Dry spell mitigation to upgrade semi-arid rainfed agriculture : Water harvesting and soil nutrient management for smallholder maize cultivation in Machakos, Kenya

Improvements in on-farm water and soil fertility management through water harvesting may prove key to up-grade smallholder farming systems in dry sub-humid and semi-arid sub-Sahara Africa (SSA). The currently experienced yield levels are usually less than 1 t ha-1, i.e., 3-5 times lower than potential levels obtained by commercial farmers and researchers for similar agro-hydrological conditions. The low yield levels are ascribed to the poor crop water availability due to variable rainfall, losses in on-farm water balance and inherently low soil nutrient levels. To meet an increased food demand with less use of water and land in the region, requires farming systems that provide more yields per water unit and/or land area in the future. This thesis presents the results of a project on water harvesting system aiming to upgrade currently practised water management for maize (Zea mays, L.) in semi-arid SSA. The objectives were to a) quantify dry spell occurrence and potential impact in currently practised small-holder grain production systems, b) test agro-hydrological viability and compare maize yields in an on-farm experiment using combinations supplemental irrigation (SI) and fertilizers for maize, and c) estimate long-term changes in water balance and grain yields of a system with SI compared to farmers currently practised in-situ water harvesting. Water balance changes and crop growth were simulated in a 20-year perspective with models MAIZE1&2. Dry spell analyses showed that potentially yield-limiting dry spells occur at least 75% of seasons for 2 locations in semi-arid East Africa during a 20-year period. Dry spell occurrence was more frequent for crop cultivated on soil with low water-holding capacity than on high water-holding capacity. The analysis indicated large on-farm water losses as deep percolation and run-off during seasons despite seasonal crop water deficits. An on-farm experiment was set up during 1998-2001 in Machakos district, semi-arid Kenya. Surface run-off was collected and stored in a 300m3 earth dam. Gravity-fed supplemental irrigation was carried out to a maize field downstream of the dam. Combinations of no irrigation (NI), SI and 3 levels of N fertilizers (0, 30, 80 kg N ha-1) were applied. Over 5 seasons with rainfall ranging from 200 to 550 mm, the crop with SI and low nitrogen fertilizer gave 40% higher yields (**) than the farmers’ conventional in-situ water harvesting system. Adding only SI or only low nitrogen did not result in significantly different yields. Accounting for actual ability of a storage system and SI to mitigate dry spells, it was estimated that a farmer would make economic returns (after deduction of household consumption) between year 2-7 after investment in dam construction depending on dam sealant and labour cost used. Simulating maize growth and site water balance in a system of maize with SI increased annual grain yield with 35 % as a result of timely applications of SI. Field water balance changes in actual evapotranspiration (ETa) and deep percolation were insignificant with SI, although the absolute amount of ETa increased with 30 mm y-1 for crop with SI compared to NI. The dam water balance showed 30% productive outtake as SI of harvested water. Large losses due to seepage and spill-flow occurred from the dam. Water productivity (WP, of ETa) for maize with SI was on average 1 796 m3 per ton grain, and for maize without SI 2 254 m3 per ton grain, i.e, a decerase of WP with 25%. The water harvesting system for supplemental irrigation of maize was shown to be both biophysically and economically viable. However, adoption by farmers will depend on other factors, including investment capacity, know-how and legislative possibilities. Viability of increased water harvesting implementation in a catchment scale needs to be assessed so that other down-stream uses of water remains uncompromised.

Global trade, food production and ecosystem support : Making the interactions visible

Modern food production is a complex, globalized system in which what we eat and how it is produced are increasingly disconnected. This thesis examines some of the ways in which global trade has changed the mix of inputs to food and feed, and how this affects food security and our perceptions of sustainability. One useful indicator of the ecological impact of trade in food and feed products is the Appropriated Ecosystem Areas (ArEAs), which estimates the terrestrial and aquatic areas needed to produce all the inputs to particular products. The method is introduced in Paper I and used to calculate and track changes in imported subsidies to Swedish agriculture over the period 1962-1994. In 1994, Swedish consumers needed agricultural areas outside their national borders to satisfy more than a third of their food consumption needs. The method is then applied to Swedish meat production in Paper II to show that the term “Made in Sweden” is often a misnomer. In 1999, almost 80% of manufactured feed for Swedish pigs, cattle and chickens was dependent on imported inputs, mainly from Europe, Southeast Asia and South America. Paper III examines ecosystem subsidies to intensive aquaculture in two nations: shrimp production in Thailand and salmon production in Norway. In both countries, aquaculture was shown to rely increasingly on imported subsidies. The rapid expansion of aquaculture turned these countries from fishmeal net exporters to fishmeal net importers, increasingly using inputs from the Southeastern Pacific Ocean. As the examined agricultural and aquacultural production systems became globalized, levels of dependence on other nations’ ecosystems, the number of external supply sources, and the distance to these sources steadily increased. Dependence on other nations is not problematic, as long as we are able to acknowledge these links and sustainably manage resources both at home and abroad. However, ecosystem subsidies are seldom recognized or made explicit in national policy or economic accounts. Economic systems are generally not designed to receive feedbacks when the status of remote ecosystems changes, much less to respond in an ecologically sensitive manner. Papers IV and V discuss the problem of “masking” of the true environmental costs of production for trade. One of our conclusions is that, while the ArEAs approach is a useful tool for illuminating environmentally-based subsidies in the policy arena, it does not reflect all of the costs. Current agricultural and aquacultural production methods have generated substantial increases in production levels, but if policy continues to support the focus on yield and production increases alone, taking the work of ecosystems for granted, vulnerability can result. Thus, a challenge is to develop a set of complementary tools that can be used in economic accounting at national and international scales that address ecosystem support and performance. We conclude that future resilience in food production systems will require more explicit links between consumers and the work of supporting ecosystems, locally and in other regions of the world, and that food security planning will require active management of the capacity of all involved ecosystems to sustain food production.