IN

XI. FIELD SURVEY OF CROP IMPROVEMENT AND SEED NEEDS

Table 44 (PDF File 52Kb)
Basic Social Indicators of Households

In almost all cases, the main source of food security for a majority of households was own production on the farm, followed by purchase in the local market (Table 45). Lautze (2002) has also observed the increasing reliance of households on the market for food products as a result of productivity losses from drought. Contribution by food aid to overall food security was not shown as particularly significant, probably due to less coverage by WFP in these areas. In addition, it was revealed that Afghan communities do not generally regard the WFP Food-for-Work program as food aid, since they work for this food and do not receive it free. Payment in kind (food) for work helps supplement household food obtained from the farm and the market, and are regarded as other sources of food. The relatively low contribution by own production, and high market purchase and other sources in Ghazni province may be due to the severe drought there.

The households usually prefer to take loans from relatives and neighbors because of kinship and the Muslim tradition of interest-free payment. Once kinship sources are exhausted, households turn to traders, shopkeepers and input dealers, who impose varying levels of interest. Loans are taken for diverse purposes; and the survey shows that up to 46% of households took loans for health care, 36% for other family needs including food and clothing, 42% to buy inputs, 34% to buy seed, 9% to pay dowry, but none to pay school fees. A majority of households are highly insecure, as they take loans to meet basic human needs of food, health care and water. Increased food productivity and availability at the household level therefore would considerably help reduce rural poverty. The low priority given to education is worrying, but understandable, as farmers in such desperate situations regard other survival needs as more urgent.

The ability of farmers to repay loans is also very weak. 25% of households indicated that they would repay part of their debts from this year's harvest, although that repayment would be only about 8% of what they actually owe. It is interesting, however, that despite the high indebtedness of farmers and their limited ability to repay, up to 50% of households indicated that they could get more loan if they needed it. This illustrates the welfare nature of rural Afghan society and the willingness of people to share and come to each other's assistance in times of hardship. There may also be a trust or belief that indebted farmers would repay once their situations improve, due to close relations.

XI.3.2. VARIETY NEEDS

This survey showed that use of new varieties by farmers is low, although this varies slightly by crop, as shown in Table 48. The limited use of new wheat varieties by farmers (zero in most cases) is striking, given that 15 new varieties were released between 1996 and 2001, in addition to several introductions from abroad (Tunwar, 2002). Up to 55% of the irrigated-wheat-growing households interviewed did not use any improved varieties at all, although the farmers mentioned many improved wheat varieties they were aware of, the most important ones being Amu-99, Mazar-99, Herat-99, Ghoori, Daima, Takhar, Roshan-94, PBW-154, Pirsabaq-85, Inqilab-91 and Gul-96. As regards local wheat varieties, the farmers mentioned Zardana, Mawri, Mula Mirzaie, Surkha, Kalak, Mexipak, Qazal Sar, Siabarot, Chenab, Shakhdar, Chumbol-e-Surkha and Bakhtar. The limited use of new varieties for the other crops is not surprising, since far fewer new varieties of these crops exist. For example, farmers referred to 4 improved varieties (IR, RP, JP5 and Basmati-85) and 7 local varieties (Monda, Bara, Lawangi, Kajak, Shurkh Khusha, Sela) of rice; and 4 improved varieties (Sarhad Yellow, Sarhad White, Shahin and Babar) and 2 local varieties (Watani Garma and Watani Sarda) of maize.

Table 48 (PDF File 50Kb)
Number of Varieties Grown by Households

For all crops shown in Table 48, a majority of households use mostly one improved variety and/or one local variety, although far more farmers use local than improved varieties. There seems to be high potential for greater adoption of new varieties in the communities surveyed, considering that up to 87% of the households have heard about new varieties, and 83% of them even think that these varieties are better than local varieties. Awareness of new irrigated wheat varieties is particularly high; all households have heard of them, and think they are better than local varieties. Awareness of new varieties and their superior attributes are also high for other crops, with not less than 60% of households having this view. The present low adoption of new varieties may not, therefore, be due to limited awareness or spread of materials, but probably to a lack of conviction on the part of most farmers about the superior attributes of the new varieties. Although many farmers prefer local varieties, external assistance should not aim at replacing this diversity with improved materials, but to offer a greater choice for farmers.

