(FYI, LDC = "Least Developed Countries" - promoted by Jill Richardson)
We farm and food activists in the US have a unique responsibility to advocate for solutions to the global food poverty crisis. We, here in the US, better know some key facts about that crisis, facts that are not as well known in other countries for important historical reasons.
Today the Worldwatch Institute launches its flagship publication, State of the World 2011: Innovations that Nourish the Planet in New York City. The report spotlights successful agricultural innovations and unearths major successes in preventing food waste, building resilience to climate change, and strengthening farming in cities. The press launch-the first of several release events being held in New York and DC this month-will feature remarks from Nourishing the Planet co-Directors Brian Halweil and Danielle Nierenberg; contributing authors Stephanie Hanson of the One Acre Fund and the Small Planet Institute's Anna Lappé; as well as Worldwatch President Christopher Flavin.
It's nearly a half-century since the Green Revolution and yet a large share of the human family is still chronically hungry. Since the mid 1980s when agricultural funding was at its height, the share of global development aid has fallen from over 16 percent to just 4 percent today. Drawing from the world's leading agricultural experts and from hundreds of innovations that are already working on the ground, State of the World 2011 will help serve as a road map for the funding and development communities.
WikiLeaks: State Dept. wants intel on African acceptance of GMOs
by Tom Laskawy
The WikiLeaks release of U.S. State Department classified diplomatic cables may be problematic, but it has been quite a trove of information on the workings of our diplomatic corps. For the most part, the dump has confirmed things that we already knew about U.S. policy -- and that seems to be the case regarding the one mention of agricultural policy in these thousands of emails and documents (no doubt there are more) to which I was alerted.
Buried deep in a document that outlines priorities for intelligence gathering in the African "Great Lakes" countries of Burundi, the Republic of Congo, and Rwanda is a list (for the most part, very reasonable) of what the State Department would like to know about the region's agricultural policy. Things like government policies on food security and food safety top the list, for example, along with information on the impact of rising food prices in these countries. Agricultural yield statistics, infrastructure improvements, data on deforestation and desertification, water issues, and invasive species are included as priorities for "reporting" as well.
But also getting its own line item on the intel priority list is this:
Government acceptance of genetically modified food and propagation of genetically modified crops.
Sigh.
Tom Philpott has reported on the State Department's biotech-loving science adviser Nina Federoff and her industry ties -- and certainly USDA Chief Tom Vilsack believes that genetically modified foods are an answer to world hunger. So this revelation hardly counts as a surprise. But it's still a shame to see that our spymasters are actively engaged in efforts to make the world safe for Monsanto. Aren't there better things for them to do?
Tom is a writer and a media & technology consultant who thinks that wrecking the planet is a bad idea. He twitters and blogs at Grist and at Beyond Green about food policy, alternative energy, climate science and politics as well as the multiple and various effects of living on a warming planet.
I can hardly believe my eyes. The Center for Consumer Freedom has come out in favor of "saving Africa from hunger" using frankenfood. The Center for Consumer Freedom, an astroturf group headed up by Rick Berman, a man who embraces his nickname "Dr. Evil," was started with tobacco money and advocates for (almost) everything that is bad and wrong in this world. They tell you to eat all the fish you want - don't worry about that mercury! - and slather on the trans fats too. They were against lowering the legal blood alcohol limit one is allowed to have while driving, and they don't think cruelty to animals is a problem in slaughterhouses and factory farms. If it's bad, they are for it.
That said, I would have NEVER thought they'd take on the issue of genetically engineered crops in Africa. If there is one thing I'm absolutely sure about, it's that they don't give a shit about starving people in Africa. But they do, perhaps, give a shit about the financial well-being and public acceptance of major biotech corporations. They are probably paid handsomely to give a shit about that, although we will likely never know since they don't disclose their funders.
Their article, if you can call it that, touts a recent "independent study" that was led by Harvard University professor Calestous Juma. (As you might have guessed, Robert Paarlberg was among those who worked on this project.) I've posted the press release sent around by the study authors below. Its headline is "Africa Can Feed Itself Within a Generation" and it calls for increased use of genetic engineering and other new technology, such as nanotechnology.
If you read my recent review and summary of the book Seeds of Famine, you know that the Sahel region of West Africa was fairly food secure until the period of French occupation (which lasted until the 1960's), during which time the French forced the local people to destroy their environment, including their farmland and pastures, and pushed many people onto land that was unsuitable for food production. The result was a major famine from 1968-1974. This book is now 30 years old, but it made many points that seemed worth following up on.
