Agriculture
The Gift that Keeps Giving
Countries: Democratic Republic of the Congo
Working Villages International (WVI) is an NGO with a unique take on how to eliminate poverty in Africa. Their new initiative, Village Reliance, aims to combat poverty directly, rather than dealing only with its effects. They want to give people the skills and tools to take control of their own lives and bring themselves out of poverty.
The goal of this program is to build a village that will be environmentally and economically self-sustainable for people living in the Ruzizi Valley of the Democratic Republic of Congo.
They are building from scratch a model village which will have full employment, private ownership of small farms and businesses, zero carbon footprint and total 100 percent recycling. This project is a practical demonstration that it’s possible to profoundly increase living standards in rural Africa without hampering local culture and ingenuity.
In the future, WVI hopes to spread these villages across the DRC and the entire continent.
Unrest Boils in India’s Darjeeling Tea Gardens
One of India's most famous exports, Darjeeling tea, is under threat from an indefinite strike by an ethnic Nepalese Gorkhas demanding greater autonomy in the region.
Protesters clashed with police last week, disrupting transport links, blocking road access, and shutting down many businesses in the Darjeeling hills, home to hundreds of tea gardens that produce the world-famous tea.
The crisis comes at a critical peak period for plucking highly priced "second flush" tea leaves. According to Siliguri Tea Traders Association's secretary, the unrest has caused the country's tea industry to lose the equivalent of $470,000 a day.
The Gorkhas are fighting for a separate state in West Bengal. They claim that the Indian government discriminates against them, and that they don't receive the services and infrastructure they deserve.
But while local tea exporters are becoming increasingly worried, those hardest hit by the shutdown are the tens of thousands of workers and their families whose economic wellbeing depend on the tea gardens. According to NDTV, "the shutdown means uncertainty for over 50,000 permanent workers in the tea gardens, and no wages for around 100,000 temporary workers."
Government officials are hesistant to grant the Gorkhas autonomy because they fear losing control of one of their prized exports. But the unrest threatens the tea industry's health, which is why West Bengal officials are said to be "keen" on talks to resolve the issue.
Fueling Hunger
Ethanol is traditionally used as an additive to fuel, but these days it's adding to something else: the global food crisis.
Most U.S. ethanol is made from corn, the kind used mostly to make high fructose corn syrup and feed for cattle, chicken and pigs. But it seems a little backwards to devote farmland for fuel when 850 million people go hungry each year, according to the UN, a number expected to increase by 100 million in the next year.
Ethanol’s supporters say its environmental, economic and strategic benefits outweigh any link to higher food prices. The National Corn Growers Association claims greenhouse gases could be reduced by 20 percent if we used 15 billion gallons of ethanol in our cars.
As an example of its economic advantages, The Ethanol Factbook reported that:
A 40 million gallon per year ethanol plant will cost about $60 million to build, expand the economic base for the local economy by $110 million, generate an additional $19.6 million in household income, improve the tax revenue for the state and local governments by $1.2 million, and create nearly 700 permanent jobs.
Ethanol also has the potential to reduce our dependence on Middle East oil.
Moreover, many supporters of ethanol claim that there is a very low correlation between higher food prices and expanded ethanol production. “We think that there are enough elements in current commodity markets that resulted in very high prices for cereals and oilseeds and even they would have happened without this hike in biofuel production," says Loek Boonekamp, a top official for the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Skeptics of ethanol say there’s not enough research to prove ethanol is beneficial in the long term, that it is fueling increased food prices, and that ethanol-based corn subsidies help only a select few.
Environmental benefits? Two independent scientists looked at the footprint of biofuels, and found that the way they’re produced creates more harm than good to the environment.
The latest World Bank assessment on rising food prices found that, “Almost all of the increase in global maize production from 2004 to 2007 (the period when grain prices rose sharply) went for biofuels production in the U.S.” The New York Times reported that, “Work by the International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington suggests that biofuel production accounts for a quarter to a third of the recent increase in global commodity prices.”
What’s clear is that ethanol is coming under fire — even here in the U.S. — as food prices climb higher. According to the L.A. Times, “Some analysts believe the rapid increase in the use of corn to make ethanol has left the nation with little room to maneuver through weather-related disasters in the Midwest.”