According to Dennis et al. (2002), wheat landraces perform better than most improved varieties under low input conditions in Afghanistan, which largely explains the limited and slow adoption of improved varieties. This survey shows that individual households do not grow many local varieties at one time; in fact, no household was shown to grow more than two local varieties of any crop.

When asked about which attributes farmers prefer in varieties and how important these are, the following mean ranking for all crops was obtained (ranking from 0 = least important to 10 = most important):

This shows a clear desire by farmers to have varieties with high yield potential. Yield levels must be stable, and hence the desire for adapted and stress-tolerant varieties. The varieties should also meet food (taste and flavor) requirements. New varieties must have these attributes in order to be widely accepted. There were obvious differences among crops; for instance, color of kernel (5.8) and tuber (5.6) were moderately important in maize and potato respectively, but not for other crops. Similarly, suitability for food preparation was high (above 8) for all crops except barley (1.9), since it is mainly used for livestock feed.

XI.3.3. HOUSEHOLD SEED NEEDS AND LAND USE

Farmers obtain seed from different sources including their own farms, other farmers, and local markets. With minor differences among crops, 50% of all households saved seed on their own farms, 32% purchased from local markets, 23% from other farmers, and 5% got seed from other sources such as aid agencies. Farmers were able to fulfill a high proportion (87%) of their total seed needs from these sources this sowing season. Up to 60% of potato-growing households purchase their seed from the market.

Table 49 shows average quantities (kilograms) of seed households obtained from different sources. These figures should be compared with those in Table 8x, which show that no household grew all 6 main crops. While few households grew only one crop (which was largely wheat), a majority of households grew wheat and a second crop, depending on the agricultural region. Fewer households grew a third or fourth crop, and no households grew more than 4 of the main crops.

Table 49 (PDF File 49Kb)
Household Use of Seed From Different Sources

Table 50 (PDF File 52Kb)
Crop Combinations Grown by Households

Despite the high fulfillment rate of seed needs, farmers' satisfaction with the quality of seed from these different sources reveals a somewhat different story. The proportions of households that use seed from given sources and are happy with its quality are

There is high satisfaction with the quality of seed farmers keep for themselves, since--as expected--farmers take greater care of the seed they reserve for their own use the next sowing season. In contrast, seed from the market, which is normally ordinary grain, is of lower quality for sowing.

The critical factor in household seed needs is quality, and not the amount of material available within the community from different sources. To satisfy their seed needs, farmers obtain as much planting material as possible, although this may not meet the quality level they would normally prefer. The focus should therefore be on seed systems that produce high-quality planting material for distribution within the community at prices that farmers clearly perceive as worth a premium.

Farmers are quite aware of the quality characteristics they desire in seed. Using a similar ranking as for variety attributes, farmers ranked quality attributes they expect in good seed as

This shows clearly that Afghan farmers do not accept seed just because it is well packaged, looks good and has chemical treatment, because all these may not necessarily guarantee high germination, which is by far their primary concern. Enterprises intending to sell seed to farmers must be in a position to convince them that the seed will germinate well, a trust that can only be built with time and repeated dealings.

Average area cultivated per household and expected yield of the main food crops are shown in Table 51. Yield figures are average values for the respective crops and do not distinguish between improved and local varieties. Apart from rainfed wheat, the figures refer to irrigated conditions for all other crops. As very few households grew either rainfed barley or rainfed chickpea, these were not included in the analysis. Average yields for both irrigated wheat and rainfed wheat are comparable with those obtained by the 1991/1992 Swedish Committee Agricultural Survey in six agricultural regions of Afghanistan: 1.7 t/ha irrigated wheat and 0.8t/ha rainfed wheat (FAO, 2002).

Table 51 (PDF File 51Kb)
Household Crop Areas and Expected Yields

According to FAO/WFP (2001) national wheat area estimates from 1998 to 2001, the annual area of irrigated wheat exceeds that of rainfed wheat by at least 30%. These contrast with our survey results for average wheat area per household. Our survey results are reliable, since the sown quantities obtained by multiplying the area cultivated (Table 51) by the seed rate (Table 54) are consistent with the quantities of seed the households used (Table 49).

