As climate change rears its ugly head, agriculture is becoming harder and harder to sustain. A resident of Faza Island gives his story…
Posted on December 6th 2011 in general interest, News flash
Foreign investors aren’t just after land in Africa. Access to water is essential – which can bring them into direct competition with the needs of local communities
Passengers in a pirogue watch Fulani herders cross the Niger river with their cattle on the outskirts of Mopti, Mali. Photograph: Florin Iorganda/Reuters
The banks of the Niger river, in southern Mali, have been flooded by a steady stream of foreigners. Coveted by foreign investors eager to snap up large tracts of fertile farmland, the river basin has been at the centre of a race to get hold of African land at rock-bottom prices. Meanwhile, last week, hundreds of smallholder farmers and civil society activists flocked to the same river basin for the first international conference to tackle the global rush for land.
West Africa‘s largest river, the Niger is thought to sustain over 100 million people as it snakes 4,180km through Mali and Niger before emptying into Nigeria’s colossal Niger Delta. In Mali, the Office du Niger is home to the vast majority of the country’s largescale land deals, seen by campaigners as emblematic of the “land grabs” taking place in developing countries. Recent estimates suggest that foreign investment in Mali’s limited arable land jumped by 60% between 2009 and 2010. But the potential knock-on effects of these land deals on local communities’ access to water has rarely made it centre-stage.
Ongoing research from the London-based International Institute for Environment and Development seeks to redress this blindspot, honing in on how such land deals might affect water access for fishing, farming and pastoralist communities. In a policy paper out on Thursday, the IIED’s Jamie Skinner and Lorenzo Cotula warn that an alarming number of African governments seem to be signing away water rights for decades, with major implications for local communities.
Investors in farmland are, understandably, after land with high growing potential – either land with lots of rainfall or land that can be irrigated. What Skinner and Cotula note is a worrying trend where governments are being rushed into signing away water rights during negotiations where they were initially only considering leasing land.
In many cases, say Skinner and Cotula, governments seem willing to simply provide water free of charge. In Mali and Sudan, for example, some investors have been given unrestricted access to as much water as they need. In other cases, where investors must pay to use water, they are often charged according to how much land is irrigated rather than how much water is used.
The role water plays in fuelling the global rush for land has received significant attention. It is no coincidence, observers say, that the most aggressive foreign investors are also those facing water shortages at home. This year, risk analysis firm Maplecroft said the results from itswater stress index showed why India, South Korea and China, along with the oil rich Gulf states, are racing to buy land in developing countries and grow crops abroad. The chairman and former CEO of Nestlé, Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, has gone so far as to say the global rush for farmland is actually a “great water grab”. He writes in Foreign Policy: “With the land comes the right to withdraw the water linked to it, in most countries essentially a freebie that increasingly could be the most valuable part of the deal.”
But the effect of these deals on local communities’ water access has been a black hole in the debate around land grabs. And it is a severe omission, according to Skinner and Cotula, who stress how long-term contractural commitments with investors can jeopardise water access not only for those living near the agricultural investments but also for those living downstream. “When land is assigned to private investors, the deal only impacts directly on existing users of that land,” they explain. “Allocating water to irrigated agriculture potentially affects a much broader range of users.”
A 2011 report from researchers at the University of Manchesterhighlights similar concerns: “Impacts are likely to be far more extensive than might be anticipated from the area of land occupied … restriction or interruption of flows of water in an area occupied in one part of the landscape will have potentially widespread downstream impacts.”
According to the IIED paper, in some cases estimates of potential water requirements have run so large that major dam projects are being considered to ensure supply. The controversial Gibe III dam in Ethiopia, for example, will help irrigate 150,000 hectares that the government has allocated to investors. A report published by the African Development Bank says the project could lower the water level of Kenya’s Lake Turkana, on which around half a million people depend, by eight metres by 2024.
In an earlier review of land deal contracts, Cotula noted that leases in semi-arid countries would be worthless if they did not ensure access to sufficient water for agricultural use. But just as land without water may be useless to agricultural investors, the same goes for local communities. Will future water conflicts be triggered by the downstream effect of today’s land grabs in Africa? Land, it seems, is only a small part of the land grab equation.
Posted on November 24th 2011 in News flash
Author Jon Foley says feeding a growing world presents a huge challenge. But employing many strategies simultaneously can meet the problem.