From there, I began researching other parts of Africa. Did the same thing happen elsewhere? I am far from having the answers yet, but I had the good fortune of running into a few acquaintances this past weekend - a woman who served in the Peace Corps in Kenya and her husband, a Kenyan. I brought up the topic of the impact that Europe's conquest of Africa had on food security in Kenya and they gave me an earful.
The first thing they brought up was quite familiar to me: the best land in Kenya is used for growing commercial crops for export. Crops like tea, coffee, and sugar. Small wonder why Kenya, a former British colony, would be a major producer of tea and sugar. Subsistence farmers are pushed to more marginal lands. This seems to me to be a constant around the world, that subsistence farmers are pushed to marginal lands.
Then, they brought up something else: the Nile Waters Agreement. In 1929, Britain (on behalf of Sudan) signed a treaty with Egypt governing the water in the Nile. Most other countries along the Nile (like Kenya) did not exist yet. And they didn't sign the treaty. Unfortunately, they are still "bound" by this treat (says who, you gotta wonder... apparently "the Egyptian military, that's who" is the answer) and thus cannot do ANYTHING that effects water levels in the Nile. That means that Kenya cannot touch the water in Lake Victoria, an enormous lake that it shares with Tanzania and Uganda.
This agreement was renegotiated and renamed the Nile Waters Treaty in 1959, but still only split the water between Sudan and Egypt, with Egypt getting the vast majority. If Kenya were able to use the water from Lake Victoria for irrigation, many of its food issues would be taken care of. Instead, that water goes to grow Egyptian cotton, because of a treaty Kenya never signed.
What I've seen in my travels thus far is that the key word in the phrase "food justice" is justice. Is it fair that the rich and powerful control the best land and the poor and hungry get the worst? Is it fair that a country would give priority to growing to export crops over feeding its own population? Of course, life isn't fair. But we are trying to solve this problem of incredible injustice by finding some agricultural silver bullet that would magically make small plots of marginal lands sprout record amounts of food, and that's ridiculous.
If you're committed to everyone in the world eating, then you need to look at the big picture. According to the World Food Program's estimates, some 4.7 million Kenyans are hungry (1.2 million in rural areas, and 3.5 million in cities). Meanwhile, Kenya was the top tea exporter (by quantity) in the world in 2008, according to the FAO. That year, they also exported 41,649 tonnes of coffee. So what are we more committed to? Letting the invisible hand do what it does and letting the chips fall as they may, or making sure everyone eats? (I'm not saying I have all of the answers, but I do know hypocrisy when I see it.)
"Agricultural programs have too often scratched where there wasn't any itching."
-Agronomist Roland Bunch
Meeting the world's future food needs is dependent on preserving the genetic diversity of the plants we grow and eat, as well as their "wild relatives". While collecting and saving the world's seed patrimony in "gene banks" or ex situ may be a worthy endeavor, a new FAO publication underscores the critical need for efforts that protect agricultural biodiversity on the farm itself or in situ. This means supporting the millions of small farmers and peasants throughout the world who manage diverse species of plants and animals in and around their fields. Based on research conducted in over 100 countries, the conclusions of the FAO's State of the World's Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture put into question rural development approaches like the Alliance for a new Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) that may in the long run threaten farmers' ability to manage on-farm diversity, preserve their seeds and cope with a changing climate. As part of a growing Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa, West African farmers are questioning these imported development programs and calling for solutions rooted in farmer knowledge and local seed systems.
I'm sure you've noticed the many posts by the Nourish the Planet blog, all of which are taken from Danielle Nierenberg's travels in Africa. Many of them highlight wonderful community projects or foods that are bringing food sovereignty to Africans. But what about the larger picture? That's what I wondered. Obviously it's impossible to summarize ALL of Africa in one interview, but I asked Danielle a few questions and she answered, below. (As you'll note in her answers, I was asking her for her own observations and not studied, academic answers.)
In this week's episode, Nourishing the Planet research intern, Elena Davert, introduces a counter-intuitive method of cleaning water. In 2004 Peter Njodzeka founded the Life and Water Development Group Cameroon (LWDGC) with a rather simple goal. " I wanted to see the people in my area have clean water," he said. "And we kept expanding. That's how it started." Now, LWDGC, with support from Engineers without Borders (EWB) and Thirst Relief International, is teaching households how to use dirt and bacteria to clean their water, greatly improving the quality of drinking water and all but eliminating diseases caused by contaminated water.
