RURAL LIVELIHOODS: INTERPLAY BETWEEN FARM ACTIVITIES, NON-FARM ACTIVITIES AND THE RESOURCE BASE - Science for Agriculture and Rural Development in Low-income Countries - page 89

how much to apply (for those farms choosing to do so). The results indicate the
possible importance of structural factors, or impediments to accessing fertilizer among
African farms. For example, fertilizer use is considerably lower in localities with
higher prices, although we should add here that we have not been able to account for
potentially differential access to credit. Furthermore, large and significant differences
among the countries point to possible effects of other differences in input supply
chains and associated institutions. The decision to use fertilizer is also influenced by
the availability of farm labour.
The quantity of fertilizer applied by farmers in the different zones matches the
pattern seen above for input expenditures. Farms in the new urban links apply much
more (kg nitrogen per ha), but farms in the traditional zone are still likely to use
more than those in the locally linked zone, with those in the leakage to urban areas
zone likely to apply the smallest quantity. Again, farms with more available labour
tend to use more fertilizer, while farms that are somewhat larger tend to apply less.
Aside from similar differences among countries, it appears that income from non-
farm employment has little or no influence on fertilizer use.
As mentioned above, we are also interested in possible linkages between
location, non-farm income and the sustainability of farming practices. The available
data allow us to estimate the effects of various factors on the net soil nutrient
balance for nitrogen which is estimated as the total input of nitrogen from fertilizers
(both, organic and inorganic) minus what is removed in crop produce. Even though
this ignores other losses such as through erosion or leaching, for a majority of the
African farms in the sample, this partial balance is already negative. Despite the
large differences in fertilizer use among zones, the only zone with significantly
deviating soil nitrogen balances is the new urban links zone of the Asian horticultural
producers. The results (also presented in the Appendix) provide few other clues, but
they do not suggest any link between non-farm income and soil fertility management.
Summarizing the results in general though, location does matter. With respect to
the role of non-farm employment and income in agricultural livelihoods, one general
interpretation of results is that households do not invest additional non-farm income
in agricultural production, but rather use this income for other purposes, such as
consumption or school fees. These conclusions are supported by the evaluation of
the impact of commercial activities on household expenditures in Kiambu and Mbeere
Districts in Kenya (see Box 2). Households indicate spending income derived from
this source mainly on purchasing food and non-food items. Investments in agriculture
are only frequently mentioned in one village out of three. This would suggest the
need for a more integrated view on household livelihood strategies and investment
behaviour than one considering farm production as the central activity.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite the qualifications with respect to the stylized representations of non-farm
income in Table 1 and Figure 1, they offer a useful framework for analysing non-
farm employment and deriving some general policy recommendations. The analyses
of the available data only provide a first glimpse at relations between non-farm