Showing posts from category agriculture.
-
Weekly Reading
›In an Economist.com debate on population growth between John Seager of Population Connection and Michael Lind of the New America Foundation, Seager argues that rapid population growth is “the source of many of the world’s—especially the poor world’s—woes,” as it accelerates environmental degradation and “undermines both security and development.” On the other hand, Lind counters that “countries are not poor because they have too many people,” and asserts that “technology and increased efficiency have refuted what looks like imminent resource exhaustion.”
In Foreign Policy, David J. Rothkopf contends that actions to mitigate climate change—though necessary to avoid very serious consequences—could subsequently spur trade wars, destabilize petro-states, and exacerbate conflict over water and newly important mineral resources (including lithium).
The International Crisis Group (ICG) reports that “the exploitation of oil has contributed greatly to the deterioration of governance in Chad and to a succession of rebellions and political crises” since construction of the World Bank-financed Chad-Cameroon pipeline was completed in 2003. Chad must reform its management of oil resources in order to avoid further impoverishment and destabilization, ICG advises.
The Royal Society and the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IME)—both based in the United Kingdom—released independent reports on geoengineering the climate. While calling reduction of greenhouse gas emissions “the safest and most predictable method of moderating climate change,” the Royal Society recommends that governments and international experts look into three techniques with the most potential: CO2 capture from ambient air, enhanced weathering, and land use and afforestation. The IME identified artificial trees, algae-coated buildings, and reflective buildings as the most promising alternatives. “Geo-engineering is no silver bullet, it just buys us time,” IME’s Tim Fox told the Guardian.
In “Securing America’s Future: Enhancing Our National Security by Reducing Oil Dependence and Environmental Damage,” the Center for American Progress (CAP) argues that unless the United States switches to other fuels, it “will become more invested in the volatile Middle East, more dependent on corrupt and unsavory regimes, and more involved with politically unstable countries. In fact, it may be forced to choose between maintaining an effective foreign policy or a consistent energy supply.”
The Chinese government is “drawing up plans to prohibit or restrict exports of rare earth metals that are produced only in China and play a vital role in cutting edge technology, from hybrid cars and catalytic converters, to superconductors, and precision-guided weapons,” The Telegraph relates. The move could send other countries scrambling to find replacement sources.
In studying the vulnerability of South Africa’s agricultural sector to climate change, the International Food Policy Research Institute finds that “the regions most vulnerable to climate change and variability also have a higher capacity to adapt to climate change…[and that] vulnerability to climate change and variability is intrinsically linked with social and economic development.” South African policymakers must “integrate adaptation measures into sustainable development strategies,” the group explains. -
Weekly Reading
›Christian Aid’s “Growing Pains: The Possibilities and Problems of Biofuels” finds that “huge subsidies and targets in developed countries for boosting the production of fuels from plants such as maize and palm oil are exacerbating environmental and social problems in poor nations.”
Framing the climate change debate in terms of national security could help advance climate legislation in Congress, argues a New York Times editorial, one week after its front-page article on the topic. In letters to the editor, James Morin of Operation FREE calls climate change the “ultimate destabilizer,” and retired Vice Admiral Lee Gunn warned that the “repercussions of these changes are not as far off as one would think.”
Researchers at Purdue University’s Climate Change Research Center found that climate change could deepen poverty, especially in urban areas of developing countries, by increasing food prices. “While those who work in agriculture would have some benefit from higher grains prices, the urban poor would only get the negative effects.” Of the 16 countries studied, “Bangladesh, Mexico and Zambia showed the greatest percentage of the population entering poverty in the wake of extreme drought.”
India’s 2009 State of the Environment Report finds that almost half of the country’s land is environmentally degraded, air pollution is increasing, and biodiversity is decreasing. In addition, the report points out that almost 700 million rural people—more than half the country’s population—are directly dependent on climate-sensitive resources for their subsistence and livelihoods. And furthermore, “the adaptive capacity of dry land farmers, forest dwellers, fisher folk and nomadic shepherds is very low.”
