The recent Durban Climate Change Conference is a follow on from Cancun which did not move a lot of things forward on key environmental issues ranging from CO₂ emissions, carbon sequestration and credits), to land and water resource management.

The important fact that the conference is taking place on the African continent for the first time should not just boil down to its mere presence in Durban. But just like key sub-Saharan African economies are emerging, Africa’s emerging voice on climate change policy is vital to a number of future developmental areas, not least of which is food security – including all of its pillars from food production to improving the continent’s ability to feed itself and using renewables to spur better agricultural energy use.

However, do Africa’s agriculture, environment and energy ministers talk to each other? And why aren’t more agricultural ministers included in the climate change discussion and vice versa? This needs to happen, but it is not – at least not regularly or in a comprehensive manner.

Smart solutions

Most experts recognize that both food security and climate change are affecting the continent more than any other region of the world. The food security-climate change linkage for Africa hopefully will be heavily on the table in Durban as these symbiotic impact indicators need to be addressed together.

Food security specialists from development organizations and civil society organisations (CSOs) to policy makers need to build climate change solutions into their programmes. Africa climate change leaders and activists need not forget that the lack of progress on key environmental issues will continue to affect Africa’s progress to resolve its food security challenges.

What are some of links between food and energy production and innovative ways to address these links? There are a number of positives noted below, which need to be more broadly implemented with country-specific adaptation on top of the need to create more new solutions. Some of the smart linkages connecting the symbiotic relationship between food security and climate change include:

• Renewable energy options for water use, such as wind or solar-powered drip irrigation, including storage of power gained through battery innovative techniques like those being used by companies like AES in West Virginia
• Hybrid seeds that help crops withstand climate stresses such as drought, which can also lead to new usages for traditional crops such as protein-enhanced cassava (I have visited donor-supported agribusinesses in Kano, Nigeria, that adds cow peas to enhance protein in cassava flour)
• Localize agribusiness supply chains by using small farm holders or cooperative crops, reducing transport energy, and manufacturing costs
• Climate change-smart agricultural production, such as bio-char – the process of burning plant-based remnants and making charcoal that is then used as renewable fertilizer in places like Congo, and Benin’s Songhai Integrative Farms. The Congo project also obtains carbon credits on CO₂ emissions which also further helps overall energy challenges – not just in the country but over the long term for our global community.

These global impact indicators – food security and climate change – should be addressed together to assist the people of Africa to have a better enabling environment for overall development, a subject I’ve highlighted on this blog before.  

It’s critically important because people are angry: African women smallholder farmers from 10 countries calling themselves the ‘Rural Women Assembly‘ demonstrated in Durban on December 3, 2011, on just this point – linking the affects of climate change on their ability to feed their families.

What to do?

The UN General Assembly this year called for improvement in sustainable energy by making 2012 the International Year of Sustainable Energy, with the goal of providing access to modern forms of energy, particularly for emerging markets and the developing world by 2030. But, if we do not improve our current efforts not only will this sustainability goal not be meet for Africa, but the food security-climate change symbiotic link will continue to be exacerbated as Africa’s population is estimated to reach 1.5Bn by 2030, and 2Bn by 2050.

Thus, we need to be more food security-climate change smart through innovation. We need more Africa-focused research and development like Ghana’s new bio tech facility, and by expanding the discussion circle so that both agriculture and environment policy makers, CSOs and development entities begin to come together and share in the same international, regional, community, and village fora to address these two global impact indicators.

This blog post is adapted and edited from an article that also featured in the Huffington Post.

About Robin Sanders

Dr Robin Renée Sanders, a career member of the senior US Foreign Service, is currently serving as the International Affairs Advisor for a non-governmental organization. She previously served as the US Ambassador to Nigeria from 2007-2010. Prior to that she served as International Advisor and Deputy Commandant at the Industrial College of the Armed Forces in Washington, DC. Prior to this position, she served as the US Ambassador to the Republic of Congo (2002-2005) and as Director for Public Diplomacy for Africa for the State Department (2000-2002). She served twice as the Director for Africa at the National Security Council at the White House; and was the Special Assistant for Latin America, Africa, and International Crime for the Undersecretary for Political Affairs at the State Department (1996-1997). Ms Sanders holds a Doctor of Science Degree in Information Systems and Communication from Robert Morris University, Master of Art degree in International Relations and Africa Studies, and a Master of Science degree in Communications and Journalism from Ohio University. She also holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in Communications from Hampton University.