Referred to as a "supermarket on a trunk," moringa is potentially one of the planet's most valuable plants. Serving not only as a reliable source of diverse foods, moringa also provides lamp oil, wood, paper, liquid fuel, skin treatments, and the means to help purify water. But despite its multiple uses, and well-earned nickname, the tree is relatively unknown to most people in the United States.
Referred to as a "supermarket on a trunk," moringa is potentially one of the planet's most valuable plants.
In this regular video series, we bring you images, interviews and more in-depth information about different agricultural innovations. Get to know the NtP team and the innovations we are highlighting regularly, and stay tuned for more NtP TV in the coming weeks!
In this week's episode, Nourishing the Planet research intern, Abby Massey, discusses some of the projects throughout sub-Saharan Africa that are working to give farmers access to clean water for irrigation, washing and drinking. Access to even a little bit of clean water can greatly reduce illness and improve crop yields. With the right resources these projects could bring clean water to even more farmers. Much like water itself-a little of the right kind of funding could go a long way.
In this regular series, crossposted from the Worldwatch Institute's Nourishing the Planet, we profile African indigenous crops that can improve food security and protect the environment.
The basic needs for human survival include food, water and shelter. Baobab, a tree indigenous to the semi arid regions of sub-Saharan Africa can provide all three, and more. Baobabs can be found in areas from the Senegal coast to northern South Africa, and Madagascar, where seven out of the eight species occur.
The baobab's leaves, fruit and seeds are all edible. In West African countries, including Ghana and Burkina Faso, leaves are commonly ground up and used in soups, and for condiments and sauces served with yam, cassava, maize, millet and sorghum. The leaves are high in protein and contain a wide spectrum of essential amino acids. They are high in lysine, which is often missing in the daily diets of poor populations who consume mostly cereals and tubers, and little meat. As these leaves are also high in vitamin A, frequent consumption should be encouraged in pregnant women and children as it can help prevent blindness and birth defects resulting from vitamin A deficiency.
Millions of cassava farmers in eastern and central Africa are in distress from viral cassava diseases that are sweeping across the region and ravaging their crops. But their counterparts on the popular tourist island of Zanzibar are undergoing a quiet revolution using new disease-resistant and high-yielding varieties that were introduced three years ago.
This is the first post in a regular series about African indigenous crops that can improve food security and protect the environment.
Ever heard of the Bambara Bean? How about Nyimo or Vignea Subterranea or the African Groundnut? No matter what you call it, this little bean, which is indigenous to tropical Africa, is highly overlooked by scientists, development agencies, and humanitarian programs, even though it packs a lot of nutrition. The bean may have originated in Mali, but it's also popular in Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Burkina Faso, and Cameroon. It is now widely distributed and grown in Asia, parts of Northern Australia, and South and Central America and is often found for sale on street corners in Johannesburg.
Let me summarize the article for you: Bla bla bla... drought-tolerant corn... global warming... Africa really fucked... feed 9 billion people... bla bla bla... Gates Foundation.
There. Now you don't have to read it. It says nothing new and contains zero critical thinking or alternate viewpoints. There was one section of the piece that was right on:
Charles Godfray, a professor at the Department of Zoology at Oxford University who recently co-authored a paper in the journal Science about the challenges of feeding 9 billion people, said that the impact of climate change on agriculture will be negative. Although warming will open up lands in cooler regions for cultivation, it will not compensate for the loss of water and land in areas near the tropics, he said.
"The current system of agriculture is not sustainable," he said. "Water is arterial. We will run out of water in parts of the world."
Yep. The Africa-is-fucked-if-things-don't-change meme is correct. And the African-corn-production-is-in-trouble idea is also correct:
But the continent is drought-prone, with millions of farmers relying on rainfall for their crops grown in small land holdings. Corn is most widely grown, with almost 300 million people in sub-Saharan Africa using it as the main source of food. And it is grown in rain-fed regions prone to crop failures.
Riiight. So how about we grow something other than corn? I'm very disappointed at the New York Times failure to only present one side - a side that is opposed by scientists world wide - on this matter.
Many companies are now buying up land in African countries such as Ethiopia to engage in large-scale agriculture, the bulk of whose output is then shipped out of these countries to the Middle East and Europe. The purchased land is often communal in nature, used for grazing or to help preserve the agricultural productivity of surrounding lands. But the local governments consider it to be unowned, and if it is still arable it can be sold off. Not surprisingly, this also impacts water availability to the local communities.
The issues are discussed in this article from the Guardian:
