SMALL-FARMS-L Archives

Moderated e-mail conference on small farms and food security

SMALL-FARMS-L@LISTSERV.FAO.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Proportional Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Reply To:
Date:
Fri, 6 Apr 2018 21:16:04 +0000
Content-Type:
multipart/alternative
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (3174 bytes) , text/html (5 kB)
Hi all,
Here is additional input received on topic #6 - "How can policies affect small farm activities and their resilience?”
—Peter

Q6.1/9 - Question "6.1.  What are the policies (international, national or local) in your region that affect the viability and development of small farms, and small farms’ decision making regarding the amount and type of food produced and their ambitions regarding market integration?"


From: Daniel Nkomboni <[log in to unmask]> (Zimbabwe)
I am Daniel Nkomboni, livestock researcher at Matopos Research Institute - Zimbabwe.

This is a followup answer, to the question of Dominic Duckett (Q6.1/4) about experiences across Europe and Africa dealing with rapidly evolving conservation governance (e.g. wildlife conservation efforts) affecting small farms.

Small farms along the conservation areas in the Lower Zambezi and Limpopo (National Parks and Conservancies) in Zimbabwe (and am sure most of southern Africa) are in conflict with wildlife and in most cases are on the receiving end (problem animals destroying their crops, preying on their livestock, and even killing humans). In these instances, conservation policies protect wildlife more than humans.

As conservation areas are protected they have better grazing / browsing areas than the adjacent small farmers and when livestock stray across the boarders into the Parks, farmers are penalised but when wildlife strays into their areas destroying that cropped lands and endangering their lives, there is minimal or no compensation at all.

There are diseases that are transferred from wildlife to livestock that inflict heavy losses on the livestock eg the Bovine Malignant Catarrh Fever carried by wildebeest during calving. Farmers don't have capacity to prevent these diseases as they are lowly resources , leaving the government to assist them.

The farmers in these regions are further disadvantaged in that their areas are zoned as red zones (refer to veterinary red zones in Zimbabwe), restricting their cattle to be sold in lucrative markets (because of these zoning and other international policies these farmers may not even export).

On the positive side Community Based Natural Management projects (in particular “ AMPFIRE") which allow the farmers to utilise wildlife in their areas for development projects eg infrastructure (schools, roads, water sources) have been helpful. This project has seen small farms conserving wildlife around them.

CIRAD through the DREAM project and Ministry of Lands, Agriculture Rural Resettlement and other stakeholders are conducting studies on livestock -wildlife interactions in the KAZA and the Great Limpopo transfrontiers that are expected to inform policy on suggested solutions to some of these challenges.
My opinion is that there is need to revisit some agricultural and wildlife (veterinary and conservation policies) that may be old and irrelevant (especially after Zimbabwe land reforms).

########################################################################

To unsubscribe from the SMALL-FARMS-L list, click the following link:
https://listserv.fao.org/scripts/wa-fao.exe?SUBED1=SMALL-FARMS-L&A=1


ATOM RSS1 RSS2