While the FAO/WFP area estimates are averages of all farming households, our survey figures are averages of households that were selected on the basis of specific crops they grew. It is therefore not surprising that this survey area estimates are on the high side. In the case of wheat, it is possible that the households actually cultivated more rainfed area because of shortage of irrigation water or damage to irrigation facilities.

For each crop, there is wide variation in area cultivated per household, as illustrated in Figures 2 to 8. These results show that, although most households cultivate small areas, there are a few households with relatively large areas. These extreme values or "outliers" have been excluded in order to obtain the lower area averages in column B of Table 52.

Table 52 (PDF File 45Kb)
Household Land Ownership Pattern

	Figure 2. Distribution of household area for irrigated wheat.
	Figure 3. Distribution of household area for rainfed wheat.
	Figure 4. Distribution of household area for barley.
	Figure 5. Distribution of household area for potato.
	Figure 6. Distribution of household area for maize.
	Figure 7. Distribution of household area for rice.
	Figure 8. Distribution of household area for chickpea.

As regards farm output, the wheat harvested is used almost exclusively for home consumption (Table 53), which means that farmers have to grow other commercial crops such as barley, potato and pulses (Table 51) in order to meet their financial needs. Apart from wheat, all other major crops seem to have a significant cash dimension. Barley is used to feed livestock and for sale to other livestock owners, including nomads. Barley could become an important cash crop as the livestock industry develops, with a consequent increase in demand for feed. Potato is a profitable cash crop, although its bulkiness increases transport costs, particularly in Afghanistan, which has poor road infrastructure in rural areas. A small proportion of the harvest from all crops is kept as seed for sowing the next season's crop.

Table 53 (PDF File 48Kb)
Uses of Household Harvest of Major Crops

XI.3.4. NATIONAL SEED REQUIREMENTS

The survey data on seed rate and household seed needs of farmers can help estimate the gap in national seed requirement that should be supplied by external sources of quality seed such as seed aid (Table 54). The total deficit of about 27,000 tons compares well with the combined targets of different agencies trying to supply Afghan farmers with seed. However, considering that a significant proportion of households are not satisfied with the quality of seed they currently use, the quantity of external seed needed may exceed 27,000 tons. An estimate of 30,000 tons would seem reasonable.

Table 54 (PDF File 61Kb)
Estimate of National Seed Needs of Major Crops in 2002

Hypothetical calculations of cereal seed needs by Dennis et al. (2002) of 101,000 tons highly over-estimates the quantity of rainfed wheat seed that farmers require from outside their communities, since these calculations assume a drastic decline in seed stocks due to drought. The results of our survey reveal that even households in the drought-affected province of Ghazni had access to seed of rainfed wheat which could meet up to 78% of their sowing needs. These must have come from within the Afghan communities, as shown in Table 50.

It can be concluded from these results that there is sufficient planting material of adapted varieties in Afghanistan and there is no need for import of large quantities from other countries. What Afghan farmers need is a wider choice of varieties and an increase in the quality of seed. The strategy of the Future Harvest Consortium to upgrade quality of seed procured in Afghanistan, through availability of foundation seed, roguing to remove off-types from the fields and effective cleaning of seed is, therefore, most appropriate. Establishment of seed testing facilities will further provide support in quality assurance.

XI.3.5. NEEDS FOR OTHER INPUTS

This survey examined the use of other agricultural inputs: fertilizer, hired labor, animal power, agricultural machinery and pesticides. Table 155 shows the proportion of households which needed and those which used specific inputs, extent of availability of the input, and proportion of input needs the households could afford. These are aggregate values for the entire 390 households, covering all 7 crops and 6 regions, and should therefore be interpreted with care.

Table 55 (PDF File 47Kb)
Need, Availability and Use of Other Inputs

The fact that almost all interviewed households needed fertilizer underscores the importance of irrigation in crop production. Farmers stated that they used fertilizer for all major crops except rainfed wheat and pulses (in this case, chickpea). No fertilizer is used for rainfed wheat because almost all varieties are of local origin and are grown under relatively dry conditions. Fertilizer is adequately available in the communities interviewed, and many farmers use it but cannot meet all their needs, probably due to high prices.

Hired labor is most important in rice because of the labor-intensive practice of transplanting. Labor costs are high during the peak period of transplanting and many farmers cannot afford the labor input they need. This is a serious constraint, as there is no substitute to labor for transplanting rice.

