Evolution of Agriculture and Wildlife Conservation – Conflict to Coexistence

Call for a “Green” Revolution

 

Much Awaited Attention to Agricultural Development in Developing Countries – Particularly in Africa

 

An international commitment to facilitate agricultural development in the poorer countries is underway. Three out of four people in these countries derive sustenance directly, or indirectly, from agriculture. Over 2 billion people, who depend on agriculture, live on less than $2 a day, of which over 800 million subsist on less than $1 a day. Between 1993-2002 numbers of individuals living on less than $1 a day increased in Sub-Sahara Africa and South Asia. The Millennium Development Goal calls for halving the share of people suffering from extreme poverty and hunger by 2015. In agriculture-based countries – which include most Sub-Saharan Africa - agricultural development remains the primary driver for spurring growth, overcoming poverty and enhancing food security.

 

In July, 2009 the G-8 in its L’Aquila Declaration affirmed commitment to invest $20 billion in agricultural development in developing nations, particular in Africa. This is welcome news given the declining share of agriculture in official development assistance from 18 percent in 1979 to 3.5 percent in 2004 and in absolute terms from a high of $8 billion in 1984 to $3.4 billion in 2004. President Obama and Secretary Clinton have proclaimed that the United States would pay greater attention to improving agricultural production in poorer nations. In the last decade the Gates Foundation has led non-governmental investment in improving agricultural productivity in Africa.

 

Time for African Agricultural Green Revolution

 

Africa has yet to experience a green revolution such as that which transformed Asia beginning in the 1960s. Since the 1960s yields of cereal grains have dramatically risen in developing nations – particularly Asia - due to widespread use of irrigation, improved crop varieties and fertilizer. Sub-Saharan African has lagged behind. Today 39 percent of the crop area in South Asia is irrigated compared to only 4 percent in Sub-Saharan African. By 2000, improved crop varieties were sown on 80 percent of cereal areas in South and East Asia but only covered about 22 percent of cereal grain areas in Sub-Saharan Africa. South Asia uses about 100 kg of nutrients per hectare of arable and permanent cropland compared to 13 kg in Sub-Saharan Africa. Agricultural growth per capita of agricultural population in Sub-Saharan Africa - a rough measure of agricultural income – has amounted to less than 1 percent per annum for the last 25 years - less than half that of any other region. Conversely, some of the highest population growth rates are observed in this part of the world.

 

Time is ripe for a green revolution for Africa. Pray it is true “green”. Agriculture with livestock production constitutes the largest imprint of human land use on the global landscape and is the largest user of available fresh water. Around the globe, about 1.4 billion hectares of arable land is used for crop production and domestic livestock graze on a quarter of earth’s terrestrial surface. Agricultural policies and practices have the greatest impact on natural resources of a given area – a given nation. The emerging African green revolution should learn from experiences of agricultural development elsewhere and endeavor to minimize the detrimental environmental effects while striving to improve degraded lands and the environment.

 

 

Agriculture and Wildlife – A Lamentable History

 

Prudent agricultural practices can accommodate and aid wildlife and natural resource conservation. However, agricultural development has historically led to large scale demise of wildlife populations and diversity. In the United States conversion of prairies to farmlands and fencing contributed to the demise of wild herds of American buffalo and other migrating herds of large mammals. In Europe, historical agricultural development led to eradication of large wild mammals. In Asia and South America on-going conversion of forests and grasslands to farm and ranchlands continue to heighten human-wildlife conflicts and contribute to dramatic reduction in wildlife habitat. Between 1999/2000 and 2004/2005 almost 54,000 square kilometers of cerrado – savanna woodland - in Brazil was converted to soybean fields. In northern Argentina almost half of the present area under soybean cultivation in 2002/2003 was covered by the now threatened chaco ecosystem.

