Category: Funding

Posted on

Hot cocoa

fairtrade.jpgThe Fairtrade Foundation licenses this special mark to distinguish products that have been certified as meeting certain producer and trading standards, meant to ensure that small-scale producers and plantation workers in the developing world get a better deal. The producers “receive a minimum price that covers the cost of sustainable production and an extra premium that is invested in social or economic development projects.” And farmers are thus given an incentive to maintain agrobiodiversity on farm. However, as an article in last week’s Economist points out, this model is not particularly popular among the large corporations that control the global trade in agricultural commodities: “Fairtrade’s price-adjustment mechanism is intended to insulate small producers from volatile commodity markets and the free-trading, no-holds-barred capitalism that multinational companies espouse.”

And yet, Fairtrade-like strategies — The Economist calls them “Fairtrade lite” — are increasingly popular: “firms are finding ways to improve the lot of small farmers, and burnish their own reputations, without signing up to Fairtrade’s rules.” The article describes the latest example.

It is called the “Cadbury Cocoa Partership,” and it commits that multinational to investing US$87 million over 10 years in increasing cacao yields in Ghana. That country provides Cadbury Shweppes with 70% of its global needs (100% of its UK needs), amounting to 10% of Ghana’s production. A recent study showed that yields have been decreasing and youngsters leaving the farms, imperilling supply. Cadbury does use a Fairtrade-certified cocoa (from Belize), but in this case it decided that the problem was not so much price as productivity, and came up with its own scheme.

Intercropping will be encouraged (peppers, mangoes, coconuts) as an additional income option, wells dug to free up the time of women and girls, and schools and libraries built, equipped and staffed. But it is unclear how productivity is to be increased. The article says that “the aim of the venture is to show cocoa farmers how to increase yields using fertilisers and by working with each other.” Surely that’s not going to be enough. Hopefully cacao genetic resources conservation, evaluation and breeding work will also be supported. ((There’s a good summary of the importance of diversity in a New Agriculturalist focus feature on cacao, but it is from a few years back.))

Posted on

Gates Foundation doubles aid for agriculture

Bill Gates announced new awards for agriculture totaling US$306 million. This doubles the amount committed to agriculture, and includes US$42.8 over four years to Heifer International. Interesting in light of the impact of “improved” cows on local livestock breeds. There’s also money for AGRA to improve soil health, to CARE for dairy farmers in Bangladesh, and to TechnoServe to help East African farmers get more for their coffee. The Foundation’s press release is here. New York Times article.

Posted on

An evaluation of Gates Foundation and agriculture

The Seattle Times (which one might consider Bill Gates’ local rag) has an interesting and to my mind well-balanced article that attempts to evaluate the Gates Foundation’s effort to support agricultural development in Africa. I’m not going to sum up the arguments here; there’s little point. I am, however, going to draw attention to two aspects of the article.

First, Rajiv Shah, the director of agriculture programs for the Gates Foundation, is “a young medical doctor with an economics degree and background in health policy”. He’s probably also stunningly bright and very able. But who is advising him, and how does he evaluate their advice?

Secondly, the article tells us that:

At a village in rural Uganda recently, Shah sat on the ground with a group of women readying large, round banana-tree bulbs for planting. A staple crop, the banana trees had been suffering from bacterial wilt that cut fruit harvests in half.

This is part of the search for permanent solutions, rather than Band-aid quick fixes, but the fact is, we know how to manage banana bacterial wilt. We really do, especially in the short and medium-term. So while breeding resistant varieties is one potential answer it is an answer to a not-very-urgent-or-important question. Is the Gates Foundation doing anything to help people manage banana bacterial wilt now? I don’t think so, and that’s why many people who are actually working on agricultural development in sub-Saharan Africa find some parts of AGRA and the Gates Foundation’s efforts to be just a little wide of the mark.

Posted on

Dope

The answers are in, over at the World Bank’s discussion of its 2008 report Agriculture for Development. There’s a lot of good sense in the report author’s comments, such as the need for country (and region) specific approaches and the care that needs to be taken over commercialization, subsidies and the private sector. There are also some things one might take issue with. For example:

Vitamin A enhanced rice is an example of propoor technology under development which could save millions of lives. This will entail increasing support to public national and international research for crops grown and consumed largely by the poor, as well as strengthening capacity in biosafety evaluation and regulation.

I confess I am really, really amazed to find official World Bank support for this point of view. It is so much easier to boost vitamin A intake by broadening the diet to include orange fruits and vegetables and dark green leafy vegetables. One has to wonder why the World Bank continues to push this particular example of genetic modification when there are others that would be much more defensible if one really wanted to go down that route.

The response to a question about climate change had this to say:

The most urgent investments are in crop varieties tolerant to drought and heat, and irrigation systems. Also countries need to strengthen responses to increase volnerability through crop insurance schemes and safety nets.

New varieties may be part of the solution, but it may be considerably more effective to give farmers the access to a wider range of genetic variability and the capacity to make their own selections of widely adapted, and adaptable, populations in order to be able to cope with climate change. At least that should be tried. Properly.

I confess I wasn’t entirely satisfied with the pretty vague answer to my own question, about quick wins. But Luigi, who asked whether the Bank undervalues diversity in agricultural systems, will presumably be happy with part of the answer:

International support to the Global Crop Diversity Trust should be increased.

I wonder what made Byerlee think of that? The fact that the rest of his answer focuses on the conservation of genetic resources and the use of carbon financing to avoid deforestation? This the party line on the value of agricultural biodiversity: it is a source of traits for those clever breeders to use. True, but there is so much more that agrobiodiversity could deliver, given half a chance.

As we keep saying.

Posted on

No dope

It is 16.21 hrs here in Rome, and there’s no sign of any activity over at the World Bank’s discussion. We know they had questions, and not just from us. They must have answers, surely. I can barely wait to get home and refresh my browser, again.