COMPETING FOR LIMITEDRESOURCES : THE CASE OFTH EFIFT H REGION OFMAL I REPORT4 DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS F.R. Veeneklaas, S.Cissé ,P.A . Gosseye N.va n Duivenbooden &H .va nKeule n Centre for Agrobiological Research (CABO-DLO), Wageningen, The Netherlands & Etude surle s Systèmes deProduction s Rurales en 5ème Région (ESPR),Mopti ,Mal i March 1991 Centre for Agrobiological Research (CABO-DLO) P.O.Bo x14 , 6700A AWageninge n The Netherlands Telefax: (+31)(0)8370-23110 Telex:7520 9cab on l Bitnet:[email protected] l F.R.Veeneklaas ,S .Cissé ,P.A .Gosseye , N.va nDuivenboode n &H .va nKeule n Competing for limited resources:Th ecas eo fth efifth regio n of Mali.Repor t4 : Development scenarios.Centr e for Agrobiological Research (CABO-DLO), Wageningen,Th eNetherland s / Etudesu rle s Systèmes deProduction s Ruralese n 5èmeRégio n (ESPR),Mopti , Mali, 180 pages. ISBN 90-73384-13-3 © CABO-DLO/ESPR 1991 Allright s reserved. Nopar t of thispublicatio n mayb e reproduced, stored ina retrieval system,o rtransmitted , inan y form orb y any means,electronic ,mechanical , photocopying, recording orotherwise ,withou tth eprio rpermissio n of CABO-DLO orESPR . UI PREFACE This report is written in the framework of the 'Mopti project', officially designated 'Development of a land use plan for the 5th region of Mali (Region Mopti + Cercle de Niafunké)', a joint activity of the Centre for Agrobiological Research (CABO, Wageningen, the Netherlands) and a multidisciplinary team based in Mali (ESPR, Equipe chargée de l'étude sur les Systèmes de Production Rurales en 5ème Région). The project is jointly financed by the Directorate- General for International Cooperation (DGIS) of the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Government of Mali (in the framework of the second 5-year plan for the 5thregion ,financed b y the World Bank). The aim of the project is to assess the possibilities for regional agricultural development, based on a quantitative description of agricultural production activities (arable crops, livestock and fisheries), both those currently practiced and potential ones. The project should result in suggestions for technically feasible development options for sustainable agricultural land use of Mali's Fifth Region. Within the present project, use is made of a linear programming model that combines information on possible activities in the region with information on the regional resources. The general title of the report is 'Competing for limited resources: The case of the Fifth region of Mali'.I t is subdivided in four interdependent reports. Report 1, titled 'Ressources naturelles et population' (Cissé & Gosseye, 1990) presents a general survey of the environmental and human conditions of the Region. Report 2 with the title 'Plant, livestock and fish production' (van Duiven- booden, Gosseye & van Keulen, 1991; van Duivenbooden & Gosseye, 1990) describes quantitatively the various agricultural activities required for the opti­ mization model. Report 3, titled 'Formal description of the optimization model MALI5' (Veeneklaas, 1990),describe s the Linear Programming model used in the study. Finally, Report 4 is a synthesis of the three preceding ones and presents the results of the optimizations and the conclusions. It is titled 'Development scenarios' (Veeneklaas etal., 1991; Veeneklaas etal., 1990). IV TABLEO FCONTENT S 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 General framework of the study 1 1.2 The Region 2 1.3 The projet 3 1.4 The method 3 2. RESOURCES 2.1 Soils and agro-ecological zones 5 2.2 Rainfall andrainfal l zones 12 2.3 Flood and inundation 16 2.4 Wood resources 22 2.5 Population and labour supply 24 3. AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES 3.1 Introduction 26 3.1.1 Agricultural production techniques 26 3.1.2 Sustainability 27 3.1.3 Labour periods 27 3.2 Crops and pastures 28 3.2.1 Defined production techniques 28 3.2.2 Outputs 31 3.2.2.1 Crops 31 3.2.2.2 Pastures 35 3.2.3 Inputs 35 3.2.3.1 Nutrient requirements 36 3.2.3.2 Labour requirements 38 3.2.3.3 Monetary inputs 38 3.2.3.4 Oxen andploug h requirements 38 3.2.4 Input-output table 39 3.3 Livestock 43 3.3.1 Activities 43 3.3.2 Outputs 44 3.3.3 Inputs 47 3.4 Fisheries 51 3.4.1 Labourinvolve d 51 3.4.2 Total fish captured 52 3.4.3 Fish capture per household 52 3.4.4 Input-output table 53 4. THE MAIN CONTRAINTS AND INTERRELATIONS 4.1 Contraints 55 4.1.1 Competition for land 55 4.1.2 Competition for labour 57 4.1.3 Oxen and manure restriction 57 4.1.4 Forage restriction 57 VI 4.1.5 Upper limit tofish catc h 58 4.1.6 Minimum numbero f transport animals 58 4.2 Relations 58 4.2.1 Cropyield s 58 4.2.2 Crop inputs 59 4.2.3 Forage production of pastures 59 4.2.4 Subsistence needs 60 4.3 Institutional and socio-economic contraints 61 4.3.1 Land tenure problems 62 4.3.2 Labour 63 4.3.3 Tight market and lack of rural savings 63 4.3.4 Poor administrative andpubli c information structures ... 