A farmer loads potatoes on a truck on a farmland in Hui-Tu Autonomous County of Datong, northwest China’s Qinghai Province.
Zhang Hongxiang/Xinhua/Photoshot/Newscom
Recent global population growth estimates (10 billion by 2100, anyone?) plus slowing annual increases in agricultural yields have a lot of analysts worried that many of those new people will suffer from chronic hunger – and that much of the land that hasn’t been converted to agriculture will be plowed under to grow crops.
But a new study in the journal Nature argues that we can feed the world’s growing population without destroying the planet… if we make major adjustments now in agricultural and consumption practices and patterns. (Hey, if it were easy, we’d already be there, right?)
Based on new data about the Earth’s agricultural lands and crop yields, the study offers some core strategies to meet future food production needs and environmental challenges. Those strategies include:
- Stop farming in places like tropical rainforests, which have high ecological value and low food output;
- Improve crop yields in regions of Africa, Latin America, and Eastern Europe, where farmland isn’t meeting its potential;
- Change farming practices to better manage water, nutrients, and chemicals;
- Shift diets away from meat; and
- Stop wasting food (up to 1/3 of all food grown is wasted either in production, transport, or after purchase).
Taken together, these strategies could lead to 100-180 percent more food available for consumption and sustain the lakes, rivers, forests, and soil that food production depends on.
I talked with Jon Foley – lead author of the study and director of the University of Minnesota’s Institute for the Environment, as well as a member of The Nature Conservancy’s Science Council advisory board – to find out what it would take to make these recommendations a reality.
Your study’s findings are very promising. But the money question is: How do we do this? Roughly 1 billion people don’t have enough food right now, so it’s clearly a difficult challenge.
JON FOLEY: In this paper we’re looking at, “What does the science say?” A lot of people talk about the issue of food, but don’t have much data or science to back up the claims. So we wanted to find out which ideas can actually solve the problem. We found that there is no silver bullet – we need to incorporate the best of what we know now into solving the world’s food problems and protecting our natural resources.
Can we do it? We have to – it’s absolutely necessary. It’s up to us to decide what’s politically feasible. We can change how we govern, tax, ship, produce, etc. What we can’t change are the laws of physics.
The problem of feeding the world and not wrecking the planet is a huge challenge, and it’s going to shape a lot of the 21st century. Solving it will require huge cooperation, innovation, and hard work. What our study does is lay out the data
One focus of the article is how much land is given over to meat and dairy production, especially for growing fodder crops for these animals. Are you recommending that everyone should be vegetarian?
No, we’re not saying that – and that’s not realistic. People are going to eat meat. But it matters how meat is produced.
Thirty-five percent of our agricultural lands go to producing animal feed, and cattle and dairy farming take up 3.38 billion hectares. Grain-fed beef is a huge drain on the planet – it takes 30 kilos of grain to produce 1 kilo of boneless beef. It’s just not efficient. We’re better off producing grass-fed beef or more chicken and pork, which requires far less grain feed. And we’re clearing rainforests to produce this meat! It’s not necessary.
Speaking of rainforests, agriculture in tropical areas is increasing rapidly, yet your study says we could stop this growth altogether with little to no loss in food production. Can you explain that?
We found that agriculture in tropical areas yields limited food calories – most of it is going to crops like sugarcane, palm oil, and soybeans for animal feed or biofuel. Ceasing agricultural expansion into the tropics would have an impact on global food crops, but it would be small and we could offset those losses elsewhere.
It’s about the trade-offs. We lose rainforests, with huge impacts to climate change, but we don’t feed many people. Instead, we’re better off improving production in places where we currently farm than clearing more rainforests.
Improving crop production and yields aren’t new ideas. What makes your approach different?
Yes, these things are already happening. But our study looks at it from a new perspective. Instead of trying to get high-performing farmlands to perform even better, we found that improving the lower-performing farmlands could dramatically increase the amount of food produced.
For instance, if we close the “yield gaps” in underperforming regions of Latin America, Africa, and Eastern Europe, food production could be increased by 60 percent. Closing “yield gaps” means helping poor farming regions meet their potential with basic improvements, like better use of crop varieties, irrigation, and fertilizer – giving them access to these things, and helping them manage their land better.