Many households own their own animals and these are readily available for crop production and transport, although difficulties arise during periods of drought when the number of animals decline. As for fertilizer, mechanical services for land preparation seem to be widely available in the areas surveyed, and many farmers can afford and use them. There are probably many tractor owners who charge competitive prices which the farmers can afford.

Pesticides are moderately available but seem rather expensive, with few households using them, although many need them. On average, 67% of the households indicated that their fields had some infestation with pests and diseases. Farmers estimated the level of infestation as 17% of the cultivated area, resulting in an expected yield loss of 12%. The decision by farmers to purchase and use pesticides will depend on the loss in yield expected when compared with the cost of the pesticide. This varies widely among crops. For example, almost all rice-growing households reported small levels of infestation which could result in only 3% yield loss. On the other hand, 78% of chickpea farmers reported 34% infestation and expected 24% loss in yield as a result.

XI.3.6. CONSTRAINTS TO AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION

The surveyed households ranked the constraints they face in crop production on a scale of 0 - 10 (0 = least severe; 10 = most severe) as shown in Table 56. In attempting to interpret these results, it is important to note that the majority of households in our samples have small landholdings (Figures 2 - 8) and perceive constraints in terms of the scale of their operations and the capacity to manage what they have. Furthermore, the close kinship and relationships existing within Afghan society and the willingness of people to assist one another (as observed in the case of debt and repayment) should be considered when examining the perception of farmers about constraints they face in agricultural production.

 

The results in Table 14x show that, except for Nangarhar province where the effects of drought seem moderately severe, almost all households consider drought as the key constraint to crop production. The incidence of drought is therefore widespread, although the severity varies by location. Drought and the need for irrigation water are closely related, since Afghan crop production depends heavily on irrigation; hence the similarity in household ranking of both constraints.

Table 56 (PDF File 51Kb)
Perception of Households of Constraints to Agricultural Production

Although farmers seem to have access to sufficient quantities of planting material, they are concerned about poor quality of seed, which is a constraint to crop productivity. It is possible to improve seed quality if the right measures are taken--unlike in the cases of drought and shortage of irrigation water which arise from natural causes and are difficult to remedy. Similarly, although fertilizer is widely available, households cannot meet up to 50% of their average needs (Table 55) because this input is rather expensive. Access to pesticides is also constrained by high price when this is compared with the loss in yield farmers expect, and is also more difficult than seed to overcome.

Households may not perceive access to land as an important constraint, because most have their own land and can also acquire more through sharecropping arrangements (Table 51). Different factors may account for access to productive land depending on the location of the household. For example, land constraint in the marginal subsistence systems of Ghazni province may have more to do with the availability of water than land, while high population density in the fertile districts of Nangarhar province would result in actual shortage of arable land. The high proportion of sharecropped area in Nangarhar province (Table 51) can further support this observation.

Considering the small size of farms, labor may also not be perceived as a serious constraint, since family sources may supply all needed labor. Landowners may provide the required hired labor in the case of sharecropping, and it would not therefore be a constraint. Landowner provision may also apply to farm power, either in the form of draught animal or machinery. The low priority Afghan farmers put on shortage of draught power has also been observed by the 2002 Future Harvest Consortium Needs Assessment of Feeds, Livestock and Rangelands.

According to Sloane (2001), there is little private capital and no formal system that provides credit in Afghanistan, particularly to food crop producers. The farmers' understanding of credit in this survey is the loan they obtain from their relatives and other farmers in the community. As discussed, farmers seem to have continued easy access to these sources of loans regardless of their existing indebted status because of the close kinship and welfare nature of rural communities. However, the development of effective formal credit systems can stimulate growth in the rural economy by helping farmers have greater access to key production inputs such as irrigation water, quality seed, fertilizer and pesticides, which were regarded in this survey as key constraints (Table 12x).

The low ranking given to marketing is understandable when examined within the context of production and trading in rural farming communities. Marketing is not considered a constraint by the households sampled in this survey because they sell directly to merchants who collect the produce from the farmers' doorsteps. Marketing is a serious bottleneck for highly productive agricultural systems that generate significant output that must be transported to urban consumers or processing industries.

Finally, the agricultural areas surveyed were outside the cities and large towns, and were free of land mines.