Nuanced rhetoric and the path to poverty: AGRA, small-scale farmers, and seed and soil fertility in

100 Pages·2015·4.09 MB·English

Nuanced rhetoric
and the path to
poverty: AGRA,
small-scale
farmers, and seed
and soil fertility in
Tanzania
February 2015
PO Box 29170, Melville 2109, South Africa
www.acbio.org.za www.acbio.org.za
Contents
ACRONYMS iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY vii
INTRODUCTION 1
METHODOLOGY AND BACKGROUND TO SITES 3
LAND AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION 7
Background to land tenure in Tanzania 7
Land tenure and access in the research sites 8
AGRA on land 10
Overview of agricultural production 11
Farmer perceptions of agricultural challenges 12
Agricultural production in the research sites 13
THE GREEN REVOLUTION IN TANZANIA 16
Overview 16
The Southern Agricultural Growth Corridor of Tanzania (SAGCOT) 18
Overview of AGRA in Tanzania 19
SOIL FERTILITY, AGRO-ECOLOGY AND SYNTHETIC FERTILISER 21
Agro-ecological practices in the research sites 21
The introduction of synthetic fertilisers in Tanzania 22
AGRA’s Soil Health Programme (SHP) in Tanzania 24
Case study: Farm Input Promotions Africa Limited (FIPS) and
village-based agricultural advisors (VBAAs) 27
SEED 31
Background to the commercial seed sector 31
AGRA and seed in Tanzania 39
Farmer seed use in research sites 40
Seed quality, price and access 42
Case study: Tanseed International Ltd, AGRA and the Green Revolution 43
Key issues, recommendations and areas for further research 46
MARKETS 49
AGRA’s Market Access Programme (MAP) in Tanzania 50
CONCLUSIONS 53
REFERENCES 56
APPENDIX 1: Farmer perceptions of agricultural challenges 59
APPENDIX 2: Tanzania’s commitments under the G8 NAFSN 60
APPENDIX 3: Selected data tables 61
APPENDIX 4: AGRA grants in Tanzania, 2007–2012 66
APPENDIX 5: Seed varieties in use and farmer perceptions 71
The African Centre for Biosafety (ACB) is a non-profit organisation,
based in Johannesburg, South Africa. It was established to protect
Africa’s biodiversity, traditional knowledge, food production systems,
culture and diversity, from the threats posed by genetic engineering
in food and agriculture. It, has in addition to its work in the field of
genetic engineering, also opposed biopiracy, agrofuels and the Green
Revolution push in Africa, as it strongly supports social justice, equity
and ecological sustainability.
The ACB has a respected record of evidence-based work and can play
a vital role in the agro-ecological movement by striving towards
seed sovereignty, built upon the values of equal access to and use of
resources.
©The African Centre for Biosafety
March 2015
www.acbio.org.za
PO Box 29170, Melville 2109 South Africa
Tel: [phone]
Design and layout: Adam Rumball, Sharkbouys Designs, Johannesburg
Photographs by Stephen Greenberg
Acknowledgements
Research team:
Lina Andrew (MVIWATA)
Fadhili Bahati (SAT)
Stephen Greenberg (ACB)
Gareth Jones (ACB)
Janet Maro (SAT)
Japhet Masigo (MVIWATA)
Alex Wostry (SAT)
We appreciate and acknowledge the assistance of Mariam Mayet, Haidee Swanby, Sabrina Masinjila
and the team at ACB; also Paul Saidia, Abdullah Mkiga, Prof H. Majamba, Evaristo Longopa, Henry
Dlamini and the Eastern and Southern African Small Scale Farmer’s Forum (ESAFF) for their inputs
into the research process; staff at SAT and MVIWATA for logistical assistance; the Swiss Development
Cooperation (SDC) for funding and support; and all those, including farmers, who shared their time
and insights with us.
