CROP-ENVIRONMENT SERIES

Maize, Rice, Sorghum/Millets, Sweet Potato/Yam, Cassava

May 5, 2014 Evans School Policy Analysis & Research Group (EPAR) Evans School Policy Analysis & Research Group, University of Washington Over 270 Reports Since 2008

Provides research and policy analysis to support researchers, policy-makers, and implementaters in international development. • Statistical data analysis and research reports • Literature reviews and analysis • Educational outreach and dissemination • Portfolio analysis and strategy support

Faculty and Crop Experts: Travis Reynolds, Stephen Waddington, Leigh Anderson, Alison Cullen, Sushil Pandey, Brhane Gebrekidan

EPAR Environmental Impacts Overview Research Assistants: Zoë True, Dan Jones, Jessica Rudder, Chris Clark, Alex Chew, Nick Papanastassiou evans.uw.edu/epar [email protected] Evans School Policy Analysis & Research Group (EPAR) WHY Environmental Impact Overview Context and Motivation

HOW Methods & Scope Depth of research by crop and region

WHAT Crop and Geographic Highlights Major constraints and impacts

AGENDA

Evans School Policy Analysis & Research Group (EPAR) Why Productivity not Yield?

Productivity accounts for the value of multiple outputs (e.g. intercropping, crops, livestock) and the cost of various inputs (labor, fertilizer…) In practice grantees:  Most often measure yield, and  Measure yield in different ways YIELD IMPROVING INTERVENTION POTENTIAL COSTS • Reduced production of other crops Mono-cropping • Loss of biodiversity • Increased pests • Erosion, nutrient depletion Intensive cultivation • Increased labor costs • Increased input and credit costs Application of fertilizers/pesticides • Pollution, loss of pollinators / intercrops

Evans School Policy Analysis & Research Group (EPAR) Why Sustainable Productivity?

Productivity Sustainable Productivity

Outputs Supportable Outputs Inputs Viable Inputs

PRODUCTIVITY CONCERNS SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVITY CONCERNS Labor costs Women’s labor Input costs Input types/sources (renewable/non-renewable) Yield: crop output in kg/hectare Value: crop and intercrop output in nutrients, also environmental and social impacts

Evans School Policy Analysis & Research Group (EPAR) The Environment & Sustainable Productivity: Constraints

Farmer-reported reasons for loss in area between planting and harvesting on long rainy season plots

From EPAR’s Rice Yield and Productivity Measures Brief

Evans School Policy Analysis & Research Group (EPAR) The Environment & Sustainable Productivity: Impacts  Farmer adaptations in any given cropping season have implications for the regional and global environment (negative externalities like habitat loss, climate change)

 Farm practices also have environmental impacts with consequences for the farmer in future crop cycles (nutrient depletion, soil structure damage)

 The latter impacts are not negative externalities (impacting others), but rather costs incurred by the farmer in the next production cycle

Evans School Policy Analysis & Research Group (EPAR) The Environment & Sustainable Productivity: Good Practices Sustainably productive agricultural systems:  Pursue input supply from renewable sources (water, nutrients, labor) and low levels of stresses  Ensure efficient use of those resources in producing useful outputs  Enable high cycling of resources within the farming system, reducing losses in the system and offtake  Maintain environment/ecosystem services  Include well developed farmer management systems …and the ways to assess these priorities

Evans School Policy Analysis & Research Group (EPAR) Why Measure Sustainable Productivity Operationally? Opportunities to Incorporate Environmental Considerations into Grant Making

Programming • Incorporate environmental considerations throughout programming • Encourage good practices Measurement • Understand where gaps in the literature exist • Use opportunities to measure environmental indicators, evaluate and learn about crop- environment interactions Awareness • Increase awareness of potential negative impacts of promoting increased crop (and livestock) productivity • Recognize “red flag” environmental constraints and impacts associated with production practices

Evans School Policy Analysis & Research Group (EPAR) WHY Environmental Impact Overview Context and Motivation

