I thought I'd share another aspect largely promoted under climate-smart agriculture: the use of hybrid seeds, such as water-efficient maize:
 |
| Major agribusiness companies such as Syngenta and Monsanto have been promoting their genetically modified seeds to combat food insecurity |
For whom is it a ''smart'' solution?
''Improving Lives in Africa'' - The Monsanto video campaign for WEMA
 |
| Cartoon by ACBio against the import of Monsanto's GM maize in South Africa (the continent's largest producer of maize) during a period of drought in 2015. |
Watch the FAO's video campaign for CSA
Is the rest of the world-- major agribusinesses using intergovernmental organizations as vehicles-- imposing on African small-holders a Green Revolution in order to meet future increasing commodity supplies? Is rapid agricultural productivity growth the solution to unlock smallholders out of subsistence and drive ''the natural progress of opulence into industry and services''? (Lipton, 2012).
Denouncers of climate-smart agriculture (see BioWatch, ACBio, Green Social Thought) claim that with the pretext of helping smallholders to combat climate change, ''under the guise of philanthropy'', TNCs such as Syngenta and Monsanto seek to establish a private sector-driven seed industry in Africa; ''hybrid seeds are capturing African markets at a rapid pace and represent an average of 57% of maize seed grown on the continent'' (Abate et al., 2017).
 |
| ''Using the language and even some of the methods of ecological agriculture, climate-smart agriculture provides a veneer of sustainability for interventions that continue to promote industrial agribusiness products and technologies” - BioWatch South Africa |
To what extent are hybrids effective in alleviating climate impacts and water shortages?
Let’s take look at the introduction of maize hybrids in Malawi, a landlocked country in southeastern Africa. Malawi suffers from dry spells which can occasionally impact the rainfall season. The smallest water deficits can lead to significant crop yield losses, especially when they take place during the flowering stage of the main staple, maize (which is grown over 70% of arable land). Irrigation is limited to larger farming operations, with 97% of agriculture depending on rainfall. The agricultural sector supports three-quarters of the population and is comprised predominantly of export-oriented large-scale estates while smallholders concentrate on food crops on plots generally smaller than a hectare (Harrison, 2016). Due to poor government management, lack of rainfall, rising fertilizer prices, food insecurity was rampant for many years and the 2004-2005 season was the worst in a decade, with losses of 24% in maize production.
The national agricultural input subsidy program (AISP) was established in 2005 to promote food security, providing subsidies to enable family farmers’ access to fertilizers and hybrid maize seeds, a promise of resilience against water shortages. The AISP increased total maize production and was praised as a proactive policy allowing to achieve food security. However, the effectiveness of the program has come under scrutiny over the last years. The majority of the population in Malawi is still poor and rural, with an estimated 42% of rural households experiencing food insecurity (Graeub et al., 2016). The increasing wealth gap is raising concerns about inclusive agricultural policies and the questionable fact that the AISP ‘’preferentially benefits better-off farming households, who received more coupons, applied more fertilizer and had more significant changes in food security than poor households’’ (Graeub et al., 2016). Researchers claim that ''the Malawian production miracle appears, in part, to be a myth'' with discrepancies between the maize output estimates distributed by the FAO, the Malawi Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security and the National Statistical Office of Malawi, as well as fluctuating maize prices, which indicate supplies falling short of estimates (Messina et al., 2017).
In terms of the agroecological sustainability of the programme, an OECD study raises concerns over the impact of inorganic fertilizers on water courses, fauna and soil health.
To conclude on ''climate-smart'' initiatives, I think that the need to increase food production in African countries is connected to the need of tackling rural poverty. Long-term resilience and sustainability should not be compromised by short-term gains with reliance on external inputs potentially damaging to soil health, water streams, agrobiodiversity, and farmer's sovereignty. If agricultural development is considered essential for human development, I concur with Graeub et al that future research (and policies) must include a deeper understanding and assessment of family farmers’ contribution to food security.
Hi Candida! I completely agree with you that we need to focus on sustainable, holistic practices and not necessarily strategies that would increase reliance on external inputs such as fertilisers and GM seeds. I also believe that these options should only be viewed as short-term options rather than long-term and sustainable. I recently came across the issue of genetic diversity of livestock which facilitates the adaptation of production systems to future challenges and is a source of resilience in the face of greater climatic variability. It would be interesting to hear your thoughts on this specifically... but as you have said, there is a lot of room for debate.
ReplyDeleteHi Bailey, it's actually a funny coincidence that I was already writing a comment on your latest blog post when I saw your comment!
DeleteThe implementation of hybrids could definitely boost agricultural yields in the face of droughts as well as remediate the impacts of invasive pests, such as is the case now with the Fall Armyworm. Hybrids and GM seeds have helped the agricultural sector of many countries (USA, Brazil, China, India, and more) soar. However, they are accompanied by a large dependency on fertilizers, which are highly detrimental to soil productivity over time and several other social-ecological impacts. The preservation of traditional/genetically diverse seeds which were carefully selected with time will totally be ruined with the introduction of hybrids. So, personally, I believe that promoting Hybrids as a short-term relief is actually very dangerous and counter-productive in achieving the resilience of smallholder farmers.
While I have not read a lot about the topic you are referring to, I think it comes down to the importance of preserving genetic diversity of flora and fauna species. Industrial agriculture is contributing to genetic erosion and undermining agrobiodiversity, and this applies to livestock which have been bred into existence for decades. I agree that preserving the genetic diversity of livestock (as other species) supports resilience by allowing long-term genetic improvements (and a resilient, secure food supply)!
Interesting to hear your thoughts. As I have said, we need to be careful when considering these options as we definitely want to avoid an increased reliance and dependency on fertilisers. However, when looking at the short-term, I think they could potentially be viewed as helpful. For example, in times of drought, there can be a 100% crop failure reduction. It is also facilitating innovative public-private partnerships that bring smallholder farmers in SSA the tools to increase productivity for better food. I think that this is better than nothing and does show initiative being taken which is definitely a step in the right direction.
DeleteWhilst I agree that these programmes such as WEMA could be potentially damaging in the long-term, from what I am seeing in the literature, I think that sometimes it might provide a viable solution for now. I think that these higher more reliable harvests in times of drought which will allow farmers to feed their families and earn their income should not be overlooked when considering this debate. But nonetheless, the point you raise about genetic erosion and agrobiodiversity is an important one, and one that I think has great significance. No solution is perhaps ideal in this situation, so it will be interesting to see your blog develop as I'm sure that this will be something that you keep referring back to.
Bailey
Hello Bailey,
ReplyDeleteYou are right, in the short-term increasing yields would be the main objective to sustain livelihoods and unlock farmers out of subsistence. However, like I said, one of the problems with hybrids and GMO's is that it induces farmers to rely on foreign seed companies, as well as chemical inputs to keep the soil's productivity up, and once introduced, external inputs erode the genetic diversity which farmers have protected and developed throughout time. Also, like I illustrated with the case of Malawi, as maize yields increased, the wealth gaps across family farmers also did.
In general, I think that we should critically look at short-term solutions that could potentially compromise long-term sustainability. While every farmer/region/nation have each their own objectives, tackling the underlying issues of low productivity (land degradation, soil erosion, poor water harvesting and usage) is what farmers need to be resilient and self-sufficient, in my opinion.