Our idea is focus on lifting the people near the bottom of the floor up closer to the ceiling, rather than lifting the ceiling higher. We need to change our approach to agriculture. Instead of sitting back and waiting for famine to strike, let’s ask: How can we prevent the next big famine?
What about organic farming—does it have a role to play in solving the global food problem?
Organics make up less than 1 percent of the world’s food supply right now. So, organic broccoli is not going to solve the problem of feeding the world and saving the planet’s natural resources.
But our current farming practices use a lot of water and chemicals. We need to ask, how can we improve that? Our research found that nearly half the fertilizer applied runs off rather than nourishes crops – and some places, like China and the central United States, could substantially reduce fertilizer use with little to no impact on food production.
Ultimately, it’s not about either organic or conventional; it’s about using the best from all our options. Organic farming practices blended with conventional ones – when brought to large scales – could have big impacts.
That goes for local food, too. What’s appealing about local food is that it’s grown in a competent manner, with more transparency – you know who grew it and where. Same with organic, it includes more scrutiny. But local food isn’t necessarily better for the planet on an environmental level, and it’s not practical for all the various food products we use.
The question is, could we take that same degree of competency and put it to work on the global food system? Let’s take the best from organic, local, and conventional farming practices and global trade and use all these tools.
What’s an ecologist like you doing looking at agriculture and food security issues anyway?
Agriculture is the biggest thing we do to the planet – it covers 38 percent of the planet’s land surface – and it’s the biggest thing we do for humanity. So it makes sense for ecologists to be looking at these issues.
I’m a climatologist as well, and I was originally looking at climate change issues in my research but noticed how agriculture has such a big impact on water, climate, and land use. And the role of agriculture was not being looked at enough – remarkably very little science has been done to figure out the role of agriculture in climate change.
And vice versa. Our understanding of the role that climate change plays on agriculture is still in the early stages. No doubt it will have an effect on crops – some people focus on temperature change, some focus on water. Personally, I think water will be the bigger issue.
It’s a big, messy, complicated problem.
Now that the study is out, what kinds of reactions are you hoping for?
So far the reception to our research has been mostly positive, because we’re laying the facts out on the table and saying, “This is the science,” rather than pointing fingers or advocating for certain changes.
I hope we’ll see more collaboration – we need everyone to work together on this problem, from big ag companies to organic farmers. It’s time to have a sensible, grown-up conversation about these issues.
The good news is: We can feed the world and not wreck the planet.
The bad news: It’s going to take a lot of work, and right now we’re not headed in the right direction. There’s no room for error, because the pressures on our natural system are tremendous.
Read the press release about this new study and watch Jon Foley’s 2011 TED Talk.
Editor’s note: The study’s findings and recommendations are not necessarily the positions of The Nature Conservancy.
• This article originally appeared on Cool Green Science, a blog published by The Nature Conservancy.
Posted on October 20th 2011 in News flash
Combining principles of conservation with the needs of agriculture might be the only way to keep growing enough food to feed an exploding global population.
In the beginning, there was nature. Then came agriculture. Though the existed side-by-side, the two never seemed to meet except along the borders of intensively plowed and fertilized fields.
Now each is being viewed (warily) as salvation for the other. Conservationists, who once vilified agriculture for taking over unspoiled land, have begun enlisting farmers and agriculture policy to help protect natural ecosystems. “Agriculture is both a major cause and victim of ecosystem degradation,” says Eline Boelee, in a new report called “An Ecosystems Approach to Water and Food Security.”
Boelee, an agricultural researcher with the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), suggests we can’t grow enough food without managing our farmlands as integrated parts of natural ecosystems. “Sustainable intensification of agriculture is a priority for future food security, but we need to take a more holistic ‘landscape’ approach,” she says.
Examples in sub-Saharan Africa, Peru, and Colombia demonstrate that merely protecting an ecosystem such as wetlands–if that protection displaces agriculture–may undermine both ecosystems and food production. Farmers can move, removing forests and topsoil elsewhere, eventually destroying yields and degrading ecosystems, according to Matthew McCartney in a related report by the International Water Management Institute, also part of CGIAR.
