|
|
Managing Sustainable Food Supply
It is estimated that up to 2 million people died as a result of the Bengal Famine; India's last major famine in 1943. In this event the positive checks on population as Thomas Malthus had predicted in An Essay on the Principle of Population took effect. Population growth had outstripped food supply with devestating effect. The carrying capacity of the region at that time was exceeded and people fell victim to the harsh reality of nature. Since 1943, India has moved through an agricultural revolution. The green revolution as it is called has enabled India to achieve self-sufficiency in food production. Since the green revolution, world agriculture has advanced further. Biotechnology has developed genitically modified crops, which have been embraced by the US but rejected by Europe, with developing countries caught somewhere in the middle. The commercialisation of farming, through mechanisation, irrigation and use of chemical inputs has established massive economies of scale that have driven down prices over the long term. Agribusiness controls the production of seeds as well as the fertilizers and pesticides that they repsond to. Food is a global commodity that's traded internationally to supply supermarkets with all-year-round greens; it has also become a commodity traded in the financial markets, making its price more volatile to short term spikes, that leave the poorest and most vulnerable struggling to feed themselves. This level of intensification and commercialisation has taken its toll on soil and water resources. Soil degradation and water scarcity are increasingly widespread. Small scale farmers across the globe from USA to India and Nigeria to Argentina are being driven off the land by lower prices and increased debt. Whilst food is shipped across the globe by large commercial farms contributing through food miles to climate change. In some regions food scarcity is on the increase, whilst in other regions more than 30% of food produced goes to waste. Niche food markets have developed in repsonse to some of the social and environmental injustices with food trade, local markets look to reduce food miles, organic food attempts to reduce broader environmental consequences and fair trade offers at the local scale, hope to millions of farmers in developing countries. Institutions like the World Bank and WTO use a carrot and stick to convince developing countries to reduce protectionism and adopt free market ideology. This has allowed corporations to buy land to produce food for world markets in countries whose people face daily food shortages. The sustainability of food is highly complex and goes well beyond environmental best practice.
Meeting the Needs of the Present Generation
The first point we need to discuss in relation to sustainable food supply covers the need to meet the needs of the present generation. The most recent data on the number of people undernourished comes from the FAO in 2010 and suggest that 925 million people are undernorished. 19 million or just 2 percent of these are located in developed countries. The remainder live in developing countries, with the majority, 578 million living in Asia and the Pacific.
World agriculture produces 17 percent more calories per person today than it did 30 years ago, despite a 70 percent population increase. This is enough to provide everyone in the world with at least 2,720 kilocalories (kcal) per person per day according to the most recent estimate (FAO 2002). However, as we have already seen this food is not evenly distributed and consumed and the principle problem is that many people in the world do not have sufficient land to grow, or income to purchase, enough food.
World agriculture produces 17 percent more calories per person today than it did 30 years ago, despite a 70 percent population increase. This is enough to provide everyone in the world with at least 2,720 kilocalories (kcal) per person per day according to the most recent estimate (FAO 2002). However, as we have already seen this food is not evenly distributed and consumed and the principle problem is that many people in the world do not have sufficient land to grow, or income to purchase, enough food.
The problem of undernourished people or malnutrition is not a new concern and despite declining numbers through the 1970s to 1990s the numbers have increased over the last 5 years or so. Although since 2009, there does appear to have been a small improvement, mostly as a result of the MDGs and the WFP. The general increase in undernourished people, especially children is in stark contrast with the increase in food production, however, it does seem to reflect world population growth, as shown in the graph below. The main problem with population growth is that it is most rapid in the least developed countries. The very same countries, which are most exposed to price change. |
As the graph (left) suggests, food commodities like rice, oilseed, wheat and course grains have all fallen in price over the last 40 years, despite a period of recent increase. This has enabled greater food security to be achieved at the global scale. Despite this, there has been much discussion about the rise in the price of food in recent years, with many countries experiencing food riots in 2008. This recent rise in food price has been largly driven by the rise in oil prices and the rise in demand for biofuels as well as the unpredictable conditions of the natural enviornment. Sadly global commodity markets are also having an influence.
|
However, the recent price rise appears dwarfed by the rise in price of the 1970s. So why has the recent relatively small rise in food price led to so much food insecurity in developing countries? The answer to this question relates back to deeper socio-economic factors, like rising population pressure, increased social degradation, desertification, water scarcity and chronic poverty as well as closer ties and increased vulnerability to global markets.
The following map shows the vulnerability of people in developing countries to changes in food price. The size of the circle represents the percentage of children under five with maltnutition. The data within each circle refers to the percentage of household income spent on food. As you can see there is a clear divide separating developed countries from the rest and therefore the ability of housholds to cope with food prices varies massively depending on the particular circuumstance. The socio-economic challenge of lifting people out of poverty is ultimately the bigger challenge as we can't expect food prices to fall greatly anytime soon.
The following map shows the vulnerability of people in developing countries to changes in food price. The size of the circle represents the percentage of children under five with maltnutition. The data within each circle refers to the percentage of household income spent on food. As you can see there is a clear divide separating developed countries from the rest and therefore the ability of housholds to cope with food prices varies massively depending on the particular circuumstance. The socio-economic challenge of lifting people out of poverty is ultimately the bigger challenge as we can't expect food prices to fall greatly anytime soon.
Advances in Technology
As already stated in the spatial patterns section, as a country develops it follows a path of increased mechanisation and intensification. These agricultural developments help improve productivity, through reduced labour time, improved irrigation and wider use of artificial pesticides and fertilizers. As a result, farm size increases, output increases and agricultural employment falls. Through this expansion, economies of scale are achieved, which has led to the global food price falling.
Irrigation
Irrigated agriculture is one of the critical components of world food production, which has contributed significantly to improving world food security. About 17 percent of global agricultural land is irrigated and contributes about 40 percent of the global production of cereal crops (WCD 2000). The total irrigated area in the world was 277 million hectares in 1997, which is a little over 250 percent more than it was in 1950 (FAO 1998). The per capita per year cereal production in developing countries has increased from 200 kg during the early sixties (1961-65) to more than 260 kg in 1997.
India, China and Pakistan in the 1960s and the 1970s have succeeded in increasing agricultural production significantly over a short span of time by accelerated provision of irrigation facilities. Irrigation infrastructure is one of the critical factors for improving agricultural production, farm incomes and rural wealth.The knock on benefits are increased crop yields that reduces food scarcity and increased income that increases spending power for a more varied diet. However, the benefits of irrigation have been severely questioned by the World Commission on Dams in its report on “Dams and Development” (WCD 2000). The WCD report sets out the negative impacts of multipurpose dams for irrigation and their impacts on irrigated agriculture. The report explicitly says, “dams designed to deliver irrigation services have typically fallen short of physical targets, did not recover their costs and have been less profitable in economic terms than expected” . However, the actual contribution of irrigated agriculture to global food production, maintenance of food security, rural livelihoods and the overall well-being of society are issues that are debated now.
Despite these benefits, there are obvious problems with large scale irrigation projects. Irrigation development in many places has displaced marginal and poor farmers, making them landless laborers and ultimately pushing them to cities. Likewise, the social disruption of the rural poor due to large-scale irrigation systems and reservoir construction, inadequate compensation to displaced persons and increased incidence of water-borne diseases negatively impacts rural communities. Furthermore, increased waterlogging and soil salinity build-up due to poor provision of drainage facilities in irrigation systems are often cited as negative environmental impacts.
However, the positive impacts of irrigation infrastructure could outweigh these negative impacts through improved planning and management of irrigation. Too often this has not been the case. In China, economic and political goals are placed ahead of environmental concerns, to the extent that environmental problems are only considered externalities. Full cost-benefit assessments are not integrated into the planning of projects. Arundhati Roy also commented on the subject of multi-purpose dams in India, "...the Government has not commissioned a post project evaluation of a single one of its 3,600 dams to gauge whether or not it has achieved what it set out to achieve, whether or not the (always phenomenal) costs were justified, or even what the costs actually were... Isn't this astounding? How can you measure progress if you don't know what it costs and who has paid for it?".