 

This trend – unmitigated - need not continue in Africa. African countries, with few exceptions, have lagged behind in modern agricultural development. Agricultural development is an integral component in a nation’s economic progress. Thanks to the work of the Gates Foundation and renewed multilateral commitment African nations are attracting investments in improving agricultural productivity. It is a collective global responsibility to facilitate a green revolution in Africa. However, it is critical that this revolution be “green” in nature. Such a revolution need not be achieved at the expense of Africa’s wildlife resources. Conversely, Africa’s wildlife resource cannot be sustained at the cost of human hunger and economic stagnation. A way must be found to achieve both ends.

 

The richness of the wildlife resources of a nation is related to the abundance and diversity of wildlife species on its working landscapes i.e. for most part on its agricultural lands, managed forests and pasture lands. Working landscapes constitute the overwhelming majority of landmass of a given nation. Environmental health and wildlife habitat of working landscapes have significant influence on the health and viability of protected areas. The future direction of agricultural development in Africa determine both the future of elephant, lion, buffalo and other wildlife species’ abundance across the working landscape and the carrying capacity of protected areas such as the Serengeti.

 

Agriculture and Wildlife – Conflict to Coexistence – Reverse J-Shaped Curve

 

Evolution of agricultural development and resultant effect on wildlife abundance and diversity is best represented by a “reverse j-shaped curve”– Figure 1. Primitive agricultural practices in areas of low human density coexist with relatively abundant and diverse species of wildlife. Rapid institution of modern industrialized agricultural production techniques results in mass conversion of wildlands to agriculture resulting in loss of wildlife habitat and intolerance for wildlife species that damage or competes with agricultural production. Eventually, technological advances that increase agricultural production per acre and subsequent growth of agri-environmental policies lead to improved agricultural practices and conversion of some agricultural lands to permanent vegetative cover resulting in improved wildlife habitat. The relationship between agricultural development and wildlife abundance and diversity in figure 1 holds true also for a broader set of environmental and natural resource variables including soil erosion, water pollution etc.

 

Strong agricultural growth has provided the foundation on which diverse national economies subsequently flourished. In the early stages of an agricultural revolution national policies have demonstrated a focus on agriculture growth through conversion of wildlands to agriculture and increase in crop productivity by improved seeds, farm inputs and practices. An institutional nexus supporting agricultural growth then develops aided by legislative support, expansive governmental agricultural departments, a network of agricultural universities, and agriculture trade associations and lobbying groups. The political economy of developing nations demands such results as overwhelming portions of such nation’s citizens live in rural areas and depend on agriculture for livelihoods. Subsequent industrialization of agriculture leads to consolidation of agricultural lands, mechanized farming, heavy reliance on chemical inputs, significant gains in productivity and more efficient clearing of wild lands for square crop fields. Understandably, at this stage of development, wildlife and environmental considerations are subservient to meeting the needs for food and economic progress. Eventually, the great agricultural push accompanied by government subsidies can result in over production. Measures to constrict agricultural production by paying farmers to leave fields fallow often are vanguard to the subsequent growth of agri-environmental programs and policies. Political economy in a developed nation similarly directs this outcome whereby a largely urban and prosperous citizenry with a heightened environmental consciousness, and the economic luxury to act, calls for greater environmental protection. This trend is further facilitated by international agriculture trade rules that restrict market access and export subsidies and, consequently, encourage policymakers to divert a larger share of domestic farm support to agri-environment programs.

 

In general, the United States and Western European countries, with their robust set of agri-environmental programs, are situated at the shorter end of the J curve. Most transitional or advanced developing nations such as Brazil, China and India are presently engaged in rapid growth in agricultural sectors through bringing more land under cultivation and improving agricultural productivity. These countries occupy the area around the base of the J curve. With relatively underdeveloped agricultural practices most Sub-Saharan Africa nations occupy the area around the long end of the J curve.

 

There are important qualitative and quantitative differences in the abundance and diversity of wildlife species at the two ends of the curve. At the long end wildlife abundance and diversity is typified by large, migratory and wilderness species. Whereas, species found on the short end are often small, sedentary (with exception of several bird species) and those that can coexist in close proximity with human settlement. There are few wide spread examples of developed agriculture coexisting with migrating large mammals – particularly large predators and herbivores. Once such large mammals are gone it is near impossible to re-introduce them among settled communities. Permanent habitat loss as opposed to poaching represents an irreversible negative impact on wildlife abundance and diversity.