During the launch of the Montpellier Panel Report last year I was inspired by the talk on women in agriculture presented by Vicki Wilde. She is the Director of the CGIAR’s Gender and Diversity Programme and the African Women in Agricultural Research and Development (AWARD) project – a professional development program that strengthens the research and leadership skills of African women in agricultural science.

After Vicki’s speech, something inside me seemed to click and I decided from this point that I really wanted to help make a difference for women in African agriculture. 

My first point of research was to read the Food and Agriculture Organization’s (FAO) report, The State of Food and Agriculture 2010-11, which states that women comprise, on average, 43 per cent of the agricultural labour force in developing countries, yet they consistently have less access to helpful resources and opportunities for growth.  They operate smaller farms, keep fewer livestock, have a greater workload and are usually left with the lower status activities such as carrying water and fetching firewood. Women also usually receive lower wages for the same work than men, even when they have the same qualifications and experience.

I was also saddened to learn that most educated women in Africa don’t seem to make it past bachelor’s degree level. It is also very worrying that only one in seven women agricultural scientists are in leadership roles, according to a study conducted with the Agricultural Science and Technology Indicators initiative that collates data on agricultural R&D investments and capacity in developing countries.

The benefits of closing the gap

Wilde stated at a recent Agropolis Foundation event that by closing this huge gender gap we could lift 100-150 million people out of hunger. She believes that with investment, awareness raising and a deeper focus on these issues, we can improve the working lives of African women, thus improving African agricultural development as a whole.

For example, the FAO report also states that plot yields managed by women are lower than those managed by men. Extensive evidence shows that this is not because women are worse farmers than men. They simply do not have access to the same inputs such as fertilisers, seeds and tools. If they did, their yields would be on a par with men’s and agricultural production would increase. Closing the input gap on the agricultural land held by women could result in an increase in production of 20–30 percent on their land, which in turn would contribute towards food security as a whole.

Also, closing the gender gap in agriculture would generate broader social and economic benefits by strengthening women’s direct access to, and control over, resources and incomes. Evidence from Africa (PDF), Asia (PDF) and elsewhere consistently shows that families benefit when women have greater status and power within the household. Increased control over income gives women a stronger bargaining position over economic decisions and when women have more influence over these decisions; their families allocate more income to food, health, education, as well as children’s clothing and nutrition.

Fast-track fellowship

AWARD’s goal is to empower women to contribute more effectively to poverty alleviation and food security in sub-Saharan Africa and offers two-year fellowships focused on establishing mentoring relationships by assigning a mentor to every woman researcher – a senior scientist or other professional who helps them realise their career goals – because young female researchers sometimes struggle to find role models of women who have already succeeded.

AWARD also helps women researchers to develop their leadership skills so they can achieve positions of influence and have a role in determining what research is conducted and how precious research funds are spent.

African women face particular challenges in continuing their science careers once they have a family to raise. To combat this, AWARD invites nursing mothers to bring their babies along to their training courses; they also offer a child-minding service and there is no cut-off age (usually 35) to enrol – allowing older women to fulfil their career aspirations.

Rebuilding the foundations

To me, gender is not just a side issue to a wider agenda, but in fact one of the most important issues to address in improving agricultural development in Africa. It seems to be a fundamental issue in Africa that governments, the private sector and the public are all failing to act on.

How can we build both agricultural and educational systems that work on such a shaky foundation?  How can we improve food security if half the population (and almost half of the farmers in Africa) are being so disempowered?

I believe that by championing initiatives such as AWARD and by further much needed time and investment in agricultural research and development for African women, we can create a paradigm shift which would help gain the support of the men out there and other organisations which might usually be resistant towards a gender revolution.

As Kofi Annan, Chairman of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa and former Secretary-General of the United Nations, once said “a green revolution in Africa will happen only if there is also a gender revolution”, a statement that I am only to eager to agree with.

About Jo Seed

Jo has been the Project Administrator for Ag4Impact since July 2009. She has previously worked for the Universities of Sussex, Central Lancashire, and Manchester.

As the hot dry breeze wafts through the lakeside district of Nkhotakota, Malawi, a group of women sing as they take turns to water their near-ripe crop of maize. Further downstream, another group is busy making seed beds in preparation for another crop.