As a result of almost uncontrolled access to groundwater irrigation, the water table is falling at an alarming rate in many places in India and other regions of the world. It seems that in embracing irrigation for increased food production, water scarcity is on the increase. The important question concerns the long term sustainaibility of poorly planned and poorly assessed irrigation systems. It seems that too often, the wrong technologies are being employed, in the wrong way in the the wrong physical environment. There seems to be an alarming short sightedness here.
Irrigation
Irrigated agriculture is one of the critical components of world food production, which has contributed significantly to improving world food security. About 17 percent of global agricultural land is irrigated and contributes about 40 percent of the global production of cereal crops (WCD 2000). The total irrigated area in the world was 277 million hectares in 1997, which is a little over 250 percent more than it was in 1950 (FAO 1998). The per capita per year cereal production in developing countries has increased from 200 kg during the early sixties (1961-65) to more than 260 kg in 1997.
India, China and Pakistan in the 1960s and the 1970s have succeeded in increasing agricultural production significantly over a short span of time by accelerated provision of irrigation facilities. Irrigation infrastructure is one of the critical factors for improving agricultural production, farm incomes and rural wealth.The knock on benefits are increased crop yields that reduces food scarcity and increased income that increases spending power for a more varied diet. However, the benefits of irrigation have been severely questioned by the World Commission on Dams in its report on “Dams and Development” (WCD 2000). The WCD report sets out the negative impacts of multipurpose dams for irrigation and their impacts on irrigated agriculture. The report explicitly says, “dams designed to deliver irrigation services have typically fallen short of physical targets, did not recover their costs and have been less profitable in economic terms than expected” . However, the actual contribution of irrigated agriculture to global food production, maintenance of food security, rural livelihoods and the overall well-being of society are issues that are debated now.
Despite these benefits, there are obvious problems with large scale irrigation projects. Irrigation development in many places has displaced marginal and poor farmers, making them landless laborers and ultimately pushing them to cities. Likewise, the social disruption of the rural poor due to large-scale irrigation systems and reservoir construction, inadequate compensation to displaced persons and increased incidence of water-borne diseases negatively impacts rural communities. Furthermore, increased waterlogging and soil salinity build-up due to poor provision of drainage facilities in irrigation systems are often cited as negative environmental impacts.
However, the positive impacts of irrigation infrastructure could outweigh these negative impacts through improved planning and management of irrigation. Too often this has not been the case. In China, economic and political goals are placed ahead of environmental concerns, to the extent that environmental problems are only considered externalities. Full cost-benefit assessments are not integrated into the planning of projects. Arundhati Roy also commented on the subject of multi-purpose dams in India, "...the Government has not commissioned a post project evaluation of a single one of its 3,600 dams to gauge whether or not it has achieved what it set out to achieve, whether or not the (always phenomenal) costs were justified, or even what the costs actually were... Isn't this astounding? How can you measure progress if you don't know what it costs and who has paid for it?".
As a result of almost uncontrolled access to groundwater irrigation, the water table is falling at an alarming rate in many places in India and other regions of the world. It seems that in embracing irrigation for increased food production, water scarcity is on the increase. The important question concerns the long term sustainaibility of poorly planned and poorly assessed irrigation systems. It seems that too often, the wrong technologies are being employed, in the wrong way in the the wrong physical environment. There seems to be an alarming short sightedness here.
The Green Revolution
The Green Revolution began in the 1960s, first in Mexico and then quickly spread into India and other regions. It involved the intensive production of food and development of new High Yield Varieties (HYVs) crops that were more resistant to drought, wind and rain damage as well as having a shorter growth period so that more than one yield could be achieved per growing season. This initially began with rice, then wheat and today include many other staples, including sorghum, millet, maize, cassava, and beans. Alongside HYVs, more intensive use of pesticides and fertilizers were required, as well as more modern farming approaches such as mechanisation and more importantly irrigation.
I think it's important to recognise the merits of the green revolution in creating food self sufficiency and reducing food scarcity. With the help of intensive farming methods and irrigation, it has massively increased food production at a time of rapid population growth, without the need for increasing the land area under cultivation. This has been vital in preserving natural forest. Having said this, the socio-economic implications of its widespread use, alongside intensive chemical use and poorly assessed irrigation systems (as already discussed) have severely impacted farmers and the environment. How sustainable these industrial farming systems can be, in fragile environments with scarce water reserves is difficult to say, but there is much debate in regard to how small scale farmers have been disempowered. Many farmers are trapped in a cycle of debt as a result of converting to HYV seeds and buying into the irrigation and pesticides, only to see food prices fall and pesticide price increase more than ten-fold. Vandana Shiva goes as far to say that corporations and western governments are using food as a weapon to rip control of food supply from countries in order to propagate political influence over domestic policies.
Case study of Managing Food Supply and Demand - The Green Revolution - Place focus - India
The following PDF resource from the IFPRI is an excellent case study on the impacts of the green revolution. It can be used to develop a case study on the demand and supply of food in India. Just click on the first page of the document below.
I think it's important to recognise the merits of the green revolution in creating food self sufficiency and reducing food scarcity. With the help of intensive farming methods and irrigation, it has massively increased food production at a time of rapid population growth, without the need for increasing the land area under cultivation. This has been vital in preserving natural forest. Having said this, the socio-economic implications of its widespread use, alongside intensive chemical use and poorly assessed irrigation systems (as already discussed) have severely impacted farmers and the environment. How sustainable these industrial farming systems can be, in fragile environments with scarce water reserves is difficult to say, but there is much debate in regard to how small scale farmers have been disempowered. Many farmers are trapped in a cycle of debt as a result of converting to HYV seeds and buying into the irrigation and pesticides, only to see food prices fall and pesticide price increase more than ten-fold. Vandana Shiva goes as far to say that corporations and western governments are using food as a weapon to rip control of food supply from countries in order to propagate political influence over domestic policies.
Case study of Managing Food Supply and Demand - The Green Revolution - Place focus - India
The following PDF resource from the IFPRI is an excellent case study on the impacts of the green revolution. It can be used to develop a case study on the demand and supply of food in India. Just click on the first page of the document below.
Genetically Modified Crops
Genetic modification in food first came on the market in the USA in 1996 and involves the insertion or deletion of genes into transgenic plant products such as soya, rice, corn and seed oil. In the process of cisgenesis, genes are artificially transferred between organisms that could be conventionally bred. In the process of transgenesis, genes from a different species are inserted, which is a form of horizontal gene transfer. To do this artificially may require transferring genes as part of an attenuated virus genome or physically inserting the extra DNA into the nucleus of the intended host using a microsyringe, or as a coating on gold nanoparticles fired from a gene gun. However, other methods exploit natural forms of gene transfer, such as the ability of Agrobacterium to transfer genetic material to plants, and the ability of lentiviruses to transfer genes to animal cells. There is much controversy with GM crops, with them being widely accepted in the USA (where are the bees?) and widely rejected in Europe. The main concerns are to do with the impact on wildlife and contamination into the non GM plants. There are also other concerns relating to human health. With Europe up to now opting out of the GM market US agribusiness are persueing developing markets. There is much debate over the current appropriateness of GM Bred seeds for the environment sof developing countries and it is very unclear whether they will fill successfully improve food scarcity issues.
The following case study from Friends of the Earth provides a detailed account of the issues related to GM crops but reflects a strong European viewpoint.
The following case study from Friends of the Earth provides a detailed account of the issues related to GM crops but reflects a strong European viewpoint.
