Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
SlideShare a Scribd company logo

Manure management policies: A supportive tool for saving the earth and improving livelihoods of smallholder farmers

•Download as PPTX, PDF•
•
ILRI
ILRI

Presented by Asaah Ndambi (ILRI) at the Conference on Policies for Competitive Smallholder Livestock Production, Gaborone, Botswana, 4-6 March 2015

1 of 13
Manure management policies: A supportive tool for saving the earth and improving livelihoods of smallholder farmers Asaah Ndambi ILRI Nairobi Conference on Policies for Competitive Smallholder Livestock Production, Gaborone, Botswana, 4-6 March 2015
Outline 1. Why manure management? 2. Our study on manure policies and enabling environment 3. Summary
3 • 75 – 95% of the nutrient intake of production animals is excreted via dung and urine • If not managed properly manure will affect the quality of the environment and our health. • Conflicts arise from the nuisance of odors from livestock operations especially closer to urban areas • Proper management retains most of the nutrients which can be used for crops • Improved manure management increases cost competiveness of smallholders Why manure management?
emissions Soil Cycle principle Animals Crops Manure  outputs inputs  inputs 
Integrated Manure Management TreatmentCollection Storage Application StorageCollection Application Collection Application TreatmentCollection Application always site specific
Outline 1. Why manure management? 2. Our study on manure policies and enabling environment 3. Summary and the way forward
7 Three steps were applied in this analysis: • Secondary data collection Our approach • Questionnaires to corresponding partners from 14 countries + meeting and exchange between these experts • In depth field analyses in Ethiopia and Malawi Objectives: Review the state of manure management in Sub-Saharan Africa: Describe and categorize manure management practices and policies in various countries and to identify potential entry points for improved manure management
8 Manure management policies and stakeholders involved Ethiopia Kenya Malawi Rwanda Cameroon Ghana Nigeria Senegal Togo Mali Burkinafaso Niger Policy component Codes used Is manure policy part of other policy? I = Independent O = Other policy P P P I P P P P P P P P At what level is MP defined I = International N = National/ regional I N I N N I N I N I N I N N I N I N N Ministry involved in MP definition A = Agriculture, V = Environment, E = Energy, H = Health A V E A V E H A A V H A V E H A E A V H A A A V H A V A V H Stocking rate regulation 1 = Yes 2 = No 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 Manure storage regulation 1 = Yes 2 = No 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Manure treatment regulation 1 = Yes 2 = No 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 Anaerobic digestion regulation 1 = Yes 2 = No 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 Manure application regulation 1 = Yes 2 = No 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Air pollution regulation 1 = Yes 2 = No 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Water pollution regulation 1 = Yes 2 = No 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Spatial planning of farms 1 = Yes 2 = No 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Zoonotic diseases 1 = Yes 2 = No 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 Country