The two reports make the argument for the creation of “agroecosystems” that grow enough food while delivering clean water, clean air, and biodiversity. Given that we may to feed 9.3 billion people on the planet by 2050, about 3 billion more than today, we may have few other choices as crop productivity growth continues its expected decline from 5.6% annually between 2001 and 2010 to just 1.3% by 2020. “What is needed is a balance: appropriate farming practices that support sustainable food production and protect ecosystems,” writes McCartney.
The urgency is growing. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) hasoutlined the urgent need to rethink current strategies for intensifying agriculture as regions hit their ecological barriers. Food production already accounts for 70 to 90 percent of withdrawals from available water resources in some areas, and many breadbaskets, including the plains of northern China, India’s Punjab, and the Western United States, have nearly “reached or breached” water limits.
As the number of people living under conditions of water scarcity rises from 1.6 billion to 2 billion in the coming years, global food security will require more than business as usual.
Posted on September 9th 2011 in News flash
Port Louis Mauritius 28th June 2011
Green Earth Africa announced today that due to the wave of interest created by their various environmental credit initiatives the company has received numerous offers from interested parties in different parts of the world for participation in creating a renewable source of energy and carbon credits through various land holdings made available to the company. Working in partnership with local communities and partners, Green Earth Africa will refocus and expand their operations and fund raising to take advantage of the opportunities made available to the company within the carbon credit sector by expanding into the renewable energy sector in the form of bio fuels, bio mass and renewable power through various fully integrated agricultural operations. In a brief statement, Havercroft was quoted as saying “Green Earth Africa is in a unique position in that it has had various blocks of prime agricultural land made available in various parts of the world and is in the enviable position of not having to raise finance to purchase these blocks of land but will rather develop and work this land in partnership with local communities, the rightful owners of the land. This situation has allowed the company to be in the enviable position to enable it to invest all funds raised into the production of various commodities and renewable energy sources rather than tying up investor’s funds into land ownership, thus creating a far bigger and quicker return on investor’s funds. Our fully integrated business model allows for the production of food crops and various plantation crops with the bi products being used for the production of renewable energy in the form of electricity through the use of the crop waste being converted into bio mass for electricity generation, or in the case of our planned sugar cane estates, the production of bio butanol fuels and the crop waste being used in bio mass production for electricity generation through continuous pyrolosis, thus creating a multiple cash flow stream. Our model offers the perfect investment destination for various funds seeking to invest in the renewable energy, environment, green, social and agricultural sector and ticks all the right boxes .For a comprehensive insight into the company’s current and planned operations and opportunities, the Green Earth Africa web site is being rebuilt and updated and will be relaunched within the next few weeks, or alternatively I can be contacted directly.”
Posted on June 29th 2011 in Press Releases
Port Louis, Mauritius 28th June 2011 — Nick Havercroft, founder and president of Green Earth Africa announced today the demerger of Green Earth Africa from Z R Energies/Good Earth Power.
In a brief statement, Havercroft advised that though the shareholders of Green Earth Africa will maintain a substantial shareholding in Z R Energies in their individual capacities and will continue to work with and alongside Z R Energies, but due to the enormous wave if interest currently being experienced by Green Earth Africa and their environmental business and investment opportunities, Havercroft felt it was paramount to take advantage of this interest and refocus his energies into Green Earth Africa. He will continue to offer his help and advice to Z R Energies on a part time basis.
Havercroft was quoted as saying .”Z R Energies has a very capable founder and CEO, Jason Rosamond, who has an extraordinary amount of energy and a fantastic team around him and with the enormous amount of opportunities currently available in the renewable energy and environment sector throughout Africa, it is far more advantageous to the economies and communities of developing countries for myself and Jason to head up both Green Earth Africa and Z R Energies independently. Rather than combine our skills and energy through one entity, It will be far more advantageous and effective to develop the markets and opportunities in the various targeted sectors through both companies .This will invariably lead to greater investment into these economies and communities, whilst at the same time promoting job and wealth creation , poverty alleviation and the development of the renewable energy sector.”
Posted on June 29th 2011 in Press Releases
Ninety-eight members of the public are among nearly 750 people who have died in the last 16 years
Agriculture accounts for up to 20% of all work-related fatalities each year. Photograph: Graham Franks / Alamy/Alamy
Dozens of people are killed in accidents on Britain’s farms each year with hundreds more seriously injured, according to official figures which reveal agriculture has the worst safety record of any industry.