Surveys completed by a Cambodian national indigenous peoples network find that “five million hectares of land belonging to indigenous minority peoples [have] been appropriated for mining and agricultural land concessions in the past five years,” reports the Phnom Penh Post.
The Economic Report on Africa 2009 warns that despite declining food prices, “many African countries continue to suffer from food shortage and food insecurity due to drought, conflicts and rigid supply conditions among other factors.” -
Focus on Food Security as Clinton Lands in Africa
›August 7, 2009 // By Brian Klein
In what CNN has dubbed her “biggest trip yet,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has commenced an 11-day, seven-nation tour of Africa that will take her to many of the continent’s most volatile states, including Kenya, South Africa, Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Nigeria, Liberia, and Cape Verde.
Global hunger and food security are her top agenda items, as Clinton and African leaders discuss how the United States can help improve the continent’s agricultural sector. Also on the table will be the “Second Scramble for Africa“— the recent spate of developed nations buying up African agricultural land (map) to assure their access to adequate food supplies, which was the subject of a recent Wilson Center conference (video).
More Mouths to Feed
According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), one billion people are undernourished. If current population projections are correct, that figure is likely to grow. “In the coming 20 years alone, worldwide demand for food is expected to rise by 50 percent,” note Horand Knaup and Juliane von Mittelstaedt in Der Speigel.
Climate change will compound the already-daunting challenge of increasing food production by further “reducing harvests in much of the world, raising the specter of what some scientists are now calling a perpetual food crisis,” Joel K. Bourne, Jr. explains in National Geographic‘s special report, “The End of Plenty.”
Africa: Ground Zero
Sub-Saharan Africa—with birthrates averaging 5.4 children per woman and a farming sector dominated by small producers whose average yield per hectare has remained constant over the last 40 years—is particularly vulnerable to such a crisis. Both Secretary Clinton and President Obama have pushed for increased investment in the continent’s agricultural sector.
“There is no reason why Africa cannot be self-sufficient when it comes to food,” said Obama at the conclusion of this month’s G8 summit in L’Aquila, Italy. “It has sufficient arable land. What’s lacking is the right seeds, the right irrigation, but also the kinds of institutional mechanisms that ensure that a farmer is going to be able to grow crops, get them to market, get a fair price.”
Launching his book on African food security, Enough! Why the World’s Poorest Starve in an Age of Plenty, coauthor Roger Thurow told a Wilson Center audience, “We hope to provide both an instructional and inspirational tale to show that hunger today is largely man-made, that so much is also caused by policies and decisions that span the political spectrum, and to inspire by showing hunger is truly achievable to conquer.”
Pledges of Aid, but Land Grab Continues
Largely thanks to Obama’s prodding, G8 countries agreed to invest $20 billion for farm aid in developing countries over the next three years. However, the leaders were unable to agree on a set of shared principles regarding foreign acquisition of arable land.
A number of relatively wealthy but land- and water-strapped nations, including Saudi Arabia, China, South Korea, and the United Arab Emirates, as well as many corporations and other investors, have purchased millions of hectares of land in other developing countries. Asia and South America have been targeted by some, but the inexpensive, fertile land of impoverished Africa appears to be the primary prize.
While some might praise the transfer of land to those with the capital and technology to make it productive, questions abound when one considers the dual pressures of population growth and a changing climate. “[W]hat happens with famine strikes these countries? Will the wealthy foreigners install electric fences around their fields, and will armed guards escort crop shipments out of the country?” ask Knaup and von Mittelstaedt.
The Ethics of Land-Grabbing
In completing such transactions, governments often ignore customary land tenure, selling tracts that are already inhabited and cultivated by small-scale subsistence farmers whose families have lived on the land for generations, but who have no formal deed of ownership.
To prevent such exploitation, experts have suggested the adoption of international rules to govern foreign acquisition of agricultural land in the developing world. A report from the International Food Policy Research Institute recommends a broad swath of measures to ensure transparency, respect for existing land rights, benefit-sharing, environmental sustainability, and adherence to national trade policies.