9 Availability of services enabling a suitable environment for manure management Ethiopia Kenya Malawi Rwanda Zambia Cameroon Ghana Nigeria Senegal Togo Mali Burkinafaso Subsidy by Government S 3 3 3 S M ML 3 3 3 3 S ML 3 Subsidy by non-Government 3 S 3 S S S 3 3 3 3 S ML 3 Credit by Government 3 3 3 3 L 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Credit by non-Government S S ML 3 3 S S 3 3 3 3 3 3 Guarantee for credit by Government S 3 3 ML S 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Guarantee for credit by non- Government 3 3 3 S L S M 3 3 3 3 3 3 Vocational training 3 S ML 3 S M S M S M S ML S ML 3 3 S ML S ML Extension/advice by Government S S ML 3 S M S ML S S ML S ML 3 S ML S ML S M Extension/advice by non- Government S S ML 3 S ML S ML S 3 S ML 3 S ML S ML S S = Smallholder farmers M = Medium scale farmers L = Large scale farmers
10 Manure management: in-depth survey in Fiche, Ethiopia 25% LARGEST 25% SMALLEST 50% MIDDLE Fraction of farms using anaerobic digestion 5% 0% 25% Fraction of the digestate used for on-farm crop fertilization 30% 10% 15% Fraction of the digestate used for off-farm crop fertilization 25% 10% 15% Fraction of farms storing urine 5% 2% 1% Fraction of the urine storages with a waterproof floor and walls 2% 1% 1% Fraction of the urine storages with a roof/cover 0% 0% 0% Fraction of the stored urine used for on-farm crop fertilization 50% 25% 50% Fraction of farms storing solid manure 95% 100% 98% Fraction of the solid manure storages with a waterproof floor 0% 0% 0% Fraction of the solid manure storages with a roof/cover 2% 1% 1% Fraction of the stored solid manure used for on-farm crop fertilization 60% 50% 75% Fraction of the stored solid manure used for off-farm crop fertilization 15% 0% 0% Fraction of the stored solid manure used for non-agricultural purposes 25% 50% 25% Fraction of farms using mechanized equipment for manure application 0% 0% 0% Fraction of farms that have improved its manure management in the past 5 yrs 10% 5% 5%
11 Most sub-Saharan African countries: a) do not have a stand-alone manure management policy, b) have shared responsibility for manure management with more than one government ministry in charge c) sometimes have non-coherent policies d) take very limited action to promote good manure management practices or to correct defaulters of related restrictions Results summary All farmers, regardless of size, are generally able to access training and extension services from both government and non- government agencies however, manure management was not a strong component.  The major challenge is lack of information by farmers on IMM
12 Summary of in-depth analysis (Ethiopia and Malawi) Challenges identified Way forward (Phase 2) 1 Non-coherent policies e.g. Ethiopia Ministry of energy vs agric. extension Meetings with all ministries involved separately and together 2 Lack of knowledge by farmers Trainings for extension workers and lead farmers, demonstrations 3 Insufficient (own) land for farmers with many animals Encouraging a business model 4 Non-functional biogas units Training of biogas technicians 5 Unavailable labor to meet increased labor requirements Need better knowledge on benefits as an incentive, simple machines 6 Dependence on government Development of private sector, involving NGOs, business model
Thank you Ke a leboga Photo: Oxfarm international For more information contact: A.Ndambi@cgiar.org