Like many women in developing countries, these women face a particular set of responsibilities and vulnerabilities when it comes to providing food for their families. Not only are they the primary caregivers, they are also the food producers and income earners.

Women produce between 60 and 80 per cent of food in developing countries, and so hold the key to tackling hunger and malnutrition. A woman’s nutritional status is critical to her health, and her ability to work to ensure that her children are properly nourished.

Water works

The Nkhotakota region has suffered from recurring drought and flooding and the people here know the consequences. “As a woman, it hurts to see my children cry with hunger,” says Grace Kalowa from Thondo village. “It’s more painful as a mother to tell them that I don’t have any food to give them. That feeling of desperation is what brought us together as women to drive hunger away from our families.”

Grace is the chairperson of the twenty-member Kathyothyo Women Irrigation Club. They are part of a programme run by Concern to help poor farmers to tackle hunger by improving their agricultural practises by giving them both the start-up inputs, and the necessary knowledge about irrigation.

Ariema Benetala irrigates maize with a treadle pump supplied.
Image: Concern

The introduction of treadle pumps, a person-powered pump developed in the 1980s that extracts water from shallow wells (around seven metres or less) to irrigate an area of around a third of a hectare is a good example. A study showed (PDF) that treadle pump adopters in Malawi had significantly higher net farm incomes (NFI) than non-adopters, which led to other benefits such as building better houses and payment of school fees.

For the first time in many years, Biacha Jefuri, a member of the group which now has about eight hectares under cultivation, has managed to harvest twice in one year. She believes that hunger is no longer a problem in her home and the group feels they have defeated hunger once and for all. “I can now see a big change in our lives,” says Jefuri. “We have already sold part of the crop and the money has been deposited in our village savings and loan account. Concern taught us how to save money after selling our surplus crop. We use part of the money to lend each other as capital for small businesses. As women, we know that in the household so many things are needed.”

The Kathyothyo Women Irrigation Club has helped to transform the food situation for families in the region. Tackling hunger requires more than just increasing farm output, but empowering women to take control and increase their own food production is a vital step.

Sustainable progress

It’s not an isolated story of change. In the past few years, Malawi has made great progress in improving food and nutrition security. This is due to political commitment to prioritize nutrition, including the Malawian Government’s engagement in the UN’s international Scaling Up Nutrition (PDF) movement, discussed recently on this blog by Katy Wilson

Progress is also due to Concern and Malawian initiatives such as the Women’s Irrigation Club that integrate nutrition and agriculture. Sustaining this progress will of course require huge commitment and continued effort over the long haul; I know this from my work with Concern in many other extremely poor countries such as Democratic Republic of Congo, Niger and Sudan.

I have seen the effects of acute and widespread child hunger, and I know there are no quick fixes. But we know that we can defeat hunger by investing in interventions that improve nutrition for mothers, and their children which then empowers women to produce more food and earn an income that can be used for medicine, education, and to ensure food security in the future.

About Anita McCabe

Anita McCabe is Country Director for Concern Worldwide in Malawi.

This blog post was adapted from an article that originally appeared on the USAID Impact Blog.

Developing agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa involves tackling political problems as well as the scientific ones, says Sara Delaney.

Bold orange signs decorated the brightly lit rooms, each proclaiming ‘New Directions for Smallholder Agriculture’ and offering a taste of keywords to come: ‘finance, migration, accessing markets, youth…’, serving as an inspiring backdrop for the two day conference held at the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), in Rome, on January 24-25.

On the first morning two IFAD colleagues, Steven Schonberger and Geoffrey Livingston, and I presented a ‘regional’ paper we had written (PDF) for the conference on the sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) perspective.

In the paper, we try to present the smallholder situation in SSA including the challenges and opportunities, how these are changing, and how it compares to other developing regions. Following this, we build from IFAD’s recently released Rural Poverty Report 2011, which has a central theme the risks which smallholders confront – ranging from social to technological to market related. These risks are the fundamental barrier preventing many smallholders transitioning from subsistence agriculture to a commercial agriculture where they produce a surplus, sell it, and earn an income.

Reducing risk: right place, right time

But how to reduce these risks? How to make the ‘risk-to-return ratio’ low enough that more smallholders in SSA can turn farming into a sustainable business which generates profits and fuels the rural economy?

