .

htm

CAB International This site, launched by CAB International (andfunded by MAFF) in October 2000, pro v i d e snews, details of re s e a rch, training and jobo p p o rtunities. It is mostly focused on Euro p eand North America, but plans are afoot tolaunch an internet based searchable databasecovering re s e a rch in Spring 2001. Subscriptionbased but offers a free trail.h t t p : / / w w w. o rg a n i c - re s e a rch.com

Centro Interdisciplinario de Estudios Sobre elD e s a r r o l l o ,U r u g u ay (CIEDUR)U ruguayan NGO with a specific focus onsustainable development.h t t p : / / f p . c h a s q u e . n e t : 8 0 8 1 / c i e d u r /

p re s e n t a t i o n . h t m l

Chaoda Modern A g r i c u l t u ral Holdings Ltd.( C h i n a )Home page for Chinese production anddistribution company. Their mission is ‘top romote hi technology biological farming andwithin ten years become the flagship of China’sa g r i c u l t u re strategy and to rank among the 500l a rgest enterprises in the world’. They pre s e n t l yhave c.1,000 Ha. of land in agriculturalp roduction, in 7 provinces , but mostlyconcentrated in Fujian and Jiangsu provinces. They plant rebling this figure by 2002 on the basis of landa l ready in conversion. Their also provides linksto over 30 Chinese companies and agencies( p resumably with an interest in org a n i cp roduction). h t t p : / / w w w. c h a o d a . c o m /


City Fa r m e r sWeb page from Canada’s Office of UrbanA g r i c u l t u re. Has links to Urban farming news /sites in the third world.h t t p : / / w w w. c i t y f a rm e r. o rg /

Daabon OrganicColombian organic traders and cert i f i e r s .(English language) h t t p : / / w w w. d a a b o n . c o m . c o /

Eldis Gateway to many development org a n i s a t i o n sand topics. http://nt1.ids.ac.uk/eldis/eldsea.htm

E gyptian Centre of Organic A g r i c u l t u r eE g y p t ’s accreditation organisation for org a n i cf a rms and processors. Little Information here. h t t p : / / w w w. e c o a . c o m . e g /

Equal Exchange US based ‘fair trade’ organisation, whichfocuses on organic and ‘shade grown’ coff e e .I n t e resting information about coffee gro w i n gp rocess and details of their projects / part n e r so rganisations in Latin America, Tanzania, Indiaand Indonesia. h t t p : / / w w w. e q u a l e x c h a n g e . c o m

European Universities' Consortium for aCommon Curriculum in Ecological A g r i c u l t u r eP rovides links to Universities in the EU whop rovide organic and agroecological courses anddo re s e a rch in the field .h t t p : / / w w w. i r s . a b e r. a c . u k / re s e a rc h / O rg a n i c s / t r a i

n i n g / c o n s o rt . h t m l

Food and Agricultural Org a n i s a t i o nThe FAO is the largest autonomouso rganisation within the United Nations. Its mandate is to raise levels of nutrition and standards of living, improve agriculturalp ro d u c t i v i t y, and better the condition of ru r a lpopulations. In 1999 the FAO Committee onA g r i c u l t u re (COAG) a p p roved FAO involvement in org a n i ca g r i c u l t u re. Undoubtedly FA O ’s support foro rganic agriculture will give added legitimacyand weight to the organic movement. Alre a d yits web pages on Organic agriculture some ofthe most comprehensive to be found on thei n t e rnet and include a facility to search on linefor bibliographic re s o u rc e s .h t t p : / / w w w. f a o . o rg / o rg a n i c a g /

Other FAO sites worth visiting are: The David Lubin Memorial Libraryh t t p : / / w w w. f a o . o rg / l i b r a ry / d l u b i n / D l s i t e s E . h t mand WACIENT (World AgriculturalI n f o rmation Centre )h t t p : / / w w w. f a o . o rg / w a i c e n t / s e a rc h /d e f a u l t . h t m

GaMa Brazilian importers and exporters, specialisingin Soya products. h t t p : / / w w w. g a m a . c o m . b r /

Global A g r i c u l t u ral Information Netwo r k(GAIN) This site is a subsidiary site the ES FederalAgricultural Service (FAS). It mostly pro v i d e slinks to re p o rts of relevance for export of USagricultural produce. It has some useful marketintelligence on organic production in demandin some developing countries. Use the subject search ‘Organic. ’h t t p : / / w w w. f a s . u s d a . g o v / i n f o / f a c t s h e e t s / re p o rt s .

html

132

Good Food Foundation Dutch based co-operative project for pro m o t i n go rganic production in the third world.Members are mostly food traders who work tos e c u re supplies to meet domestic demand. Theymostly work in Tu r k e y, but have other pro j e c t sin Sri Lanka and China. Their site also giveslinks to a wide range of other organic org a n i s a t i o n s .h t t p : / / w w w.goodfood.nl

G r e e n A q u aEcuadorian based organic aquaculturecompany h t t p : / / w w w. g re e n a q u a . c o m

Green Fo u n d a t i o nSite of an Indian based (Tamil Nadu) NGOwho work closely with small and marg i n a lf a rmers in the dry-land regions of South India.Their main focus is on seed conservation /exchanges., promoting agri-biodiversity,traditional knowledge systems and org a n i cf a rming practices.h t t p : / / w w w. g re e n c o n s e rv e . c o m

Green Trade Net G e rman based site providing a showcase foro rganic products. It includes details of re p o rt scovering 18 of the most important tro p i c a li m p o rts. h t t p : / / w w w. g reen-tradenet.de

G r o l i n kSwedish based consultancy primarily aimed atp romoting organic agriculture, developingc e rtification schemes. They also pro v i d etraining courses for those wishing to developtheir experience in promoting organic systemsin the third world. Much, but not all of theirwork is marketing oriented. Site also contains alist of publications and details of their trainingp rogrammes. w w w. g rolink.se

Henry Doubleday Research A s s o c i a t i o nAn organic gardening re s e a rch group based inEngland. It is involved in the pre s e rvation ofe n d a n g e red vegetables and fruit species. Theya re extensively involved in organic re s e a rch in

the UK and abroad, where they also offer at ropical advisory service, which has pro v i d e di n f o rmation and advice since 1992 on tro p i c a lo rganic agriculture to individuals ando rganisations in the tropics and sub-tro p i c s .The aim is to give small-scale, farmers theknowledge and skills to enable them toi m p rove existing farming systems, increase foods e c u r i t y, increase safe food production andcontribute towards environmental protection. Itruns a tree seed distribution pro g r a m m e ,s u p p o rts a seed saving programme and hashelped establish the Ghanaian Org a n i cAgricultural Network

Overseas Research includes:

• O rganic agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa:f a rmer demand and potential ford e v e l o p m e n t

• M a n u re management in Kenya

• The use of urban waste in peri-urbanagricultural systems

• Optimisation of neem products: value topoor farmers and constraints tod e v e l o p m e n t

• P rosopis juliflora and related arbore a lspecies: a monograph, extension manual andd a t a b a s e

• Ethical trading: definition, practice andpossible links with organic agriculture

• Assessment of the needs of Cuban urbana g r i c u l t u re

• Composting workshops in Palestine h t t p : / / w w w. h d r a . o rg . u k /

Hess Naturtex t i l i e nG e rman based organisation trading ino rganically produced textiles (German languageonly) h t t p : / / w w w. h e s s - n a t u r. c o m


I n c a t o p sP e ruvian based and IFOAM re g i s t e re dm a n u f a c t u rer of Alpaca tops.w w w. i n c a t o p s . c o m

I n formation Centre for Low-External-Input andSustainable Agriculture (ILEIA) Established in 1982 with Dutch govern m e n tfunding, ILIEIA is now an independento rganisation. Its is to promote Low Extern a lInput and Sustainable Agriculture (LEISA),t h ro u g h

• Collecting and exchanging inform a t i o n

• Facilitating Farmer Guided Research toassess the viability of LEISA pro d u c t i o nsystems and

• Contributing to the political debate onsustainable agriculture .

It has a library / documentation service onecologically-oriented agriculture, with aro u n d7000 documents. (Which can be searc h e dremotely at h t t p : / / w w w.bib.wau.nl/ileia/ ). Itpublishes a quarterly newsletter in English and Spanishwhich is distributed free to institutions andindividuals in the third world.

ILEIA has recently reviewed of its activitiesreviewed its activities and intends to stre n g t h e nits links with filed level development workers,while at the same time developing stro n g e rcommunication links with staff in academicand re s e a rch institutions and policy makers.Field workers will however remain its core ,t a rget audience. To develop this newp rogramme it is presently looking find a new donors tocontribute to an anticipated $2M p.a. budgetre q u i rement. h t t p : / / w w w. o n e w o r l d . o rg / i l e i a /

Institute for Development Studies Based at the University of Sussex, the BritishL i b r a ry for Development Studies at ISD claimsto have the largest Library in Europe on

development issues.h t t p : / / w w w. i d s . a c . u k / b l d s / i n d e x . h t m l . A searc hon the keywords ‘organics’ or ‘agro e c o l o g y ’yielded 45+ hits, but very few more recent than1997.

Institute for Organic A g r i c u l t u r e , Bonn Mostly European focused re s e a rch institute–although has scientific re s e a rch pro j e c t songoing in the South, mostly in Latin America.h t t p : / / w w w. u n i - b o n n . d e / i o l / e n g l i s h . h t m

Instituto Biodinamico Brazilian Biodynamic Organisation. Have 60s t a ff provide advice and consultation and ru ntheir own certification scheme. They re p o rthaving 230 producer (groups) across SouthAmerica, covering 62,000 ha. w w w. i b d . c o m . b r

International Centre for Research intoA g r o forestry (ICRAF), Nairobi The International Centre for Research inA g ro f o re s t ry (ICRAF), established in Nairobi in1977, is an autonomous, non-profit re s e a rc hbody supported by the Consultative Group onI n t e rnational Agricultural Research. ICRAFaims to improve human welfare by alleviatingp o v e rt y, improving food and nutritionals e c u r i t y, and enhancing enviro n m e n t a lresilience in the tropics. ICRAF conductsstrategic and applied re s e a rch, in part n e r s h i pwith national agricultural re s e a rch systems, form o re sustainable and productive land use. Ithas five re s e a rch and development themes:diversification and intensification of land uset h rough domestication of agro f o re s t ry tre e s ;soil fertility replenishment in nutrient-depletedlands with agro f o re s t ry and other nutrientinputs; socio-economic and policy re s e a rch toallow policies that will benefit smallholderf a rmers; acceleration of impact on farm byensuring that re s e a rch re s u l t sa re used; and capacity and institutionals t rengthening through training and thedissemination of inform a t i o n .h t t p : / / w w w. i c r a f . c g i a r. o rg

International Development Research Centre

134

C a n a d a ’s development agency – has a goodseries of thumbnail sketches of pro j e c t s‘ a d v e n t u res in development’, including org a n i cand sustainable agricultural appro a c h e s .h t t p : / / w w w. i d rc . c a / i n d e x _ e . h t m l

International Fe d e ration of OrganicA g r i c u l t u ral Movements (IFOA M )R e p resents the world-wide movement foro rganic agriculture. It has more than 730member organisations in more than 100countries. It publishes the global basic org a n i cs t a n d a rds, and has been influential in thenegotiations with the WTO / WHO codexalimentarius committee. It also pro m o t e sannual trade fairs and bi-annual confere n c e s ,publishes a world-wide dire c t o ry of membero rganisations, proceedings of its confere n c e sand a quarterly magazine ‘Ecology andF a rming’ h t t p : / / w w w. i f o a m . o rg

International Food Po l i cy Research Institute(IFPRI) IFPRIs Research focuses on economic gro w t hand poverty alleviation in low-incomecountries, improvement of the well-being ofpoor people, and sound management of thenatural re s o u rce base that supports agriculture .Though they have little specifically focused ono rganic farming or agroecology agriculture ,they have a strong re s e a rch profile in re l e v a n tfields. h t t p : / / w w w. i f p r i . o rg

International Institute for Environment andD evelopment (IIED)UK based charitable body with impressive trackre c o rd of instigating re s e a rch and project on arange of issues relating to sustainabledevelopment in the third world. Their curre n tre s e a rch projects include a multi country studyon ‘Policies that work Sustainable Agricultureand Regenerated Rural Economies’. Theirc u rrent publications list relating to agriculturecontains a number of studies of soil fertility andsustainable land use issues, particularly in Africa, oftenu n d e rtaken from a participative, bottom upperspective (in Ti g r a y, Benin, Malawi andKenya). h t t p : / / w w w. i i e d . o rg / i n d e x . h t m

International Rice Research Institute (ThePhilippines) Not an organic organisation, indeed they domuch work on promoting GM variants.However their Sustainable Agriculturaldevelopment Programme did win the SARDPrize, reflecting the value of work that they doin this field.h t t p : / / w w w. c g i a r. o rg / i rr i / p a / i n d e x . h t m

Isic Tarim Ürünleri AS O rganically certified Turkish fruit packingc o m p a n y. h t t p : / / w w w.isiktarim.com