Methods & Scope HOW Depth of research by crop and region

Crop and Geographic Highlights WHAT Major constraints and impacts

AGENDA

Evans School Policy Analysis & Research Group (EPAR) Crop x Environment Briefs

 Agriculture-Environment Overview  Crop Specific Environmental Briefs Content Content • Environmental • Constraints by production stage (pre- constraints production, production, and post- • Environmental harvest) impacts • Good practices • Depth of research on • Climate change impacts crop-environment interactions • Cropping systems in SSA and SA • Key environmental impacts

Evans School Policy Analysis & Research Group (EPAR) Using the EPAR Environment Series  In-depth analysis by crop:  Rice, Maize, Sorghum/Millets, Sweetpotato/Yam, Cassava  “Good practice” insights & recommendations:  Land & soil management  Integrated pest management  Intercropping & agro- biodiversity  Research gaps & limitations

Evans School Policy Analysis & Research Group (EPAR) Methods

 Assessments of constraints to Environmental impact crops, key crop environmental categories: impacts by small expert panels land degradation wild biodiversity loss and adaptation strategies agro-biodiversity loss water depletion Environmental constraint water pollution categories: soil nutrient depletion land availability soil pollution nutrient constraints pest outbreaks & resistance water constraints greenhouse gas (GHG)

biotic constraints emissions (CH4 or N2O) climate change air pollution post-harvest losses storage chemicals post-harvest losses

Evans School Policy Analysis & Research Group (EPAR) Methods

 In-depth review and interpretation of published and gray literature on crop-environment interactions  Scopus searches for published research on environmental topics

EXAMPLE SEARCH: (maize) AND (erosion OR degradation OR “slash and burn” OR “slash-and-burn” OR "soil conservation" OR "conservation tillage") AND (africa OR niger* OR ethiopia OR tanzania)

Peer-Reviewed Scholarship on Maize & Land Degradation: 1970-2013

25

20

15

10 Articles Published by Year Articles Published by

5

0 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Evans School Policy Analysis & Research Group (EPAR) Methods

 Classification of severity of crop environmental impacts: 0. No mentions of the environmental impact in published literature or expert accounts on the crop 1. Rarely mentioned or a minor impact 2. Sometimes mentioned as a moderate impact 3. Consistently mentioned as a moderate impact 4. Sometimes mentioned as a severe impact 5. Consistently mentioned in published literature or expert accounts as a severe environmental impact

Evans School Policy Analysis & Research Group (EPAR) Caveats for Crop-Environment Analyses

 Non-crop specific constraints and impacts may be under- emphasized

 Farm system and agro- ecological zone matter (as does the role of livestock)

 Responses to environmental impacts will vary with the context

Evans School Policy Analysis & Research Group (EPAR) Cereal & Root Crop Farming Systems in SS Africa and Asia

Based on Dixon et al (2001)

Evans School Policy Analysis & Research Group (EPAR) South Asian Farming Systems & Annual Rainfall

State of Bihar

State of Odisha

Evans School Policy Analysis & Research Group (EPAR) WHY Environmental Impact Overview Context and Motivation

HOW Methods & Scope Depth of research by crop and region

WHAT Crop and Geographic Highlights Major constraints and impacts

AGENDA

Evans School Policy Analysis & Research Group (EPAR) Sustainable Productivity Growth for key crops (and cropping systems)

Reduced Environmental Reduced Impact of Constraints to Crop Cropping on the Production Environment e.g., better soils, water e.g., less deforestation, abundance, fewer crop pests- biodiversity loss, soil erosion, diseases-weeds, appropriate nutrient mining, water temperatures depletion, pest resistance, soil-water-air pollution

Increased Environmental Services & Reduced Environmental Degradation e.g., land/soil quality, wild biodiversity, agro-biodiversity, water availability, water quality, soil nutrient status, pest status, greenhouse gases, air quality, storage chemicals

Evans School Policy Analysis & Research Group (EPAR) Ex: Crop-Environment Interactions

Constraint: Cassava growing on a Impact: Newly-emerged maize nutrient-depleted sandy soil in planted on bare sloping land in southern Africa South Asia

Evans School Policy Analysis & Research Group (EPAR) Summary of Environmental Constraints e.g. for Maize