Vandana Shiva is a physicist, ecologist and activist in India. She has an amazing knowledge of the global agricultural industry and this series of videos show her interviewed on the subject of GM crops, agribusiness and the global food trade. It is very important that you listen to her viewpoint and reflect on the severity of some of her cliams.
|
|
The Industrialisation of Farming
In developed countries and many other regions, farming has increasingly become more commercial and industrialised. Agriculture has changed quite rapidly to a consolidated structure of fewer, larger farms, ranches, and animal feeding units. Driven by economies of scale arising from steady advances in technology, the trend shows every sign of continuing. During the past two decades, the number of farms in the USA has shrunk by roughly a quarter to about two million. As the number of farms shrinks, larger farms account for more farm economic activity. Small farms - remain the most the most numerous, comprising about 60 percent or 1200 000 farms in the US. This large group of small farms, however, owns only about 30 percent of all farm assets and produce only 11 percent of total farm sales, a small proportion relative to their large number. Thus, most small farms can be described as "life-style" or "hobby" farms that rely on diversification or off-farm income. In contrast, commercial farms account for most industry assets and sales.
Medium-sized farms comprise about a quarter of all farms, own about 40 percent of industry assets, and produce nearly a third of industry sales. Large farms, represent only 15 percent of the total number of farms, but own about 30 percent of all farm assets and produce well over half of industry sales. The new structure, features increased concentration of large-scale livestock and specialty crop production.
The impacts of these changes are massive in terms of dislocating smaller farmers from rural communities and livlihoods. As larger farms move in smaller famers are forced out, many of whom move to cities and take up work outside farming. The industrialisation of farming places the control of food into fewer and fewer hands. In the short term this may mean more efficient prodcutivity and increased output but there is a loss in traditional practice and breeding, which has survived and evolved through millenia. At worst, this may increase long term food insecurity due to loss of seeds and breeds. This develops because industrial farming specialises in fewer and fewer highly productive seeds and animal breeds. Industrial farmimg promotes monocultures that are nutritionally poor and drain soils of its vital nutrient base. These can only be replenished through widespread chemical dependence. These inputs as well as intensive water use and unimaginable scales of waste management all place the sustainability of food supply at risk.
The following video, called HOME produced by Yann Arthus Bertrand is best watched in its entirety but there are also many clips that illustrate the damaging impacts of intensive industrialised farming.
Medium-sized farms comprise about a quarter of all farms, own about 40 percent of industry assets, and produce nearly a third of industry sales. Large farms, represent only 15 percent of the total number of farms, but own about 30 percent of all farm assets and produce well over half of industry sales. The new structure, features increased concentration of large-scale livestock and specialty crop production.
The impacts of these changes are massive in terms of dislocating smaller farmers from rural communities and livlihoods. As larger farms move in smaller famers are forced out, many of whom move to cities and take up work outside farming. The industrialisation of farming places the control of food into fewer and fewer hands. In the short term this may mean more efficient prodcutivity and increased output but there is a loss in traditional practice and breeding, which has survived and evolved through millenia. At worst, this may increase long term food insecurity due to loss of seeds and breeds. This develops because industrial farming specialises in fewer and fewer highly productive seeds and animal breeds. Industrial farmimg promotes monocultures that are nutritionally poor and drain soils of its vital nutrient base. These can only be replenished through widespread chemical dependence. These inputs as well as intensive water use and unimaginable scales of waste management all place the sustainability of food supply at risk.
The following video, called HOME produced by Yann Arthus Bertrand is best watched in its entirety but there are also many clips that illustrate the damaging impacts of intensive industrialised farming.
To examine the impacts of intensive commercial farming, it's useful to look at the USA. Between 1950 and 2000, two thirds of all farmers left the industry. Thirty years ago there were 750 000 independent farmers in the US, today there are only 85 000. In the state of Iowa alone 24 000 farms have been lost since 1980.
It is sometimes difficult to recognise what these figures actually mean, especially as most of us are not familiar with rural economies and find it difficult to relate to the social fabric of rural communities; after all I live in Belgium and 97 percent of Belgains live in cities or towns. But the reality in the USA, is that the rural community has been torn up. As farms close, so too do the supportive industries related to farming. The farming system relies at each stage (inputs, processes and outputs) on suppliers and services that all become reduntant once farms close. So the implication of mass farm closure leads to the loss of rural economies. People and communities fall into a cycle of decline and with no government intervention, (due to corporate influence and funding) people are forced to migrate out.
This process of commercial domination of farming is particularly evident in the Hog (pig) farm indutsry in the US. The two videos below from the documentary As we Sow develop the socio-economic and environmental impacts of large commercial hog and chicken units moving in and forcing the closure of small independent family farms. If we are to examine the sustainability of food supply in a way that fully addresses the social element of sustainability, then we have to seriously question the very principle of the US corporate farming model. An industrial system, which systematically dominates and disempowers small scale farming communities and removes their livlihoods; potentially creating bankruptcy, family break up, out migration and at worst suicide, struggles to tick the boxes of sustainability. It does on the other hand increase food productivity and food output in the short term at the expense of natural environment and community.
It is sometimes difficult to recognise what these figures actually mean, especially as most of us are not familiar with rural economies and find it difficult to relate to the social fabric of rural communities; after all I live in Belgium and 97 percent of Belgains live in cities or towns. But the reality in the USA, is that the rural community has been torn up. As farms close, so too do the supportive industries related to farming. The farming system relies at each stage (inputs, processes and outputs) on suppliers and services that all become reduntant once farms close. So the implication of mass farm closure leads to the loss of rural economies. People and communities fall into a cycle of decline and with no government intervention, (due to corporate influence and funding) people are forced to migrate out.
This process of commercial domination of farming is particularly evident in the Hog (pig) farm indutsry in the US. The two videos below from the documentary As we Sow develop the socio-economic and environmental impacts of large commercial hog and chicken units moving in and forcing the closure of small independent family farms. If we are to examine the sustainability of food supply in a way that fully addresses the social element of sustainability, then we have to seriously question the very principle of the US corporate farming model. An industrial system, which systematically dominates and disempowers small scale farming communities and removes their livlihoods; potentially creating bankruptcy, family break up, out migration and at worst suicide, struggles to tick the boxes of sustainability. It does on the other hand increase food productivity and food output in the short term at the expense of natural environment and community.
|
|
Agribusiness
Many of the technology and commercial changes that have been described so far are in part a characteristic of agribusiness. Agribusiness refers to farming engaged in large-scale business operations that embrace the production, processing, and distribution of agricultural products and the manufacture of farm machinery, equipment, and supplies. More recently it has become synonymous with large agrichemical industries involved in the research and production of high yielding seed varieties and GM seed varieties alongside the chemical inputs such as fertilizers and pesticides that support them. In other ways, large food corporations are participating in mass land grabs that are buying or renting large strands of land area to produce monocultures for either export or for their own domestic food security. Essentially, through corporate dominance at each stage of the food trade chain, the control of food is held by fewer and fewer people. The modern global agribusiness food chain can be seen below.
At each stage there are significant losses, at the input stage we can see that natural environment and natural breeding selection is losing out to laboratary seeds. Millenia of selective breeding and traditional varieties are being lost. At the farming stage commercial large-scale farming is forcing small land owners out of rural communities due to the economy of scale of their production. In food processing food is preserved, processed, packaged branded and marketed so that food is increasingly unrecognisable. For example, it is becoming increasingly difficult to link some processed meat products to the actual type of animal that they come from. Food retail in HICs is completely dominated by supermarket chains and the high street traders are forced to sell up.
At each stage there are significant losses, at the input stage we can see that natural environment and natural breeding selection is losing out to laboratary seeds. Millenia of selective breeding and traditional varieties are being lost. At the farming stage commercial large-scale farming is forcing small land owners out of rural communities due to the economy of scale of their production. In food processing food is preserved, processed, packaged branded and marketed so that food is increasingly unrecognisable. For example, it is becoming increasingly difficult to link some processed meat products to the actual type of animal that they come from. Food retail in HICs is completely dominated by supermarket chains and the high street traders are forced to sell up.