Louis Bolk Institute Dutch based re s e a rch institute with interests ino rganic food, agriculture and anthro p o s o p h i c a lmedicine. Most of the site is in Dutch but theirlast two annual re p o rts are available in Englishh t t p : / / w w w.louisbolk.nl/about/index.htm

N a t u r l a n d ,G e rman association promoting org a n i ca g r i c u l t u re. Involved in certifying, inspectionand advocating organic agriculture. Naturlandhave strong links with many third worldcountries. w w w. n a t u r l a n d . d e


Organic Cotton Site This site dedicates itself to ‘all the farm e r s ,

m a n u f a c t u rers, activists, retailers and others who

a re devoting their energies to making org a n i c

cotton a viable agricultural and economic

a l t e rnative’. Links range from details about pests

and pesticide use to the design and fashion end of

the supply chain. It is Californian based. It has

details of the BASIC (Biological Agricultural

Systems in Cotton) programme designed to move

f a rmers from chemically intensive to org a n i c

systems, a system which may be transferable /

applicable in other situations.

h t t p : / / w w w. s u s t a i n a b l e c o t t o n . o rg /

Organic Crop Improvement Association US based association, the world’s larg e s to rganic certification agency. They have chaptersin Latin America and claim (in IFOAMD i re c t o ry) to have an interest in third worldo rganic production. It is difficult to find muchevidence of this on these web pages however.w w w. o c i a . o rg

Organic Farm and Garden SuppliesC o m m e rcial site for South African basedsupplier of organic activators, water tre a t m e n tsystems and feed supplements for animals (TM:P e n a c ) .h t t p : / / w w w. o rg a n i c s a . c o . z a

Organic Standards On line journal maintained by Gro l i n kdedicated to discussing issues surro u n d i n go rganic standards w w w. o rg a n i c s t a n d a rd.com

Phalad Agro Research Fo u n d a t i o nC o m m e rcial site for an Indian producer ofo rganic fertilisers and nutrients.w w w. p h a l a d a a g ro.com

Planeta Verde Multilingual site of a Brazilian organic bro w nsugar pro d u c e r.h t t p : / / w w w. p l a n e t a v e rd e . c o m . b r /

Pusat Pendidkan Lingkungan HiduupNetwork of Indonesian enviro n m e n t a leducation centres, which includes amongst itsp rogrammes the promotion of organic farm i n g .h t t p : / / w w w.webcom.com/pplh

P r i ya Chemicals C o m m e rcial web site for companymanufacturing and exporting amino acid basedbio-stimulants for agricultural and veterinarianpurposes. h t t p : / / w w w. p r i y a c h e m . c o m

Rapunzel (Germany ) .Mostly German language site from commerc i a lsuppliers w w w. r a p u n z e l . d e

Rapunzel (Tu r key )C o m m e rcial site for group claiming to beTu r k e y ’s longest established and leading org a n i cp roduct development company.h t t p : / / a b o n e . s u p e ro n l i n e . c o m / ~ r a p m a s t e r /

R e s e a r ch Institute of Organic A g r i c u l t u r e( F i B L ) ,Swiss based consultancy who are extensivelyinvolved in agricultural re s e a rch, cert i f i c a t i o nand marketing. They have strong links with theSwiss development agency who finance manyp rojects on which FiBL are engaged.h t t p : / / w w w. f i b l . c h / e n g l . h t m l

Resource Efficient A g r i c u l t u ral Production(REAP) (Canada) An independent, non-profit organisation thathas been working since 1986 with farm e r s ,scientists, NGOs and industry, to advance thedevelopment of sustainable farming systems.They work with rural communities, bothdomestically and intern a t i o n a l l y, to pro m o t ee n v i ronmentally sound development to addre s ssociety's need for food, fuel and fibre .h t t p : / / w w w. re a p . c a

136

R.I.O IMPULS Swiss based (and German language only) foru mfor economics and ecology. Contains somei n f o rmation about organic cotton / textilep rojects. h t t p : / / w w w.rio.ch

Rodale InstituteUS based Foundation, set up in 1940s andoriginally called the soil and health foundation.Focuses on promoting organic agriculture andconsumption. It places an emphasis oneducation and has a number of projects in the South, including Guatemalaand Senegal. The Institute was re c e n t l ya w a rded a national prize by the President of Senegal for its work with a with a localwomen's group on the regeneration ofcommunity waste management thro u g hcomposting. w w w. ro d a l e i n s t i t u t e . o rg

S e ke mA cultural and social project, based uponbiodynamic farming. They now cultivate morethan 2000ha, including significant amounts ofo rganic cotton. They have both economic andcultural influence within Egypt and are well thought within the org a n i cmovement as an example of sustainabledevelopment. h t t p : / / w w w.sekem.com

S k a lDutch based inspection and cert i f i c a t i o no rganisation. h t t p : / / w w w.skal.com

Spice Board, India The site contains much of interests about thei m p o rtance and history of spices in general andincludes details of the recent developments ino rganic spice growing, the cert i f i c a t i o ninitiatives and lists of growers and export e r s .h t t p : / / w w w. i n d i a n s p i c e s . c o m / h t m l / s 0 6 5 0 o rg . h t

m

Stiftung Ökologie and Landbau (SÖL)( Foundation for Ecology and A g r i c u l t u r e )A charity founded in 1961 and initially activein the education and health. It has workedspecifically on organic agriculture since 1975. Its u p p o rts numerous projects and studies re l a t e dto organic agriculture. An important aim is the effective disseminationof the knowledge gained. Many of SÖL'sactivities relate to information about / foro rganic farming. Their publications include aglobal database about organic farming and theG e rman language "Ökologie de facto

Landbau" a quarterly journal, which covers all aspects ofecology and farming. h t t p : / / w w w.soel.de

Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Deve l o p m e n tPrize A privately funded prize (guaranteed for tenyears at a level of US$ 10,000) re w a rding lands t e w a rdship with impact on the life of ru r a lp o o r. h t t p : / / w w w. s a rd -

m a l l i n c k rodt.de/index.shtml

Sustainable Agriculture Network /Research andEducation (SAN / SARE) US based network with few foreign links,but some projects possibly of intere s th t t p : / / w w w. s a re . o rg

Tropical Research Institute Dutch based Institute specialising in pro m o t i n gi n t e rnational co-operation and interc u l t u r a lcommunication. It has some experience ins u p p o rting agroecological projects and anextensive library. h t t p : / / w w w.kit.nl

United NatureG e rman based organic trading companyh t t p : / / w w w. u n i t e d n a t u re . n e t


Appendix 2A R e s e a rch Institutes and Consultancies

This listing, which is by no means exhaustive,details contacts for re s e a rch institutes,development agencies and consultancies. It ismostly drawn from responses to survey workand articles written by staff members. Theseo rganisations have an international focus and,for ease of re f e rence are listed under their homecountries. Fuller details of their activities orre s e a rch expertise can either be found in themain body of the text or in Appendix 1.