Ninety-eight members of the public are among nearly 750 people who have died in the last 16 years, according to statistics revealed by the work and pensions minister, Lord Freud, who said: “The industry’s health and safety performance has been and continues to be poor.”
There was also “gross under-reporting” of non-fatal injuries, making the statistics unreliable, he added. Only about a quarter of such accidents involving employees, and five percent involving self-employed contractors, are officially reported.
Even so, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and the Office for National Statistics believe the rate of injuries in agriculture was higher than that of any other industry. Although farming involved only 1.4% of the workforce, said Freud, agriculture accounted for up to 20% of all work-related fatalities each year.
He revealed the figures in a written parliamentary answer to the Labour peer Lord Kennedy who said he was so appalled he would write to David Cameron demanding action to tackle the problem. “They are terrible, shocking, figures and all are personal tragedies, not just for the individuals concerned, but for their families. There is clearly a serious problem and things haven’t changed much for years. The issue has got to move up everyone’s agenda,” said Kennedy.
The main causes of accidents have remained consistent – involving farm transport, including tractors and quadbikes, falls from a height, moving or falling objects, asphyxiation or drowning, livestock, machinery and being trapped under collapsing materials.
There have been concerns too over the numbers of walkers, sometimes with dogs, being killed by cows.
The figures have shown little improvement since the mid-1990s despite the industry shrinking rapidly. Provisional figures for 2009/10 show 38 people working on farms and seven members of the public were killed, with another 1,705 injured. In 1994/5 there were 51 deaths and 1,979 injuries. In 2009/10 there were 242.1 reported major injuries per 100 000 employees in agriculture compared with 203.1 in 2008/09.
Peter Kendall, the president of the National Farmers’ Union, which has recently launched a campaign to change the health and safety culture infarming, said: “We know this is an unpredictable job and we have to cope with long hours, difficult working conditions and often working alone, but as an industry we must work together to raise awareness and drive these figures down.”
Graeme Walker, head of agriculture at the HSE, said : “Farming is a unique industry. There are small, micro family businesses often run by single farmers, many well-past the typical retirement age of other industries. This combined with large and dangerous plant or equipment, long hours, bad weather and a deep-rooted culture of resourcefulness, which at times borders on unwise risk taking, brings together a range of factors that contribute to its poor safety record.”
Culture change would not happen overnight, said Walker, nor could it be brought about by the regulator alone. Industry leaders and individual farmers all have a role to play in improving safety in agriculture.
Defra, the government department overseeing agriculture in England, said: “Britain’s farmers do a fantastic job for us but tragically there are a number of on-farm fatalities each year. That’s why guidance about safety is developed by the Health and Safety Executive in conjunction with farming organisations in order to minimise safety risks as much as possible.”
The HSE said it had brought 25 prosecutions to court in 2010/11. Last month two companies, a director and a sub-contractor have been fined a total of £130,000 for health and safety failings at Luton crown court after a construction worker suffered serious burns following an electric shock from an overhead power cable in June 2009.
Posted on June 13th 2011 in News flash
The IUCN Water Programme recently engaged in a partnership on sustainable sanitation and water management, to share knowledge and contribute to a new comprehensive toolbox which links water management, sanitation, and agriculture.
For many decades water managers have dealt with protecting, storing, distributing, and cleaning water. Many of these activities link closely with sanitation provision and treatment. Linking the knowledge between these different water management functions and processes is often complex, due to institutional and scientific boundaries. Nutrients in the water which flow between people, the environment, and industrial processes can be precious resources providing valuable ecosystem services. Equally, nutrients and other substances can often pollute and cause damage, and this needs to be recognised and managed to minimise pollution, especially from land into freshwater, and from freshwater systems into the marine environment.
The Sustainable Sanitation and Water Management (SSWM) Toolbox and its partner network bring together information, advice and knowledge on a range of topics designed to save and recycle water, regain resources and protect aquatic ecosystems. The Toolbox allows users to find all the relevant information in one location, and provides a range of information for practitioners from process and planning tools, software and technological approaches, diagnostic and implementation tools as well as training courses.
“We see collaboration with key user groups in the Toolbox as an excellent means of sharing the many practical lessons IUCN has from around the world on how to implement IWRM to benefit both people and nature”, said Mark Smith, IUCN Water Programme Director.
