Donald Kennedy, Editor-in-Chief of Science magazine, thinks there is a “biofuels conundrum”. He agrees that growing corn for ethanol results in huge distortions and problems elsewhere. Ethanol from sugar cane is better, but blocked by corn-state Senators in the US. Palm oil, as biodiesel, is better yet, but still carries considerable downsides. So, Kennedy says, we need more investment on research into biofuels derived from cellulose. Fair enough. But not a single mention of actually reducing consumption of liquid fuels. Not one word. I guess Kennedy, like so may others, isn’t quite ready to sign the bio-temperance pledge.
Are Kenyans ignoring diversity of diet?
A long press release from Tufts University in Boston, USA, tells us how faculty members have assisted Kenyan policy-makers in a series of workshops
“to build strategies for implementing Kenya’s National Food and Nutrition Policy. … The scope of the plan ranges from agricultural production, strategic grain reserves, and post-harvest protection, to nutritional interventions for high-risk groups, and the interrelationship of nutrition and diseases such as malaria, tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS.”
But I see no mention whatsoever of either dietary diversity or the value of local species as a contribution to nutrition. I’m hoping this is just an oversight by whoever wrote the release, but I fear it may not be. Using local food diversity to boost dietary diversity has so many benefits, I can’t imagine how the team overlooked it.
Do intellectual property rights threaten traditional knowledge and livelihoods?
One reason to blog this is that I am intrigued by the headline. The subject is an interim report published by IIED, the International Institute for Environment and Development, an organisation I have long admired. The report is called Protecting Community Rights over Traditional Knowledge: Implications of Customary Laws and Practices, and was issued last November in time for the WIPO meetings in December 2006. I’ve picked it up now because it popped up at Eldis, which, I think, added the title I’ve stolen for the headline above.
What I really want to know, of course, is the answer to that (perhaps rhetorical) question.
Bio-temperance in high places
After The Economist, here comes mighty Foreign Affairs with a definite money quote:
Filling the 25-gallon tank of an SUV with pure ethanol requires over 450 pounds of corn — which contains enough calories to feed one person for a year.
Here’s the article’s executive summary:
Thanks to high oil prices and hefty subsidies, corn-based ethanol is now all the rage in the United States. But it takes so much supply to keep ethanol production going that the price of corn — and those of other food staples — is shooting up around the world. To stop this trend, and prevent even more people from going hungry, Washington must conserve more and diversify ethanol’s production inputs.
I hereby lay claim to bio-temperance as a concept and predict big things for it.
Growing entrepreneurs in Africa and India
Three fine recent articles all point to ways in which farmers are diversifying their approaches and improving their lives. From East Africa, Catherine Mgendi reports on five years of a project called Enabling Rural Innovation.
“We want to have a developed village with at least one car,†beamed a middle-aged man, drawing cheers from fellow men gathered in the village social hall-cum-church. The women differed, chiding the men for not setting their eyes on more realistic goals such as bicycles.
It’s a long article, full of interesting insights and experience, and well worth reading in its entirety. I managed to fillet this as a kind of summary.
By equipping farmers with essential skills such as organisation and leadership, record keeping, market research and analysis, decision-making, planning and prioritisation, the Eri model empowers subsistence farmers to set their own priorities. These could be new market opportunities for their produce, better prices or the need to develop strategies for mitigating drought/flood-induced famines through diversification, for example. It also opens their eyes to ways of exploiting research and extension support.
From India, news that farmer field schools conducted by the centre for Environment Education have helped farmers in an area of Gujerat move from their traditional crops to more lucrative options that make use of increasing irrigation.
“The cropping pattern has changed with increase in irrigation and wider crop options. Halvad has traditionally been a cotton-growing area. However, with the increase in irrigated area, hybrid cotton has begun to replace older indigenous crops like jowar, bajra and groundnuts. … While the deteriorating water quality has forced farmers to shift to crops that can withstand hard water crop, the raids by wild asses and feral pigs has forced farmers in the vicinity of Little Rann of Kutch to grow crops unpalatable to wild animals.â€
If they have water problems now, how long before they cannot grow the new crops and are clamouring for their lost heritage?
And in Ghana, The Economist reports that a new, UK-based chocolate company called Divine Chocolate has cocoa farmers as its largest shareholders. The Economist’s article is behind a paywall, which is why I am linking to Divine’s site and a TV report from Reuters. This one was a real eye-opener to me. As The Economist points out, cocoa farmers worldwide earn about US$4 billion — big bucks except when you consider that global chocolate sales are worth about US$ 75 billion.
The money, in short, is in chocolate–and African farmers are not really in a position to expand into chocolate-making.
Except that they are.
Kuapa Kokoo, Ghana’s largest co-operative, with a membership of 45,000 cocoa growers, owns 45% of Divine and has two seats on its board.
Another astounding fact, from the Reuters report: In Ghana, the average cocoa farmer earns about US$300 a year. US$ 300 is also what the average British family spends on chocolate every year.
The Economist suggests that farmers are increasingly moving upstream to capture value from their efforts.
Other companies are pursuing similar strategies. Agrofair, a tropical-fruit distributor based in the Netherlands, is half-owned by producers. It in turn owns a part of Oké USA, which markets Fairtrade bananas in America. Pachamama, a federated co-operative of Latin American coffee growers, has just completed its first year roasting coffee in America. With the help of in-kind loans of green coffee from its members, the firm has not had to solicit outside investors at all. And Coffee Pacifica, a coffee importer that is publicly traded in America, is one-third owned by the Papua New Guinea Coffee Growers Federation, which represents 120,000 farmers. In 2006 the firm’s sales doubled to almost $3m in America and Europe.
All this, I would venture, should also have a beneficial effect on agricultural biodiversity, but I have no idea whether one could ever demonstrate that impact.