C a n a d aCity Farmers. Experience in urban farm i n gp rojects in the first and third world. Contactvia web pages h t t p : / / w w w. c i t y f a rm e r. o rg

R e s o u rce Efficient Agricultural Pro d u c t i o n .Sustainable agriculture NGO. Contact via website.. h t t p : / / w w w. re a p . c a

C h i l eMovimento Agroecologico en America Latina yEl Caribe. Pan Latin American OAA network.Mario Ahumada m a a @ c t c re u n a . c l

G e r m a nyBioherb: Consulting for Organic Agriculture .Ulrich Helberg, b i o h e r b @ t - o n l i n e . d e

Fair Trade Labelling Org a n i s a t i o n .I n t e rnational co-ordinator for fairt r a d elabelling. Carol Doylec o o rd i n a t i o n @ f a i r Tr a d e . n e t

Institute for Organic Agriculture, Bonn.Contact via web site h t t p : / / w w w. u n i -

bonn.de/iol/english.htm

I n t e rnational Federation of Org a n i cAgricultural Movements (IFOAM). Contact viaweb site h t t p : / / w w w. i f o a m . o rg

I t a lyFood and Agricultural Organisation. NadiaScialabba, Environment Off i c e rN a d i a . S c i a l a b b a @ f a o . o rg

Ke nya

I n t e rnational Centre for Insect Physiology andEcology (ICIPE). Dr. Hans Herren, Dire c t o rGeneral h h e rre n @ i c i p e . o rg

I n t e rnational Research Centre into Agro f o re s t ry(ICRAF) Contact via h t t p : / / w w w. i c r a f . c g i a r. o rg/

M a l aysia HUMUS Consultancy and Marketing. Hasa good knowledge of the organics sector in S.E.Asia. Ong Kung Wai, , k u n g w a i @ t m . n e t . m y

The Netherlands A g ro Eco Consultancy. See entry underre s o u rces. Bo van Elzakker o ff i c e @ a g o e c o . n l

B o - Weevil. Marck van Esch [email protected]

Good Food Foundation. Jan [email protected]

I n f o rmation Centre for Low-Extern a l - I n p u tand Sustainable Agriculture (ILEIA) Contactvia web site .h t t p : / / w w w. o n e w o r l d . o rg/ileia/bridges.htm

S we d e nG rolink. Gunnar Rundgren, i n f o @ g rolink.se

S w i t z e r l a n dR e s e a rch Institute of Organic Agriculture(FiBL). Swiss based consultancy with extensiveinvolvement in development projects. Contactvia web site h t t p : / / w w w. f i b l . c h / e n g l . h t m l

United Kingdom E c o t ropic. UK based biodynamic consultancywith extensive experience, including assisting inconversion of two case studies described in thisp roject: Ambootia Tea Estate and the MaikallCotton project. Tadeu Caldas,t c a l d a s _ e c o t ro p i c @ c o m p u s e rv e . c o m

H e n ry Doubleday Research Association. Seere s o u rces for details. Contacte n q u i ry @ h d r a . o rg.uk

IACR Rothamstead. Prof. John Pickettj o h n . P i c k e t t @ b b s rc.as.uk

I n t e rnational Institute for Environment and Development. contact via web siteh t t p : / / w w w. i i e d . o rg / i n d e x . h t m

Twin Trading a Fair trade group who also

138

p romote organic produce. Alex Holmesi n f o @ t w i n . o rg.uk

United States Equal Exchange. Fairtrade organisation with several organic projects. J. Rosenthalj ro s e n t h a l @ e q u a l e x c h a n g e . c o mw w w.equalexchange.com

Rodale Institute. Involved in projects, primarilyin Senegal. See re s o u rces and section on Senegalfor details. Contact Amadou Dipoa d i o p @ ro d a l e i n s t . o rg or i n f o @ rodaleinst

Appendix 2B – NGOs and producer gro u p s

This listing, which is by no means exhaustive,details contacts for NGOs and Pro d u c e rG roups whose activity is mostly within theirown countries. It is mostly drawn fro mresponses to survey work and articles writtenby staff members. Description of the work of these groups isgenerally included within the main text of there p o rt or in Appendix 1. Only where thesedetails are not included in earlier sections is adescription of the groups activities included.Inclusion or exclusion of groups on this listdoes not constitute a value judgement on theauthors behalf as to their ‘wort h i n e s s ’

A f r i c a

Burkina Faso Raw Bio Process – producer group alsocovering Niger and Mali. [email protected]

E gy p tC e n t re for Organic Agriculture in Egypt(COAE). Helmy Abouleish [email protected]

Egyptian Centre of Organic Agriculture. Y. A .Hamadi e c o a @ s o f i c o m . c o m . rg

Egyptian Centre of Organic Agriculture Society.Ahmed El-Araby [email protected]

G h a n aGhanaian Organic Agricultural Network(GOAN). Emmanuel Antwi [email protected]

Ke nyaAssociation for Better Land Husbandry.P romotes organic and sustainable farming in Kenya on a ‘near-nil investment’ basis.Receive some support from DfID. They are alsodeveloping a certification programme forKenya and promote OAA. Jim Cheatle PO Box39042 Nairobi. j c h e a t l e @ n e t 2 0 0 0 k e . c o m

G reen Farming Group. Small communityf a rming group with a 16ha. demonstrationf a rm in Othaya. They are mostly involved


in teaching farmers about composting andwater conservation techniques. John Kanyi,G reen Farming Group, P.O. Box 897, Othaya,K E N YA .Hope Community Development Pro g r a m m e(Misikhu) A training organisation based inw e s t e rn Kenya involving >1000 farmers, withfour extension workers. They have recently setup a small sunflower oil processing unit forlocal farmers (with aid from ICCO, a Dutchfunding organisation). Contact Richard [email protected]

Itemeini Organic Farming Self Help Gro u p .Waikwa Stephen Wachira [email protected]

Kenyan Institute for Organic Farming (KIOF).See text for details. Dr. John Wanjau Njoro g e ,D i rector k i o f @ e l c i . g n . a p c . o rg

Madagascar Association Tefy Saina Principle movers behindthe development of intensive rice gro w i n gtechniques in Madagascar. SébastianR a f a r a l a h y. t e f y s a i n a @ s i m i c ro.mg P R O M A B I .Jean Claude Ratsimivony [email protected]

M a l aw iLipangwe Organic Manure DemonstrationF a rm, Lomadef. The only agro e c o l o g i c a ldemonstration farm in Malawi. Have amembership of 1000+ members who come foron farm training. Other Malawi based NGOssend their staff and farmers there for training.In operational terms the biggest problem facedby the farm is lack of transportation forextension work and monitoring. The biggestp roblem faced by local farmers is lack of (seedc o rn) capital to purchase farm implements. J.J. Kanjange( D i rector) PO Box 26, Matale, Ntcheu,Malawi. Shiré Highland Organic Growers Org a n i z a t i o n .G roup of certified organic growers in Malawi-mostly on expatriate farms but attempting too u t reach to indigenous farmers. Art h u rS c h w a rz. PO Box 930, Blantyre, Malawi.

