Cotton field irrigated with the sprinkler irrigation methods

The third field visit included project directors from Azerbaijan, Egypt and Yemen and staff from IFAD and the International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA).  

This was the shortest trip – to the Aleppo plain – and so there was bonus time to chat with farmers growing wheat, cotton, potatoes and sugar beet.

First, the group visited the Surbaya Agricultural Research Station, where the Director explained the government's research priorities in this part of the country and elsewhere. Most of Syria's arable land is rainfed, and water-use efficiency is a key concern with falling levels of underground water and a growing population. The Director and his staff explained their supplementary irrigation techniques and showed the centre’s research plots for pistachios, olives, grapes and wheat, grown under drip or sprinkler irrigation. These were the models that generated extension messages and that are shown to farmers to persuade them not to overirrigate. The mission is to identify and disseminate optimal supplementary irrigation methods for the clayish soils predominant in the region, which crack with less then 80 per cent humidity. One important finding that helps farmers (who don’t have station equipment to monitor the aridity stress of their wheat crop) approximate yields at the research centre is to plant one row of beet, which shows stress before wheat; this enables farmers to best time their supplementary irrigation flows.

		Drip irrigation system

The visit to the Ateriya farmers left some in the group amused and others depressed. Smart kids, they said, stay away from agriculture; they study engineering, management or vocational skills. The loud dissent from the sole young farmer in the group seemed to support their point. So much for agriculture and climate change being the hottest (or coolest?) topic on the global agenda. Notwithstanding this, they were proud to be farmers – proud, too, that all of the village's farmers (except one, who must have done extremely poorly at school) had adopted pioneering irrigation techniques. The star farmer among them, Abu Ali, explained how he managed water scarcity and how, using drip irrigation, he reached six tons of cotton per hectare. He also showed the communities' evaporation pan and recited crop-growing times and irrigation quantities and dates. However, the other farmers weren’t convinced. With ground water levels dropping two metres a year, they recognized water scarcity but emphasized that financial returns were their key consideration and, aside from fuel costs, pumping ground water was free. Most acknowledged that there was no need to overirrigate, yet most said that relying on their ability to forecast rain beat Abu Ali's academic approach (although they were aware that more water didn’t necessarily mean more crops). The extension workers’ guidance – that more water provides higher returns only to a certain point – helped farmers save unnecessary fuel costs. But, timing their supplementary watering "according to the book" didn’t necessarily maximize their returns. Abu Ali confessed that he was aiming for the district’s best farmer award ... and so he followed "the book" to the letter.    

The visitors asked questions on empowerment: How do farmers organize themselves to influence government policies and decisions (for example their request to bring Euphrates water)?  Do they collaborate in farmers' organizations or cooperatives to improve their outcomes? The answer was that policy decisions, and almost everything related to input supply and marketing, has depended for years on the government's plans and institutions.  The government determined the cropping patterns and quotas for the Ateriya farmers' most remunerative crops (i.e. wheat, cotton and sugar beet), provided inputs and extension services, set farm-gate prices and bought and marketed farmer produce.  

Colleagues from Azerbaijan and Yemen asked if they would do anything differently if they had the choice. The answer was that they would not do anything differently when the price of wheat was so attractive. A market-driven system may have worked in the past, but the only system they had known in their productive lifetime was one controlled and run by the state. This was what they were used to and they weren't comfortable switching to a new system that they wouldn’t know how to handle. The government could do better by protecting farmers if prices or productivity went too low, if the rains were too little or too late, or if the cost of fuel for pumping water went too high. The farmers welcomed the newly established Agricultural Support Fund. Most importantly, they looked forward to improving their livelihoods if the government completes its conveyance of Euphrates water and irrigates 87,000 hectares in the Aleppo plain. They would no longer have the problem of having sufficient water and they would even diversify to higher-value crops.