Economist Jeffery Sachs argues we should redouble scientific efforts to grow biofuels on land that’s not suitable for growing food, but that we should end our “misguided” corn-to-ethanol subsidies. “Farmers hardly need them given world demand for food and feed grains.”
Regardless of the arguments for and against, ending ethanol subsidies may not provide the immediate assistance that UN Chief Ban Ki-Moon is looking for to solve the world’s food crisis. It would take time for farmers to convert their fields. Factor in growing time, and the impact might not be felt for several seasons.
But some experts say the conversions would take immediate pressure off food prices. At the very least, this is a great opportunity for the U.S. government to show that they are concerned about the world's growing hunger.
Bring on the Revolution?
Some at the UN Food Summit are suggesting a second green revolution is needed to curb soaring food prices. “The underlying problem is the decline in agricultural productivity growth," said the UN's Lennart Bage. "Unless we reverse that, we’ll be back in the same situation in a few years' time.”
The first Green Revolution transformed developed-country agricultural practices from the 1940s to 1960s and led to increased production. Huge investments in seed research, infrastructure development and technological advancements fueled this transformation.
Increases in output are especially needed in Africa, which is in dire need of updating its farming techniques, improving agricultural technology and increasing the biodiversity of crop output. According to The Economist, several countries at the Summit promised to meet these needs by investing in seed research, building irrigation canals, and promoting the use of fertilizer.
Regulation reform and infrastructure upgrades are also needed. The International Food Policy Research Institute recently released a report saying prices could be cut if governments enforced market regulations. They also suggested African governments should dedicate 10 percent of their budgets to agriculture, and improve poor roads that hinder farmers' ability to get their crops to market.
However, Financial Times points out why a green revolution in Africa may not be easy to pull off. It would most likely require the cultivation of genetically modified crops in a region where many countries have resisted GMO foods. Other concerns involve Africa's diversity of climate and landscapes — farming techniques that work in some places might not work in others. Increasing output would also mean huge investments in irrigation systems. A dependence on rainwater and a lack of irrigation infrastructure has hindered many small farms in Africa.
The first Green Revolution took years to increase agricultural output in developing countries. It may be needed, but engineering a second Green Revolution is a daunting task.
Does Farm Bill Reveal U.S. 'Double Standards'?
Critics of the newly passed U.S. Farm Bill say the measure will hurt poor farmers in the rest of the world.
The $100-billion Farm Bill, which passed into law in May, increases crop subsidies, boosts conservation spending and expands the food stamp program. It also guarantees annual payments to farmers and pays farmers for any crops they sell for less than the federally regulated minimum price.
President Bush claims that the bill "provides a safety net for [U.S.] farmers … without encouraging overproduction and depressing prices.” But international agencies – and even members of the president’s own administration – railed against the measure.
Deputy U.S. Agriculture Secretary Chuck Conner said the measure “heads in the wrong direction in terms of our international obligations,” and expects trade partners “to protest in every way they can." Australia is already making plans to challenge the Bill through the World Trade Organization.
Oxfam America says that by encouraging large companies to overproduce, U.S. government subsidies lead to dumping – selling surplus goods in international markets at prices under the cost of production. The humanitarian agency says this undermines local production, threatens millions of farmers worldwide and clearly violates WTO rules.
Even before this Farm Bill, U.S. farm programs were criticized internationally for their trade-distorting subsidies. This bill further undermines our moral authority. Horst Koehler, an official with the International Monetary Fund, criticized the U.S. for its "double standards" about open markets.
Our hypocrisy not only damages our reputation, but makes the EU and other large exporters less likely to adopt the kind of policies that will help the world’s farmers.
Skepticism Helps Determine the Real 'Price of Sugar'
I recently accepted an invitation to speak at a showing of the documentary “The Price of Sugar” sponsored by Portland State University. “The Price of Sugar,” which I had not seen before that event, is a powerful documentary depicting the plight of Haitians who toil on sugar plantations in the Dominican Republic.
According to the filmmakers, these workers cross the border from Haiti to labor in conditions that the film's central protagonist, Father Christopher Hartley, calls "quasi-slavery." They are housed in sugar company towns called bateyes. Stripped of identification papers, they cannot legally travel elsewhere in the country.