M a l iG roupe de Recherches et d’Applications

Techniques. Rural development gro u pp romoting OAA. Yacouba Tangara BP 2502,Bamako, MALI

M o z a m b i q u eO rganic Cotton Project. Group involved inp romoting organic cotton growing and otherf o rms of organic agriculture. Norbert oMahalambe [email protected]

N i g e r i aRegfos Green Commission. Established NGO.Sunny Okwudire 7/13 Murtala MohammedWa y, PO Box 531 Jos, Nigeria

S e n e g a lAgriculteurs Naturalistes. El Hadj HamathHane, a g r i n a t @ e n d a . s n

Association des Jeunes Agriculteurs deCasamace. Lamine Biaye, BP11 Sedhiou,S e n e g a lC e n t re d’Initiatives et de Recherches Paysannespour l’Environment et le DéveloppementDurable. Ibrahima Secki s e c k @ m o n c o u rr i e r.com

Federation des Agropasteurs de Diende: farm e rbased re s e a rch extension and experimentationg roup. Papa Gueye, Keur Abdou NDOYE,Route de Kayar, Région de Thies, Sénégal. Recours á la Te rre. Run a 5 ha. demonstrationg a rden and experiment with locally appro p r i a t ef o rms of organic production and have ru ncollaborative re s e a rch and extensionp rogrammes with national and re g i o n a lp roducer groups. Abdoulaye SARR, BP 290Tambacounda, Sénégal. Senegalaise pour leP romotion de l’Agriculture Biologique. SheikhTidiane Dramé, [email protected]

South Africa Biodynamic Agricultural Association of SouthAfrica. Intending to set up a certification andinspection agency in South Africa. PieterG e e rnat PO Box 115, Paulshof 2056, SouthAfrica. Food Gardens Foundation. NGO pro m o t i n gfood self-sufficiency in poor townships and

140

rural areas. Allda Boshoff f g f @ g l o b a l . c o . z a

The Rainman Landcare Foundation. NGOinvolved in promoting water harvesting ando rganic agriculture. Dr. Raymond Auerbach,P.O. Box 2349, Hillcrest 3650, South Africa.

To g oG roupement des Jeunes pour l’Entraide et leDevelopment (GJED) Young peasant farm e rg roup promoting organic farming in theWe s t e rn plateau area of Togo. The main aimsof the group are experimentation with OAAand dissemination of successful methodsamongst villages. They have established ap r i m a ry school where organic garden andteachings are at the heart of the curr i c u l u m .Although they intended this to be a pilotp roject, they have not yet raised funds toreplicate the venture in other villages. Theyhave also established an information /documentation centre where people can comeand find out more about agro e c o l o g y. They areseeking funding to translate key texts andi n f o rmation into local languages so thatvillagers can more readily avail themselves ofthis re s o u rce. Komla [email protected]; [email protected]

WWOOF Togo – the only ‘Working We e k e n d sOn Organic Farms’ group in the South that isre g i s t e red with IFOAM. Yawo Tonato Agbekow w o o f t o g o @ h o t m a i l . c o m

U g a n d aKulika Charitable Trust. Training org a n i s a t i o nrecently relocated to Uganda.k u l i k a @ c o m p u s e rv e . c o m

M i rembe Self Help Organization of Uganda.An active NGO group within the UgandanOAA scene. They established a demonstrationf a rm for organic farming and Agro f o re s t ry in1992 and provide extension and trainingfacilities. Their interests also cover appro p r i a t etechnology and are renowned for havingdeveloped a cassava flour substitute for cement.They have now been elevated by theg o v e rnment to the status of The NationalR e s o u rce Centre for Sustainable Agricultureand Part i c i p a t o ry Rural Development (NRC-

SAPRD) and are expanding their role from aregional to national level. They are alsocentrally involved in setting up the first nationalo rganics conference and trying to develop theo rganic sector. Elisabeth Nabanja-MakumbiPO Box 18272, Kayunga-Bugere UGANDA. World Vision, Contact Fred Wajje, who is alsoIFOAM co-ordinator for anglophone Africancountries. P.O. Box 5319, Kampala UGANDAF re d _ w a j j e @ w v i . o rg

Z i m b a b weZimbabwe Organic Producers and Pro c e s s o r sAssociation. Tom DeitersT d e i t e r s @ a f r i c a o n l i n e . c o . z w

A s i a

B a n g l a d e s hP roshika. NGO seeking to pro m o t eeconomically viable ecological farming practicesinto Bangladesh.Z h o s s a i n @ p ro k i s h a . b d o n l i n e . c o m

C h i n aA g roecology Research Institute, ChinaAgricultural University, Beijing. One of China’sleading agroecological re s e a rch centres. LiHufaen [email protected]

China Green Food Development Centre, ShiSongkai c g f d c @ a g r i . g o v.cn

China National Green Food Corporation, ShiYongzhu o rg a n i c @ c h i n a g re e n f o o d s . c o m .

I n t e rcontinental Centre for Agro e c o l o g i c a lI n d u s t ry Research and Development. LiZhengfang i c a i a rd @ i l o n l i n e . c o m

Nanjing Global Organic Food Research andConsulting Centre Xi Yu n g u a n ,o f rc c @ j l o n l i n e . c o m

O rganic Food Development Centre of China,Xingji Xiao, x i a o x i @ p u b l i c 1 . p t t . j s . c n

I n d i aCampaign for Organic Farming. KrantiPrakesh, K r a n t i _ P r a k a s h @ h o t m a i l . c o m

G reen Foundation. Vanaja Ramprassadn a n d i t h a @ b l r. v s n l . n e t . i n

Institute for Integrated Rural Development.