The website links all the different tools with publications, articles and weblinks, case studies, training material and presentations. Targeted at local level water practitioners, the Toolbox is also a valuable asset for international and research organisations, NGO’s, local leaders and municipalities, business and environmental agencies.
“We value the experience of the IUCN Water Programme on toolkit development and the hybrid subjects they deal with such as environmental flows, payments for ecosystem services and water governance. Integrating this thinking into the existing Toolbox will help further strengthen the information we have, and help in the urgently needed upgrade in how we manage our water and our reliance on it for drinking, sanitation, and food production” saidJohannes Heeb, CEO of Seecon International.
Katharina Conradin, SSWM project leader, added that “other partners such as UNDP, ICLEI, WSSCC, and IWA have joined and contributed to our work. We are very pleased to now also include IUCN’s expertise, particularly on the topic of Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM), into our toolbox and incorporate the concept more comprehensively in the sanitation and water management approach.”
In order to further position the SSWM Toolbox as a reference for capacity development in the water and sanitation sector, feedback on the SSWM Toolbox is welcomed to discuss its strengths and weaknesses, as well as the way forward for further ensuring its applicability by professionals and stakeholders from within and outside the sector.
Seecon international gmbh is the implementing organisation in the development of the toolbox, funded by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) and the German Agency for International Cooperation and Capacity Building for Integrated Water Resources Management.
Posted on June 3rd 2011 in News flash
Sustainable small-scale method of encourages farmers to plant with care in order to harvest abundantly
Ships of the desert … the Aral Sea has shrunk by two-thirds, leaving the land degraded and salinised. Photograph: Vyacheslav Oseledko/AFP
“When I was a child standing on the banks of Amu-Darya, you could hardly see the other side. We used to have many gardens and fruit trees all over the place. These days the river looks like an irrigation canal and only a few gardens are left,” says Rustam Jumaniyazov, a 40-year-old farmer from Khorezm in north-west Uzbekistan.
Khorezm, in the Aral Sea region – where summer temperatures reach 45°C – serves as a cautionary tale of water exploitation. In the 1960s, Uzbekistan, then part of Soviet Union, installed extensive irrigation systems to enable an immense increase in cotton production. Two rivers that ran into the Aral Sea were diverted, causing it to shrink by two-thirds. Already arid soil became salinised and the land quickly degraded. The Aral Sea disaster became a classic example of man-made damage to the environment.
Yet 20 years after independence, agricultural practices in Uzbekistan – the second biggest cotton exporter in the world after the US – have hardly changed. “The experience of many farmers dates from the old time. It was valid then, given the large-scale production systems, but it is inefficient for small-scale farming,” says John Lamers, co-ordinator of a joint German-Uzbek research project into sustainable land use based in the Khorezm city of Urgench. “If Uzbek agriculture wants to become competitive internationally, it has to adapt.”
The project is funded by the German ministry of education and research (BMBF) and is being implemented jointly by the Centre for Development Research (ZEF) at Bonn University in Germany, Unesco and the Uzbek ministry of agriculture and water resources. It has been developing sustainable land and water use methods in part by planting trees on degraded, marginal cropland inside the irrigated farming areas.
The project findings could be of use not only for Khorezm, but for similar regions in the irrigated lowlands within Central Asia and the Caucasus drylands. According to local estimates, up to 20% of land in Khorezm is now unsuitable for cropping. Project photographs of a two-hectare research site in Yangibazar district from six years ago show a field apparently covered in snow.
“This is not snow, but two to three centimetres of salt on the topsoil,” says Lamers. “We said to ourselves – if our systems work on this land, they will work elsewhere.”
Now the field is filled with fruit trees. “You should come in May. When the trees are green, you can see the real scope of transformation,” he adds.
Trees need up to 80% less water than annual crops during their first two years.
“In Khorezm, the average distance between fruit trees is eight to 10 metres,” says Lamers. “We suggest, for instance that farmers plant trees on marginal cropland two metres from one other. Why? Because one to two years after planting they can harvest the trees, perhaps even remove entire rows. In five to seven years, the fruit trees will be at same density they are used to but during these years they will have annual products.”
Some 60% of the Uzbek population lives in rural areas, with around 80,000 farmers registered in 2010. Farmers are officially private operators, but in practice they lease the land from the state for up to 50 years.
