Scientific American: Is a Green Revolution Finally Blooming in Africa?

[bananas]

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanId=sa013&articleId=FD6F3117-E7F2-99DF-344D7916906A65CF&modsrc=most_popular

November 01, 2007

Is a Green Revolution Finally Blooming in Africa?

Three years ago, experts and officials called for a green revolution in African agriculture.They are beginning to get their wish.
For the first time since record keeping began in the 1960s, per capita food production in sub-Saharan Africa is beginning to rise.

<snip>

"The green revolution called for by Kofi Annan in 2004 is really beginning to happen," Sanchez says. "Countries, like Malawi, have gone from net food importers to net food exporters."

"In past years, food production had not been keeping up with population growth," adds a spokesperson for the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). "In recent years, food production has been increasing more than population growth."

<snip>

[msongs]

1. that would be good news along with birth control efforts nt

[applegrove]

2. Thank the lord ! 80 years after the West got its winter wheat their are now

crops for Africans to grow to feed themselves.

[GliderGuider]

3. While I don't want to rain on anyone's parade,

I feel obligated to point out that this increase in yields rides primarily on the back of increased fertilizer use:

This is thanks largely to an African "green revolution"—a combination of better crop varieties and increased use of fertilizers—says soil scientist Pedro Sanchez, director of tropical agriculture at The Earth Institute at Columbia University in New York City

Later in the article they say:

Countries, such as Malawi, have transformed their food production using relatively simple means: With the help of government subsidies, farmers can now obtain two bags of fertilizer and five kilograms of hybrid maize seed at just 25 percent of the actual price.

and:

"Fertilizer is expensive as hell," Sanchez admits. But "if you are able to use it, it pays."

I have nothing against either increased crop yields or government subsidies, but I have to point out the trap inherent in this approach. It's illustrated by this graph:



Fertilizer prices are tied very closely to the price of natural gas, as reported in this Canadian Department of Agriculture report:

The cost of natural gas is usually believed to account for 70-90% of the production cost of ammonia. Most other forms of nitrogen are produced using anhydrous ammonia. Therefore, nitrogen fertilizer prices are very much susceptible to changes of natural gas prices.

Natural gas supplies are likely to hit a global peak and begin declining sharply within 15 years or so. When that happens, fertilizer prices will go through the roof. That's not too bad for us, but for Africa it may spell unmitigated disaster. Calamity would become almost inevitable if the Africans have been dropped into the Green Revolution box of moving exclusively to fertilizer-dependent strains just as world fertilizer prices spike.

Malawi escaped from famine only through a 75% subsidy on fertilizer. Does Africa as a whole have enough discretionary income to follow Malawi's lead, especially if the price rises in natural gas are permanent? I don't want to piss in anyone's cornflakes, but it seems to me that the precepts of food sovereignty are a better option for Africa than those of the Green Revolution, especially at this point in the global fossil fuel trajectory.

Payl Chefurka

[GliderGuider]

4. My partner has just reminded me

Two of the key negative aspects of the Green Revolution are its seemingly inevitable byproducts of farm consolidation and crop biodiversity loss. Under a "non-green" model a country may have millions of family farms growing hundreds of varieties of hundreds of of different crops. Once things turn "green" they end up with thousands of large corporate farms growing perhaps a dozen varieties of each of a few dozen foods.

This results in a loss of resilience in the food supply as well as a loss of knowledge of agricultural practices. If a country then runs into trouble (as it might in the natural gas scenario I outline above) land reform is difficult-to-impossible, and the loss of knowledge makes reverting to earlier agricultural practices likewise difficult-to-impossible.

Our human instinct sees African hunger and wants to help. That's admirable, but imposing a Green Revolution as if it were the only solution is both culturally imperialistic and remarkably short-sighted. Rather than simply carpeting Africa with wheat, why not work with the existing farmers, their crops and their circumstances to build a strong, diverse, locally adapted food base? Why not try to support and expand that food base by developing locally appropriate agricultural practices that are a bit more sophisticated than just pouring on fertilizer and aquifer water? Which approach seems, intuitively, to be more sustainable?

Paul Chefurka

[The2ndWheel]

5. Why not? Because there cannot be an alternative

"Two of the key negative aspects of the Green Revolution are its seemingly inevitable byproducts of farm consolidation and crop biodiversity loss. Under a "non-green" model a country may have millions of family farms growing hundreds of varieties of hundreds of of different crops. Once things turn "green" they end up with thousands of large corporate farms growing perhaps a dozen varieties of each of a few dozen foods."

Of course it all depends on what you mean by negative. Negative for who? Negative for what? Not negative for those that control the food.

"This results in a loss of resilience in the food supply as well as a loss of knowledge of agricultural practices. If a country then runs into trouble (as it might in the natural gas scenario I outline above) land reform is difficult-to-impossible, and the loss of knowledge makes reverting to earlier agricultural practices likewise difficult-to-impossible."

Not negative for those that control the food.

"Rather than simply carpeting Africa with wheat, why not work with the existing farmers, their crops and their circumstances to build a strong, diverse, locally adapted food base? Why not try to support and expand that food base by developing locally appropriate agricultural practices that are a bit more sophisticated than just pouring on fertilizer and aquifer water?"

See your paragraphs 1 and 2. Also, because of the "inevitable byproducts of farm consolidation and crop biodiversity loss", which just isn't negative for those that end up consolidating the control over food by destroying diversity.

[GliderGuider]

6. Count me as a populist rather than a corporatist.

The corporations love this development. The people who are forced off their land and then have to eat the food the agricorps produce may not end up feeling quite so happy...

[GliderGuider]

7. India

While the whole article is worth reading, all you really need is the first paragraph in this post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2204699

More dead farmers. Coming soon. Stay tuned.