Discussion: training manuals on food security

Contribution by Peter Steele from FAO, Egypt

Contribution debate: ‘How to Feed the World in 2050?’

Communications is everything
Great debate so far with some interesting contributions from well-informed, hard-thinking and clearly well-intentioned people; some of whom I know, others remain names/institutions and others still project that sense of ‘if only’ or ‘déjà vu’ into the debate. The complexity of the arguments and information overwhelm; and it takes an effort to compare, critique and/or agree. There is a sense of ‘talking to the converted’ in the debate; nothing novel, nothing new and little in the way of change likely to result. Frustration? Sure.
Given the collective years that so many of the contributors have spent pursuing these kinds of challenges the wonder is that we have not already reached some kind of consensus on what to do next – excepting that the goal posts continue to move as the game remains underway. Much of this rests with the original resource base of the planet/region/country, those in charge of national territories, those who manage to transcend these barriers by projecting development across national boundaries (i.e. those of us in the development industries, but more so those trading/investing commercially – with goods and money) and, not least, those in the communication industries. Communications remains a key issue and so does population. So, here is a small contribution for today.
Taking the metro to work this morning, I was surrounded by your typical Mohamed Citizen going about his daily work. This is a megacity of >20 million (M) people in an unusual country wherein estimated 80 million people live on less than eight percent of the land area. We depend upon the waters of the Ethiopian Highlands for our well-being. Unusual parameters, sure, but then there are similar constraints for most national territories – here they are just a little more extreme. The Nile nurtures the Delta and the Delta provides the basis for food security in the country. We know the fragility of this land area – from encroaching human populations, their structures, space and demands and, equally, from the projected impact of climate change which may result in seawater incursion and lands lost to cropping. Just 30 years ago, the same land resources, space and facilities provided for <40 M Egyptians; and people were less demanding in their lifestyles. So, what has all this got to do with ‘feeding the world?’ Consider that key word ‘communications’; and link back to that point about ‘talking to the converted’.
The state supports of the order 85% of the people in Egypt with some kind of public subvention/resource/service/subsidy – whether food, energy, transport or whatever. Unsympathetic economic management in 2008 led to food riots as prices rose and people felt themselves becoming marginalized. Not so much that national managers were acting poorly, but that people were not adequately informed. You can consider similar arguments about ‘feeding the world’. Those of us in the industrial countries may be aware of these global issues (in the development industries – you would hope so), but that accounts for less than 10% of the world’s people. Even supposing that national managers could grasp the complexity of the international debate on food vs. people vs. markets vs. trade and so on, we are still probably dealing with <1.50 billion people. The other 75% of the world’s people have neither access to, nor understanding of, the many issues involved (and if they did, may be would not want to become involved anyway). And these are not simply the illiterate; for most people have neither the opportunity, time, inclination nor ability to follow this kind of debate. Everyone, however, now watches television. Note the success of the ‘soap operas’ in both industrial and developing countries; note how these include hidden agenda and messages for a whole host of ideas (from HIV mitigation, to illegal immigration to farming technologies).
You can design the world’s best mousetrap, but if you can’t sell the idea you are simply wasting your time. The world will not beat a path to your doorstep when the existing mousetrap is working OK. We have yet to learn how to reach our clients with the right messages.
Have a good day everyone.
Salute.
Peter Steele. FAO, Cairo

Contribution by James Breen from Ireland

Dear Dr de Haen,

I have read the contributions with interest, but failed to see much comment about the need for private land ownership. Without this, there is no hope of us feeding the world in 2050. Communal land ownership, combined with more than 60% of people on the land is a guarantee of poverty and soil degradation, even allowing for the palliative measures such as seed and fertiiizer subsidy schemes, to cover the lack of working capital that communal land ownership guarantees. Poverty in rural areas means more children, witness the population trebling, or more, in Kenya, Ethiopia, Malawi since 1970. Without working capital, a given in communal areas, yields must stay low, as in the Eastern Cape in South Africa where 'emerging farmers' on communal land obtain maize yields of 0.7t/ha compared to a national average of commercial producers of around 4.2 t/ha, or six times more per hectare. Much of Eastern Cape land is not cultivated at all due to the poor return among other factors. This is a WASTE of land, some of the best watered land in South Africa.
My second point is the need for alternative fertilizer strategies. The liquid Flex fertilizer system keeps N and P in the root zone for some weeks after planting, with little or no N leaching. This results in much larger root systems than are obtained with conventional fertilizers. With good root systems, plants can forage for water and nutrients and can get by with 50% less P and 25% less N. This system is widely used on potatoes, in particular, in Holland and Ireland, resulting in much higher quality potatoes of saleable size. It could save a lot of money on P transport around Africa if it were used. In addition, trace elements can be added easily and now even micro-organisms are being mixed with the liquid fertilizer resulting in much less fungal problems on potatoes. This fertilizer can be made in a small $300 000 plant, fully computerised, using Phosphoric Acid, Sulphuric Acid and Urea as basic feedstocks. The formulations can be changed in minutes to match exactly the soil test results, rather than the hit and miss of conventional compounds. Why are research stations not looking at this product? The farmers, as usual, lead research by years.
Third, given the benefits of Conservation Agriculture in terms of crop yields, reduction in fuel use and in reducing GHG emissions, it should become the system of choice if we are to feed the world in 2050. Currently, about 1/15th of the world's arable land is managed in this way.
Fourth, more research is needed on the benefits of micro-organisms in agriculture, both for improving the soil and in reducing GHG emissions from cattle. It is estimated that silage treated with Effective Micro-organisms generates 10% less GHGs than conventional silage. This is a saving that cannot be ignored for much longer as for every 1 degree rise in temperature above the norm, crop yields decline by 10% (IRRI) or more in the USA, as quoted in Lester Brown's books. We need to prevent global warming every way we can as if we don't, perhaps 10 percent of the 9 billion population will survive.
Finally, more money and manpower must be put into an agricultural research effort, similar in seriousness and desire for success to the Manhattan Project, to find alternative ways of food production, as yet undiscovered, but also to improve existing food production systems. Serious research has been an orphan for too long. We have finally awoke from our complacency about world food security due to the price spikes of 2008. We can't press the snooze button now that prices have come down again, given the huge rise in world population in prospect.
James Breen, Wexford, Ireland.