The decades following the Second World War witnessed enormous advances in the security and efficiency of farmers in the Western countries, especially in the U.S.A. Scientific research institutions developed high-yielding hybrid cereals, and the results of these and other advances were rapidly passed on to farmers. At the same time, the economic policy context became increasingly favourable to farmers who were able to capitalize their holdings, improve their access to subsidized credit, and acquire machinery and the necessary chemical technologies without running a serious risk of default. The rationalization and modernization/improvement of agriculture were achieved through the shedding of labour on a large scale; only half the numbers engaged in agriculture in the 1950s were still there in the 1980s (Goodman and Redclift, 1988) -- although this transition was relatively painless while the industrial economies were growing rapidly.
One important consequence was that the Western countries were producing agricultural surplus at the time when most African countries were experiencing rapid population growth and insufficient agricultural growth. Africa's annual rate of population growth not only increased the pressure on land, but it also absorbed capital resources needed for development through increased demands on the infrastructural services of the African governments (Darkoh, 1989; Zeleza, 1986). The problem for African countries was perceived as one of production, and during the 1960s and 1970s, the international agricultural research centres such as the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) in Ibadan, Nigeria and the West African Rice Development Association (WARDA) in Monrovia, Liberia have made some advances in improving grain legumes (e.g. cowpeas) and rice varieties to increase yields respectively. These efforts are encouraging and indeed are attempts to move the technological initiative towards basic `traditional' food crops. In fact, newly improved indigenous technologies may offer higher yields and greater dividends for the `traditional' agricultural systems than the inappropriate, expensive, poorly managed, large-scale farming schemes.
The medium - to long-term consequences of the `green revolution' have been widely debated (Boworder, 1981; Pearce, 198). One of the most important effects worth considering in the present context was a shift in the diet of most people in African countries towards foods which tend to benefit most from technology and policy interventions. In effect, a division became apparent between land which could be used for high-yielding crop varieties (which was mainly irrigated) and areas of rainfed agriculture, where the environment appeared to represent a `brake' on development potential in Africa. In the first case, new technologies could modify or remove constraints on agricultural productivity and growth; in the case of poorer areas, technology could not be easily developed and transferred without a complex process of local selection and adaptation. Indeed, the interest in `farming systems research' (FSR) in the 1970s and 1980s reflected the need to pay more attention to poorly endowed or environmentally vulnerable areas in Africa.
These shifts in both the production and consumption of food in most African countries did nothing to arrest the progress in producing more food in the Western countries. By the 1980s, as Tubiana (1989) has observed, the global food trade had effectively been reversed; the industrialized countries were now supplying a significant proportion of the African countries with food. In fact, the African countries accounted for 16 per cent of world demand for agricultural production in 1967; by 1980 the same countries accounted for 26 per cent of world demand. A major reorganization in the structure of trade for primary products has occurred, partly as a consequence of the Western world's ability to exploit the opportunities represented by new agricultural technologies, some of which were developed with poor countries in mind.
In this context, selective agricultural modernization has, at the same time, occurred in some of the African countries. But this of course did not resolve food problems, but merely changed them. On the one hand, the introduction of high-yielding crop varieties under controlled conditions, carried implications for the environment in relatively `rich' agricultural areas. On the other hand, marginal farmers in Africa have been forced back on their physical environment in a way which was ultimately damaging to their own chances of survival, and served to reduce long-term sustainability. Most African countries also experienced a reduction in food security, and their burden of debt since the early 1980s has made it more difficult for them to advance food production strategies of their own. Interest rates rose and the international terms of trade moved against their products at the time when they were being exhorted to export more.
The economic development as carried out in much of Africa is fuelled by the desire for rapid industrialization. Unfortunately, many of the development models and plans which are encouraged and financed by the industrialized nations are large-scale and based on high and inappropriate technology. Thus, even when launched with the highest of ideals, these plans frequently fail because the required technical and economic infrastructures do not exist in most African countries (Darkoh, 1989). Much of the developmental assistance characterized by high technology has resulted in severe vulnerability to oil price inflation. In effect, this consequence has been a significant factor in the large-scale debt of many African countries and their increasing dependence on industrialized nations.
African countries where some measure of economic growth has been achieved, have become even more indebted and highly dependent on external resources. The prices of African export crops such as cocoa, tea, coffee, sisal, groundnut, rubber have actually declined during the last decade, and few commodities have kept pace with the rate of inflation. Africa has been receiving less and less for its products, while having to pay more and more for its imports. Additionally, the strength of the U.S. dollar in the world currency markets has further depreciated the value of Africa's exports. The result is a severe balance of payments deficit which forces African countries to use a relatively large proportion of export earnings not only for payment of interest on international debts but also for essential imports including technology.