Alternatives to Large-scale Commercial Farming: Sustainable Agriculture
There are a number of alternative farming systems that can increase food productivity yet at the same time, protect the land and water resources. These alternative farming systems differ from the more western commercial approach in that they are based on a better understanding of the physical environment. The farming methods are therefore appropriate in terms of technology and in regard to climate, soil and water resources. As a result they address the need to maintain food supply for future generations. Too often, the intensive and costly western model has been introduced into developing countries at the loss of the physical environment and the socio-economic fabric of the rural community. Viable alternatives vary from place to place in regard to changing climate and physical environment. In developed countries there is a growing local market movement and organic food movement. These local markets and organic markets are also viable for developing countries as they would increase the diversity of food away from the monocultures and nutrition-poor export crops. The global food market is often difficult to understand. There appears a paradox of increased food output for export, built on the back of irrigation systems but increased food scarcity. It is often the case that export crops are produced on the more fertile lands forcing people producing for local markets on to more marginal less fertile lands. These factors all lead to poorer local diets and over reliance on nutritious-poor monoculture crops.
Appropriate alternatives then tend to be based around permaculture. Permaculture is an ecological design system for sustainability in all aspects of human activity. In the context of farming it takes account of every aspect of the environment and the way humans interact with it. It teaches an approach that is to minimise waste, human labour, and energy input by building systems, which maximise benefits between design elements to achieve a high level of synergy. Permaculture designs evolve over time by taking into account these relationships and elements and can become extremely complex systems that produce a high density of food and materials with minimal inputs. In order for it to be successful a deep and intimate knowledge of the land and its environment is required. The following videos sets out some of the challenges to sustainable agriculture in dry arid environment and semi-tropical environments. They are produced by the NGO - Excellent Development who always have a stand at the GA conference.
Appropriate alternatives then tend to be based around permaculture. Permaculture is an ecological design system for sustainability in all aspects of human activity. In the context of farming it takes account of every aspect of the environment and the way humans interact with it. It teaches an approach that is to minimise waste, human labour, and energy input by building systems, which maximise benefits between design elements to achieve a high level of synergy. Permaculture designs evolve over time by taking into account these relationships and elements and can become extremely complex systems that produce a high density of food and materials with minimal inputs. In order for it to be successful a deep and intimate knowledge of the land and its environment is required. The following videos sets out some of the challenges to sustainable agriculture in dry arid environment and semi-tropical environments. They are produced by the NGO - Excellent Development who always have a stand at the GA conference.
|
|
The next series of videos were produced in association with the Lake Naivasha Riparian Association, in Kenya. It features Josphat Njoroge Macharia, who demonstrates an enviable knowledge of his own land and physical environment and clearly has many things to teach any farmer about the merits of sustainable agriculture based on permaculture.
|
|
Measuring the Environmental Impact of Farming
An interesting debate that is emerging is that of organic food versus local food. At one point in time they may have been perceived as the same but now organic food is produced all over the globe for western markets. In extending the organic food industry abroad the key focuses of environmental care and social care for farm labourers is also expanded. This acts as an important counterweight to the intensive commerical systems, which have so many damaging impacts on social and environmental welfare. At the same time people can consume food that they know is pesticide free and not genetically modified. However, it comes with an environmental cost defined as food miles. Organic food may have been transported many miles and in doing so carries a sizeable carbon footprint. Local food markets provide for stronger local community health: including a network of farmers, food processors, and customers who live and work in the rural community as well as the regional landscape and economy. Personal health is also a factor, since local food is fresher. In terms of the environment, local food does not generate the same pollution and waste or the same energy as foods that are trucked, shipped, or flown in from far away. Although local food may have high intensive inputs such as artificial greenhouses. If this local market is combined with organic farming we develop a win win situation, whereby we protect our wildlife, habitats, waterways, and rural communities as well as expanding those benefits abroad.
Of course there is no doubt that both these types of farming system are productive and healthy for the environment and community, in comparision to more intensive and commercial models. This seems common sense! However, they are also more productive and have less environmental impact than subsistence monocultures that dominate large regions of Africa and South Asia. In these remote rural regions, farmers are not always informed on appropriate land management like the examples we have seen above. At worst, population pressure, is leading to soil degradation and desertification through a combination of deforestation, over-grazing and over-cultivation. In this case there is no reference to intensive inputs or energy use but it's simply a case of too many people living on too little land with a lack of knowledge. What seems to make sense, and certainly what Vandana Shiva advocates is a movement away from monoculture to a more diversified mixed farming system through the organic approach; but rather than this be for the export market, it should provide more varied food for the local markets.
In order to discuss which system is better environmentally we need to use environmental indicators. Three ways of measuring environmental impact referred to in the IB syllabus are, Energy Efficiency Ratios, Sustainable Yield and Food Miles.
Energy Efficiency Ratios (EER) is a measure of the amount of energy input into a farming system compared with the output. Inputs can be direct and indirect. Direct inputs refer to the labour and capital, e.g. machinery. Indirect inputs refer to pesticides, irrigation , electricity and transport etc. A subsistent famer relying on mainly intensive labour inputs is likely to have low energy input. However, the energy efficiency of the system will depend on the quantity of food produced. If only a small amount of food is produced the energy efficiency is likely to be poor. Likewise a large intensive farm in Canada with a huge variety of direct and indirect energy inputs might achieve an efficient energy ratio provided it produces an abundance of food. EER is calculated by the following calculation:
EER = Energy Outputs A ratio equal or above 1 is considered an efficient ratio
Energy Inputs
Energy efficiency on its own as indicator is useful for looking at the overall efficiency of energy use within a farming system and its particualry relevant in the context of climate change and the vital importance of achieving energy efficiency. The case study below describes the energy savings that would be realised in Croatia should it convert its entire agricultural system to organic farming.
Of course there is no doubt that both these types of farming system are productive and healthy for the environment and community, in comparision to more intensive and commercial models. This seems common sense! However, they are also more productive and have less environmental impact than subsistence monocultures that dominate large regions of Africa and South Asia. In these remote rural regions, farmers are not always informed on appropriate land management like the examples we have seen above. At worst, population pressure, is leading to soil degradation and desertification through a combination of deforestation, over-grazing and over-cultivation. In this case there is no reference to intensive inputs or energy use but it's simply a case of too many people living on too little land with a lack of knowledge. What seems to make sense, and certainly what Vandana Shiva advocates is a movement away from monoculture to a more diversified mixed farming system through the organic approach; but rather than this be for the export market, it should provide more varied food for the local markets.
In order to discuss which system is better environmentally we need to use environmental indicators. Three ways of measuring environmental impact referred to in the IB syllabus are, Energy Efficiency Ratios, Sustainable Yield and Food Miles.
Energy Efficiency Ratios (EER) is a measure of the amount of energy input into a farming system compared with the output. Inputs can be direct and indirect. Direct inputs refer to the labour and capital, e.g. machinery. Indirect inputs refer to pesticides, irrigation , electricity and transport etc. A subsistent famer relying on mainly intensive labour inputs is likely to have low energy input. However, the energy efficiency of the system will depend on the quantity of food produced. If only a small amount of food is produced the energy efficiency is likely to be poor. Likewise a large intensive farm in Canada with a huge variety of direct and indirect energy inputs might achieve an efficient energy ratio provided it produces an abundance of food. EER is calculated by the following calculation:
EER = Energy Outputs A ratio equal or above 1 is considered an efficient ratio
Energy Inputs
Energy efficiency on its own as indicator is useful for looking at the overall efficiency of energy use within a farming system and its particualry relevant in the context of climate change and the vital importance of achieving energy efficiency. The case study below describes the energy savings that would be realised in Croatia should it convert its entire agricultural system to organic farming.