Nuanced rhetoric and the path to poverty: AGRA, small-scale farmers, and seed and soil fertility in Tanzania iii
Acronyms
AATF African Agricultural Technology Fund
ACB African Centre for Biosafety
ACT Agricultural Council of Tanzania
ADP Agro-dealer Development Programme
AFAP African Fertiliser and Agribusiness Partnership
AGRA Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa
AGRF African Green Revolution Forum
ANSAF Agricultural Non-State Actors’ Forum
ARI Agricultural Research Institute
ARIPO African Regional Intellectual Property Organisation
ASA Agricultural Seed Agency
ASDP Agricultural Sector Development Programme
BRN Big Results Now
ByT Bustani ya Tushikamane
CA Conservation Agriculture
CAADP Comprehensive African Agricultural Development Programme
CEO Chief Executive Officer
CGIAR Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research
CIMMYT International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre
CNFA (formerly) Citizen’s Network for Foreign Affairs
CSA Climate Smart Agriculture
DAP Di-ammonium phosphate
DFID Department for International Development (UK)
DUS Distinct, uniform, stable
EACI Education for African Crop Improvement
ESAFF Eastern and Southern African Small Scale Farmer’s Forum
FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations
FGD Focus Group Discussion
FIAAC Fund for the Improvement and Adoption of African Crops
FIPS Farm Input Promotions Africa Limited
FtF Feed the Future
GAP Good Agricultural Practice
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GPL General Public Licence
GR Green Revolution
ICRISAT International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics
ICT Information and Communication Technology
IFDC International Fertiliser Development Centre
IITA International Institute of Tropical Agriculture
IMF International Monetary Fund
IP Intellectual Property
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IPRs International Property Rights
iv AFRICAN CENTRE FOR BIOSAFETY
IRRI International Rice Research Institute
ISFM Integrated Soil Fertility Management
ISSD Integrated Seed Sector Development
ISTA International Seed Trade Association
KK Kilimo cha Kiangazi
KSCL Kilombero Sugar Company Limited
LDC Least Developed Country
MAFC Ministry of Agriculture, Food Security and Cooperatives
MAP Market Access Programme
MCC Millennium Challenge Corporation
MNCs Multinational Corporations
MOA Mtibwa Outgrowers’ Association
MoU Memorandum of Understanding
MSEL Mtibwa Sugar Estate Limited
MSV Maize Streak Virus
MVIWATA Mtandao wa Vikundi vya Wakulima Tanzania
NAFSN G8 New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition
NAIVS National Agricultural Input Voucher Scheme
NAP National Agricultural Policy
NARS National Agricultural Research Systems
NASFAM National Smallholder Farmers Association of Malawi
NDUS New, distinct, uniform, stable
NFRA National Food Reserve Agency
NGO Non-government Organisation
NMB National Microfinance Bank
NMRP National Maize Research Programme
NPK Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium
NPT National Performance Trial
OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
OPVs Open-pollinated Varieties
OT Opportunity Tanzania
PASS Programme for Africa’s Seed Systems
PBRs Plant Breeders’ Rights
PPP Public-private Partnership
PVP Plant Variety Protection
PVS Participatory Variety Selection
QDS Quality Declared Seed
R&D Research and Development
RUDI Rural Urban Development Initiatives
SACCOS Savings and Credit Cooperative Societies
SADC Southern African Development Community
SAGCOT Southern Agricultural Growth Corridor of Tanzania
SAT Sustainable Agriculture Tanzania
SCODP Sustainable Community Orientated Development Programme
SDC Swiss Development Cooperation
SEPA Seed Production for Africa
SHP Soil Health Programme
Nuanced rhetoric and the path to poverty: AGRA, small-scale farmers, and seed and soil fertility in Tanzania v
SSF Small-scale Farmer
SSTP Scaling Seeds and Technologies Partnership
SUA Sokoine University of Agriculture
TAFSIP Tanzanian Agriculture and Food Security Investment Plan
TANPES Tanzania Private Extension Services
TAP Tanzania Agricultural Partnership
TAPP Tanzanian Agricultural Productivity Partnership
TASP Tanzania Agro-dealer Strengthening Programme
TIC Tanzania Investment Centre
TLP Tropical Legumes Programme
TMV1 Tanzania Maize Variety 1
TOSCA Tanzania Official Seed Certification Agency
TOSCI Tanzania Official Seed Certification Institute
TPRI Tropical Pest Research Institute
TSIL Tanzania Sugar Industries Limited
TWLB Tanzanian Warehouse Licensing Board
UPL United Phosphorus Limited
UPOV International Union for the Protection of Plant Varieties
USAID United States Agency for International Development
VBAAs Village-based agricultural advisors
WEF World Economic Forum
WFP World Food Programme
vi AFRICAN CENTRE FOR BIOSAFETY
Executive Summary inevitably be displaced by forces of competition
and concentration will find poorly paid and
insecure wage work in mines or factories.
This research report arises from a three-year At worst, they will be left destitute, their
research programme, which the African Centre historical connection to the land severed by
for Biosafety (ACB) is conducting, to investigate commodification and commercialisation—
the impacts of Green Revolution (GR) without any alternative livelihoods to replace
technologies in Africa on small-scale farmers what they have lost. Some local producers and
(SSFs). The focus is on seed and soil fertility, and businesses certainly stand to benefit from the
we aim to track the work of the Alliance for a GR, but the costs will be borne by other, less
Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) in particular. visible, people.