The Devil Is in the Details
Adding to the strong statements by the G-8 and Secretary Clinton, the FAO plans to convene an international food security summit in Rome this November, which will call for the eradication of hunger by 2025. While these are welcome developments, the details remain unclear.- Will a repeat of the “Green Revolution” save African farmers?
- Is it responsible to engender dependence on petroleum-based fertilizers, if it increases production in the short-term?
- What are the implications of selling arable land to foreign investors?
- How will large-scale commercialization and mechanization of farming transform developing societies?
- What about genetically-modified seeds?
- Can we eradicate hunger in the next 15 years?
Photo: Men gather corn at a farm in Kenya. Courtesy Curt Carnemark and Flickr user World Bank (pool). -
Climate Change Threatens Water Supplies in Australia, California
›July 1, 2009 // By Brian KleinClimate change “could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back” for California’s precarious water system, said W. Michael Hanemann of the University of California, Berkeley, at an event hosted by the Wilson Center’s Environmental Change and Security Program on June 15, 2009. He was joined by Jon Barnett of the University of Melbourne, who discussed some of Australia’s policy responses to its increasingly dry, variable climate. -
Climate Change Not the Only Environmental Problem, Says U.K. Environment Secretary
›May 22, 2009 // By Rachel WeisshaarThe Copenhagen climate conference will be “the most important gathering in human history,” said the United Kingdom’s environment secretary, Hilary Benn, at the Wilson Center on May 14, 2009 (full text of speech). While “an agreement on cutting emissions would be the biggest single step we could take to safeguard [natural] resources,” said Benn, “even such an agreement will not—indeed cannot—encompass all of the things we need to do to safeguard our environment.”
“The most glaring threat is that of dangerous climate change. But it is not the only example of the problems we create when we exploit the world’s resources unsustainably,” explained Benn.
“The spiraling price of food in 2008 was a wake-up call. Riots threatened political stability. Export bans threatened world trade. Wheat prices doubled, rice quadrupled. And another 75 million people were threatened by poverty and hunger,” Benn said.
Although food prices have fallen recently, continuing growth in the global population—expected to reach at least 9 billion by 2050—and rising standards of living in poor and middle-income countries mean that world food production will need to double by 2050. This demand for food—especially more meat and dairy products—will put increasing pressure on land and water. Conflicts could erupt over these scarce resources if they are not managed properly, Benn warned.
Already, wealthy governments and corporations are buying farmland in Africa and other parts of the developing world—leading to unrest. Widespread anger at South Korean company Daewoo’s proposal to purchase more than half of Madagascar’s arable land contributed to the ouster of former Malagasy President Marc Ravalomanana.
Benn highlighted an apparent Catch-22: “Development is the best way of lowering the rate of population growth and so, in turn, lowering the pressure on resources. But development also increases income, and therefore demand.”
The way to free ourselves from this cycle, Benn said, is to create an environmentally sustainable economy, so that economic development does not degrade the environment. He proposed:- Starting to build tomorrow’s sustainable economy even as we work to contain today’s economic crisis;
- Changing the incentives in our economies—through regulation and financial inducements—to promote environmentally sustainable choices;
- Creating the jobs that will power this new sustainable economy; and
- Working together as an international community to address water scarcity, food security, and biodiversity loss.
Benn called for U.S. leadership on climate change and other environmental issues: “We need America to apply all of its great energy to the task we, together, face.”
Photo: Hilary Benn. Courtesy of Dave Hawxhurst and the Wilson Center. -
Are Fences the Bridge to a Sustainable Future in Kenya?
›May 18, 2009 // By Brian Klein“Kenya is destroying itself,” Julius Kipng’etich, director of the Kenya Wildlife Service, told The Observer. “The population has reached an unsustainable level. We are killing ourselves by slowly destroying the forests and settling there.” Drought, poverty, and population growth have led large numbers of the rural poor to encroach on protected forests in search of arable land, reports The Observer, jeopardizing Kenya’s food and water security and hydroelectric energy production. The government’s inability to manage land tenure has further exacerbated the situation.
In response to these developments, a local conservation group called Rhino Ark has erected a 250-mile electric fence (see photo slideshow) around the Aberdare mountain range north of Nairobi. When members began the project in 1989, they were attempting to protect the area’s rhinoceroses. However, their efforts eventually grew into a broader campaign to safeguard the Aberdares’ critical water and forest resources.