An obvious critique of energy efficiency as an indicator of environmental impact is with its narrow focus. It neglects to examine the wider environmental impacts of the farming system on soil quality, water resources and long term conditions of the natural environment. It therefore doesn't address the wider sustainability issues.
A second indicator is sustainable yield. Sustainable yield refers to the amount of food that can be produced from an area of land without impacting the capacity of the land to produce the same amount of food in the future, without additional inputs. In many examples, already discussed the farming system has a detrimental impact on the land or water. Irrigation systems cause waterlogging and salinization, pesticides and over use of artificial fertilizers promote eutrophication, ground water is depleted, soil quality degraded or eroded and robbed of its nitrogen. In all these cases the capacity for the land to produce the same amount of food in the future is reduced. Soil and ground water are not renewable resources. Therefore any farming system that extracts (unsustainable amounts of) water or causes soil erosion can be described as mining (the soil or water). Due to the broad interpretation of the environment through sustainable yield I would claim it to be the most effective indicator of environmental impact. However, it does not have a specific link to the energy required to transport food and doesn't make reference to whom the food is produced for. I would advocate that sustainable yield should be focused on local food production and somehow feed in data such as food miles and carbon footprint. This way we could also see its link to greenhouse gas production and climate change. At present this factor is a missing element in sustainable yield.
The IB pays particular attention to food miles and requires students to examine food miles as an indicator of environmental impact. Food miles refers to the distance that food has travelled from field to retail and measures the carbon footprint of that transport. As an indicator of environmental impact of food I have taught my students to be highly critical of it. I would go almost as far as saying it should be dismissed. The principle reason for my hard stance is because out of the three indicators already referred to food miles is by far the narrowest and least reflective of broader environmental impacts.
Food miles takes in only the carbon footprint produced from the transportation of the food. Carbon dioxide is the main greenhouse gas contributing to climate change. Therefore agriculture and the food industry has an environmental impact. This impact is narrow in its focus as it excludes other types of energy input, such a direct inputs and the whole spectrum of indirect inputs, namely irrigation and pesticides. Furthermore, transport is also a minimal component when looking at the energy inputs of the system as a whole. The graph below shows the contribution of food to UK carbon dioxide emissions.
A second indicator is sustainable yield. Sustainable yield refers to the amount of food that can be produced from an area of land without impacting the capacity of the land to produce the same amount of food in the future, without additional inputs. In many examples, already discussed the farming system has a detrimental impact on the land or water. Irrigation systems cause waterlogging and salinization, pesticides and over use of artificial fertilizers promote eutrophication, ground water is depleted, soil quality degraded or eroded and robbed of its nitrogen. In all these cases the capacity for the land to produce the same amount of food in the future is reduced. Soil and ground water are not renewable resources. Therefore any farming system that extracts (unsustainable amounts of) water or causes soil erosion can be described as mining (the soil or water). Due to the broad interpretation of the environment through sustainable yield I would claim it to be the most effective indicator of environmental impact. However, it does not have a specific link to the energy required to transport food and doesn't make reference to whom the food is produced for. I would advocate that sustainable yield should be focused on local food production and somehow feed in data such as food miles and carbon footprint. This way we could also see its link to greenhouse gas production and climate change. At present this factor is a missing element in sustainable yield.
The IB pays particular attention to food miles and requires students to examine food miles as an indicator of environmental impact. Food miles refers to the distance that food has travelled from field to retail and measures the carbon footprint of that transport. As an indicator of environmental impact of food I have taught my students to be highly critical of it. I would go almost as far as saying it should be dismissed. The principle reason for my hard stance is because out of the three indicators already referred to food miles is by far the narrowest and least reflective of broader environmental impacts.
Food miles takes in only the carbon footprint produced from the transportation of the food. Carbon dioxide is the main greenhouse gas contributing to climate change. Therefore agriculture and the food industry has an environmental impact. This impact is narrow in its focus as it excludes other types of energy input, such a direct inputs and the whole spectrum of indirect inputs, namely irrigation and pesticides. Furthermore, transport is also a minimal component when looking at the energy inputs of the system as a whole. The graph below shows the contribution of food to UK carbon dioxide emissions.
Food and its Carbon Footprint
In total, food is responsible for 17 percent of the UK's total carbon dioxide emissions. From this 17 percent transport accounts for only 9 percent. The remaining 91 percent comes from other stages in the food chain. On face value this shows that food miles accounts in total for only 1.5 percent of total UK carbon dioxide emisssions.
However, there is an important note to make here. The 9 percent refers to UK transport only and excludes all international freight, including shipping and aviation.
We need to make two points on this. The first is that total carbon emissions from food transport would be much higher than 9 percent if it included international freight and aviation. The second point is much broader and based on the UK policy to exclude aviation and shipping emissions from their carbon footprint all together. The UK can be recognised as a leading country in its pledge to cut carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050, but this is controversial and subject to debate. It does not take into account any emissions from transported goods from abroad into the UK for UK consumption. So where does this leave food miles?
The reality is that if the UK is not even willing to include international transport as part of its own national emissions; given the UK's reliance on the global food market then food miles as an environmental indicator is simply dead in the water. It seems that food miles as an environmental indicator is nothing more than a charming environmental label for the purpose of helping middle class consumers make choices and consider their own carbon footproot in a rather narrow and simple way to understand.
In addition, I would even suggest that food miles fails in its narrowness fails to even address the wider environmental impacts of transport. Its focus is only on carbon emissions and so fails to address a huge number of environmental concerns associated with the transport of food. These include, the increasing number of large HGVs on the road, road congestion, noise pollution, road building and road enlargement, port and airport extension, loss of greenbelts and rural biodiversity including wildlife and habitat. These factors, which generally relate to rural environments and impact on rural landscape are simply outside the focus of food miles.
Finally, food miles completely fails to refer to any wider physical environment impacts of the farming system; it simply does not link to them in any way. It is in fact completely removed from the nature of the farming system itself and relative intensity of it. It therefore completely misses the broader land and water environmental impacts of farming systems, whether they be intensive commercial farms or organic.
The following video shows Mike Murry who discusses food miles as a concept and also shows some of the wider impacts of the global food supply chain.
However, there is an important note to make here. The 9 percent refers to UK transport only and excludes all international freight, including shipping and aviation.
We need to make two points on this. The first is that total carbon emissions from food transport would be much higher than 9 percent if it included international freight and aviation. The second point is much broader and based on the UK policy to exclude aviation and shipping emissions from their carbon footprint all together. The UK can be recognised as a leading country in its pledge to cut carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050, but this is controversial and subject to debate. It does not take into account any emissions from transported goods from abroad into the UK for UK consumption. So where does this leave food miles?
The reality is that if the UK is not even willing to include international transport as part of its own national emissions; given the UK's reliance on the global food market then food miles as an environmental indicator is simply dead in the water. It seems that food miles as an environmental indicator is nothing more than a charming environmental label for the purpose of helping middle class consumers make choices and consider their own carbon footproot in a rather narrow and simple way to understand.
In addition, I would even suggest that food miles fails in its narrowness fails to even address the wider environmental impacts of transport. Its focus is only on carbon emissions and so fails to address a huge number of environmental concerns associated with the transport of food. These include, the increasing number of large HGVs on the road, road congestion, noise pollution, road building and road enlargement, port and airport extension, loss of greenbelts and rural biodiversity including wildlife and habitat. These factors, which generally relate to rural environments and impact on rural landscape are simply outside the focus of food miles.
Finally, food miles completely fails to refer to any wider physical environment impacts of the farming system; it simply does not link to them in any way. It is in fact completely removed from the nature of the farming system itself and relative intensity of it. It therefore completely misses the broader land and water environmental impacts of farming systems, whether they be intensive commercial farms or organic.
The following video shows Mike Murry who discusses food miles as a concept and also shows some of the wider impacts of the global food supply chain.
