The toxic landscape

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