The nexus between INRM and IWRM
Year: 2007
Type: conference-paper
Abstract: The low productivity of smallholder farming systems and enterprises in the drier areas of the developing world is attributed mainly to the limited resources of farming households, and the application of inappropriate skills and practices that can lead to the degradation of the natural resource base. This lack of development, particularly in southern Africa, is of growing concern from both an agricultural and environmental perspective. To address this lack of progress, two development paradigms from different scientific constituencies have evolved, somewhat independently, to improve land and water productivity. One championed by the International Agricultural Research constituency is Integrated Natural Resource Management (INRM), whilst the second championed predominantly by Environmental and Civil Engineering constituencies is Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM). Despite similar objectives of working towards the millennium development goals of improved food security and environmental sustainability there exists a nexus between the constituencies of the two paradigms, particularly in terms of appreciating the lessons learned. In this paper lessons are drawn from past INRM research that may have particular relevance to IWRM scientists as they re-direct their focus from blue water issues to green water issues, and vice-versa. One point that is abundantly clear from both constituencies is that ‘one-size-fits-all’ or silver bullet solutions that are generally applicable for the enhancement of blue water management/formal irrigation simply do not exist for the smallholder rainfed systems. Five keywords: INRM, IWRM, Green water, Blue Water Introduction Increasing water productivity is a growing concern within the international research and development community (CAWMA, 2007). This objective is encapsulated in the UN Secretary General’s recent statement, ‘we need a blue revolution in agriculture that focuses on increasing productivity per unit of water – more crop per drop’. This increased productivity is a necessary condition for agricultural producers to use better, and protect the quality of, available water, while enhancing food production and income in a sustainable manner, especially in water limited communities. This focus is particularly pressing in the Semi Arid Tropics (SAT) of southern Africa (Love et al., 2006a; Twomlow et al., 2006). Despite the rising levels of adoption of improved maize (Zea mays L.), sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench), pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R.Br.) and groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.), per capita grain production continues to decline (Ryan and Spencer, 2001). Smallholder crop yields remain in the range of 500 to 1000 kg of grain per hectare, with seasonal yield variation a function of seasonal rainfall (Figure 1, Mugabe pers comm.) (ICRISAT survey data for southern Africa). Concomitant with poor rainfall, a major constraint to crop production is poor soil fertility, caused by inherently poor soil quality and inappropriate soil management practices (Mapfumo and Giller, 2001; Sanchez,2002; Vanlauwe, 2003). Throughout Africa, negative nutrient balances for nitrogen and phosphorus have been found consistently in smallholder farming systems (Roy et al., 2003). A good understanding of the farming systems is required in order to develop appropriate technological interventions to manage water and fertility (Twomlow et al., 2006; Mupangwa et al., 2006; Pretty et al., 2006). Some studies have been conducted to assess the dynamics (including nutrient management and resource allocation) of smallholder farming systems (Defoer et al., 1998; Briggs and Twomlow, 2002; Tittonell et al., 2005b; Zingore et al., 2006). Most previous studies were however conducted in medium to high rainfall areas. The few studies that have been conducted in the semi-arid regions of Africa were carried out in West Africa (Harris and Mortimore, 2005) close to a large urban population with strong market drivers and focused on nutrient flows. Data on resource allocation and use patterns in the semi-arid regions of southern Africa is limited to a few case studies (Scoones, 1997; Scoones, 2001; CAWMA, 2007; Ncube et al, 2008). This lack of development, particularly in southern Africa, is of growing concern from both an agricultural and environmental perspective. To address this lack of progress, two development paradigms from different scientific constituencies have evolved, somewhat independently, to improve land and water productivity. One championed by the International Agricultural Research constituency is Integrated Natural Resource Management (INRM), whilst the second championed predominantly by Environmental and Civil Engineering constituencies is Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM). Despite similar objectives of working towards the millennium development goals of improved food security and environmental sustainability there exists a nexus between the constituencies of the two paradigms, particularly in terms of appreciating the lessons learned by each. In this paper lessons are drawn from past INRM research that may have particular relevance to IWRM scientists as they re-direct their focus from blue water issues to green water issues, and vice-versa. THE NEED FOR NEW CONCEPTS AND OPERATIONAL PRINCIPLES Good management of natural resources is the key to good agriculture and rural development (Greenland et al., 1998; Ryan and Spencer, 1991; Pender et al., 2006; Pretty et al., 2006). This is true everywhere – and particularly in the semi-arid tropics (SAT), where over-exploitation of fragile or inherently vulnerable agroecosystems is leading to the degradation of land, soil and water resources. This degradation results in productivity decline, and increasing hunger and poverty. Modern crop varieties offer high yields – but the larger share of this potential yield can only be realized with good crop management (Twomlow et al., 2008). A plethora of NRM and IWRM technologies have been developed over the years – but adoption has been poor for various reasons, technical, environmental, socio-economic and institutional. Table 1 summarises what is currently known about the adoption of NRM/IWRM technologies, whilst Table 2 summarises some of the institutional and organizational constraints. Low adoption leads to low impact and failure to reach the goals of agricultural research investments (Ryan Comment [REF11]: Sanchez, P., 2002. Soil Fertility and Hunger in Africa. Science. 225: 2019-2020 Comment [SJT2]: Too add and Spencer, 2001; Freeman et al., 2002; Love et al., 2006; Pretty et al., 2006) and the MDGs (UN Millennium Project, 2005 ).
Authors: Twomlow, Stephen, Love, David, Walker, S.
Language: English
Subfield: Soil Science
Domain: Life Sciences
Open Access status: green
OpenAlex ID: W2301276833