Improving agricultural productivity in the rural-urban interface: Lessons for Soil fertility research at IITA
Improving agricultural productivity inthe rural-urban interface: Lessons for Soil fertility research at IITA Olufunke Cofie (PhD) Candidate for the position of Soil Fertility Specialist
Outline• Soil fertility & agricultural productivity in SSA• SSA Agriculture - the rural-urban interface• Nutrient recycling in peri-urban agriculture• Lessons for IITA Soils Research• Conclusions
Low agricultural productivity in SSA• Low inherent fertility• Nutrient depletion• Low per capital fertilizer use• Low yield Low Investments …a cycle Low Low yield Income
The low performance of agriculture is the main cause of its slow economic growthIt is the only region of the world where per capita food production has been declining for the past three decades
Cereal Yields in Developing Regions 1960-2005 4.0 3.5 East and Southeast Asia 3.0 Latin America South Asia 2.5 mt/ha 2.0 1.5 Sub-Saharan Africa 1.0 0.5 0.0 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Source: FAOSTAT.
Nutrient Mining of Agricultural Land in Africa (kg/ha/yr) 1995-97 2002-04 Source: IFDC- Africa loses $4billion/yr in soil nutrients
Fertilizer nutrient consumption per hectare of arable land in selected countries, 2002 (kg/ha) Netherlands Vietnam Japan UK China France Brazil USA India South Africa Cuba Benin Malawi Ethiopia Mali Burkina Faso Nigeria Tanzania Mozambique Guinea 60 Ghana 100 200 300 400 500 0 Uganda Source: FAOSTAT, from Borlaug, 2004
450400350 Total300 Population250 Urbanization in West Africa Urban (in millions) Population200150 Rural100 Population50 0 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Urban population is becoming as large as the rural.
Agriculture in the rural-urban interface• contributes to inner-urban food supply,• compensates for missing cool transport and storage (required for perishable crops),• provides jobs, income and livelihoods.• provides opportunity for closing rural-urban nutrient flows
Contribution of UPA to urban food supply 100 % contribution to specific food item 80 60 40 20 0 UA PUA RA UA PUA RA UA PUA RA Accra Kumasi Ouagadougou City and source of food Pineapple Cabbage Lettuce Spring onion Garden egg Tomatoes
Urban centres are nutrient sink• Provides opportunity for nutrient recycling• Closing the nutrient loop• Enhance intensive agriculture in the peri-urban
The fertilization equivalent of untreated organic solid waste Nutrient Contribution in kg / cap year Nitrogen (as N) 0.55 – 1.1 Phosphorus (as P) 0.2 – 0.4 Potassium (as K) 0.55 Carbon (as C) 16 – 22
Resources in excreta Nutrient in kg / cap year Nutrient In urine In faeces Total Required for (500 l/year) (50 l/year) 250 kg of cereals 1Nitrogen (as N) 4.0 0.5 4.5 5.6Phosphorus (as P) 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.7Potassium (as K) 0.9 0.3 1.2 1.2Carbon (as C) 2 2.9 8.8 11.71 = the yearly food equivalent required for one person2 = indicative of the potential for soil conditioning, normally not designated a nu- trient Nutrient value of Excreta is high enough to produce food BUT with health risks !!!
Adequate processing reduce health riskDynamics of Ascaris eggs viability reduction during co-composing of faecal sludge and organic solids waste
COMLIZER development- excreta based compost with minimum fertilizer
Co-compost Quality Concentration parameter (Unit) N (g/kg) 11.9 2.3 P (g/kg) 16.2 4.8 K (g/kg) 17.0 4.7 Ca (g/kg) 35.1 8.7 Mg (g/kg) 7.9 2.0 Pb (mg/kg) 28 28 Cd (mg/kg) 0.4 0.1•Free from toxic heavy metals
cumulative inflitration -Tuu tengli 10.07.2003 40 35 y = 8.3846Ln(x) - 7.1975 30 25depth (cm) 20 15 y = 2.6036Ln(x) - 3.3556 10 5 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 time (minutes) Faecal Sludge treatment control
Comparison of economic benefits between users’ and non-users’ of excretaapplication on farmlands in Krobo District, GhanaVariable Users Cost/ ha ($) Non-users Cost / ha ($) Total revenue 918.56 606.54 Land Preparation 72.38 54.64 Hired labour 178.83 189.42 Seeds 10.32 7.71 Excreta / Fertilizer1 18.79 51.23 Chemicals 34.00 19.74 Total Variable Cost 314.32 322.74 Gross Margin 604.24 283.80 Fixed Cost 0.00 0.00 Depreciation 7.65 7.87 Family labour 112.21 80.37 Rent on land 70.90 48.22 Total Fixed cost 190.76 136.46 Net Income 413.47 147.351 Excreta apply to users whilst fertilizer apply to nonusers. The cost incurred onexcreta is for transporting the excreta to farm site. Source: Cofie et al 2007
Communicating results• Publications in several outlets – Refereed journals – International conferences – Book chapters – Newsletters
Capacity buildingCo-supervision• Eight M.Sc• Two PhDsSeveral interns
Working with Donors• French Ministry of Foreign Affairs• SDC• DGIS• IDRC• EC
Partnerships• ARI – EAWAG, NRI, IHE-UNESCO• NARES – Ghana, Nigeria and Sierra Leone• Policy makers• Farmer organisations• NGOs• Private Sector
Networking• International Network of Resource Centres on urban agriculture and food security- Regional Coordinator• SWITCH consortium – Chair• SWISS NCCR – Senior member
Lessons for IITA Soils Research Paradigm Shift Required• From management of part of soil resource base- Nutrient Cycle Management.• From single use of resources- Recycling and Integrated organo-mineral cum cultural management practices• From disregard of soil resource base- fertility-sensitive farming practices
Involving other stakeholders• Involving the necessary people through multi- stakeholder processes and platforms: – Government Agency/Ministry – Funding Agency – Metropolitan Authorities – NGO’s – The private sector – Media – User Groups/associations – Emerging initiatives – AGRA etc• Coupled with social processes to move sustainable resource management across the research-policy- implementation interfaces
ConclusionGiven these experiences, it should possible to transform the soil fertility research for development in IITA.
Associated constraints• Lack of enabling policy environment• Single approach – mono sectoral• Too much focus on basic science – too abstract for field application• Relevant stakeholders are often left out