Relative Severity of Maize Relative Severity of Maize Environmental Constraints (SSA) Environmental Constraints (SA)

5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 0 0

y s s s e s y s s s e s it t t t g e it t t t g e il in in in n ss il in in in n ss b a a a a o b a a a a o a tr tr tr h l a tr tr tr h l il s s s c t il s s s c t a n n n e s a n n n e s v o o o t ve v o o o t ve a c c c a r a c c c a r d r t c m a d r t c m a n e n i i h n e n i i h a t e t l - a t e t l - L a ri io C st L a ri io C st W t B o W t B o u P u P N N

Evans School Policy Analysis & Research Group (EPAR) Impacts of Crops on the Environment, by Crop

Evans School Policy Analysis & Research Group (EPAR) Depth of Crop x Environment Research Literature Peer-Reviewed Papers on Crop Environment Interactions Since 2000 by Region 600 (5 or more citations)

SA 400 SSA

200

0 Rice Maize Sorghum & Sweetpotato & Cassava Millet Yam

Evans School Policy Analysis & Research Group (EPAR) Relative Severity of Rice Rice Environmental Impacts in SSA and SA

5 SSA  Intensive monoculture rice 4 systems increase yields but have 3 2

higher environmental impacts. 1

0

n s s n n n n e ) ) ) s s o s s o o o o c 4 0 g l e i lo lo i i i i n H 2 n a s t t t t t a C N i ic s a y y le lu le lu t ( ( rn lo  d it it p l p l s s m In SSA, land degradation and a o o i s u e t r rs rs e p e p s n n b h s g e e d d l re io io ( c e e v v r r t i s s n rv d i i e te n o st is is o e a d d d t a e S e ti g h n io io a ri P m m u ra - conversion of sensitive a b b W W t e e ll o st L - u G o t o ld ro n G p S P i g l H H W A i G G ir ecosystems are key threats. So A  Newly expanding rice areas 5 SA 4

 In SA water depletion & pollution, 3

pest resistance, and GHG 2 emissions among the most severe 1 0

impacts. n s s n n n n e ) ) ) ls s o s s o o o o c 4 0 g a e ti lo lo ti ti ti ti n H 2 in c ss a e u e u a C N n i o d ty ty l ll l ll st ( ( r m l a i i p o p o i s s u e t r rs rs e p e p s n n b h s g e e d d l re io io ( c e  Rice already long-established e v v r r t i s s n rv d i i e te n o st is is o e a d d d t a e S e ti g h n io io a ri P m m u ra - a b b W W t e e ll o st L - u o t o ld ro n G G p S P i g l H H W A i G G ir So A

Evans School Policy Analysis & Research Group (EPAR) Relative Severity of Maize Maize Environmental Impacts

5 SSA  Between 1961 and 2010 maize 4 area harvested increased 53% 3

2 worldwide, doubling in SSA.

1

0  Maize is a common first crop

n s s n n n n e ) ) ) ls s o s s o o o o c 4 0 g a e ti lo lo ti ti ti ti n H 2 in c ss a y y e u e u a C (N n i o after slash-and-burn clearing in d t t l ll l ll st ( r m l a si si p o p o si s s u e t r r r e p e p n n (b h s g e e d d l re io io c e e v v r r t i s s n rv d i i e te n o st is is o e a d d d t a e S e ti g h n io io a ri P m m u ra - SSA leading to biodiversity loss a b b W W t e e ll o st L - u o t o ld o n G G p S P i gr l H H W A i G G ir So A and GHG emissions.

5 SA  Repeated plantings with poor 4 fertility management leads to 3 nutrient mining. 2 1  Climate change will exacerbate 0

n s s n n n n e ) ) ) ls s o s s o o o o c 4 0 g a e ti lo lo ti ti ti ti n H 2 in c ss a e u e u a C N n i o biotic and abiotic constraints to d ty ty l ll l ll st ( ( r m l a si si p o p o si s s u e t r r r e p e p n n (b h s g e e d d l re io io c e e v v r r t i s s n rv d i i e te n o st is is o e a d d d t a e S e ti g h maize, including temperature & n io io a ri P m m u ra - a b b W W t e e ll o st L - u o t o ld ro n G G p S P i g l H H W A i G G ir So A drought, pests, and suitable land.