The research has two objectives: first, While the GR is presented in terms of
to understand better the impacts of GR ‘sustainable intensification’ of agriculture,
interventions on the livelihoods of SSF there is nothing sustainable about it in the
households and on the ecology; secondly, to long term. The end result will be not only
build a regional, multi-disciplinary research social dislocation and marginalisation, but also
network with a critical orientation, which will long-term ecological damage to soil, water and
cooperate with activist networks, organisations biodiversity. The negative impacts of this harm
and movements in support of food sovereignty will not arise all at once and impoverished
and democratic producer-owned and controlled farmers, desperate for some improvement
systems. in their conditions, may be convinced by the
short-term gains that appear to be on offer.
The GR can be seen as a puzzle made up New technologies are not automatically and
of interlocking pieces that form a complex necessarily negative. But in order for farmers
picture. Pieces of the puzzle include policies, to have meaningful choices they must receive
laws and institutions, infrastructure, input a range of information that highlights both
supply, production and value chain financing, the pros and cons of different technologies.
production practices and markets. Significant Few resources from the public and private
donor and planning coordination are evident sectors are being dedicated to supporting
in the strategies being deployed to realise the agro-ecological methods of production as
GR in Africa, with central roles being played options available to farmers, options which
by the Comprehensive African Agricultural may be more suitable for their context than
Development Programme (CAADP), the United expensive inputs with questionable output
States Agency for International Development markets and which will enable them not only
(USAID), AGRA and the G8’s New Alliance for to recover their expenditure, but also to realise
Food Security and Nutrition (NAFSN). The improvements, together with those around
vision of the completed puzzle is coherent them. Although AGRA speaks of integrated
and the logic is clear: a production system in approaches, in practice it orients the bulk
which farmers large and small have access to of its resources towards the commercial,
the latest technologies, financed through the private side of the equation. Likewise, CAADP
profitable production and sale of commodities gives rhetorical support to ecologically and
that meet the requirements of global, regional socially sustainable production. But in practice
and domestic markets. agricultural programmes and budgets support
only the GR.
But the model is based on an ahistorical,
linear view of development that assumes This report on the GR in Tanzania indicates
Africa will follow the path of development a well-coordinated effort by selected
of Western societies. In this model, states, philanthropic institutions like
agricultural modernisation is the precursor AGRA, multilateral institutions, donors
to industrialisation and hence prosperity. and multinational corporations (MNCs) to
But Africa occupies a subordinate position construct a GR that aims to produce a layer
in an already existing global structure of of commercial surplus producers. This effort
accumulation. At best, many farmers who will fails to consider the impacts on those who are
Nuanced rhetoric and the path to poverty: AGRA, small-scale farmers, and seed and soil fertility in Tanzania vii
not able to integrate into this system but who Land and agricultural production
currently rely on agriculture for their survival.
It is still early days for the GR in Tanzania. But it Land in Tanzania was historically communal
is necessary to raise a red flag of warning: that and under the authority of the state, with
the inevitable negative social and ecological most land farmed by SSFs on 3 hectares (ha)
after-effects of these interventions have yet to or less each, and with relative equality in
be felt, but they will come. land holdings. Although laws and policies
provide for equality between men and
The African Centre for Biosafety (ACB) formed women regarding land access, allocation
a partnership with Mtandao wa Vikundi vya and ownership, in practice women are
Wakulima Tanzania (MVIWATA) and Sustainable discriminated against. As part of structural
Agriculture Tanzania (SAT) to conduct adjustment, from the mid-1980s land laws
research in Tanzania. The research is framed changed to open the door to long-term leases
by a survey of 60 farmers in Mvomero and and even outright ownership for commercial
Morogoro districts in Morogoro Region. Survey production. Efforts are currently under way
respondents comprised women (61%) and one- to survey and demarcate land, including
third youth, while female-headed households village land, to facilitate commodification and
constituted just over one-fifth of the sample. privatisation. Demarcation and certification of
Respondents relied on a mix of agricultural land are key commitments by the Tanzanian
production, seasonal or temporary wage labour government as part of NAFSN. The explicit goal
(mostly in the agricultural sector), and small is the “responsible and transparent allocation
businesses for their livelihoods. of land to investors in SAGCOT”.