Political Mechanisms for Food Supply
There are a number of political mechanisms that have an impact of food supply. These includes, trade blocks, protectionism, free market policies, international loans and debt, bilateral and multilateral mechanisms as well as pricing and intervention and the role of TNCs. The role of TNCs has already been developed in some depth as part of commercial and agribusiness systems of farming. We will also look at TNC again in addressng food insecurity in developing countries. For now the focus will be on the role governments.
The main role governments have relates to the support or lack of it they provide to farmers. They can do this in two main ways. They can influence the market for food, through guarenteeing prices or using quotas to guarentee market size or they assist farmers to increase productivity. This is achieved either through improving wages through prices or through capital expenditure, such as access to credit, infrastructure projects, seeds etc. This type of support is demonstrated in almost every country. Massive irrigation projects supported by the Federal government has enabled large scale commercial farming in the US. In contrast smaller developing countries have rural development schemes, that may be partly funded through aid to help farmers access seed banks, fertilizer and credit. In both cases the intervention enables farmers to produce food and increase output. Another way that support can be provided is through protection. Protection supports domestic agriculture over foreign agriculture, through either financial or capital subsidies or through increasing the price of imported foods through taxes called tariffs.
A quite different policy to protectionism is the strategy of free market policies. A free market policy refers to the removal of protectionism and an opening up of the domestic economy to foreign competition. The main goal here is to increase productivity and output as a result of increased competition. Competition is thought to create greater efficiencies and productivity.
Another example of governmnent intervention, but on a much larger scale relates to trade blocs. A trade bloc is an agreement among a number of countries to allow free trade among member countries; but at the same protect member countries from foreign competition through protectionist policies. In this way the trade bloc can increase efficiencies based on competition within the member countries but protect from cheaper and more efficient agricultural systems abroad. A good example of an effective trade relates to the Common Agricultural Policy of the Eutopean Union.
A summary of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy with its changes is provided in the PDF document below. Click on the first page to open to open document.
The main role governments have relates to the support or lack of it they provide to farmers. They can do this in two main ways. They can influence the market for food, through guarenteeing prices or using quotas to guarentee market size or they assist farmers to increase productivity. This is achieved either through improving wages through prices or through capital expenditure, such as access to credit, infrastructure projects, seeds etc. This type of support is demonstrated in almost every country. Massive irrigation projects supported by the Federal government has enabled large scale commercial farming in the US. In contrast smaller developing countries have rural development schemes, that may be partly funded through aid to help farmers access seed banks, fertilizer and credit. In both cases the intervention enables farmers to produce food and increase output. Another way that support can be provided is through protection. Protection supports domestic agriculture over foreign agriculture, through either financial or capital subsidies or through increasing the price of imported foods through taxes called tariffs.
A quite different policy to protectionism is the strategy of free market policies. A free market policy refers to the removal of protectionism and an opening up of the domestic economy to foreign competition. The main goal here is to increase productivity and output as a result of increased competition. Competition is thought to create greater efficiencies and productivity.
Another example of governmnent intervention, but on a much larger scale relates to trade blocs. A trade bloc is an agreement among a number of countries to allow free trade among member countries; but at the same protect member countries from foreign competition through protectionist policies. In this way the trade bloc can increase efficiencies based on competition within the member countries but protect from cheaper and more efficient agricultural systems abroad. A good example of an effective trade relates to the Common Agricultural Policy of the Eutopean Union.
A summary of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy with its changes is provided in the PDF document below. Click on the first page to open to open document.
The following comprehensive PDF document is written by Thomas Fritz for ecologistas en accion provides a critical insight into the workings and impacts of the CAP. It develops some very useful case studies on the impacts of CAP at varying scales, including the developing countries as regions such as North Africa and the wheat industry as well as some excellent national case studies.
The Queen is a Farmer
Source: Globalising Hunger
As part of the CAP all landowners with farming activities are entitled to CAP funds. This means that some of the wealthiest people in Europe still qualify for CAP subsidies, including the Queen of England and Prince Charles. This is in general contrast with the main pattern within Europe of declining small family farms and increased numbers of large-scale farming units. Almost all EU member states experienced a steady decline in the number of agricultural holdings between 1993 and 2005. Portugal, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Spain and Italy, for instance, witnessed declines of 20 to 30 percent. According to the latest Eurostat farm structure survey, EU farm numbers were shrinking from 15 million in 2003 to 13.7 million in 2007.
One example of how the CAP has impacted food supply and production is in regard to wheat production and supply to North Africa. According to Thomas Fritz's report on Globalising Hunger, CAP support allowed European producers to drastically increase its wheat exports on the world market. In the 1970s and 80s, European wheat exports grew threefold from less than 10 million tonnes to almost 30 million tonnes, thus directly challenging the dominant market position of the US. At that time, North Africa was the main battlefield in the trade war on wheat market shares. To conquer these markets, the EU's export subsidy for wheat climbed to over $120 a tonne, which was often even higher than the world price itself. Thanks to these subsidies, the EU’s wheat market share in North Africa rose from 2 percent in 1977 to 42 percent in the early 1980s while the US share dropped almost by half from 42 percent to 26 percent.
A second example Fritz highlights, shows how CAP has changed consumer habits in Kenya through the indirect dumping of cheap wheat on Kenyan markets. Kenya imports cheap wheat flour from Egypt and Maritius, much of which has been manufactured using subsidised EU wheat. All three countries are members of the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) which allows its members preferential access for wheat flour. Mercy Karanja of the Kenyan National Farmer’s Union describes the impacts of a sudden influx of wheat and wheat flour imports in 2001 on Kenyan farmers: “Egypt suddenly started selling flour very cheaply, which led to a crisis for wheat producers. There was a huge surplus on the market, and farmers had to sell their wheat at very low prices.”
Kenyan millers refused to purchase local wheat as they could not compete with the cheap imported flour. As a consequence, many farmers faced ruin because wheat prices sank by more than 30 percent. Due to the weak competitiveness against imported wheat products, farmers who survived the price shock shifted to others activities like maize cropping or dairy farming. “This has aggravated the decline in domestic wheat production and increased reliance on wheat imports”, concludes a study by KIPPRA, the Kenya Institute for Public Policy Research and Analysis. The institute also warns that future sources of wheat imports “may be unpredictable”.
In another example Fritz shows how CAP has impacted and undermined cereal prices in West Africa. West Africa faces similar risks to Kenya. Suffering from a growing cereals deficit, the region has become highly dependent on European wheat. Unlike Kenya’s farmers, West African peasants generally do not cultivate wheat, so that the growing demand is almost exclusively covered by external sources. Between 1990 and 2007, the imports of wheat and wheat flour into the fifteen member Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) more than tripled from 1.3 million to 4.9 million tonnes. With the exception of Nigeria and Ghana, the regions’ countries are mainly supplied by European producers. Wheat flour imports of the eight member West African Economic and Monetary Union (WAEMU) originating in the European Union even exploded in the last 15 years. This latter example shows how the CAP has a direct impact on influencing local food prices and in doing so has created greater food insecurity.
A final example illustrates how the CAP swamps developing country markets. The main products traded on the global market include dry milk powders, cheese and butter, with milk powders having the largest share of production traded. The EU is the second largest dairy exporter behind New Zealand. More than two thirds flow to developing countries and a quarter to Africa. For milk powder, Africa is the main destination for European exporters, absorbing half of all extra EU sales of skim milk powder, with Algeria, Nigeria and Egypt, the largest markets. Sub-Sahara Africa’s share of EU milk powder exports rose steadily in the last decade outstripping all other developing regions as the main destination.
The subsidised dairy exports affect developing country producers in three ways: by lowering the world market price and producers’ incomes, by kicking developing country exporters out of country markets, and by disrupting local markets in the South. EU dairy exports to African countries have a particular severe impact as they impede the development of local dairy industries which could be an important means for the improvement of livelihoods of millions of poor livestock farmers.