Evans School Policy Analysis & Research Group (EPAR) Sorghum/Millets Relative Severity of Sorghum/Millets Environmental Impacts 5 SSA  Suitability for marginal (dry) 4 lands means these crops are 3 often grown in ecologically 2 1

fragile areas. 0

n s s n n n n e ) ) ) ls s o s s o o o o c 4 0 g a e ti lo lo ti ti ti ti n H 2 in c ss a e u e u a C N n i o d ty ty l ll l ll st ( ( r m l a si si p o p o si s s u e t  Pressures from climate r r r e p e p n n (b h s g e e d d l re io io c e e v v r r t i s s n rv d i i e te n o st is is o e a d d d t a e S e ti g h n io io a ri P m m u ra - a b b W W t e e ll o st change may mean expansion L - u G o t o ld ro n G p S P i g l H H W A i G G ir of these production systems. So A 5 SA  Crop residues can mitigate 4 impacts but there are 3 competing uses as fodder, 2 fuel, etc. 1 0

n s s n n n n e ) ) ) ls s  Both in extensive (SSA) and o s s o o o o c 4 0 g a e ti lo lo ti ti ti ti n H 2 in c ss a e u e u a C N n i o d ty ty l ll l ll st ( ( r m l a si si p o p o si s s u e t r r r e p e p n n (b h s intensive (SA) systems g e e d d l re io io c e e v v r r t i s s n rv d i i e te n o st is is o e a d d d t a e S e ti g h n io io a ri P m m u ra - a b b W W t e e ll o st L - u o t o ld o n G G p S P i gr l H H W A i G G ir So A

Evans School Policy Analysis & Research Group (EPAR) Relative Severity of Sweetpotato /Yam Impacts Sweetpotato and Yam 5 SSA 4  Modest environmental 3

2 impacts, partially attributable

1 to sparse cropping and very 0 low-input cropping systems.

n s s n n n n e ) ) ) ls s o s s o o o o c 4 0 g a e ti lo lo ti ti ti ti n H 2 in c ss a e u e u a C N n i o d ty ty l ll l ll st ( ( r m l a i i p o p o i s s u e t r rs rs e p e p s n n b h s g e e d d l re io io ( c e e v v r r t i s s n rv  May be more tolerant to d i i e te n o st is is o e a d d d t a e S e ti g h n io io a ri P m m u ra - a b b W W t e e ll o st L - u G o t o ld ro n G p S P i g l H H climate change than cereals. W A i G G ir So A 5 SA  But highly susceptible to pests 4 and disease during crop 3

2 production and post harvest.

1 The environmental impact of 0

n s s n n n n e ) ) ) ls s o s s o o o o c 4 0 g a e ti lo lo ti ti ti ti n H 2 in c ss post-harvest losses includes the a e u e u a C N n i o d ty ty l ll l ll st ( ( r m l a i i p o p o i s s u e t r rs rs e p e p s n n b h s g e e d d l re io io ( c e e v v r r t i s s n rv cumulative burden of all d i i e te n o st is is o e a d d d t a e S e ti g h n io io a ri P m m u ra - a b b W W t e e ll o st L - u o t o ld o n G G p S P resources used in production i gr l H H W A i G G ir So A

Evans School Policy Analysis & Research Group (EPAR) Cassava Relative Severity of Cassava Environmental Impacts

5 SSA

 Role as a food security crop; 4

long presumed low-impact. 3

2

 Expansion of cassava into 1

marginal lands in SSA has 0

n s s n n n n e ) ) ) ls s o s s o o o o c 4 0 g a e ti lo lo ti ti ti ti n H 2 in c ss a e u e u a C N n i o d ty ty l ll l ll st ( ( r m l increased forest loss, soil a i i p o p o i s s u e t r rs rs e p e p s n n b h s g e e d d l re io io ( c e e v v r r t i s s n rv d i i e te n o st is is o e a d d d t a e S e ti g h n io io a ri P m m u ra - degradation and erosion. a b b W W t e e ll o st L - u G o t o ld ro n G p S P i g il H H W A o G G ir Last-resort crop on depleted S A 5 SA fields before bush fallows. 4  High susceptibility to diseases 3 2