64 GOALS 5.1 Physical production targets in anorma l year 66 5.2 Monetary targets 66 5.3 Risks in adr y year 67 5.4 Employment and emigration 68 5.5 Nature reserve 68 DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS 6.1 The twobas e scenarios 69 6.1.1 R-Scenario 69 6.1.2 S-Scenario 69 6.2 Resulso f the twobas e scenarios at theregiona l level 70 6.2.1 Construction of the S-scenario 70 6.2.2 Total grossrevenu e 72 6.2.3 Shadow prices 74 6.2.4 Self-sufficiency in basic food 75 6.2.5 Arable farming 76 6.2.6 Livestock 79 6.2.7 Fisheries 84 6.3 Results of the twobas e scenarios per agro-ecological zone 84 6.3.1 Introduction 84 6.3.2 Sourou 89 6.3.3 SénoBankas s 90 6.3.4 Plateau 92 6.3.5 Delta Central 94 6.3.6 MémaDioura 96 6.3.7 SénoMang o 97 6.3.8 Gourma 99 6.3.9 Bodara 100 6.3.10 ZoneLacustr e 102 6.3.11 Hodh 104 6.3.12 Méma Sourango 104 vu 6.4 Variants 105 6.4.1 Variant 1: creation of naturereserve s in thedelt a 106 6.4.2 Variant 2:reducin g the priceo f fertilizer by 50% 110 6.4.3 Variant 3: a 50%increas e in theproduce r price ofcro pproduct s 114 6.4.4 Variant 4: alternative coefficients for livestock activities .11 6 6.4.5 Variant 5:reduced productio n of inundated pastures following aserie so f dryyear s 122 6.4.6 Possible additional variants 128 6.4.6.1 Pasture production:mowin go f inundated pastures 128 6.4.6.2 Pastureproduction :fire contro l on rainfed pastures 129 6.4.6.3 Pastureproduction : improved mangement .... 129 6.4.6.4 Expansion of theirrigate d areas 129 6.4.6.5 Introduction of herbicides 130 7. CONCLUSIONS 7.1 Relation between LP-model results and the actual situation .... 131 7.2 Agro-economic prospects 132 7.3 Political instruments for implementing intervention 135 7.3.1 Theoretical considerations 135 7.3.2 Political actions 136 7.3.2.1 The management of land byrura l populations . 136 7.3.2.2 Participation by the local population 138 7.3.2.3 Control of the markets 139 REFERENCES 141 ANNEXES TABLE OFCONTENT S a3 A. DETAILED RESULTS OFTH E R-SCENARIO a5 B. DETAILED RESULTS OFTH E S-SCENARIO a21 C. LISTO FACRONYM S AND ABBREVIATIONS a37 vm 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 General framework of the study Agriculture is an essential human activity as the basis for food production. In principle, it only requires few and relatively simple resources: a piece of land, some seeds of a useful plant species, or some head of a useful animal species, the sun as a source of energy, some water and a limited amount of human effort. This has sufficed for centuries toprovid e mankind with food, clothing, shelter and other basic necessities. However, in this century, the rapidly growing population and the accompanying concentration of large numbers of people in urban centres, has put an increasing demand on therura l population to produce food over and above their own subsistence needs. For a long time this increasing demand could be met by extending the area under cultivation, with, however, the final consequence, that increasingly marginal areas and fragile lands were used with the associated risks of degradation and permanent or semi-permanent damage to their production capa­ city. Expansion of the area alone, however, is at the moment insufficient to meet the ever-increasing demand for food. Hence, in many parts of the world develop­ ment programs were initiated aiming at higher food production through increasing yields per unit area. Not all of these programs have been successful, either because the external inputs required to increase production were not available or were not economically feasible, or because the suggested measures for improvement were not socially acceptable, thus seriously hampering their implementation. Moreover, the one-sided emphasis on food production tended to ignore the other functions of therura l area. Partly as a reaction to these failures, attention shifted to the concept of inte­ grated rural development, in which attempts were made to take into account the different functions of the rural environment and give due attention to the different aspirations of various interest groups with a stake in rural development.