These new demands within the African countries served to divert land away from food crops for direct human consumption, and were encouraged by governments offering incentives/inducements to export producers. In fact, the promotion of cash crops and the indifference of the governments in Africa towards malnutrition and subsistence agriculture in general have, according to Meillassoux (1974:31), ``caused the peasants to exploit land, regardless of whether they wanted to maintain both types of production (food and export) or to increase their revenue from cash crops in order to buy their food". Coupled with this is the fact that relatively good land is set aside in an ever increasing proportion for cash crops so that a proportionately decreasing amount remained available for subsistence crop farming. The shift towards forage crops in Africa is only one example of the wider process through which mono-cultivation and increased agricultural specialization have tended to deplete land resources and displace peasant farmers, favouring a relatively high degree of commodity production and capital accumulation.
The broad objective of this paper is to examine the designated different agro-ecological zones for some African environments, each with a different `sustainable potential' such as vulnerable arid and semi-arid (low-resource) areas suffering from chronic land degradation; high potential or enhancement areas with continued potential for sustainable intensive cropping; and forested areas including the genetic reserves. It is therefore argued that the usefulness of sustainable development is directly related to the appropriate agricultural technologies employed. Placing the emphasis on varied agro-ecological zones needs more attention to the interrelationship between the physical resource base, the livelihood strategies employed by peasant farmers, and the appropriateness of different agricultural technologies. It is suggested that policy responses need to build sustainability into development interventions at all levels, through modifying the context in which household decision-making process occurs. The first step of great significance to land-use practitioners is to successfully establish a relatively firm and clear framework in resource planning for future environmental interventions in Africa.
As noted above, the implications of developing agricultural technologies for different agro-ecological zones in Africa are considered in the context of three types of agro-ecological zones, namely:
(a) Low resource arid and semi-arid areas;
(b) High potential or enhancement areas; and
(c) Forestry areas (including genetic reserves).
The characteristics of each of these zones and the meaning of `sustainable development' within them are examined in this section.
Before discussing the importance of designating agro-ecological zones within which sustainable development policies can be formulated, it is significant to note that considerable imprecision and confusion mark the discussion of `sustainability'. The definition is sometimes narrowed down to the concept of sustainable economic development (which refers to the optimal level of interaction between the biological, economic and social systems) (Barbier, 1989; Pearce, 1986; Pearce et al., 1987). It also refers more broadly to development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (Brundtland Commission, 1987). Thus sustainable development is about different objectives. It is about meeting human needs, or maintaining economic growth, or conserving natural capital, or about all the three.
One important aspect of sustainability deserves attention when considering the role of agricultural technologies in particular. Some areas of the world obviously have greater potential for resource exploitation than others, but `development' still has an impact even on areas where the resource base is relatively poor. It is therefore logical to think of sustainable development as a concept with different implications for natural resource utilization in different areas. Thus, it is useful to designate different agro-ecological zones as mentioned and listed above (and elaborated below) each with a different `sustainable potential'.
These areas are characterized by low rain water, poor soils, high risks and insecure tenure. In such vulnerable areas in the Sahelian countries of Africa, the conditions are unfavourable for accelerated agricultural development. For sustainable development to be achieved, considerable effort is necessary to conserve soil and water resources for basic livelihood maintenance and income augmentation, and to support even the existing population. In some cases, it may be possible to restore degraded land, but in many instances, the battle has already been lost. Reversing the process of land degradation is thus costly and often unsuccessful.
Indeed, in semi-arid areas in particular, sustainable development can be translated as resource conservation and income augmentation. People inhabiting these areas will always continue to migrate to urban centres to seek employment opportunities in order to supplement their livelihoods. Under these circumstances, agricultural development must be conservation-based, but must also meet the short-term necessities of farm households. Thus, a balance will have to be struck between ensuring that resources are not depleted to exhaustion, and delivering benefits to the population in the form of current utility. Agricultural technology in these zones will continue to be designed, not to maximize yields of single crops, but to accommodate precarious environmental conditions and the maintenance of land carrying capacity. If poor farmers are to be persuaded to utilize land more sustainably under these environmental circumstances, it requires fundamental shifts in the systems of incentives and market signals.
When desertification (defined as a process of continued decline in productivity due to the impoverishment and depletion of vegetative cover, exposure of the soil to wind and water erosion, the reduction of the soil's organic and nutrient content, and the deterioration of soil structure and water retention capacity) is advanced, in the short-term, the land can neither be brought back into productive use nor reclaimed profitably. Drought is only part of the problem. Extensive areas of Africa particularly in the Sahel are at risk of desertification; some have already succumbed.
The approach to problems of land degradation in general, and soil erosion in particular, was to treat them as physical constraints requiring technical solutions. Soil science concentrated on understanding physical processes albeit, as Hudson (1988) has argued, against a background of developed country experience and institutions. Thus, the knowledge gained about soils enabled progress or advances to be made in technical prescriptions -- terrace construction, contour cultivation -- without improving our understanding of why land degradation occurs.
The most important proximate causes of accelerated soil erosion are incorrect land use and bad land management, through land being worked in a way that exceeds its capacity. The underlying causes are structural: development proceeds in an uneven way, impoverishing some locations just as it enriches others. In effect, poor farmers in environmentally vulnerable areas in Africa do not act in ways which intentionally degrade the land. Additionally, incorrect land use and poor land-management practices are due to a combination of factors -- economic, social and political -- which constrain the farmer's behaviour and decision-making (Lado, 1987, 1989).