More Related Content

Manure management policies: A supportive tool for saving the earth and improving livelihoods of smallholder farmers

  • 1. Manure management policies: A supportive tool for saving the earth and improving livelihoods of smallholder farmers Asaah Ndambi ILRI Nairobi Conference on Policies for Competitive Smallholder Livestock Production, Gaborone, Botswana, 4-6 March 2015
  • 2. Outline 1. Why manure management? 2. Our study on manure policies and enabling environment 3. Summary
  • 3. 3 • 75 – 95% of the nutrient intake of production animals is excreted via dung and urine • If not managed properly manure will affect the quality of the environment and our health. • Conflicts arise from the nuisance of odors from livestock operations especially closer to urban areas • Proper management retains most of the nutrients which can be used for crops • Improved manure management increases cost competiveness of smallholders Why manure management?
  • 5. Integrated Manure Management TreatmentCollection Storage Application StorageCollection Application Collection Application TreatmentCollection Application always site specific
  • 6. Outline 1. Why manure management? 2. Our study on manure policies and enabling environment 3. Summary and the way forward
  • 7. 7 Three steps were applied in this analysis: • Secondary data collection Our approach • Questionnaires to corresponding partners from 14 countries + meeting and exchange between these experts • In depth field analyses in Ethiopia and Malawi Objectives: Review the state of manure management in Sub-Saharan Africa: Describe and categorize manure management practices and policies in various countries and to identify potential entry points for improved manure management
  • 8. 8 Manure management policies and stakeholders involved Ethiopia Kenya Malawi Rwanda Cameroon Ghana Nigeria Senegal Togo Mali Burkinafaso Niger Policy component Codes used Is manure policy part of other policy? I = Independent O = Other policy P P P I P P P P P P P P At what level is MP defined I = International N = National/ regional I N I N N I N I N I N I N N I N I N N Ministry involved in MP definition A = Agriculture, V = Environment, E = Energy, H = Health A V E A V E H A A V H A V E H A E A V H A A A V H A V A V H Stocking rate regulation 1 = Yes 2 = No 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 Manure storage regulation 1 = Yes 2 = No 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Manure treatment regulation 1 = Yes 2 = No 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 Anaerobic digestion regulation 1 = Yes 2 = No 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 Manure application regulation 1 = Yes 2 = No 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Air pollution regulation 1 = Yes 2 = No 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Water pollution regulation 1 = Yes 2 = No 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Spatial planning of farms 1 = Yes 2 = No 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Zoonotic diseases 1 = Yes 2 = No 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 Country
  • 9. 9 Availability of services enabling a suitable environment for manure management Ethiopia Kenya Malawi Rwanda Zambia Cameroon Ghana Nigeria Senegal Togo Mali Burkinafaso Subsidy by Government S 3 3 3 S M ML 3 3 3 3 S ML 3 Subsidy by non-Government 3 S 3 S S S 3 3 3 3 S ML 3 Credit by Government 3 3 3 3 L 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Credit by non-Government S S ML 3 3 S S 3 3 3 3 3 3 Guarantee for credit by Government S 3 3 ML S 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Guarantee for credit by non- Government 3 3 3 S L S M 3 3 3 3 3 3 Vocational training 3 S ML 3 S M S M S M S ML S ML 3 3 S ML S ML Extension/advice by Government S S ML 3 S M S ML S S ML S ML 3 S ML S ML S M Extension/advice by non- Government S S ML 3 S ML S ML S 3 S ML 3 S ML S ML S S = Smallholder farmers M = Medium scale farmers L = Large scale farmers
  • 10. 10 Manure management: in-depth survey in Fiche, Ethiopia 25% LARGEST 25% SMALLEST 50% MIDDLE Fraction of farms using anaerobic digestion 5% 0% 25% Fraction of the digestate used for on-farm crop fertilization 30% 10% 15% Fraction of the digestate used for off-farm crop fertilization 25% 10% 15% Fraction of farms storing urine 5% 2% 1% Fraction of the urine storages with a waterproof floor and walls 2% 1% 1% Fraction of the urine storages with a roof/cover 0% 0% 0% Fraction of the stored urine used for on-farm crop fertilization 50% 25% 50% Fraction of farms storing solid manure 95% 100% 98% Fraction of the solid manure storages with a waterproof floor 0% 0% 0% Fraction of the solid manure storages with a roof/cover 2% 1% 1% Fraction of the stored solid manure used for on-farm crop fertilization 60% 50% 75% Fraction of the stored solid manure used for off-farm crop fertilization 15% 0% 0% Fraction of the stored solid manure used for non-agricultural purposes 25% 50% 25% Fraction of farms using mechanized equipment for manure application 0% 0% 0% Fraction of farms that have improved its manure management in the past 5 yrs 10% 5% 5%
  • 11. 11 Most sub-Saharan African countries: a) do not have a stand-alone manure management policy, b) have shared responsibility for manure management with more than one government ministry in charge c) sometimes have non-coherent policies d) take very limited action to promote good manure management practices or to correct defaulters of related restrictions Results summary All farmers, regardless of size, are generally able to access training and extension services from both government and non- government agencies however, manure management was not a strong component.  The major challenge is lack of information by farmers on IMM
  • 12. 12 Summary of in-depth analysis (Ethiopia and Malawi) Challenges identified Way forward (Phase 2) 1 Non-coherent policies e.g. Ethiopia Ministry of energy vs agric. extension Meetings with all ministries involved separately and together 2 Lack of knowledge by farmers Trainings for extension workers and lead farmers, demonstrations 3 Insufficient (own) land for farmers with many animals Encouraging a business model 4 Non-functional biogas units Training of biogas technicians 5 Unavailable labor to meet increased labor requirements Need better knowledge on benefits as an incentive, simple machines 6 Dependence on government Development of private sector, involving NGOs, business model
  • 13. Thank you Ke a leboga Photo: Oxfarm international For more information contact: A.Ndambi@cgiar.org