Environmental degradation in Mali: poor farmers or profit?

The belief that poor, hungry people will destroy their immediate environment to survive has been common in development since the late 1980s. In reality, there is little evidence to support this assumption. This has not stopped the idea that poverty is the main cause of environmental degradation from becoming hugely influential in policy and programme design.

Research by Macalester College USA, discusses how the idea of environmental degradation caused by poverty has influenced policymakers in Mali. Faced with high levels of poverty and significant degradation of natural resources, the Malian government has identified poverty and population growth as the key causes of the overuse of natural resources. The National Environment Action Plan calls for increasing revenues and diversifying the income generating activities of poor farmers to prevent further environmental damage.

To determine whether poor people cause environmental degradation, the research examines the behaviour and environmental impact of rich and poor farmers. Tests were performed on soil quality, levels of land degradation and environmental management practices across farms from eight villages in a cotton-producing region of Mali. The research found that:

• There was no clear relationship between household poverty and soil quality. This questions the argument that the poor are a direct cause of soil degradation.
• Farmer wealth encouraged some practices that are good for the environment, such as appropriate fertiliser use. However, it also encouraged practices that were environmentally damaging, such as heavy pesticide use.
• The amount a household was involved with cotton farming correlated with the extent of damaging environmental practices. Wealthier households farm more cotton than poor households do.

The research shows that the cultivation of cotton is the major cause of land degradation in southern Mali, rather than the level of poverty. There is an increasing awareness among farmers that current production systems are unsustainable. However, the Government of Mali have been reluctant to recognise the environmental problems associated with increased cotton cultivation. A focus on poverty in discussions has allowed the government to avoid a serious debate on the sustainability of cotton production. Dramatic production increases during the late 1990s mean that cotton-producing areas are seen as the success story of rural development, even though the environmental costs are very high. In fact, the government hopes to increase the area of land under cotton production over the next few years.

The alternative to increasing cotton production requires the government to recognise that this approach is not environmentally sustainable in its current state.  The research recommends that:

• Government, NGOs and local farmers should work together to assure increased technical support for alternative agricultural practices. These include no-till agriculture, the production and application of organic inputs, and subsidies for donkey carts.
• Experts should consider more experiments with organic cotton. It offers a higher world price and a lower environmental impact.
• Much greater effort is needed to sustain the quality of soils in southern Mali.

The evidence supports the theory that cotton is causing environmental degradation, yet research that links poverty to environmental degradation continues to dominate policy discussions. This is because it maintains a cotton production system that benefits local and national elites, as well as international donors. Unfortunately, a shift towards more sustainable production methods is not a popular option with the government and donors, because it would mean short-term losses in production and revenues.

Source(s):
‘Environmental Degradation and ‘Poor’ Smallholders in the West African Sudano-Sahel: Global Discourses and Local Realities’ in 'African Environment and Development: Rhetoric, Programs and Realities' Kings SOAS Studies in Development Geography, edited by W. Moseley and B. Ikubolajeh Logan, Ashgate Publishing, 2004
The edited volume is a collection of papers from sessions on ‘African Rural Livelihoods in a Political Ecology Context,’ African Studies Association Annual Meeting, Texas, 2001

Funded by: US Department of Education Fulbright-Hays Grant; University of Georgia Office of International Agriculture Research Support Programme; Association of American Geographers Grant

id21 Research Highlight: 24 September 2004

Further Information:
William Moseley
Department of Geography
Macalester College
1600 Grand Avenue
Saint Paul, MN 55105 USA

Tel: +1 651 696 6126
Fax: 1 651 696 6116
Contact the contributor: Moseley@macalester.edu

Macalester College, USA

Other related links:
'Africa's changing landscape: new policies to resolve conflicts over land'

'Land rights in Africa: protecting the interests of vulnerable groups'

'Reducing conflict and improving resource management for Kenyan pastoralists'

'Does land tenure securirty lead to better soil conservation'

'Ownership, control and access: land tenure and land degradation in Northern Togo'

'Uneasy bedfellows? Modern law and traditional landholding principles in Niger'

'How rich is our land? Re-valuing the communal areas of Southern Africa'