In Cameroon, the traditional pastoralist sector with its local races of grass-fed cows dominate national milk production, while modern industrial farms using more productive breeds and feed only contributes 2 percent to total domestic production. Pastoralists, mainly belonging to the semi-nomadic Fulani tribe, own 75 percent of the 6 million heads of cattle, 20 percent of which are used as milk cows. Although Fulani cows’ milk yield is very low (only 1-3 litres per day compared to 35-40 litres for highly productive European races), they account for 90 percent of Cameroon’s milk output and provide poor Fulani families with valuable additional incomes. While cattle herding is mainly done by men, women are generally concerned with milking, processing, selling the milk on local markets and controlling the money earned by milk sales.
But European milk powder exports are constantly undermining the possibilities to further develop the Cameroonian dairy sector and provide local cattle breeders with desperately needed incomes. Between 1996 and 2003, dairy imports rose by 120 percent, almost two thirds of which in the form of milk powder. At least 75 percent of the imports originate in the EU, with Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain and France the main suppliers. Nowadays, 40 to 50 percent of milk supply in Cameroon is covered by imports putting a heavy burden on the countries’ food import bill. In the period 1996-2006, Cameroon spent €334 million in foreign currency on dairy imports.
These above examples have drawn heavily from the Fritz Report titled Globalized Hunger and provide some national and international impacts of CAP on food supply and production.
The EU has several wider agreements with specific trading regions. The agreement creating the European Economic Area allows Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein to participate in the EU's internal market. All new relevant EU legislation is automatically incorporated into the agreement to ensure the homogeneity of the internal market. The EU also concluded a number of Euro-Mediterranean Association Agreements between 1998 and 2005 as a basis for the gradual liberalisation of trade in the Mediterranean area. These agreements set out the conditions for economic, social and cultural cooperation between the EU and each partner country.
One example of how the CAP has impacted food supply and production is in regard to wheat production and supply to North Africa. According to Thomas Fritz's report on Globalising Hunger, CAP support allowed European producers to drastically increase its wheat exports on the world market. In the 1970s and 80s, European wheat exports grew threefold from less than 10 million tonnes to almost 30 million tonnes, thus directly challenging the dominant market position of the US. At that time, North Africa was the main battlefield in the trade war on wheat market shares. To conquer these markets, the EU's export subsidy for wheat climbed to over $120 a tonne, which was often even higher than the world price itself. Thanks to these subsidies, the EU’s wheat market share in North Africa rose from 2 percent in 1977 to 42 percent in the early 1980s while the US share dropped almost by half from 42 percent to 26 percent.
A second example Fritz highlights, shows how CAP has changed consumer habits in Kenya through the indirect dumping of cheap wheat on Kenyan markets. Kenya imports cheap wheat flour from Egypt and Maritius, much of which has been manufactured using subsidised EU wheat. All three countries are members of the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) which allows its members preferential access for wheat flour. Mercy Karanja of the Kenyan National Farmer’s Union describes the impacts of a sudden influx of wheat and wheat flour imports in 2001 on Kenyan farmers: “Egypt suddenly started selling flour very cheaply, which led to a crisis for wheat producers. There was a huge surplus on the market, and farmers had to sell their wheat at very low prices.”
Kenyan millers refused to purchase local wheat as they could not compete with the cheap imported flour. As a consequence, many farmers faced ruin because wheat prices sank by more than 30 percent. Due to the weak competitiveness against imported wheat products, farmers who survived the price shock shifted to others activities like maize cropping or dairy farming. “This has aggravated the decline in domestic wheat production and increased reliance on wheat imports”, concludes a study by KIPPRA, the Kenya Institute for Public Policy Research and Analysis. The institute also warns that future sources of wheat imports “may be unpredictable”.
In another example Fritz shows how CAP has impacted and undermined cereal prices in West Africa. West Africa faces similar risks to Kenya. Suffering from a growing cereals deficit, the region has become highly dependent on European wheat. Unlike Kenya’s farmers, West African peasants generally do not cultivate wheat, so that the growing demand is almost exclusively covered by external sources. Between 1990 and 2007, the imports of wheat and wheat flour into the fifteen member Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) more than tripled from 1.3 million to 4.9 million tonnes. With the exception of Nigeria and Ghana, the regions’ countries are mainly supplied by European producers. Wheat flour imports of the eight member West African Economic and Monetary Union (WAEMU) originating in the European Union even exploded in the last 15 years. This latter example shows how the CAP has a direct impact on influencing local food prices and in doing so has created greater food insecurity.
A final example illustrates how the CAP swamps developing country markets. The main products traded on the global market include dry milk powders, cheese and butter, with milk powders having the largest share of production traded. The EU is the second largest dairy exporter behind New Zealand. More than two thirds flow to developing countries and a quarter to Africa. For milk powder, Africa is the main destination for European exporters, absorbing half of all extra EU sales of skim milk powder, with Algeria, Nigeria and Egypt, the largest markets. Sub-Sahara Africa’s share of EU milk powder exports rose steadily in the last decade outstripping all other developing regions as the main destination.
The subsidised dairy exports affect developing country producers in three ways: by lowering the world market price and producers’ incomes, by kicking developing country exporters out of country markets, and by disrupting local markets in the South. EU dairy exports to African countries have a particular severe impact as they impede the development of local dairy industries which could be an important means for the improvement of livelihoods of millions of poor livestock farmers.
In Cameroon, the traditional pastoralist sector with its local races of grass-fed cows dominate national milk production, while modern industrial farms using more productive breeds and feed only contributes 2 percent to total domestic production. Pastoralists, mainly belonging to the semi-nomadic Fulani tribe, own 75 percent of the 6 million heads of cattle, 20 percent of which are used as milk cows. Although Fulani cows’ milk yield is very low (only 1-3 litres per day compared to 35-40 litres for highly productive European races), they account for 90 percent of Cameroon’s milk output and provide poor Fulani families with valuable additional incomes. While cattle herding is mainly done by men, women are generally concerned with milking, processing, selling the milk on local markets and controlling the money earned by milk sales.
But European milk powder exports are constantly undermining the possibilities to further develop the Cameroonian dairy sector and provide local cattle breeders with desperately needed incomes. Between 1996 and 2003, dairy imports rose by 120 percent, almost two thirds of which in the form of milk powder. At least 75 percent of the imports originate in the EU, with Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain and France the main suppliers. Nowadays, 40 to 50 percent of milk supply in Cameroon is covered by imports putting a heavy burden on the countries’ food import bill. In the period 1996-2006, Cameroon spent €334 million in foreign currency on dairy imports.
These above examples have drawn heavily from the Fritz Report titled Globalized Hunger and provide some national and international impacts of CAP on food supply and production.
The EU has several wider agreements with specific trading regions. The agreement creating the European Economic Area allows Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein to participate in the EU's internal market. All new relevant EU legislation is automatically incorporated into the agreement to ensure the homogeneity of the internal market. The EU also concluded a number of Euro-Mediterranean Association Agreements between 1998 and 2005 as a basis for the gradual liberalisation of trade in the Mediterranean area. These agreements set out the conditions for economic, social and cultural cooperation between the EU and each partner country.
Multilateral Trade Agreements: The WTO, World Bank and IMF
The WTO came into being in 1995, replacing the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). GATT was created in 1947, one of the post-second world war institutions for international governance. The United Nations, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank were the other institutions created in the 1940s, as world leaders at the time believed that if international institutions had existed that were capable of responding to the economic and social crises of the 1930s, it would have been possible to prevent the international climate from deteriorating to the point of war.