The state controls agricultural production, which accounts for one-third of the country’s GDP. Farmers are given quotas for cotton and wheat production by the government. They need guaranteed support from the local authorities that the marginal croplands, officially designated for crop production, can be used for afforestation several years in a row.
Lamers says that one of the biggest problems, initially, was finding qualified PhD candidates studying economics and sociology in Uzbekistan. The project therefore focused on building local human capacity from the very start. Out of 53 PhD students who participated, 24 graduated, almost half of them coming from Uzbekistan.
“In order not to lose knowledge and expertise, two years ago former students and project participants – economists, agronomists and sociologists who stayed in the country – decided to join their efforts and form an NGO. Now we provide advisory services to local farmers,” says Inna Rudenko, a senior researcher from Khorezm and one of the founder members of the NGO, Khorezm Rural Advisory Support Service.
Today the organisation is collaborating with international partners to provide scientific analysis, advice and training in agriculture and the environment, as well as with Uzbek municipal administrations and farmers’ associations.
Maksud Jumaniyazov (no relation to Rustam Jumaniyazov) is one of the Khorezm farmers who allotted part of his cropland for experiments. “We have collaborated with the project for eight years now. I was very curious to see the results and I have to admit they have broken some stereotypes. Following their advice, I started to rotate the crops and apply less fertiliser. My neighbours have seen the results and have now asked me to share this experience with them,” he says.
Persuading farmers is only half the answer. For widespread adoption, all the methods and technologies proposed by the project have to be in line with Uzbek policies and laws and need to be approved by the national and local authorities. According to Lamers, they are making headway: “Several of our proposals and recommendations were officially assessed and accepted,” he says.
The final decision on whether the new ways of water and land use will be widely implemented rests with the Uzbek government. In the meantime, project researchers and the NGO’s staff plan to develop training courses for agriculture specialists and farmers, publish their findings, produce aid materials and collaborate further with local administrations. And then maybe Rustam Jumaniyazov’s garden will tell a different story.
Posted on April 26th 2011 in News flash
A United Nations food price index reached a new record in February, as unrest in Libya pushed up the price of oil, a major part of agricultural production
A rebel militiaman guards a Libyan oil refinery in rebel-held territory on February 27. Unrest in the country has pushed up the price of oil, and consequently, food. Photograph: John Moore/Getty Images
Poor harvests, rising oil prices and increasing demand for basic foodstuffs pushed global food prices to a record high in February, according to the United Nations.
Prices rose above their last peak in 2008 for a second consecutive month and could surge further as unrest in Libya and other north African countries pushes up the price of oil, a key part of agricultural production.
UN spokesman David Hallam warned that further jumps in the oil price could have an impact on food markets, which have seen sustained price rises last year.
Hallam said: “Unexpected oil price spikes could further exacerbate an already precarious situation.”
Coffee has more than doubled over the last year from $1.30 a pound to more than $2.60. Milling wheat futures, which are a guide to bread prices, have jumped from around €120 a tonne to more than €250 a tonne. Cocoa has risen from $2,800 a tonne to more than $3,600 in the last two months alone.
The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation’s (FAO’s) food price index, which measures monthly price changes for a food basket composed of cereals, oilseeds, dairy, meat and sugar, averaged 236 points in February, the record in real and nominal terms, up 2.2% from January’s record and rising for the eighth month in a row.
Oil prices recently hit two-and-a-half year highs, nearing records set in 2008, with markets fearing north African and Middle East unrest would choke key supplies. Farmers depend on fuel to run agricultural machinery, while dry bulk shippers are heavy oil users, the cost of which are passed on to food buyers.
Spiralling shipping costs for commodities threaten to drive food inflation even higher as nations from Asia to the Middle East and Africa scramble for supplies, analysts say.
The UN is concerned that record prices will trigger a repeat of riots seen in 2008, during the last period of record food inflation.
The Rome-based FAO has said that global supply of main agricultural commodities would remain tight until new harvests in key producing countries, and warned food prices could climb even higher. The agency expects a tightening of the global cereal supply-and-demand balance in 2010/11.
“In the face of growing demand and a decline in world cereal production in 2010, global cereal stocks this year are expected to fall sharply because of a decline in inventories of wheat and coarse grains,” the agency said.
The FAO said it forecast global wheat production to increase by around 3% in 2011.
Posted on March 3rd 2011 in News flash