A first step towards developing a soil conservation programme for these resource-poor areas is, therefore, an analysis of why undesirable land uses are practiced. The analysis might determine that several factors are at work including population pressure, the land tenure system, agricultural pricing policy, inappropriate technology, etc. Thus, solutions which meet the needs of local farmers may not be economically feasible, or might meet concerted political opposition, but unless the underlying problems are made explicit there will be even less chance of the required institutional and legal changes taking place.
At the same time, an analysis of the structural impediments to a more sustainable agricultural system in low-resource areas is essential if African governments are to be prevented from embarking on costly development projects that do not work, and devoting soil conservation programmes to the symptoms, rather than the causes of land degradation. Many conservation-based projects have frequently failed because they were imposed from the top in a cultural vacuum, without any serious attempt at either involving the local people or understanding their priorities and needs. Consequently, local communities, which were not involved in the planning or maintenance of the projects, saw no tangible advantages and hence abandoned them. According to the report by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), over US$1 billion was spent by donors on group ranches and grazing schemes in Africa during a 15-year period (FAO, 1986). Most of these funds were wasted.
On the other hand, donor resistance to small-scale projects has led to their neglect over the same period. Such projects are often overlooked because the preparations needed are thought to be excessive compared with large and expensive projects. Nevertheless, the greatest low-cost potential for increased food production in low-resource areas is through water harvesting, soil erosion control, alley cropping, use of crop residues as fertilizer, community afforestation and small-scale irrigation. Indeed, `small' is said to be `beautiful' (Schumacher, 1981), for the small-scale farmers, while `large' has been the lynchpin of better productivity, higher crop output and better material standards of living in the industrialized societies.
In this context, there is a general consensus held by some scientists (e.g. De Schlippe, 1956; Collinson, 1972) concerned with the development of `traditional' agriculture in the Third World countries that farmers are naive or not innovative; that their farming methods and practices once having developed, have remained unchanged for generations. As such, farming systems may be beautifully adjusted to social requirements and environmental circumstances, but they are outmoded, it is supposed. The evidence often advanced is that farm equipment and operations, management strategies, crop combinations and the farming rhythm seem not to have changed over a relatively long time.
In fact, this is part of a set of assumptions which have given rise to the so-called `appropriate' or `intermediate' technology fit for the general socio-economic circumstances, of the rural population. The presumption is that the pre-industrial economies are unable to absorb dramatic innovation or to change easily and quickly. The rural people should then be provided with farm equipment innovations that readily `slot' into the existing socio-economic and institutional structures.
The application of `modern' technology in 'traditional' societies brings about dramatic and substantial changes; but it must very clearly be stated that innovation and changes desired by small-scale farmers can be successful if they integrate the indigenous technical knowledge (ITK). Therefore, the `traditional' and `modern' technologies should be complementary in the rural areas. To be effective, projects which incorporate these approaches need to be managed by the communities themselves, something which national governments in Africa often wish to avoid.
In some instances, this is because they do not want to devolve decision-making; in others, it is because they lack the necessary administrative and technical organization and staff. In this regard, unless local farmers maintain and operate their own small-scale projects, they will be abandoned on the ground that they do not meet the local needs and hence farmers do not reap the benefits accruing from these projects. Sustainable natural resource development rests on three essential pillars including community management of local projects; sound or rational land-use planning; and the development of improved farming systems which emphasize ways of reversing the loss in soil productivity, rather than seeing erosion -- and hence soil loss -- as a problem.
The following guidelines are elements in an alternative approach to development -- orienting conservation to the farm and community level. Thus, they form part of a prescriptive strategy aimed at building environmental considerations into development planning in Africa.
(i) A positive view of the African environments needs to be developed on the basis of present and future livelihood creation -- jobs, income and cost savings. This implies a shift towards emphasizing the advantages of better environmental practices, including a system of incentives.
(ii) There is a need to develop labour- and time-saving technology for fuel-wood, water, food preparation and post-harvest storage activities mainly undertaken by women.
(iii) Wherever possible, farm-grown inputs should be substituted for market purchases which make additional calls on scarce financial resources. This will reduce small-scale farmers' external expenditure.
(iv) Non-farm sources of income need to be considered together with the measures needed to make farming systems more sustainable. In practice relatively poor farm households will not employ more sustainable methods if they perceive them as being at the cost of income generation. In some cases, efforts to supplement income may prevent more sustainable practices from being adopted.
(v) There must be improved livelihood security, land tenure rights and access to common property resources. If access to common land means increased degradation, then other means of bolstering the households' livelihood strategies should be emphasized.
(vi) Government policies need to be directed towards plugging those gaps in the food system which are of critical importance to poor people in low-resource areas including post-harvest technology and storage, agro-forestry, decentralized marketing, improved transport, better biomass utilization and alternative sources of income generation. Plugging the agricultural technology gap implies sharing skills and knowledge, and adapting technology as well as developing appropriate or indigenous technology.