Proponents of the Aberdare fence—including Nobel Peace Prize-winning environmentalist Wangari Maathai—contend that it serves multiple purposes. First, it discourages settlers from grazing livestock in the forest or felling trees to make way for crop cultivation. Other regions of the country—notably the Mau Forest Complex, the water source for millions of people in Kenya, northern Uganda, and southern Sudan—have suffered severe deforestation and degradation, with serious consequences for human and ecological health. Forests provide a wide spectrum of essential ecosystem services, such as regulating the water cycle, filtering groundwater, and sequestering atmospheric carbon.
The fence also mitigates human-wildlife conflict, argue its supporters. According to a recent 60 Minutes report, some Maasai herdsmen have resorted to poisoning lions and other predators to protect their livestock. Farmers have targeted elephants and other animals that trample crops to safeguard their livelihoods. As a result, wildlife populations—the lifeblood of the Kenyan tourism industry—have been devastated. A study published in the Journal of Zoology found precipitous declines in wildlife at Maasai Mara, one of Kenya’s most renowned national parks. Robin Reid, a co-author of the paper, explains, “There appears to be a ‘tipping point’ of human populations above which former co-existence between Maasai and wildlife begins to break down.”
Following Aberdare’s example, the Kenyan government is considering building thousands of miles of fencing around similarly vulnerable forests and parks. Yet fences may soon prove inadequate. The country’s population has grown from 10 million to 36 million over the past 45 years, and it could exceed 65 million by 2050, given that the decline in its fertility rate has stalled. In addition, its GDP per capita has steadily decreased, leaving more than 55 percent of citizens below the official poverty line.
With more people clamoring for more resources, a sustainable future will depend on robust community conservation programs and land-rights reform. Successful models of community conservation in East Africa include the Lion Guardians and Il Ngwesi Group Ranch, as well as other efforts discussed at the Wilson Center last year. A 2008 report from the Rights and Resources Initiative argues that authorities should shift away from traditional forms of conservation, which focus on excluding people from protected areas, in favor of approaches that empower local communities to care for and benefit from the land through customary tenure or individual property rights.
Finally, Nairobi should craft national forest management practices with an eye toward ongoing international climate negotiations. Policymakers are poised to include provisions for compensating developing countries for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in the next international climate treaty, to be concluded in Copenhagen this December. Kenya could benefit substantially if the government takes appropriate action.
Photo: A giraffe in Maasai Mara, where their population has declined 95 percent over the last 15 years. Courtesy Flickr user angela7dreams. -
Land Grab: The Race for the World’s Farmland
›The world is experiencing a grain rush. With increasing frequency, wealthy, food-importing, and water-scarce countries—particularly the Arab Gulf states and the rich countries of East Asia—are investing in farmland overseas to meet their food-security needs. Similarly, the private sector is pursuing farmland deals abroad, with many investors perceiving land as a safe investment in an otherwise-shaky financial climate.
These investments are sparking both hope and fear. Some believe the deals can boost global agricultural productivity and farm yields, thereby bringing down global grain costs. Others, however, point to the land acquisitions’ negative impacts on small-scale farmers. On May 5, the Asia Program and four other Wilson Center programs hosted a half-day conference that considered the implications for investors, host countries, and food security, highlighting case studies from Asia, Africa, Europe, and the former Soviet Union.
Global Trends
The private sector—including private firms, agribusiness and trading houses, and sovereign wealth funds—now plays a key role in overseas land investment, noted David Hallam of the Food and Agriculture Organization. These investors come from China, the Arab Gulf states, South Korea, and Japan, and they have mainly targeted Africa. Hallam asserted that these investors could potentially benefit developing countries through asset and advanced-technology transfers, employment opportunities, and economic and infrastructure development.