My role in the May 7 event involved offering my perspectives on the economic conditions in Haiti that drive Haitians to cross the border illegally and risk arrest and deportation. Since February 2006, I’ve had several opportunities to travel to Haiti to work on developing economic and educational projects in this poorest of counties in the Western Hemisphere.
Imagine my surprise the morning of the event to receive both an email and a fax at my office at Marylhurst University from the Washington, D.C. office of Patton Boggs, LLP informing me their law office represents the Vicini family, “who are involved in various business ventures in the Dominican Republic including sugar.”
According to the 29-page document, the Vicinis are the victims of misrepresentation by the makers of the documentary; the documentary contained no less than 53 errors, omissions, or fabrications that allegedly amount to defamation of the Vicini family and businesses; and a “cease and desist” motion had been filed in a United States District Court in Boston, Massachusetts. “What,” I thought, “kind of mess did I just step in?”
A careful reading of the legal document revealed that I wasn’t a target, but simply being informed that a legal effort has been underway to stop the distribution and showing of the video. Since I had no direct knowledge of the information contained in the video, nor was I in any way responsible for obtaining and showing the video, I chose to go ahead with my prepared remarks on general economic conditions in Haiti and show my own photos from recent trips to that country.
What’s important here, and both I and my hosts at the video screening were careful to point this out, is that anyone interested in learning more about the economic, political, and social conditions of people engaged in trade around the world are obligated to choose their information sources wisely and carefully.
Researchers seeking support for their own agendas and ideas can easily find sources that will support their position. We are human after all and we gravitate toward those bits of data that seem to resonate with our opinions. But careful researchers who desire to build a real knowledge of the world have a much tougher challenge. Researchers seeking an accurate picture of the conditions under which people labor around the world may find it harder to find unbiased, neutral, accurate data.
It is not my intent here to pass judgment on the veracity of the information contained in “The Price of Sugar” or to comment on the legal claims of anyone connected with the video. My intent is to caution viewers to be diligent in their pursuit of true knowledge by exercising a reasonable amount of skepticism and to engage in critical thinking any time they are learning something new.
Turning (Food) Crisis Into Opportunity?
Agriculture is not Cameroon’s strong suit, but leaders of the West African country think the current food crisis could provide the impetus to boost domestic food production.
According to IRIN, Cameroon’s government recently put into action an emergency plan to increase local farming.
“My hope is that the current crisis created by high world food prices would end up having a positive impact for Cameroon by forcing us to become an agriculture-based economy,” said Rabelais Yankam Njomou, an advisor on agriculture to the Cameroon government.
According to the article, Cameroon currently uses only about 20 percent of its fertile land; its economy relies heavily on imported food. Even fertilizer is too expensive for most local farmers, but the country's emergency plan calls for subsidized fertilizer and free seed banks.
Cameroon says it wants to become not only self-sufficient, but a major food exporter. Can it truly turn crisis into opportunity?
Food or Fuel?
This short segment from Reuters discusses the impact of rising food prices on standards of living around the world. This is a terrific snapshot overview of the dynamics at play in the current world food crisis.
Fortune in the Tea Leaves
There's at least one commodity in the world whose rising price is benefiting rural families rather than bankrupting them.
Tea farmers in China's Yunnan Province are prospering thanks to rising popularity of Pu'er tea in Shanghai, Beijing and Hong Kong. A few decades ago, the ancient tea was widely unknown, but recently has become fashionable for its celebrated health benefits. Some Chinese believe the tea can help you lose weight and even cure cancer.
The price of Pu'er tea has risen dramatically in recent years. In 2004, a kilo of Pu'er sold for about $1. By last year the price of that same one kilo had risen to $800, although it still varies widely depending on where it's grown and how it's aged. (Last year, for example, 17.5 ounces of Pu'er tea from the 1940s sold for $125,000, according to the International Herald Tribune.) Chinese investors are saying aged Pu'er tea is a better investment than stocks or gold.
Thankfully, the wealth from Pu'er is trickling down to the tea farmers and pickers. The New York Times reports that in the hilltop village of Manmai, the unexpected fortune has permitted villagers to build their homes using concrete rather than sticks and reeds. In peak tea-picking season, young workers can earn up to $1000 a month, which is more than their peers are making in Beijing's factories — a rare rural wage advantage in today's industrialized China.
Short-Term Crises, Long-Term Hope
Rising global food prices pose a very real threat to political stability and individual well-being in many developing countries. Recent unrest in Haiti and Egypt indicate an increasingly widespread trend — in fact, the World Bank has identified 33 countries at risk of public disorder.
But what should be done? The Times of London argues that investing in agricultural infrastructure and allowing producers free access to world markets — by both developed as well as developing countries — is the only real solution.
Pushing for Privatization
Chinese farmers are increasingly demanding the right to do what they want with their land, fed up with the local and regional leaders who have been benefiting from in the face of China’s constitutional principle of collective land ownership.
Area chiefs have begun selling collectively owned land to property developers with the hope that it will encourage economic growth. Unfortunately, profits from the sales often remain in the hands of the officials – farmers are losing their land, and getting nothing in return. Deciding to take action in this matter, farmers are calling for privatization of land throughout the country. Some farmers are even forcibly reclaiming thousands of acres of land.
The Council on Foreign Relations' Jayshree Bajoria offers a comprehensive roundup of news items on the issue.
An Answer to Food-Based Fuels?
In the global rush towards biofuels, some countries are being forced to choose between affordable food and renewable energy. Many poor nations cannot afford to use staple crops like corn or soybeans as fuel. But some scientists and policymakers believe that they may have found a solution: jatropha.
Jatropha is an inedible nut that can be grown on non-arable land with little water or maintenance, and it's increasingly being identified as a possible alternative source for biofuels. Because its production would not take up valuable farmland, and would have little (if any) impact on food prices, jatropha is particularly attractive to developing countries seeking a balance between increasing energy demand and poverty alleviation.
India is currently trying to launch what would be the world’s largest jatropha biofuels project to date. Its Ministry of Rural Development has proposed a five-year, $375-million project to plant over one million acres of jatropha and research its potential as a fuel source. India is far from alone in its efforts to promote jatropha. Last year, British Petroleum signed a $160-million deal with a British biofuels firm to develop a joint venture in jatropha. A number of countries are pursuing their own jatropha projects, including South Africa, Malaysia, Brazil, Mali and others.
The Next Green Revolution
A controversial article in a recent Economist refers to further evidence of the advantages of genetically modified crops (GMOs).
"The Next Green Revolution" discusses long-standing opposition to GMOs in Europe — many on the continent "have yet to touch or taste them," the article reads — but points out that rising GMO production means it will become increasingly more expensive for Europe to avoid importing them.
I have long been concerned about the Europeans' stance on GMOs — not because Europeans are denying themselves more cost-effective food products, but because of the impact that their position has had on the poor, particularly in Africa. A number of African countries have followed Europe's lead by banning imports of GMOs. I find it to be very sad when the poor and sometimes starving are denied access to less-expensive food because of short-sighted logic in Europe.
The fact that GMOs can provide cheaper food has long been generally accepted. But critics have argued against GMOs on the basis that the crops might have long-term risks. But these risks are vague and unspecified, so to deny the advantages never seemed logical to me. Now that the possible disadvantage to GMOs has been put to rest in many parts of the world, I hope the poor and hungry in Africa and elsewhere can finally access this money-saving solution to an important problem.
The Silver Lining of Rising Food Prices
Higher food prices aren’t all bad, according to the Council on Foreign Relations. Rather, continued increases in the price of foods, especially basic staples like corn and wheat, could provide the pressure needed to break the international deadlock on agricultural policy. In an effort to prevent food shortages, many countries have already begun to reduce agricultural import tariffs as a means of increasing production.
Countries scrambling to fill grocery shelves may be willing to bend where they haven’t previously. If major exporters start exporting less, this in turn could make farm industries in developed countries like the United States feel less threatened by imports… Peter Mandelson, the EU trade minister, notes a shift already afoot: “There’s much less of a need for protectionism than when we started [the Doha Round of global trade talks] in 2001.”
Recent comments