View
14
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The Toxic Landscape
Andrew Bartlett, Helvetas, 25 May 2016
Welcome to Xieng Khuang!
Welcome to the maize boom
Here are some maize fields
More maize fields
…as far as the eye can see
A Toxic Landscape - literally
Exposure of women and men
Toxic chemicals
Types of herbicide
All 4 herbicides are included on the list of Highly Hazardous Pesticides (HHPs) produced by the Pesticide Action Network
Amounts being usedShopkeepers in Nonghet District reported selling 95
tonnes of herbicide in 2015 maize growing season, with a retail value of US$ 408,000
Data from the farmer interviews in the same District indicate that the av. HH growing maize is buying 81 litres of herbicide per season. Once diluted, each family is spraying more than 16,000 litres on their fields, using 4 or 5 times the recommended rates.
In total, farmers in Kham and Nonghet sprayed 19 million litres in the past 12 months.
This includes enough paraquat to kill one million people
A Toxic landscape – ecologically
Ploughing steep slopes…
… leads to erosion
How much topsoil is lost?
It has been estimated that 100 tonne of soil is lost per hectare per year under mechanised maize cultivation.
This is a conservative figure, accounting for less than 1 cm of soil.
But it adds up to a loss of 6 million tonnes of topsoil lost in Kham District in the past 5 years.
The loss of soil fertility results in a rapid drop in yields, eg. from 7 t/ha to 3 t/ha over a 5 year period.
Coping strategy – clear more land
Loss of biodiversity is also high
The Toxic Landscape - socially
Agrarian transitionTraditional systems of communal land management
have broken down. Local authorities report an increase in conflicts
The transition to cash cropping has often resulted in rural households getting into debt with traders and/or government
Interviews with villagers indicates that none of them want their children to be farmers. Students also say they want to leave.
Are we also seeing the emergence of different classes of farmers: those who buy labour and those who provide it?
Driving forcesThe pull of global markets, incl. meatification of diets -
> strong demand for cheap animal feed -> mining of increasingly marginal soils.
The push of policy to modernise farming, incl. eradication of shifting cultivation -> promotion of technology that will improve labour productivity -> greater adoption of mechanisation, hybrid seeds and agro-chemicals
The governance context that prioritises short-term economic gain over health and enviro impacts -> weak regulation -> availability of banned products and unsafe practices
Where do we go from here?
Some responsesFAO and SAEDA have been promoting ‘risk reduction’
and organic production to reduce or eliminate the use of harmful chemicals
CIRAD has spent more than a decade promoting ‘conservation agriculture’, which aims to enhance soil fertility and reduce erosion
Other experts believe the answer is smaller areas of more profitable production, thus allowing regeneration of forests, and/or a return to shifting cultivation which can be managed more sustainably
None of these options has gained traction in Xieng Khuang
Conceptual relief: wicked problems
Wicked problems are not just complex, they also consist of elements that are contradictory and unpredictable
The understanding of these problems is contested; there is a lack of agreement about causes and responses
Wicked problems are resistant to resolution. They cannot be effectively addressed by simple interventions.
There are no short-term technical fixes for the Toxic Landscape
Pandora’s box has been opened. A transformation of historic significance is taking place in the uplands.
The situation is ‘beyond planning’… but we must assume that action can be taken to improve outcomes for certain sections of society.
A few days training will not “solve the problem”, especially if we focus on symptoms (eg. excessive use of herbicides) rather than causes (eg. markets, policy and governance).
Social learning Social learning holds more promise than simple training This is a process where all parties learn together, and
may include participatory action research, multi-stakeholder platforms, and local policy negotiations.
A integrated program of social learning in the maize area could involve: Participatory land use planning Communal management of natural resources Collaborative assessment of diverse alternatives to maize Cooperative approaches to market engagement
EFICAS is trying something like this… …. but can the approach be facilitated at scale?
Or should we focus on the future?
Perhaps it is too late to make significant changes to the current situation in the uplands. Instead of trying to play catch-up with current problems, maybe we should focus on the next generation.
This could involve eco-schools programmes, supporting youth networks, fostering creative thinking, vocational training, investing in rural SMEs.
The objective is to give young people from rural areas more options, and the ability to solve their own problems
For this to happen, we need a shift in the focus of agriculture development…
… to cultivating people rather than crops.
Thank You