Alexander V. Daniel i i rd i n d @ b o m 4 . v s n l . n e t . i n

I n t e rnational Society for Nature Farming. I.S.Hooda h a u @ h a u . re n . n i c . i n

Navdanya. NGO supporting the developmentof community seedbanks. Vandanya Shivav s h i v a @ g i a s d l 0 1 . v s n l . n e t . i n

P e e rmade Development Society. C.K. Georg ep e d e s @ m d 2 . v s n l . n e t . i n

P e o p l e ’s Organic Farm. Established in 1981and initially focused on establishing collectivef a rm units. Have subsequently developedwatershed management, herb based communityhealth and conservation of medicinal plantp rogrammes. Are currently consideringdeveloping organic agriculture as they re c o g n i s ethat is the only way forw a rd for Indianp e a s a n t ry to escape cycles of indebtedness.They are currently developing local farm e r sg roups to experiment with biodynamicmethods. Hey are establishing a re v o l v i n g( repayable) fund to facilitate farmers to makethe initial labour inputs to developingcomposting systems. It is intended that thoseinitially involved in the project will go onto totrain other farmers, thereby creating a self-sustaining network. P. Mariaselvam, People’sAgricultural Farm, 34 S. S. Nagar, NizamC o l o n y, Pudukotti 622 001. India. R e s e a rch Foundation for Science Te c h n o l o g yand Ecology. Research and advocacy on thedangers of corporatist agriculture. Va n d a n y aShiva v s h i v a @ g i a s d l 0 1 . v s n l . n e t . i n

I n d o n e s i aPusat Pendidkan Lingkungan Hiduup.Network of environmental education centre s ,with an interest in organic farming. Contact viah t t p : / / w w w. w e b c o m . c o m / p p l h

World Food Day Farmers and FishersMovement. See case study in main text.G regorius Utomo [email protected]

Ko r e aK o rea Organic Farming Association.Established in 1978 against govern m e n topposition to organic practices. Curre n t l yp rovides training to the National Co-operativeFederation groups. Jin Young. 4th Floor,

Sungwon B’D 2/3 Garak Dong Songpa GuSeoul 138-160, Kore aK o rean Society of Organic Agriculture – am o re academic based organisation, that hasp romoted a number of national seminars.

The LebanonMiddle Eastern Centre for Appro p r i a t eTe c h n o l o g y. Lebanese based but pan ArabicNGO interested in promoting OAA. They havea l ready undertaken some pre l i m i n a ry re s e a rc hinto potential of OAA and submitted a fundingbid to the EU to help promote OAA in theLebanon and Syria. Boghos [email protected].

M a l ay s i aC e n t re for Environment, Technology andDevelopment (CETDEM) have ademonstration organic farm with memberswho visit for advice and training. They havealso organised Malaysia’s first organic farm i n gexhibition and are in discussion with theg o v e rnment over drafting national standard s .G. Singh c e t d e m @ p o . j a r i n g . m y M a l a y s i a nO rganic Farming Network. Choo Ghee Seklg e n i n c o @ t m . n e t . m y

N e p a lEcological serves Centre, Kathmandu.Nationwide NGO promoting OAA. Pro v i d e sadvice, training and extension to farm e r sworking in a range of agro e c o l o g i c a lconditions. Have supported more than 10,000f a rmers since they were set up. ContactMaheswar Ghimire. e c o c e @ m o s . c o m . n p

Institute for Sustainable Agriculture Nepal(INSAN). Promoting perm a c u l t u re in Nepal.Have recently undertaken major review of thestate of Nepalese agriculture (see main text fora summary). Bharat Shre s t h [email protected] or Govinda Sharm a ,INSAN, PO Box 8126, Kathmandu, Nepal.

Pa k i s t a nSustainable Development and Policy Institute.S u b s i d i a ry of the Pakistan AgriculturalR e s e a rch Council, arranges seminars and links

142

for government functionaries, donor agenciesand NGOs. It is does not deal directly with the farm i n gc o m m u n i t y. N a t u re Farming Research Centre. A re s e a rc hinstitute at the University of Agriculture ,Faisalbad, which is said to have a good trackre c o rd in demonstrating successful org a n i ctechniques, but is less successful atdisseminating results to the farm i n gc o m m u n i t y.Pakistan Organic Farmers Association. SyedAsad Husain 78 West Wood Colony, Lahore ,5 3 7 0 0

Pa l e s t i n ePalestinian Agricultural Relief Committees.Ismael Daiq p r @ p a l - a rc . o rg

The Philippines B road Initiatives for Negros Development(BIND). See section on Philippines in main text.Eva de la Merced, BIND Rm, 2F CGT Bldg.Locsin cor. Luzuriaga Sts. Bacalod City, Negro sOccidental, PhilippinesFlora Community. See section on Philippines inmain text. Loiue Amongo c/o Masipag, 3346Aguika Street, Rhoda Subd. Bgy. Anos, LosBanos, Laguna 4030, Philippines. M A S I PAG. See section on Philippines in maintext. Angelina M. Briones (as above).

South Korea H a n WooMool Farming Co-operative –involved in promoting organic agriculturet h rough extension and schools, andmanufacturing traditional herbal remedies fore x p o rt to Japan.

Sri Lanka Gami Seva Sevana. NGO with interest inp romoting organic agriculture and village self-reliance. L. Ranjith S. de Silva I r s d e s @ e u reka.lk

N a g e n a h i ru Foundation. Conduct farmer fieldre s e a rch in indigenous and agro e c o l o g i c a lpractices in remote parts of Sri Lanka. Theyattempt to disseminate results of best practicewithin local communities and run a

demonstration farm where the techniques canbe displayed. Lal Emmanuel (Pre s i d e n t )N a g e n a h i [email protected]

T h a i l a n dG reen Net. Vitton Panyakuig [email protected]

Tu r keyETKO. Currently has two projects: one in thes o u t h e rn part of Turkey where rural poverty isa harsh re a l i t y, the second in the mountainousw e s t e rn of Tu r k e y, mostly focused on fru i tp roducing (apples, pears, plums, cherries etc.).Both need assistance in agricultural advice andmarketing. Mustafa Akyuz e t k o g @ t u r k . n e t

Vi e t n a mMountain Resources and Environment Centre .Based at Thai Nguyen University in the nort hof Vietnam. The centre is committed todeveloping economically and enviro n m e n t a l l ysustainable framing systems for this laggingregion. It currently has a part n e r s h i pp rogramme with International Global ChangeInstitute in New Zealand, in which they are seeking to promote org a n i ca g r i c u l t u re and address the needs of women,the poorest, least educated and ethnic minorityg roups in the region. Nguyen Thi Mao,MERC, College of Agro f o re s t ry, Thai NguyenU n i v e r s i t y, Thai Nguyen City, Vietnam. Coopération International pour leDéveloppement et la Solidarité. Nguyen Thanc i d s e h a n @ n e t n a m . o rg . v n

Latin America

A r g e n t i n aC e n t re for Investigation and Teaching onSustainable Agriculture (CIESA). NGOp romoting OAA as a rural developments t r a t e g y. Fernando Pia c i e s a @ re d 4 2 . c o m . a r