The sites cover two agro-ecological zones, In the research sites, the average size of
one in the mountains (grouped into the land owned was slightly less than 2 ha per
Northern Highlands) and one in undulating responding household. Four households
hills with relatively fertile soil (in the Southern were landless (they had rented land in the
Highlands). The latter forms part of the past season) and the maximum land owned
ecological spine of the Southern Agricultural was 8 ha, signifying some, but not extreme,
Growth Corridor of Tanzania (SACGOT), a key differentiation. Land access was becoming an
GR initiative. Irrigated rice is an important issue in Mvomero, with available land very far
crop in Mvomero and is the target for GR from homesteads and land holdings mostly
interventions in the area. fragmented into dispersed plots. More than
half the respondents in Mvomero had rented
Focus group discussions (FGDs) with farmers land in the past season, mostly to complement
on seed, soil fertility and markets, and with their own land holdings. Rents ranged from
village-based agricultural advisers (VBAAs) US$12–61/acre/season. Insecure tenure was
complemented the survey. Key informant cited as a reason for limiting investments in
interviews were conducted in Tanzania with soil health.
farmer and other civil society organisations,
government officials, technical staff at There are clearly tensions between pastoralists
universities and institutes, seed companies, and crop growers, with reports of violence and
donors, multilateral organisations and others. even killings as a result of tensions over land.
Though efforts are being made by MVIWATA
The report is divided into five main content and others to mediate in disputes, respondents
sections: land and agricultural production, indicated the problem was getting worse over
GR interventions in Tanzania, soil fertility, time. The concentration of land holdings will
seed and markets. AGRA’s interventions are exacerbate these tensions.
specifically considered in each section. The
report concludes with reflections and ideas for AGRA recognises the generally small land
the way forward. holdings in Africa and therefore orients
its support towards SSFs. Nevertheless, it
explicitly supports the concentration of land
holdings to allow for economies of scale in
viii AFRICAN CENTRE FOR BIOSAFETY
production. AGRA makes no reference to those
who will lose their land when ownership is
concentrated; it also acknowledges the value of
customary land tenure systems while pointing
out their limitations. However, it explicitly
favours private ownership and formal titling for
commercial production.
Agriculture remains the mainstay of the
Tanzanian economy, even though services
(including tourism) make the largest
contribution to GDP at 48% in 2012.
Agriculture’s share of gross domestic product
(GDP) is declining and stood at 28% in 2011,
although it absorbs 75% of the economically
active population, most of whom are SSFs. Only
SAT demo gardens, Morogoro.
2.5% of the total land area is currently equipped
for irrigation, although it is estimated that ten
times this amount has potential for irrigation.
There are seven different agro-ecological zones some kind of fruit tree, with banana, citrus
with two dominant rainfall patterns (two rainy and mango the most common. This indicates
seasons in the north and east, and one in the a diversity of production that can form a solid
south). Maize, rice, cassava, bananas and sweet basis for a sustainable agriculture and nutrition
potatoes are primary food crops, and major strategy, if adequately supported. One of the
exports include coffee, cotton, cashew, tobacco villages in Mvomero is located on a large sugar
and sisal. These are all plantation crops. The estate (Mtibwa) but very few farmers were
adoption of GR inputs and technologies in engaged in sugar production, citing low prices
Tanzania is currently low, with an estimated as a reason.
17% of farming households using certified
seed (mainly maize) and an average 5.5 kg/ When considering the absolute volumes
ha of synthetic fertilisers being used between produced (rather than per acre yields, because
2002 and 2009. Synthetic fertiliser use has we do not have information on the exact
expanded relatively rapidly since 2009 with the amount of land under different crops), it is clear
introduction of the National Agricultural Input that those using hybrid maize and improved
Voucher Scheme (NAIVS), which subsidises OPVs are producing higher yields than those
the cost of certified (including hybrid) seed using local varieties. Hybrid maize users
and synthetic fertiliser. Farmers in our survey achieved a two-thirds higher yield than those
identified the lack of markets (68%) and crop using local maize. The gap is even wider for
damage caused by animals (58%) as their those using improved OPVs; the five farmers
major agricultural challenges; high fertiliser using improved OPV produced on average 2
prices (51%), access to land (47%) and seed tons more than farmers using local maize.
prices (44%) were also notable. This is 210% higher. This finding should be
qualified: first, the percentage of people using
In our research sites, vegetables, maize, pigeon improved seed is very low so the result is open
pea and paddy (rice) were the most commonly to distortion; secondly, we do not have an
produced crops in Mvomero, while in Morogoro accurate picture of the amount of land planted
maize (especially local varieties), vegetables using the various seed types. Also, farmers who
and beans were the most widespread crops. can afford improved seed and the associated
Local (or at least uncertified) maize varieties synthetic fertilisers are likely to be those with
were more prevalent than hybrid or improved access to more land. There are various reasons
open pollinated varieties (OPVs), with only why farmers may choose to use local rather
8–12% of respondents harvesting the latter than improved varieties, including access and
two, compared with 70% for local maize. More price, and several of these are discussed in
than half (57%) of respondents were growing some detail in Appendix 5 of the main report.
Nuanced rhetoric and the path to poverty: AGRA, small-scale farmers, and seed and soil fertility in Tanzania ix