(vii) There is a need for better environmental monitoring, for example, satellite predictions and remote sensing to provide better anticipatory planning. People's calculations are based on what is known and what can be anticipated.
These can be defined as areas where there is potential for intensive crop production using existing technologies, but where more attention should be given to the environmental costs of agricultural practices. These areas are frequently irrigated or have reliable rainfall; and the soils are generally good; risks are low, and tenure varies. Agricultural technology has been developed to exploit the relatively favourable environmental conditions and resource base and to raise the carrying capacity of the land.
In fact, the priority now is to ensure that the land's productive capacity is not seriously interfered with, while reducing vulnerability to environmental hazards, which occur as a result of the technical transformation of agricultural production. Enhancement areas must be considered within the context of other geographically contiguous zones, such as watershed forests which themselves need to be developed more sustainably.
The `green revolution' was the development success story of the late 1960s and 1970s. It was developed for the enhancement areas and served to transform the internal balance between irrigated and non-irrigated areas of the developing nations in general and Africa in particular. The achievement of the selective-breeding programmes was to develop varieties of rice and wheat which, under controlled irrigated conditions, responded dramatically to chemical fertilizers. Problems of pests and diseases also needed to be controlled technologically, given the greater vulnerability of monocrop cultivation practices to plant diseases. The management of this high-input, high-productivity farming system was a delicate one.
Continued yield increases were dependent on a steady supply of relatively expensive inputs -- the oil-based fertilizers, fuel and pesticides became steadily more expensive after the 1972/73 Oil Producing and Exporting Countries (OPEC) price rises. The problem in enhancement areas today is not to extend the `green revolution' benefits, but to minimize the costs of the new packages to the immediate natural environment. Conway (1987) has shown how sustainability needs to be considered together with productivity, stability and equity, in assessing the contribution an agricultural system makes to development.
The only way of guaranteeing productivity in resource-rich areas is frequently to shift emphasis to the stability and sustainability dimensions of the system. Methods of minimizing environmental damage, of use in both vulnerable, resource-poor and enhancement areas, place the emphasis on biological, rather than chemical control and seek to enhance productivity. Thus, they can take one of the following forms, although combinations of each of these management interventions will often prove essential:
(i) A biophysical subsidy, in the form of fertilizer application, which can counter the stress of repeated harvesting but carries risks for the environment which can ultimately threaten sustainable utilization;
(ii) The use of a pesticide to counter pest or disease attack -- repeated pesticide applications may secure sustainability, but increase vulnerability at other points in the food chain and ecosystem responses;
(iii) The introduction of new genetic materials, which are disease-resistant, or can withstand conditions such as drought; and
(iv) Integrated pest management, to ensure that sustainability is maintained. By introducing a biological control agent such as a parasitic wasp, the intrinsic sustainability characteristics of the production system may be changed so much that there is no need for further intervention (Conway and Barbier, 1988).
For most African countries, food security and the alleviation of rural poverty will depend overwhelmingly on the establishment of sustainable production systems in high potential areas, as well as the improved management of such systems in areas that are already heavily exploited (Norse, 1988). Critically, cereal production in Africa -- essential for the urban and rural population -- depends on rich areas of rainfed and irrigated land, which must continue to produce food surpluses for the rising population as a whole. It can easily be appreciated that maintaining and increasing staple food production on irrigated land is of greater significance for most of the rural poor masses and many of the urban poor too.
It can also be appreciated why changes in natural resources and the environment in areas contiguous to irrigated river basins and highly populated, intensive farming systems are matters of the utmost concern. This is particularly the case in the light of the `greenhouse' effect and the global warming which is expected to accompany the concentration of `greenhouse' gases in the atmosphere. Changes in the sea level in heavily populated river basins such as along the Nile in Egypt and Sudan are likely to threaten large populations dependent on irrigated agriculture.
This leads to another aspect of enhancement areas that needs to be addressed, and this relates to the richest agricultural areas in terms of natural resource endowment frequently inhabited by some of the poorest population. Indeed, relatively rapid economic growth in areas that have benefitted from high-yielding crop varieties has widened income disparities within the rural areas, and between rural and urban areas. Economic development within the agricultural sector has been associated with growing landlessness (ILO, 1977).
In effect, the problem in most of the most highly developed agricultural areas is that too many people occupy land which is in limited supply, leading to the worsening of the situation. The increasing scarcity of land has resulted in an expanding number of farm holdings which are too small to provide an adequate family income. There is an increasing fragmentation of farm holdings and landlessness, as the rural population becomes more dependent on agricultural and non-agricultural wage labour.
In addressing the urgency of environmental problems of irrigated areas in the high potential or enhancement zones, the following issues need to be addresse
(i) The salinization, alkalinization and waterlogging of existing and newly irrigated land, as well as the widespread incidence of malaria, schistosomiasis and other water-borne diseases;
(ii) The dangers linked to monoculture farming, under large-scale irrigation which increases the susceptibility of crops to diseases and pests; there are also environmental and health problems associated with a possible doubling in the use of pesticides which therefore calls for preventive health measures, especially in areas where farmers have not been confronted with these measures in the past; mixed cropping and greater diversification of crop genetic material can reduce these risks;
(iii) The risk of over exploitation of groundwater resources in areas where agriculture is only possible through wells; close monitoring of groundwater tables is called for, as are stricter regulations in allocating and exploiting water rights.