and pests. 1

0 s s ) ) ) s s n s s n n n n e 4 0 g l e io o o io io io io c 2 n a s t l l t t t t n H i ic s  Difficulties with post-harvest a y y e u e u ta (C (N n o d t t l ll l ll s r m l a i i p o p o i s s u e t r rs rs e p e p s n n b h s g e e d d l re io io ( c e e v v r r t i s s n rv d i i e te n o st is is o e a d d d t a e S e ti g h storage and processing. n io io a ri P m m u ra - a b b W W t e e ll o st L - u o t o ld o n G G p S P i gr l H H W A i G G ir So A

Evans School Policy Analysis & Research Group (EPAR) Depth of Crop x Environment Research Literature, and Gaps

Evans School Policy Analysis & Research Group (EPAR) RICE MAIZE 150 150 125 125 100 100 75 75 50 50 25 25 0 0 SUB SAHARAN AFRICA SUB SAHARAN

150 150 125 125 100 100 75 75 50 50 25 25

SOUTH ASIA 0 0

Evans School Policy Analysis & Research Group (EPAR) SWEETPOTATO CASSAVA 150 / YAM 150 125 125 100 100 75 75 50 50 25 25 0 0 SUB SAHARAN AFRICA SUB SAHARAN

150 150 125 125 100 100 75 75 50 50 25 25

SOUTH ASIA 0 0

Evans School Policy Analysis & Research Group (EPAR) Noteworthy Research Gaps In Sub-Saharan Africa In South Asia  Little on agro-biodiversity loss,  Few publications on biodiversity water depletion, air pollution, GHG and storage chemicals, and water emissions, and storage chemicals. depletion and GHG emissions research  Recent declines in sorghum/ almost exclusively for rice. millet publications across topics.  Cassava of some importance in the  Cassava important, but little south but almost no research on published literature available for environmental issues, especially soil most environmental impacts. nutrients and water depletion.  Biodiversity loss for maize and  Maize increasingly important; need cassava, and water depletion, GHG more environmental impact research emissions and air pollution for all in areas such as water depletion. crops merit more attention.  Also may need additional attention to biodiversity in intensive systems.

Evans School Policy Analysis & Research Group (EPAR) Good Practices to Reduce Negative Crop-Environment Interactions

Maize intercropped with legumes Improved processing of cassava such as cowpea roots

The picture can't be displayed.

Evans School Policy Analysis & Research Group (EPAR) Sustainable Productivity Growth for key crops (and cropping systems) Good Practices include: • Crop choice & timing • Abiotic & biotic stress tolerant varieties • Rotations, intercrops Reduced & agroforestry Environment • Integrated nutrient Constraints management to Crop • Water conservation & Production irrigation • Integrated pest management • Improved crop storage Increased Environmental Services & Less Environmental Degradation

Evans School Policy Analysis & Research Group (EPAR) Sustainable Productivity Growth for key crops (and cropping systems) Good Practices include: Good Practices include: • Crop choice & timing • Good selection of • Abiotic & biotic stress ecology & fields tolerant varieties • Agroforestry/bush • Rotations, intercrops Reduced Reduced fallowing & agroforestry Environment Impact of • Minimal soil tillage • Integrated nutrient Constraints Cropping on • Retention of residues management to Crop Environment • Intercropping & • Water conservation & Production rotation irrigation • Some intensification • Integrated pest • Appropriate use of management fertilizers & pesticides • Improved crop • Better processing & storage storage Increased Environmental Services & Less Environmental Degradation

Evans School Policy Analysis & Research Group (EPAR) Key Take-Aways

 Smallholder farmers grow many crops in complex, overlapping systems

 No silver bullet:  Environmental interventions are highly context-specific

 Research is uneven across regions, crops, and farming systems, and some gaps remain

Evans School Policy Analysis & Research Group (EPAR) Thank you

evans.uw.edu/epar [email protected]

Evans School Policy Analysis & Research Group (EPAR)