Discussion: training manuals on food security

Contribution by Muna Lakhani from the Institute for Zero Waste in Africa, South Africa

Context and Reality Check:

We currently grow more than enough food to feed everyone – let us not lose sight of that. Despite the wastage of food; the diversion of food to animals that could feed humans; and the belief that ‘biofuels from food crops’ is a necessary and required further diversion of potential food for humans; are all part of the problem – just like we will not “solve” climate change by any thing other than reducing consumption by the rich (generating 80% of the pollution, but making up only 25% of the world population), we will not solve hunger by continuing within the current paradigm that created the problem in the first place – the culture of entitlement of the rich.

This statement is unpalatable to many, but must be confronted as part of the reality within which we operate.

So, the question we must maybe begin to discuss, is WHAT will feed all the hungry people in the world by 2050? If we fall into the trap of thinking that meat (as it is currently the case) is the ‘best’ food, then we are doomed. However, if we accept that meat is over emphasised as a food (and the way in which we currently produce it is simply unsustainable) then we will solve the problem much easier.

During our peaceful political transition here in South Africa, we chose (amongst many others) a governance principle that could well apply to food production – it is called “subsidiarity” – the notion that a problem must be solved at the lowest level possible, but at the highest level necessary.

So, if we work from the premise that it is most sustainable for people to grow their own food where they are, using local energy, water, organic nutrients (such as biodigesters) and land – but where this is difficult, impossible or simply unfeasible, then they should be supplied from the next most local level, but guaranteed by the highest level of governance (generally, National government).

Further, another area which (so far, anyway) I have not seen much discussion on in the field, is the notion that countries must only export food once the needs of the population are satisfied – only surplus production should be exported. Yes, this topples the current development paradigm, but is it not the current paradigm that created the problem in the first place?

Or do we try and use a flawed system to find an equally flawed solution?
Muna Lakhani

Contribution by Glenn Ashton from South Africa

I feel I have to respond to the uninformed and markedly neo-colonial inferences made by James Breen of Ireland in his recent posting on food security.

His assertion that productive agricultural activity can only exist where land is privately owned, and that by extension, communally held land "is a guarantee of poverty and soil degradation" is not only uninformed but is insulting.

South Africa, where most of the arable land is privately held, is victim of serious abuse of the land by commercial, private farmers. We have some catastrophically degraded land in all of our various climatic zones from poor land husbandry by commercial farmers. With very little topsoil

to begin with, irresponsible farming practices by private interests have cost future generations dearly, from overgrazing, over fertilisation, allowing invasive alien plants to overrun the land and so forth.
While there is degradation on land that is communally owned, this is not always the case. Much of this degradation is the result of 85% of the population being shoe-horned into 12% of the land, an historical situation that still needs to be rectified.
Therefore James's conclusions and inferences are inaccurate and misplaced. Land degradation in communally owned areas are all too often the result of drought, poor central planning, lack of extension services, having to compete against subsidised northern produce, of being ill advised to institute commercial farming practices on land ill suited, etc etc. Most land degradation on communally owned land in the Southern African region is not the result of overuse of the land through ignorance but rather through circumstance, and, all too often, from poor advice from Northern funders who then leave after three years and wonder why their projects have failed. But that is another story which I may tell if time permits!
The fact that most US commercial farmland is in private ownership further shows that there are serious dangers of this model being exported to the developing world. Pollution of water sources by leaching of artificial fertilisers into water courses has created a massive dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico. Elsewhere aquatic systems are under equal pressure because of the commercial imperative. Dust bowls are reappearing - and lets not forget that the original dust bowls of the 1930s were equally from abuse of privately owned land. On the other hand communally owned land, in tribal or other collective ownership, is in far better shape in most cases. So lets be very careful about wild generalisations drawn from ill informed conventional wisdom.
Finally it may inform Mr Breen were he to undertake some research into the latest winner of the Nobel Prize for Economics, Elinor Ostrom, who has clearly demonstrated that communally owned resources are, contrary to mainstream beliefs, well managed and regulated by the communities who administer them. There is an interesting analysis at Forbes http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/12/nobel-prize-economics-elinor-ostrom-opinions-columnists-elisabeth-eaves.html?partner=relatedstoriesbox

I think that an analysis of the work of this remarkable women would go a long way to further informing this debate in general.

Glenn Ashton

Environmental researcher and author

Contribution by Dominic Glover from Wageningen University, the Netherlands

James Breen has advocated conservation agriculture as 'the system of choice if we are to feed the world in 2050'. I recognise that conservation agriculture is being used to advantage in some parts of the world and that it has some attractive aspects, and I agree that it holds considerable promise for further expansion to improve the sustainability of agriculture. However, I think it is not realistic to advocate this single approach (or any other single approach) as a panacea that may be applied in all contexts and circumstances. In particular, it may not be easy to adopt or beneficial for resource-poor farmers in sub-Saharan Africa, which helps to explain why there is little evidence of conservation agriculture having spread in that part of the world.

The argument has been made better than I can make it the following recent paper from the journal Field Crops Research:

Giller, K. E., Witter, E., Corbeels, M. and Tittonell, P. 2009. 'Conservation agriculture and smallholder farming in Africa: The heretics' view'. Field Crops Research 114 (1), pp. 23-34

Abstract: "Conservation agriculture (CA) is claimed to be a panacea for the problems of poor agricultural productivity and soil degradation in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). It is actively promoted by international research and development organisations, with such strong advocacy that critical debate is stifled. Claims for the potential of CA in Africa are based on widespread adoption in the Americas, where the effects of tillage were replaced by heavy dependence on herbicides and fertilisers. CA is said to increase yields, to reduce labour requirements, improve soil fertility and reduce erosion. Yet empirical evidence is not clear and consistent on many of these points, nor is it always clear which of the principles of CA contribute to the desired effects. Although cases can be found where such claims are supported there are equally convincing scientific reports that contradict these claims. Concerns include decreased yields often observed with CA, increased labour requirements when herbicides are not used, an important gender shift of the labour burden to women and a lack of mulch due to poor productivity and due to the priority given to feeding of livestock with crop residues. Despite the publicity claiming widespread adoption of CA, the available evidence suggests virtually no uptake of CA in most SSA countries, with only small groups of adopters in South Africa, Ghana and Zambia. We conclude that there is an urgent need for critical assessment under which ecological and socio-economic conditions CA is best suited for smallholder farming in SSA. Critical constraints to adoption appear to be competing uses for crop residues, increased labour demand for weeding and lack of access to, and use of, external inputs."
Best wishes,
Dominic Glover
Technology and Agrarian Development Group,
Wageningen University, the Netherlands