The underlying problems in irrigated areas are not simply those of technically advanced agriculture, but those of fragile ecosystems. The key to better management of natural resources in irrigated regions is the recognition that the future of highly productive agriculture rests on better integration between irrigation management and national resource planning, particularly the links between lowland and upland areas. Integrated water management needs to be extended outwards from areas with groundwater problems, to encompass watershed forests, and the conservation of forests and soils in nearby areas needs to take more account of the impact of such policies on enhancement areas. Such policies represent essential management intervention, but the long-term solution to poverty within both high potential and low-resource areas is radical policies that ensure better management of assets through their redistribution.
Many of the development projects undertaken in resource-rich areas can only be described as perverse from an environmental perspective. Some have been designed without any proper assessment of carrying capacity; others have costs in terms of natural resources and ecological damage that exceed the short-term economic benefits. Intensive irrigation projects leading to salinity and alkalinity, agricultural schemes which use water inefficiently, the indiscriminate use of fertilizers, pesticides and other harmful chemicals, all fall within this category. Indeed, the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and others have noted that large-scale projects which attract publicity have parallels in small-scale ones which do not (Ahmad, 1988; Norse, 1988; Worldwatch, 1989).
Unwise agricultural development has contributed to the felling of rain forests, the silting up of dams and the reduced productivity of the soil (Millington et al., 1987; Blaikie and Brookfield, 1987; Blaikie, 1989; Pereira, 1973, 1981; Kilewe, 1985). It has used up scarce financial resources and depleted non-renewable resources in an irreversible way. The response, then, is to increase the security of the rural poor and, at the same time, to ensure that financial resources are exclusively used to improving sustainable livelihood opportunities, rather than prestigious, but unworkable, top-down planning.
Forest resources in Africa are of vital importance to sustainable development for three main reasons. First, forests perform a protective environmental role, serving to maintain the soil and water base. Second, they represent a source of employment, income and livelihood especially in conjunction with farming systems. Third, fuel-wood supplies remain the major source of energy for most of the rural poor population. However, it is significant to note that most people obtain their fuel-wood from trees outside the forest. This only serves to emphasize the importance of integrated and sustainable land-use policies being adopted in the first two categories of land areas/zones, specifically through integrating tree management with other productive activities, especially agriculture. In fact, all the three functions of forestry zones in Africa will be fully elaborated below.
Each of these functions means that forests are important reserve areas for human populations living adjacent to them. It also means that it becomes difficult to protect forest resources, since access to them is customary and often impossible to regulate. In addition, the tropical African forests are the main genetic reserve, containing unparalleled richness of species and ecosystems, although not of course, most of the genetic resources for agriculture. Developing forest resources sustainably means attaching priority to the prevention of genetic erosion in forested areas, and also maintaining the principle of a more balanced resource base, essential to other ecological zones.
In many cases, at least those where ecosystems are varied and threatened by imminent destruction, emphasis should be placed on the preservation of natural capital (growth-based development) and on preventing development, rather than stimulating it. The dangers of the alternative -- to regard forests as a resource to be mined in an indiscriminate way -- are that future production can be jeopardized and present livelihoods undermined.
The problems of forest zones in Africa have global effects and causes. Deforestation contributes to desertification and the biological storage of carbon dioxide. In this way forest losses contribute to the `greenhouse' effect and the subsequent warming of the atmosphere, although not nearly as much as burning fossil fuels. Deforestation also contributes to the `greenhouse' gases such as nitrous oxide and methane. At the same time, fuel emissions from the industrialized nations have a substantial effect on the acidification of the atmosphere (UN, 1987).
(i) Significance of Forestry Areas: The three essential sustainable development functions mentioned earlier, namely environmental protection; sources of livelihood; and sources of energy are considered more closely below.
There is a clear link between maintaining food production in low-resource and enhancement areas, and the level of deforestation currently taking place in Africa (FAO, 1985). Much of the vegetative land mainly cleared for agricultural purposes is of poor quality and becomes easily eroded. Under forest cover, the land would serve a more useful productive function, maintaining the soil and water base; forests perform an essential resource-conservation role in several critical ecological zones in Africa.
First, deforestation of hilly and mountainous land not only causes soil erosion on the land that is cleared, but it is also, through its effects on the water stream, a major threat to downstream areas. To protect agriculture in both areas from severe environmental degradation, measures need to be taken to manage watersheds in an integrated way. In addition to forest conservation and reforestation, the maintenance and rehabilitation of watersheds requires the construction of physical works to control erosion and flooding.
Second, in arid and semi-arid lands wind rather than water is the main agent of erosion. Forests can retain the effects of soil erosion and remain green when the grasslands dry up. Forest areas are therefore significant reserves for livestock feed. Similarly, tree planting can rehabilitate silt-affected land and sand-dunes by tapping moisture and nutrients in the deeper soil layers. Forests represent an important barrier against encroaching deserts and vulnerability to drought.
