Extending extension

I have a thing about extension. I believe it is the great missing link in most thinking — and doing, for that matter — about conservation and use of agrobiodiversity. Genebanks around the world usually have reasonably well-established links with national agricultural research systems, but hardly any contact with extension workers, except maybe when it comes to germplasm collecting. Thats a pity, because extension systems would be valuable at all stages of the conservation-use continuum, from monitoring genetic erosion to targeting collecting to identifying breeding objectives to facilitating the evaluation and adoption of improved varieties.

The problem is that is public agricultural research is under-resourced and dysfunctional in many countries around the world, extension has, if anything, fared even worse. But that doesn’t mean that people dont have any good ideas about how to fix it.

A new KIT publication I saw announced today, for example, looks at the generally positive African experience with outsourcing agricultural advisory services to the private sector. And an IFPRI study reviews the recent reform of the Indian extension service, and also finds good things to say about the increased role of the private sector on the supply side, together with a more participatory approach to planning and implementation on the demand side.

It remains to be seen whether such macro-level changes will result in better linkages among researchers, extensionists and genebanks on the ground. I suspect it will take a major initiative to educate all three sectors in the need to work better together.

Better harvests through chemistry

From the blurb at Eldis for a document entitled Fertiliser subsidies and sustainable agricultural growth in Africa: current issues and empirical evidence from Malawi, Zambia, and Kenya.

It is argued that there are compelling rationales for “smart” fertiliser subsidy programmes in Africa. However, achieving these benefits depends greatly on how the programmes are implemented. The authors assert that the contribution of fertiliser subsidy programmes to reducing poverty and hunger would be higher if they could be designed and implemented so as to:

  • target households with little ability to afford fertiliser
  • target areas where applying fertiliser can actually contribute to yields
  • promote the development of a commercial fertiliser distribution system rather than undercutting it

Not sure where I stand on this, to be honest. Fertilizers can be very good news, of course, but if they’re based on fossil fuels then a priori they are not likely to be sustainable. There has to be an overall move towards boosting soil fertility in other ways, making use of nitrogen fixing crops, green manures, bio-char, animal wastes and so on. But in the meantime, if you are going to use fertilizers (as I suspect you must) then those seem to be good policy prescriptions.

The full document is here.

One country’s response to the threat of climate change

“We want our farmers to grow several crops, not just one crop. We are encouraging our farmers to go into organic farming using shrubs, leaves, herbal pesticide and no chemicals involved so that we can reduce dependency on costly chemical fertilizers. We should improve our yields through applying modern farming techniques such as irrigation and water harvesting technologies. … Farmers are also being taught to alternate rows of crops that complement each other in drawing nutrients from the soil or carbon from the atmosphere. … We must diversify. We must change the methods of farming. We want to change and to achieve our desired goals in increasing household food security, increasing our yields, increasing our production. Productivity is what matters most.

So, where do you suppose all that is happening? Here.

Nibbles: Mongolia, Fruit & veg, Lima bean, Biofuels, Peyote, Permaculture, Extension