 

The reverse J curve traces the predictable demise of wildlife species associated with wilderness areas with the advance of agricultural development and eventual rebuilding of wildlife species that can more readily cohabit with relatively dense human settlements. The question for African countries is whether they should follow a similar trajectory and trade in their wildlife resource for agricultural growth? Does a better alternative exist? Should African nations and the global community demand and create a better alternative?

 

Need for an African Brand of Agricultural Development – An African “Green” Revolution

 

African nations should strive to develop their own brand of green revolution that improves agricultural productivity and rural livelihoods while maintaining and improving its wildlife resource. African nations could benefit from the experiences of other developed and advanced developing nations and their own traditional knowledge. In order not to repeat American, Asian or European agricultural policies and practices that have led to the demise of wildlife and natural resources African nations should, instead, adapt and grow their own agri-environmental programs and practices.

 

The first responsibility of African nations is to improve the livelihoods of their citizens, most of which reside in the rural areas and depend on agriculture. These nations need to recognize and implement policies that ensure that farming with wildlife improves livelihoods. Developmental assistance programs - in conjunction with private foundations - should assist in developing such policies and practices.

 

The traditional model of agricultural growth, represented by the J curve, presents the greatest long term threat to African wildlife. A consensus among African nations, donor countries, development agencies, private foundations and multinational corporations should proclaim that African agricultural growth will not be attained at the cost of Africa’s wildlife. A collective effort by African nations, and the international community, should strive for an agricultural development model that seeks to achieve the Potential Green Revolution Frontier depicted in Figure 1. Such a consensus would stimulate creativity necessary to develop innovative programs to integrate agriculture development with wildlife conservation while improving livelihoods of rural Africans. A new African agricultural development model could be the world’s first to demonstrate agricultural growth in consonance with thriving wildlife populations including large mammals.

 

Climate Change Accentuates the Need for African Green Revolution

 

Tropical African nations are among the most vulnerable to expected detrimental effects of climate change. Increased variability in time and amount of rainfall will have great effects on agriculture productivity, prevalence of waterborne diseases and stability of natural habitats. Climate change may displace agro-ecological zones affecting regional suitability for various crops. It may hasten land degradation and desertification in some areas. Displacement of livestock and crop varieties from present locations may have significant impacts on diversity of domestic animal and plant species. Unstable seasonal weather patterns may alter harvest cycles affecting availability of food supplies. Rising sea levels and increasing storm frequency and intensity have great implications for aquaculture and coastal fisheries.

 

The scope and impact of the climate change effects are uncertain but may be substantial. The developed world should be prepared to assist African nations to cope with these changes by addressing food security and economic growth. Once again agricultural development will take center stage as most Sub-Saharan countries have agricultural-dependent economies.

 

The natural assets of Africa coupled with the uncertain effects of climate change call for a diversified agricultural growth strategy that improves rural livelihoods rather than focusing solely on increase in agricultural productivity. An African Green Revolution that improves agricultural productivity for small landholders while rewarding maintenance of a healthy natural resource base that includes wildlife habitat is called for.

 

Few Guidelines and Principles for African Green Revolution

 

In developing an African Green Revolution – an African Model of Agricultural Development -- few general guidelines and principles derived from the experience of other nations may be borne in mind. These guidelines and principles - by no means exhaustive - include:

 

• Agriculture Integrated with Natural Resource Conservation & Rural Development: agricultural institutions, policies and practices should be closely integrated with natural resource conservation and rural development institutions, policies and practices from the national to the local levels.

• Aim of Agricultural Revolution to Improve Farm Incomes: Often the objectives of agricultural development are to increase cropland by conversion of wildlands and to increase agricultural productivity. These are essential attributes but need not be the only attributes. The overall aim should be to improve farm incomes to which gains in cropland and productivity may contribute. A diversified farm portfolio that not only devises to increase crop production but also other environmental services should be encouraged and the latter monetized for the benefit of the farmer.