Alexandra Spieldoch of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy examined the “lopsided” power relations that prevail in foreign land acquisitions. Smallholders in poor countries like Sudan, Ethiopia, Madagascar, Zimbabwe, and Pakistan “have no political voice,” making them vulnerable to exploitation. The loss of land invites political conflict and violence, as exemplified by the public outcry in Madagascar over that country’s proposed land deal with South Korea’s Daewoo. Gary R. Blumenthal of World Perspectives, Inc., acknowledged that displacing small farmers in favor of large agribusiness activities generates “social push-back,” but contended that modern farms and private-sector funding are necessary to feed the world’s hungry and growing population.
Ruth Meinzen-Dick of the International Food Policy Research Institute discussed prospects for a “code of conduct” to regulate foreign land deals. She proposed that such a code have teeth and be modeled after the European Union’s code of conduct on bribery. Meinzen-Dick argued that questions regarding land use, land tenure, property rights, environmental concerns, and transparency should be settled before finalizing land deals. She also underscored the key role of governments in safeguarding and monitoring people’s rights, and of the media and civil society in increasing transparency and keeping up the pressure against “unjust expropriations.”
Case Studies: Asia, Africa, Europe
Raul Q. Montemayor noted that in Asia, some local people are facilitating land deals on behalf of foreign investors. In the southern Philippines, “goons and rogue elements” have been “let loose” to terrorize farmers, compelling the latter to lease their land—or evacuate. Montemayor argued that Asian farmers stand to benefit little financially from leasing their land to agribusiness enterprises. Those who have done so are receiving rental payments between 50 cents and a dollar per day. Yet he argued that any Asian farmer with his or her own standard two-hectare plot can generate the same, if not higher, daily income without renting out land.
Chido Makunike, a Senegalese agricultural commodities exporter, declared that without understanding local conditions, agribusiness investments in Africa are destined to fail. Like Spieldoch, he singled out the deal between Daewoo and the Malagasy government, which would have given Daewoo a 99-year lease on 1.3 million hectares of land—with Madagascar receiving little in return. The deal collapsed after it triggered political unrest. “It’s not enough to look at risk factors,” Makunike argued. “You must look at the sentiments of the people.” In Africa, far from being perceived as a mere “economic resource,” land has cultural, sentimental, and political meanings, and its loss was “one of the strongest symbols of dispossession” during the colonial era.
Carl Atkin of Bidwells Agribusiness highlighted investment opportunities in Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Land in these areas boasts high-performing and resilient soil, and production costs are low. However, there are also considerable challenges. Infrastructure is lacking, and grain storage is problematic. Obtaining land titles can be “complex,” and land tenancy laws can be “very archaic.” According to Atkin, however, the biggest challenge is local management: “Can people on the ground get things done?”
Though they indicated varying levels of support for overseas farmland acquisitions, all panelists agreed that international investment in agriculture can be a good thing—if done the right way.
While Meinzen-Dick and others lobbied for an international code of conduct to govern the transactions, other panelists insisted that foreign land investment must respect regulations in host countries. Montemayor, for example, called for “clear rules consistent with national policy goals,” and implored foreign investors to respect local laws.
Michael Kugelman is a program associate with the Wilson Center’s Asia Program; and Susan L. Levenstein is a program assistant -
Weekly Reading
›In Conservation magazine, David Malakoff examines how cellulosic ethanol may threaten biodiversity around the world.
A Comprehensive Approach to Congo’s Conflict Minerals, a report by the Enough Project, argues that ending resource-related violence in the DRC will require:- Making the consumer-electronics supply chain transparent;
- Pinpointing and securing strategic mines;
- Reforming and expanding governance; and
- Providing miners with economic opportunities.
The New Agriculturalist describes how some African farmers are adapting to climate change.
Worldchanging features an interview with Wangari Maathai, founder of the Green Belt Movement and recipient of the 2004 Nobel Peace Prize.
Climate change “could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back” for California’s precarious water system, said W. Michael Hanemann of the University of California, Berkeley, 
The Copenhagen climate conference will be “the most important gathering in human history,” said the United Kingdom’s environment secretary, Hilary Benn, at the Wilson Center on May 14, 2009 (
“Kenya is destroying itself,” Julius Kipng’etich, director of the Kenya Wildlife Service, told 