Third, forest cover is essential to protect soils in the humid tropics. Traditionally, shifting cultivation practices left tropical African forests in ecological balance, and did not irreversibly degrade the soil. However, increasing population pressure has led to shorter fallows that do not enable fertility to be restored, and hence `modern' agricultural inputs such as fertilizers become inevitable in use (Boserup, 1965; Lado, 1985). In fact, one solution is to encourage permanent systems of cultivation, but relatively many peasant farmers in forested regions of Africa are already experiencing declining crop yields (Allan, 1965) and cannot afford the improvements required to maintain fertility and prevent further degradation of the soil. One alternative strategy is to develop agro-forestry (the combination of agricultural systems with tree planting), to both shifting cultivation and intensive, permanent production systems.
As sources of livelihood, forests supply food on a scale usually underestimate wildlife, fruits, nuts, roots and fungi are all utilized. It has been estimated that in some parts of Africa as much as 70 per cent of animal protein supplies are obtained in this way by the local population (FAO, 1985). In addition, forestry and the activities based on it are significant sources of rural employment and income. Forest management operations are labour-intensive and an important source of livelihood. Most employment is at the artisan and household level, in carpentry, handicrafts, charcoal burning and rubber tapping. The export of tropical African woods and forest products is also an important source of foreign exchange earnings for many countries. Forests are an economic as well as ecological resource.
Fuel-wood comprises about 85 per cent of the wood used in developing countries, and Africa accounts for a relatively large proportion of fuel-wood consumption. In general, the poorer the country, the greater its dependence on fuel-wood and the more vital that forests are conserved as a useful resource. Fuel-wood is the principal means available to the rural poor to convert food supplies into an adequate diet. Many of the staple foods of the rural poor, e.g. cassava, require cooking to make them safe for human consumption. Other foods require cooking to make them palatable and free from pathogens.
In fact, the gathering of scarce fuel-wood is a major factor in the allocation of poor people's time, especially women's. FAO (1985) has estimated that in 1980 almost 100 million rural people in the developing countries in general were living in areas where current levels of use cannot be sustained. African countries have a larger proportion of the vulnerable population. The dimensions of the fuel-wood problem are so large that it is unlikely we can do more than mitigate it. An acute shortage of fuel seems bound to continue in the rural areas of African countries until and unless, alternative sources of cheap energy and a rational and sustainable resource strategy can be developed and made available on a relatively large scale.
(ii) The Resource Strategy for Forestry Areas: The components of the strategy for these areas correspond to the different kinds of problems encountered in them. The overall objective should be to develop resources in a sustainable way, recognizing that forestry activities in Africa are a source of livelihood strategies, but at the same time, the conservation of forest resources underwrites the sustainability of agriculture and fisheries in contiguous zones. No where is the balance between development and environmental protection more difficult to determine than in the forests of tropical Africa.
Watershed management is a priority, as a necessary guarantee of food supplies in enhancement areas. The FAO/UNDP Project, `Support to Watershed Management in Asia', shows how the links need to be maintained between forestry and food production, through a more integrated approach to watershed management (FAO, 1989).
Agro-forestry represents one of the ways in which livelihood strategies can be linked, especially in low-resource and forested areas. Agro-forestry systems consist of many components combining agriculture with forestry and with pastoralism that can produce beneficial results. Ways of combining forestry practices with small-scale fishing activities are also being developed. The combination needs to be selected or chosen from the following list:
(i) Food-producing tree crops, as part of `traditional' agricultural systems in both humid tropics and arid zones of Africa;
(ii) Fodder-producing trees, which can help provide a source of protein in the dry season, and maintain and enhance the productivity of livestock products, especially milk and meat production, and through them animal manure;
(iii) Fuel-producing trees, developed in tree plots and managed by the local people, which have the potential to provide multipurpose use; and need to be fast growing and slow burning; and
(iv) Other trees which tend to protect the soil and enhance agricultural production.
In this context, incentives need to be clearly established before tree-growing exercise for future agricultural production is looked upon as beneficial. Low-input forestry systems, often combined with agriculture, can be organized at either communal or individual level. Both are effective in promoting forestry for food security, but it appears that providing incentives to individual households makes projects easier to implement. In general, some form of forestry is better at reducing soil erosion and relatively increasing soil fertility than simple agriculture; but a natural forest is even better than agro-forestry. Thus, decisions in land-use allocation invariably involve a trade-off of costs and benefits. The FAO (1985, 1989) studies have sought to compare natural with artificial forests, the role of fallow and the success of multipurpose forestry projects.
Information systems on forestry resources are an essential element in any coordinated attempt to make sustainable development more operational. FAO is heavily committed to Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) procedures being undertaken in projects it supports. It remains an important ingredient in drawing up the balance sheet of costs and benefits in rural development. Similarly, Geographical Information Systems (GIS) represent an attempt to construct a better database for future planning. Part of the World Forestry Assessment report of 1990 involves a major reassessment of the current situation and trends in forest resources. Also supported by FAO is the Forest and Wildlands Conservation Information System (FOWCIS) which is being developed.
Finally, the Tropical Forestry Action Plan (TFAP) represents the first serious attempt to grapple with the different objectives outlined above (FAO, 1985). This plan is supported by FAO, the World Bank, the UNDP and the World Resources Institute (WRI) and has the objectives to:
(i) restore productive capacity on forested land;
(ii) develop the sustainable use of forest resources;
(iii) improve food security through better land use;
(iv) increase the supply of fuel-wood;
(v) increase income from the sale of locally manufactured products in forested areas;
(vi) increase local participation in forestry and forest-based industries; and
(vii) conserve natural ecosystems and genetic resources in the forests of tropical Africa.
FAO has already shown its interest in increasing local participation in wildlife management in forested areas. Data are currently being collected on the economic value of wildlife and its role in food and nutrition and indeed proposals have been made for a sub-regional network in Africa.
The principle that local people should participate more in the management of genetically important resources, by no means confined to the tropical African forests, represents a new and important departure, and one which needs to be encouraged. Indeed, areas of important genetic reserves mainly include tropical African forests, but also some vital marine areas. Genetic resource conservation in these areas is a crucial part of the global sustainability addressed by the Brundtland or World Commission on Environment and Development Report(1987), and one that is shared by both Western and developing countries.
In fact, sustainable development in genetic reserve areas, wherever they are located, means preventing genetic erosion within these areas, even to the extent of seeking to exclude growth-based development. The key objective is the preservation of natural capital.
The establishment of the International Fund on Plant Genetic Resources (IFPGR) by FAO in 1987 is the latest stage in the process of assisting African governments to conserve genetic variety. Individual countries' works such as those conducted by some Kenyan scholars and researchers, e.g. Juma (1989a,b), Juma and Muchiri (1990) and Juma (1991) on policies and strategies, including the evaluation of collections and improvements in plant breeding, should be encouraged in Africa. Field projects are being designed to help countries establish and utilize gene bank facilities. Regional training courses can be held in Africa, and efforts are underway to establish an international "network of base collections" in gene banks in other developing countries (FAO, 1985).
In effect, the destruction of natural ecosystems has drawn attention towards gene banking in developing countries. This kind of ex situ conservation, however, only represents part of the picture. Indeed, increased emphasis needs to be given to in situ conservation, through direct assistance to African countries in the establishment of pilot areas where genetic conservation can be combined with sustainable utilization.
It has been argued in this article that sustainable development needs to be clearly related to the resource characteristics of specific, designated agro-ecological zones in Africa. In areas with relatively poor resources, the policy emphasis should be to find ways of supplementing incomes and reducing severe environmental degradation, rather than as a means of achieving increased productivity. In enhancement areas with better natural resources, the emphasis needs to be placed on sustaining high productivity, but reducing external costs. The objective would be to maintain or enhance the already high-carrying capacity of land and water resources. Finally, forests were considered, partly as a significant activity in their own right, and partly for the contribution the conservation of forestry resources can make as buffer areas for human populations. In addition, such areas feature as important genetic reserves for Africa's future generations.
This article has also explored the possibilities and limitations of developing appropriate agricultural technologies for the specific ecological zones and land uses in Africa. Conceptualizing development in terms of both the `successful' implementation of technologies from the Western countries, and the progressive marginalization of technologies from the developing countries, enables us to appreciate the hidden dimensions of many of the projects designed to `develop' agriculture in poorer African countries. It has been suggested that two tracks can be distinguished in the development of agricultural technology. The first is designed to encourage the adoption of new technologies combined with purchased inputs, and the second to follow a path much closer to the resources available to the small farm -- a `low-tech' track.
From what has been outlined in this paper, it is clear that we have already reached the limits of the first track, of `high-tech' agricultural development. At the same time, the limitations of relying on `low-tech' agriculture are clear, in that most relatively poor farmers in low-resource areas face a series of almost insurmountable structural constraints such as poor access to markets, deficient pricing, repressive tenurial systems, etc. from which better irrigated technology cannot save them. However, some research institutions, such as the Centre for International Agricultural Technology (CIAT) in Colombia, recognize the need for a third track, one specifically designed to utilize low agricultural inputs but relatively high farm technology.
Much of the current research in biotechnology and genetic engineering conforms in various ways to the above model. Nevertheless, it still has to be demonstrated that in practical terms, these efforts are tailored to the needs of relatively poor farmers and landless labourers, and that they can be used to strengthen the livelihood activities of the poor farmers, as well as generating increased production at relatively low cost for the institutions which have invested in their research and development.
Ahmad, Y. (1988) Issues of Sustainability in Agricultural Development in Asia, International Fund for Agricultural Development, Rome.
Allan, W. (1965) The African Husbandman, Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh.
Barbier, E. (1989) Economics, Natural Resource Scarcity and Development, Earthscan, London.
Blaikie, P.M. and Brookfield, H.C. (1987) Land Degradation and Society, Methuen, London.
