A/HRC/16/49 and traps pests. The system not only controls pests but has other benefits as well, because Desmodium can be used as fodder for livestock. The push-pull strategy doubles maize yields and milk production while, at the same time, improves the soil. The system has already spread to more than 10,000 households in East Africa by means of town meetings, national radio broadcasts and farmer field schools.32 In Japan, farmers found that ducks and fish were as effective as pesticide for controlling insects in rice paddies, while providing additional protein for their families. The ducks eat weeds, weed seeds, insects, and other pests, thus reducing weeding labour, otherwise done by hand by women, and duck droppings provide plant nutrients. The system has been adopted in China, India, and the Philippines. In Bangladesh, the International Rice Research Institute reports 20 per cent higher crops yields, and net incomes on a cash cost basis have increased by 80 per cent.33 20. Agroecology is also gaining ground in Malawi, a country that has been at the centre of attention in recent years. Malawi successfully launched a fertilizer subsidy programme in 2005-2006, following the dramatic food crisis due to drought in 2004-2005. However, it is now implementing agroforestry systems, using nitrogen-fixing trees, to ensure sustained growth in maize production in preparation for the medium-term situation when fertilizer subsidies may have to be scaled back or withdrawn.34 By mid-2009, over 120,000 Malawian farmers had received training and tree materials from the programme, and support from Ireland has now enabled extension of the programme to 40 per cent of Malawi’s districts, benefiting 1.3 million of the poorest people. Research shows that this results in increased yields from 1 t/ha to 2–3 t/ha, even if farmers cannot afford commercial nitrogen fertilizers. With an application of a quarter-dose of mineral fertilizer, maize yields may surpass 4 t/ha. However, this shows that, while investment in organic fertilizing techniques should be a priority, this should not exclude the use of other fertilizers. An optimal solution that could be an exit strategy from fertilizer subsidy schemes would be to link fertilizer subsidies directly to agroforestry investments on the farm in order to provide for long-term sustainability in nutrient supply, and to build up soil health as the basis for sustained yields and improved efficiency of fertilizer response.35 Malawi is reportedly exploring this “subsidy to sustainability” approach.36 B. Accessibility: agroecology reduces rural poverty Sustainable on-farm fertility management 21. By enhancing on-farm fertility production, agroecology reduces farmers’ reliance on external inputs and state subsidies. This, in turn, makes vulnerable smallholders less 32 33 34 35 36 Z. Khan et al., “Push-pull technology: a conservation agriculture approach for integrated management of insect pests, weeds and soil health in Africa,” International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 9:1, forthcoming in 2011. “Integrated rice-duck: a new farming system for Bangladesh,” in Innovations in Rural Extension: Case Studies from Bangladesh, P. Van Mele et al. (eds.), Oxfordshire, UK/Cambridge, USA, CABI Publishing, 2005. D.P. Garrity et al., “Evergreen Agriculture: a robust approach to sustainable food security in Africa,” Food Security 2:3, 2010, p. 203. See O.C. Ajayi et al., “Labour inputs and financial profitability of conventional and agroforestrybased soil fertility management practices in Zambia,” Agrekon, 48, 2009, pp. 246–292: “[…] agroecological methods of soil fertility management are compatible with mineral fertilisers, and their combined use has synergistic yield effects,” (p. 288). D.P. Garrity et al., “Evergreen Agriculture: a robust approach to sustainable food security in Africa,” Food Security 2:3, 2010, p. 204. For assessments of this experience, see Ann Quinion et al., “Do agroforestry technologies improve the livelihoods of the resource poor farmers? Evidence from Kasungu and Machinga districts of Malawi,” Agroforestry Systems, 80:3, 2010, pp. 457-465. 9