• Improve the Quality and Quantity of Farm Inputs and Practices: improve the available quality and quantity of farm inputs including irrigation, crop varieties, fertilizer, pest management, tillage etc.

• Improve Agricultural Infrastructure: facilitate the growth of agriculture associated capital projects, products and services to improve overall agricultural efficiency such as roads to market, availability of credit and insurance, accessibility to agricultural and natural resource extension services etc.

• Enact Land Reforms and Land Use Guidelines: enact credible and reasonable land reforms that offer incentives to farmers to invest in improved agricultural practices and diminish the tragedy of commons. Rules and guidelines for use of natural resources by rural communities on wildlands under local, state or national management should be clearly articulated and enforced.

• Improve Off-Farm Rural Employment and Development: in agriculture-dependant nations agricultural often receives all attention to improve rural livelihoods and be the sole engine for rural development. National policies and international development assistance should endeavor to develop an integrated rural development strategy based on agriculture, local craft, natural resources, tourism etc.

• Eliminate Policies that Degrade Environment and Agricultural Sustainability: policies that may result in short-term agricultural gains by mining of water, extensive nutrient input etc. at the cost of long term agricultural sustainability and natural resource damage should be abolished with haste.

• Engage in Landscape Planning at Sub-Watershed Scale: integrated agriculture, natural resource conservation and rural development policies and practices should be executed at the landscape level. Sub-watersheds offer the most useful ecological units to plan and execute integrated strategies with water quality and quantity measures offering the most inclusive environmental index to gauge the health of the land.

• Invest in Agricultural Governance: the majority of international assistance in agricultural development is focused on improving crop varieties, agricultural practices and agricultural infrastructure. Strong attention should also be directed at building capacities of national, state and local institutions of governance responsible for implementing agricultural policies.

 

Future Agricultural Development Poses One of the Greatest Natural Resource Challenges of the 21st Century

 

One of the greatest natural resource challenges of the 21st Century is to feed growing humanity while improving the environment when confronted with declining rates of crop productivity and diminishing availability of land and water. Hunger and malnutrition afflict over a billion people and more than quarter of all children under the age of 5 in developing countries are malnourished. To feed the estimated global population of 9.2 billion in 2050, food production will need to be double that of 2000. The estimated land per capita is set to decrease from 4.3 hectares in 1961 to 1.5 hectares in 2050. Crop productivity measured in annual growth rate of major cereals is set to decrease from 3-5 percent in 1980 to about 1 percent in 2050. Projected stresses from climate change and eroded ecosystems may further exacerbate the situation.

 

Such presents a daunting challenge. But success is not beyond human industry and ingenuity. The task does, however, require a new paradigm for agricultural development and natural resource conservation. That paradigm calls for foresight and policy development and action that integrate multiple factors across major sectors of the economy. It calls for a concerted strategic – not opportunistic in nature – commitment by the international community to develop and execute a new paradigm of agricultural development and natural resource conservation. This will require establishing institutions that embody the new paradigm and execute necessary policies and programs. International Agencies such as the Food & Agricultural Organization, the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Development, the World Bank are well positioned to lead the way.

 

The past and future of African agriculture and wildlife are inextricably linked. Traditional model of agricultural development in Africa will doom African wildlife as we know it. Such would be the greatest conservation tragedy of the 21st Century and it need not be so. African leaders, in conjunction with the international community, should strive to do better. They should chart an African path to agricultural development and wildlife conservation that sets an example to the world.

 

 

Dr. Kaush Arha
Professional Member of the Boone & Crockett Club

 

References:

 

Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. 2009. The Director-General’s Medium Term Plan 2010-13 and Programme of Work and Budget 2010-11. FAO Rome, Italy. Pp 200.

 

Food and Agricultural Organizations of the United Nations. 2007. FAO: The Challenge for Renewal. Report of Independent External Evaluation of the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. FAO Rome, Italy. Pp 403.

 

World Bank, 2008. World Development Report – 2008: Agriculture for Development. Oxford University Press for the World Bank. Washington D.C. USA. Pp 365.