The main goals of the WTO is to enable trade liberalisation, provide a forum for governments to negotiate trade agreements, settle trade disputes and provide a system of trade rules. The current work of the WTO follows on from rounds of negotiations at Doha. The Doha round's main focus was to bring developing countries more into the trading system. The key aim of Doha was to allow developing coutries fairer compettion by cutting barriers of trade and subsidies in farming. However these negotiations have often stalled and in many ways the advantage has been given to large agribusinesses. The WTO along with the World Bank and IMF have an overarching policy of reducing barriers of trade, in doing so they create conditions of greater competition and open new markets.The main concern with this policy is that it tends to disadvantage developing countries as it allows concessions for developed countries.
The role of the World Bank and IMF is also one that looks to restructure both global and national trading systems. However in the case of these two institutions they have credit and loans as a means of influencing domestic food policy. These two international financial institutions persuade countries to liberalize and open up to competition, at the same time reduce tariffs and domestic support, such as subsidies and rural support. In this way, developing countries can access more favourable loan arrangements through the IMF and World Bank to help finance much needed development projects. The World Bank's Structural Adjustment Plan is a key part of this wider policy of opening up developing country markets. The following PDF adapted from Walden Bello's article on Share the World's Resources develops some of the varied impacts of such multilateral policies in developing countries, particularly, Africa.
The main goals of the WTO is to enable trade liberalisation, provide a forum for governments to negotiate trade agreements, settle trade disputes and provide a system of trade rules. The current work of the WTO follows on from rounds of negotiations at Doha. The Doha round's main focus was to bring developing countries more into the trading system. The key aim of Doha was to allow developing coutries fairer compettion by cutting barriers of trade and subsidies in farming. However these negotiations have often stalled and in many ways the advantage has been given to large agribusinesses. The WTO along with the World Bank and IMF have an overarching policy of reducing barriers of trade, in doing so they create conditions of greater competition and open new markets.The main concern with this policy is that it tends to disadvantage developing countries as it allows concessions for developed countries.
The role of the World Bank and IMF is also one that looks to restructure both global and national trading systems. However in the case of these two institutions they have credit and loans as a means of influencing domestic food policy. These two international financial institutions persuade countries to liberalize and open up to competition, at the same time reduce tariffs and domestic support, such as subsidies and rural support. In this way, developing countries can access more favourable loan arrangements through the IMF and World Bank to help finance much needed development projects. The World Bank's Structural Adjustment Plan is a key part of this wider policy of opening up developing country markets. The following PDF adapted from Walden Bello's article on Share the World's Resources develops some of the varied impacts of such multilateral policies in developing countries, particularly, Africa.
A useful and accessible video based on contrasting political conditions for production and trade is found in the peanut, in USA and the groundnut in Senegal is developed in the following video. It also explains in a fun way some key voacabulary, such as trade liberalization and protectionism as well as comparative advantage and demand and supply economics.
Bilateral Food Agreements
Bilateral free trade and investment agreements can seriously impact the lives of farmers, and consumers of food. With World Trade Organization (WTO) talks on agriculture now at a virtual standstill, bilateral and regional free trade negotiations are increasingly being used to further liberalize farming sectors, or in the hope of gaining access to new markets for agricultural exports.
The free trade agenda in agriculture has been set by and for corporate agribusiness. Small farmers all over the world are reeling as tariffs are slashed and subsidies and price controls are cut. Meanwhile subsidized US and EU farm goods are able to flood local markets and undercut what can be locally produced. One example is the Korea-US Free Trade Agreement. In this case, Korean farmers have been demonstrating against the agreement. In a second example the Campesinos in Mexico, Central and South America have mobilized against multilateral agreements through the WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA, the FTAA and various bilateral free trade agreements (FTA).
Mexican campesinos’ experience of NAFTA after fifteen years leaves them with no illusions as to the promises about free trade in agriculture. Since NAFTA, floods of cheap, subsidized, and often genetically-modified US corn have entered Mexico, sold at prices below the cost of production, with which campesinos cannot compete. This has led to massive displacement, poverty and hunger, pushing people into the cities and maquiladoras (sweatshop factories). In addition many have been forced to risk their lives crossing the increasingly militarized border into the USA in search of work.
While the US and EU demand that other regions open their markets to the US and European goods, services and investment, their position on agriculture in bilateral free trade agreements has left them open to the accusation of hypocrisy; they preach one thing on liberalization but at the same time continue to subsidise. For example, the US sugar industry successfully lobbied so that the US excluded sugar in the FTA with Australia, the world’s fourth largest sugar producing nation. The US refusal to open up its market to Australian sugar imports once again showed the US double standards as it demands liberalization from other countries but maintains protection for its own farmers.
Agriculture has been controversial in other bilateral free trade agreements. Korean farmers led sustained opposition to the FTAs which Seoul signed with Chile and the US, concerned about the impact of cheaper farm imports on their livelihoods (in the latter, Washington insisted on Korea agreeing to completely free trade in rice). In another example, following the 2003 FTA with China, farmers in Thailand questioned the sense of agricultural liberalization through FTAs when they faced displacement and loss of livelihoods when tariffs were removed from a significant number of fruit and vegetables from China, causing a flood of cheaper imports into Thailand.
The free trade agenda in agriculture has been set by and for corporate agribusiness. Small farmers all over the world are reeling as tariffs are slashed and subsidies and price controls are cut. Meanwhile subsidized US and EU farm goods are able to flood local markets and undercut what can be locally produced. One example is the Korea-US Free Trade Agreement. In this case, Korean farmers have been demonstrating against the agreement. In a second example the Campesinos in Mexico, Central and South America have mobilized against multilateral agreements through the WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA, the FTAA and various bilateral free trade agreements (FTA).
Mexican campesinos’ experience of NAFTA after fifteen years leaves them with no illusions as to the promises about free trade in agriculture. Since NAFTA, floods of cheap, subsidized, and often genetically-modified US corn have entered Mexico, sold at prices below the cost of production, with which campesinos cannot compete. This has led to massive displacement, poverty and hunger, pushing people into the cities and maquiladoras (sweatshop factories). In addition many have been forced to risk their lives crossing the increasingly militarized border into the USA in search of work.
While the US and EU demand that other regions open their markets to the US and European goods, services and investment, their position on agriculture in bilateral free trade agreements has left them open to the accusation of hypocrisy; they preach one thing on liberalization but at the same time continue to subsidise. For example, the US sugar industry successfully lobbied so that the US excluded sugar in the FTA with Australia, the world’s fourth largest sugar producing nation. The US refusal to open up its market to Australian sugar imports once again showed the US double standards as it demands liberalization from other countries but maintains protection for its own farmers.
Agriculture has been controversial in other bilateral free trade agreements. Korean farmers led sustained opposition to the FTAs which Seoul signed with Chile and the US, concerned about the impact of cheaper farm imports on their livelihoods (in the latter, Washington insisted on Korea agreeing to completely free trade in rice). In another example, following the 2003 FTA with China, farmers in Thailand questioned the sense of agricultural liberalization through FTAs when they faced displacement and loss of livelihoods when tariffs were removed from a significant number of fruit and vegetables from China, causing a flood of cheaper imports into Thailand.
The Role of TNCs
The role of TNCs in food production and supply is increasingly important. Commercial farming and retail in all regions of the world is marginalising the small scale farmer and retailer respectively and through massive economies of scale pricing them out of the industry. Plantations, monocultures, ranches and biofuel farms are increasing in size every day. The share of food production is falling into the hands of fewer and fewer industries. TNCs have huge stakeholdings at all stages of the food chain. The graph to the left shows the value on sales of all the big food industries. Monsanto the big agrichemical industry is highlighted in red. The agrichemical industry as whole is producing seed varieties that are bred to resist strong pesticides, that when sold together increase great output and resistance to climate and pests but at a great cost to small scale farmers. TNCs continue to lobby governments and the world institutions to secure the best conditions of trade for them and they have $billions at their disposal. The following article by Martin Large and Neil Ravenscroft sets out some of the wider conserns and impacts of TNC's close relationship with western governments, with the implications for developing countries likely to increase the gap between the rich and poor even more.