Moviemiento Argentino para la Pro d u c c i o nO rganic (MAPO). Umbrella grouping foro rganic movement in Argentina. Morec o m m e rcially oriented. Rodolfo Ta rr a u b e l l a .o rg a n i c o @ m a p o . c c

The Real Green Revolution 143

B o l iv i aAssoc. de Organisaciones de Pro d u c t o re sEcologicós de Bolivia. Francisco Molloa o p e b @ m a i l . m e g a l i n k . c o m / a o p e b

B ra z i lAssessorias e Servicios a Projectos emAgricultura Alternitiva (ASPTA). Jean Marcvon der Weid A s p t a @ a x . a p c . o rg

Associaçâo de Agricultura Organica (AAO).Wanderley das Neves Card o s oo [email protected] or Ricardo Cerv e i r arc e rv e i r a @ i g . c o m . b r

Instituto Biodinámico. Biodynamicdevelopment and certification agency, whichalso runs a organic seedbank. i b d @ l a s e r. c o m . b r

Costa RicaAsociación Nacional de Agricultura Org a n i c a .Gabriela Soto Munoz, g s o t o @ c a r i a r i . u c r. a c . c r

H o n d u ra sCOESECHA- working with some 45,000peasant farmers in Honduras and Guatemalap romoting sustainable (predominantly OAA)a g r i c u l t u re. Roland Bunchro l a n d o @ c o s e c h a . s d n h o n . o rg . h n

M ex i c oG rupo Interdisciplinario de Tecnologia RuralA p roprida. Mexico’s appropriate technologyg roup, involved in promoting OAA. MaterA s t i e r, g i r a a c @ y re r i . c re f a l . e d u . m x

Pa ra g u ayC e n t ro de Educación Capacitacion yTecnologia Campesina. Rural developmentNGO with an interest in OAA. Andres T.Wehrle c e c t e c @ s c e . c n c . u n a . p y

Trinidad and To b a g oTrinidad and Tobago Organic AgricultureMovement. Everard Nicholas Byert t o a m l @ e m a i l . c o m

144

E n d n o t e s

1 And, given the importanceof the European market, theEU standard is at present themost important.

2 The term organicproduction also includes twoslightly more esotericapproaches, ‘biodynamics’and ‘permaculture’.

3 As Raviv (op. cit.) pointsout, this simultaneouslybrings general environmentaland health benefits but alsoundermines the attractivenessof organic produce toconsumers in the long term.

4 In this discussion weexclude traditional‘extensive’ farming systemssuch as ‘slash and burn’ orextended fallowing, whichdo not incorporate soilfertility managementpractices. Such systems oftenrely on low (human)population density for theirviability (Harrison, 1987)and, as population pressureincreases, are becoming lesssustainable.

5 As the project evolved,numerous other web sites,mostly belonging to organicand rural developmentagencies, were visited. Anannotated catalogue of thesesites is provided in appendix1.

6 These included: BernardGeier (Director, IFOAM),Rodolfo Tarraubella(President MAPO,

Argentina), Lukas Kilcher(FiBL, Switzerland), Dr. UliZerger (SÖL, Germany),Torsten Piecha (The AmberFoundation, Germany),Carlo Ponzio (Sultan FarmCo. Ltd., Egypt), TadeuCaldas (Ecotropic, UK) andJohn Myers (SoilAssociation).

7 A further IFOAMpublication, the organictraining directory (IFOAM,1995) was considered as apotential resource, but isboth out of print and quitedated.

8 The earlier of these werecommissioned as part of theprocess of informing FAO’sdecision over whether toinclude organic agriculturewithin its sustainableagriculture programme. Themore recent reports followon from their decision to doso, and are concerned withidentifying a strategy forpromoting OAA.

9 In some instances oursurveys identified higherlevels of certified organicland than the workundertaken by SOL,particularly in the case ofChina and Uganda. In theinterests of consistency (andbecause we have not verifiedthese figures through othersources) we retain SÖL’sestimates for thiscomparative estimate,although discuss the otherfigures in the country profileselsewhere in the report.

10 Although normallyconsidered part of Oceania,for the purpose of thisanalysis, Papua New Guineahas been included withinAsian statistics.

11 At present there are onlythree countries that haveachieved this status,Argentina, Bolivia andBrazil, all of whom rankhighly amongst the topdozen organic producingnations.

12 For example, Scholer(2000) suggests that morethan 90% of coffee grown inEthiopia is probably de factoorganic. If included in thefigures this would probablyexceed all the certifiedorganic land in Africa.

13 However interpretations ofthese statistics should betreated with some caution ascultural, linguistic,geographic or historicalfactors may account fordifferent organizationalstructures in differentcountries.

14 IFOAM President at thetime.

15 Although increasingly theseconsultancies are openingregional offices in the Southand employing locally-basedstaff (Hardy, Pers. Comm.)

16 At the same time they alsorecognised and accepted thepotential value of GMagriculture.


17 FAO AgricultureDepartment's SeniorTechnical Advisor

18 As well as studiesreferenced in this report FAOhave recently published and /or are presently preparingreports on: factorsinfluencing organic policieswith a focus on developingcountries; organic agriculturein Senegal; methodology forcomparative analysis oforganic, traditional andconventional (sic)agriculture; a comparativestudy of different organicfertilisers; technicalGuidelines on Conservationand processing of organicfruits and vegetables and onorganic horticulturalproduction.

19 Some schemes have aspecific focus on increasingfarmer incomes throughhelping them access premiamarkets, for exampleSwedish Governmentfinanced “Export of OrganicProduce from Producers inAfrica” – EPOPA.

20 In our opinion Walagaoverlooks some constraints,which are identified by otherauthors and discussed laterin this section.

21 Although, with a growingtendency for setting upregional offices, employinglocal staff, this is becoming aless pressing issue.

22 Although commentatorscloser to the ground arguethat these claims have beensignificantly exaggerated andwhile Cuba has achieved atransition to a moresustainable and less intensivepattern of agriculture it is,with the exception ofisolated initiatives, far fromorganic (Kilcher, pers.comm.,).

23 Another example ofeconomic circumstancedriving a change to organicmethods is reported from(the former) East Germany.When barley growerscouldn’t afford fungicidesthey inter-cropped differentbarley varieties. Mildewinfection fell from around50% to 10%, but after thefall of the Berlin Wall theyreverted to mono-croppingbecause the brewerspreferred single variety grain(Stott, 2000).

24 Equally, we find thatWalaga’s argument thatpopulation pressure isencouraging farmers tointensify traditional systemsnot entirely convincing, as itmight equally well act as anincentive to adopt (moresophisticated) organicpractices, especially given theproblems associated withpurchasing artificial inputs.