Blaikie, P.M. (1989) `Explanation and Policy in Land Degradation and Rehabilitation for Developing Countries', Land Degradation and Rehabilitation, Vol. 1, pp. 23-37.
Boserup, E. (1965) The Conditions of Agricultural Growth: The Economics of Agrarian Change Under Population Pressure, George Allen and Unwin, London.
Boworder, B. (1981) `The Myth and Reality of High-Yielding Varieties in Indian Agriculture', Development and Change, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 248 - 62.
Brundtland Commission (1987) Our Common Future, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Collinson, M.P. (1972) Farm Management in Peasant Agriculture: A Handbook for Rural Development Planning in Africa, Praeger, New York and London.
Conway, G. (1987) `The Properties of Agro-ecosystems', Agricultural Systems, Vol. 24, pp. 95-117.
Conway, G. and Barbier, E. (1988) `After the Green Revolution', Futures, Vol. 20, No. 6, pp. 651-78.
Darkoh, M.B.K. (1989) `The Underlying Causes of the Food Crisis in Africa', Transafrican Journal of History, Vol. 18, pp. 54-79.
De Schlippe, P. (1956) Shifting Cultivation in Africa: The Zande System of Agriculture, Routledge and Kegan Paul, london.
Food and Agriculture Organization (1985a) Fuel-wood Supplies in Developing Countries, Forestry Paper No. 42, Rome.
Food and Agriculture Organization (1985b) Tropical Forestry Action Plan, Rome.
Food and Agriculture Organization (1986) African Agriculture the Next Twenty-Five Years, Rome.
Food and Agriculture Organization (1989) Expert Consultation on Forests, Trees and People, Rome.
Goodman, D.E. and Redclift, M.R. (1988) `Problems in Analyzing The Agrarian Transition in Europe', Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 784-91.
Hudson, N. (1988) Soil Conservation Strategies for the Future, Paper Presented to the 5th International Soil Association Conference, Bangkok, 18-29 January.
International Labour Office (1977) Poverty and Landlessness in Rural Africa, Geneva.
Juma, C. (1989a) Biological Diversity and Innovation: Conserving and Utilizing Genetic Resources in Kenya, African Centre for Technology Studies, Nairobi.
Juma, C. (1989b) The Gene Hunters: Biotechnology and the Scramble for Seeds, Zed Books, London.
Juma, C. and Muchiri, B. (1990) Environment and Sovereignty in Kenya: Sustainable Development for National Security, African Centre for Technology Studies, Nairobi.
Juma, C. (ed.) (1991) Development in Time: Towards Environmental and Economic Sustainability, African Centre for Technology Studies, Nairobi.
Kilewe, A.M. (1985) Measurement and Prediction of Soil Erosion in Kiambu and Muranga Districts, Kenya, National Environmental Secretarial Publication, Nairobi.
Lado, C. (1985) Environment, Knowledge and Change: A Case Study of Peasant Farming in Maridi District, Southern Sudan, unpublished Ph.D thesis, University of Durham, England, U.K.
Lado, C. (1987) Peasant Farmers and Crop Choice: A Case Study of Agricultural Decision- Making in Central Sudan, Geography Department Seminar Paper, March.
Lado, C. (1989) `Traditional Agricultural Land Use and Some Changing Trends in Maridi District, Southern Sudan', Land Use Policy, Vol. 4, No. 4, Oct., pp. 324-40.
Meillasoux, C. (1974) `Development or Exploitation: Is the Sahel Famine Good Business?', Review of African Political Economy, No. 1, pp. 27-33.
Millington, A.C. Mutiso, S.K. and Binns, J.A. (eds.) (1987) African Resources: Approval, Monitoring and Management II, Reading Geographical Press, No. 97.
Norse, D. (1988) Policies for Sustainable Agriculture: Getting the Balance Right, International Fund for Agricultural Development, Rome.
Pearce, D. (1986) The Sustainable Use of Natural Resources in Developing Countries, Paper Presented to the Economic and Social Research Council, University of East Anglia, Norwich.
Pearce, D., Barbier, E. and Markaudya, A. (1987) The Meaning and Implications of Sustainable Development, OECD, Paris.
Pereira, H.C. (1973) Land Use and Water Resources, Cambridge University Press, London,
Pereira, H.C. (1981) `Land Use Management on Tropical Watersheds' in Lal, R. and Russel, E..W., Tropical Agricultural Hydrology: Watershed Management and Land Use, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, pp. 12-40.
Schumacher, E.F. (1981) Small is Beautiful: A Study of Economics as if People Mattered, Sphere Books Ltd., London.
Tubiana, L. (1989) `World Trade in Agricultural Products: From Global Regulation to Market Penetration', in Goodman, D.E. and Redclift, M.R. (eds.) The International Farm Crisis, Macmillan, London, pp. 245-62.
Worldwatch (1989) The State of the World, Worldwatch Institute, Washington D.C.
Zeleza, T. (1986) `The Current Agrarian Crisis in Africa: Its History and Future', Journal of Eastern African Research and Development, Vol. 16, pp. 151-86.