Towards a green economy

Box 5: Simple storage: low investment, high returns

An FAO programme that supported the production and use of household and community- scaled metal silos for grain storage estimated that farmers who invested in silos were able to earn nearly three times the price for maize sold four months following harvest as opposed to the price paid at harvest (US$ 38/100 kg of maize compared with US$ 13/100 kg). The production costs for these metal silos ranged between US$ 20 for a 120 kg small- capacity unit to US$ 70-US$ 100 for an 1800 kg large-capacity silo in a variety of countries. Most farmers realised a full return on their investment within the first year of use (Household Metal Silos, FAO 2008). The FAO reports that although reducing post-harvest losses could be relatively quickly achieved, less than 5 per cent of worldwide agricultural research and extension funding currently targets this problem.

Similar improvements in reducing post- harvest losses are possible with cost-effective hermetically sealed packaging materials and handling processes that protect grains and pulses from insect and mold contamination. A notable example of such technologies is the Purdue Improved Cowpea Storage (PICS) system, which is composed of two polyethylene bags and a third outer bag of woven polypropylene. The PICS materials are made by several West African manufacturers and have proven to offer safe and inexpensive storage of cowpea and other grains for 4-6 months and longer (Baributsa et al. 2010).

price increases are seen as inevitable, it is important that non-conventional energy sources such as biodiesel fuels and biogas power generation and process heat be developed and used in mechanised farming systems in developing countries. While there are examples of rural bioenergy production technologies operating throughout the world, in most cases these technologies remain uncompetitive mainly due to subsidies and policy support for fossil fuels and related farm machinery.

Coupled with farm mechanisation, which may negatively affect on-farm employment opportunities, investment in off-farm employment opportunities is needed. Food packaging and processing in rural areas would enable new non-farm jobs and could improve market access for agricultural produce. However, the feasibility of added

54

value processing would be substantially determined by the quality of rural road infrastructure that connect to urban centres, ports and airports and the availability of skilled labour capable of operating food-handling facilities. In those cases where rural food processing is implemented, the residues from food processing should be composted or processed into organic fertilisers in order to avoid waste and to return needed organic nutrients to the nearby farm land.

With regard to post-harvest storage, simple technologies with small investments can make a big difference. Small holder farmers with limited access to dry and sanitary storage and cold chain facilities often suffer post harvest food losses that can range from 20 per cent to more than 30 per cent of their crop yields. Furthermore, without crop storage systems, farmers are usually compelled to sell their entire crop immediately at the time of harvest when market prices are much lower than levels possible several months after harvest (Kader and Rolle 2004). Investments in post-harvest storage can bring multiple economic and development benefits (Box 5).

Improving soil and water management and diversifying crops and livestock One of the most significant consequences of conventional agriculture is the rapid depletion of soil organic matter (SOM). Repeated cultivation degrades soils and lowers crop yields hence increases production costs. Strategies for better soil management have been experimented in Colombia, England, Morocco, Mexico and the USA. Results show yield increases ranging from 30 per cent to 140 per cent. Some of these strategies include, growing and integrating back in soil nitrogen fixing fodder and green manure crops such as pea, ferns and cloves or rice straw, no-tillage and planting new seeds in crop residues, using waste biomass or biochar (still needs research to fully understand its true potential), and organic and mineral fertilisers. Table 3 presents evidence from field trials and plots in Colombia, England, Morocco, Mexico and the USA that show yield increases ranging from 30 per cent to 140 per cent resulting from better soil management strategies. Nonetheless, each strategy does require some additional investments. Strategies such as nitrogen-fixing fodder or green manure mainly involve additional labour costs: additional labour is required to distribute fodder over land and for sowing and growing green manure plants. In addition, in some countries, the cost of fodder can be substantial since it can be used alternatively for feeding animals. Nevertheless, crop yield increases as high as 40 per cent are capable of making the investments profitable for farmers.

The use of a no-tillage system strategy mainly requires additional capital outlays, which can be significant. In countries with developed markets for agricultural equipment no-tillage systems can be cheaper than