25 One Senegalese farmer ismemorably quoted in Thiamand Dieng (1989) ‘withoutchemical fertiliser it is betterto go to bed than tocultivate.’

26 We note here that given alack of use of artificialinputs, conversion can beachieved relatively quickly.

27 In addition to thesecountries the authors identifythat organic farming ispractised in Burkina Faso,Ghana and Zambia,although no figures areavailable.

28 Full details of ICIPE’sresearch activities can befound in their Business Planand Research Outlook,(ICIPE, 2001).

29 Given that the Directory isproduced in the Philippinesthis figure may reflectstronger local affiliations.

30 According to ITC, theKorean Organic Associationhas more than 17,000members, so the level ofactivity estimated here couldbe a substantialunderestimate.

31 ITC estimate that the landin organic production hadincreased by 25% by the endof 1998.

32 The authors also identifythe existence of organicfarming in Pakistan andTaiwan, but withoutquantifying its importance.

33 Although both SoilAssociation and the Swisscertifiers IMO have partner /branch offices in India.

146

34 See section 4.3 for moredetails of this initiative.

35 See section 4.6 for adiscussion of the issuessurrounding certification.

36 Regulations are establishedwithin some Provinces,including the State of Rio deJaneiro.

37 For example it is notpermitted to clear forestwithin 50m of running water(Chubb, 2000).

38 Earlier models have alsobeen proposed, see forexample Shiva, 1995.

39 A number ofmethodological issues needresolving. For a discussion ofthese see Robens andLanting, 2000.

40 The issue of intellectualproperty rights of plants hasbeen a politically sensitiveone in India since the 1990swhen W.R. Grace won apatent for a fungicide derivedfrom the seeds of the Neemtree. This species was alreadycommonly used for thispurpose in India andelsewhere in the world(Bullard, 1995). A coalitionof Indian-based NGOs, theResearch Foundation forScience Technology andNatural Resource Policy,supported by IFOAM andthe European ParliamentaryGreen Group, mounted acampaign against thegranting of a European

patent. They were supportedby a petition signed by half amillion Indian citizens. Theysuccessfully managed to getthe patent revoked by theEuropean Patent Office onthe grounds that there wasno inventive step involved inthe ‘invention’ (Anon,2000b).

41 According to Blench theInternational LivestockCentre for Africa untilrecently discouraged researchon donkeys camels, pigs,rodents and indigenous birdspecies.

42 An ethnoveterinarymedicine mailing list has alsorecently been created whichcan be joined by sending ablank email message [email protected]

43 With some importantexceptions, discussed below.

44 Whilst this report was inpress the authors’ attentionwas drawn to a newpublication (Giller, 2001)addressing the issue ofnitrogen fixing in tropicalcropping systems.

45 Omile et al (1999) notethat in Ethiopia manyfarmers complained that soilerosion negates the potentialbenefits of applying artificialfertilisers.

46 Thus strengthening theargument for tree planting insuch regions which would, inthe medium to long term,

reduce competing pressuresfor compostable material(Omili et al, 1999)

47 Originally published in1986, the new edition hadbeen significantly updatedand expanded.

48 Other key texts in thisfield, identified but notconsulted by the authors,include: Elwell and Maas’s(1995) practical guide to pestcontrol in South and EastAfrica and Hoffman andFrodsham’s (1995) manual ofnatural enemies of vegetableinsect pests.

49 Technical solutions todetect attempts to cheatcertification systems havebeen developed by TerraPreservada AlimentosOrgânicos in Brazil tomonitor for GMcontamination of soybeans(Colkusi & Grüninger 2000).In Sri Lanka tea buyers areexperimenting withcomparative time series datato spot likely cheating andreduce the frequency andcost of inspections. Farmerswhose yields are significantlyabove local/regional averagesor past levels of productionwould be subject to morerigorous/frequent inspections(Ranaweeera and Thatill,2000).


50 This despite the emphasisof the original letters ofinquiry being uponagriculture rather thanupstream and value addingactivities.

51 Published by Grolink andavailable electronically atwww.organicstandard.com

52 This derogation is due toexpire at the end of 2004,which raises questions abouthow producers from nonlisted countries will be ableto secure market accessthereafter.

53 A further three Southernorganizations: in Argentina,China and Thailand, are inthe process of applying.

54 See Stopes et al. (2000) fora more detailed discussion ofthe regulation of biocides.

55 At present the IFOAMcharter includes acommitment to: ‘alloweveryone involved in organicproduction and processing aquality of life conforming tothe UN Human RightsCharter, to cover their basicneeds and obtain anadequate return andsatisfaction from their work,including a safe workingenvironment’. (IFOAM,1996)

56 Notably, however, oneSwiss certifier will not permitorganic produce to be air-freighted (Hardy, pers.comm.)

57 This will only be possiblein some situations. There issome concern over theorganic standards introducedin theUSA, which some fearmight place a ‘ceiling’ on

standards, making it difficultto advertise food that is bio-dynamically or locally grown(Burton, pers. comm.).

58 Cuba aside, one notableexception to this is the recent(and unprecedented) decisionby the parliament ofZanzibar to convert to 100%organic agriculture, though itremains questionable howreadily this can be achieved(Hampl, 2000).

59 See Morgan and Murdoch(2000) for a discussion ofthis issue in a Northerncontext.

60 This popular notion is,however, challenged byChinnakonda and Lanting(2000).

Nicholas Parrott is a Research Associateat Cardiff University, studying the linksbetween organic and quality foods andrural development. His doctoral thesiswas on the environmental impact of roadschemes in rural Wales. Otherpublications include work on craftsproducers, artisanal cheesemaking,farmers' markets and a walking guide 'The West Yorkshire Way'.

Professor Terry Marsden is Head of theDepartment of City and RegionalPlanning at Cardiff University. He ispresently Special Advisor on rural affairsfor the National Assembly of Wales,Special Advisor to the Welsh Affairs SelectCommittee and co-director of theEconomic and Social Research Councils'Research Centre for BusinessRelationships, Accountability,Sustainability and Society. His reasearchinterests are focused around ruraldevelopment, agro-food studies andenvironment policy and planning.

Greenpeace Environmental Trust

Canonbury Villas, London N1 2PN, United Kingdomwww.greenpeace.org.uk/trust

3 12 ISBN 1 903907 02 0

For some, talk of 'sustainable

agriculture' sounds like a luxury the

poor can ill afford. But in truth it is

good science, addressing real needs

and delivering real results.

New Scientist

The Real Green Revolution Organic and Agroecological Farming

Self Improvement

Transcript of The Real Green Revolution Organic and Agroecological Farming