IRIN Interview with Pedro Sanchez, World Food Prize winner

Pedro Sanchez, a pioneer in the field of tropical soils and agroforestry at the University of California, Berkeley, is the 2002 winner of the World Food Prize. The award, announced earlier this month by the World Food Prize Foundation, is the highest international honour bestowed upon an individual for achievements in improving the world's food supply and reducing hunger. Q: Low crop yields present one of the most fundamental barriers to the ability of many African countries to feed its own people. The high cost of commercial fertiliser in Africa has put it out of reach of most farmers. Over the last three decades you have led seminal work that has seen once infertile soil turned into productive farmland using alternative farming techniques. How does your method differ from traditional ways of farming? A: The method works by planting tree seedlings early in the rainy season while the maize is still young. The trees grow very slowly, so they do not compete with the crop. After farmers harvest the maize, they leave the trees to grow during the dry season. At the end of the dry season and before the next planting of maize, farmers cut down the trees, leaving the stems, leaves and roots to decompose and release the accumulated nitrates into the soil. Q: Does this then do away with the need for fertiliser? A: It doesn't altogether do away with fertiliser but it is considerably cheaper. Policies are needed to reduce the high cost African farmers pay for commercial mineral fertilizers. Fertilisers in Africa cost two to six times more than in Europe, North America or Asia. For example, a metric tonne of urea, a form of nitrogen fertiliser, costs US $120 to US $770 in various parts of Africa compared with US $90 in Europe. Q: Are these soil fertility methods ideal for all areas in sub-Saharan Africa? A: In most parts yes, but another method of replenishing soil fertility applies to East Africa where the soil is particularly low in phosphorus, another nutrient necessary in farming. We found plentiful supplies of indigenous rock phosphates throughout East and Southern Africa. In one deposit in northern Tanzania, we found enough to replenish the phosphorus-deficient soils of Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania for decades. The rock phosphates found near the surface of the land are crushed and worked into the soil, releasing their nutrients over the course of at least five years as they dissolve in the slightly acidic soil of East Africa. More than 10,000 farms in East Africa have used this technique successfully. Q: Are these methods used in Europe and America? Not really since many farmers can afford fertiliser and of course there are huge government subsidies which support farmers in the industrialised countries. The concept of nitrogen fixation by legumes has been around for centuries but the idea of putting it into practice in Africa with nitrogen fixing trees is brand new. Also leguminous trees that are native to Africa, such as sesbania, because they grow quickly and can convert large quantities of atmospheric nitrogen. I was surprised at the enthusiasm with which many African farmers responded when approached with this idea. In fact, some African farmers took a great risk that very few farmers in the north would. They subjected half of their farms to this experiment. Q: Since these programmes began almost 10 years ago, news of the techniques has been spreading among individual farmers and through community outreach efforts by NGOs, national research institutes and universities. But what would it cost African governments to extend this technique to many more small farmers? A: Close to 100,000 farm families in eastern and Southern Africa have tested new methods of enriching nutrient-poor farmland. They found that by interplanting seedlings of various leguminous trees with a young maize crop, about 150,000 acres of farmland accumulated 100 to 200 pounds of nitrogen per acre over a period of six months to two years. Scaling up these "low-tech" technologies to reach tens of millions of farm families throughout Africa would cost an estimated US $100 million per year for the next decade, or 10 percent of the annual investment suggested for overcoming hunger and malnutrition in Africa. Q: Much of the focus at the Earth Summit is the controversy around the huge farming subsidies the US and Europe provide for their farmers. Some say this is to the detriment of farmers in the developing world? It seems unlikely that some kind of consensus will be reached in Johannesburg. What do you suggest is the way forward? A: Firstly, it doesn't help to demonise northern farmers. They have to protect their livelihoods. Of course, if the government gives them the money, they will take it. As a human being, I have witnessed tremendous hunger in the last 10 years in Africa There has to be some way of fixing that. How about giving African farmers just one week of US subsidies or EU subsidies so that they become self sufficient. It is a matter of political will. Subsidies are just part of it, African governments need to commit wholeheartedly to eradicating poverty. Q: Do you think the World Summmit on Sustainable Development can achieve this? A: For so long there has been a lack of government priority to the rural sector. Government officials have put so much focus on other important issues, such as the AIDS epidemic, debt relief and increasing foreign investment, that they have neglected the agricultural sector, which engages 70 percent of all the residents in Africa. I would like to see the conference end with a concrete decision to end poverty in 10 years. Perhaps, I am an idealist.