While there are many aspects to this challenge, we decided to look at two, which we felt particularly strongly about from our experience in the region: place and time.

The location of a farm in relation to a market, not only to sell products, but also to access important inputs, is crucial. And it’s not only the physical distance, but the time and cost of getting there which affect risks and returns.

Not only are small farmers in SSA the most physically isolated (34% live more than five hours (PDF) from a market town of 5,000 or more), but transport costs are also the highest and most unpredictable in the world both within countries and particularly across borders – largely due to the domination of corrupt trucking cartels.

And, as if this doesn’t make it hard enough for farmers to perform critical operations at the right time, we found that many agricultural development programs do not deliver promised services at the time they are needed on the agricultural calendar. For example, in the majority of fertiliser subsidy programs, a significant portion of fertilizer or subsidy coupons are delivered after the optimal time for use in the field (PDF). Rather big ‘elephants in the room’ as co-author Geoffrey Livingston referred to them during our presentation.

Pushing elephants out the door

What to do about these elephants? In our paper we make recommendations, mainly aimed at funding institutions like IFAD. But the feedback from the floor was strong – this is something that will require the full range of partners to tackle. Not only do international donor institutions have a role to play, but so do national governments, local NGOs, the private sector and farmer organisations.

As the conference went on other elephants kept barging in: corruption in other parts of the agricultural chain (extension services, project management staff, input delivery, local trade negotiations), international trade inequalities, the struggling education system as well as the resulting lack of youth with sufficient managerial or technical skills – the list grew. But at the same time, panel members repeatedly returned to the necessity of creating an ‘enabling environment’ – an environment where farmers themselves can take advantage of new funding, and new innovations, and create change on a large scale.

But who is going to create this enabling environment? Who is going to get the elephants out of the room? I believe, and we are going to recommend in our next draft of the paper, that each group has a role to play.

The private sector for example, will be a key partner in creating and orchestrating timely delivery of inputs, local NGOs in local capacity strengthening and knowledge transfer, national governments in prioritising farmer-focused infrastructure and policies, donor institutions in providing the needed linkages and funding, and farmer organisations in coming together to share information, become more powerful and negotiate effectively with private partners and the local government.

Some of the constraints, however, are really quite challenging and political. Dismantling trucking cartels supported by national governments, for example, is not something that IFAD is likely to take on.

So who will do it? Coming from a technical background, I more enjoy thinking about new seed varieties, or creative water management techniques, but I think it may be this enabling environment, or lack thereof, which will determine in which new directions smallholder agriculture will go.

About Sara Delaney

Sara Delaney is currently working as a Technical Knowledge Management Consultant with the West and Central Africa Division at the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). Prior to IFAD, she worked with the Agriculture for Impact team, led by Sir Gordon Conway, at Imperial College in London. She served as a US Peace Corps volunteer in Mali from 2005-2007. Sara has a Masters in Science, Society and Development from the Institute of Development Studies in the UK, and a Bachelors degree in Biological and Environmental Engineering from Cornell University in the US. She was editor and contributing author for the book Science and Innovation for Development, and recently authored The Right Tools for the Trade in the October edition of the UK Public Service Review – International Development.

Can sub Saharan Africa be the next bread basket for the world and help to address global food security issues?

The answer is yes; the challenge is how.

Sub-Saharan Africa and the rest of the developing world have a key role to play in deciding, shaping and leading food security policy for the coming decades. Why? Because of several key indicators that should not be either underestimated or overlooked: population, economic growth, water and land use in sub-Saharan Africa – what I like to call key impact indicators on food availability.

Sub-Saharan Africa has an opportunity to do things differently and earlier on its development and modernization life, something that few other world regions have today outside of Latin America.

Africa should be one of the leading regions in shaping global food security policies and feeding the future instead of others shaping it for Africa. Developing practical, integrative and more small-scale solutions for agricultural inputs and outputs, farming, and for managing both land and water resources will help Africa provide for future generations on the continent and elsewhere. This was recently summarised in the State of the World 2011 report by the US-based Worldwatch Institute, subsequently covered by the Guardian, as well as the Green Revolutions for Sub-Saharan Africa briefing by the UK think tank Chatham House.

The new tillers

A closer look at the key impact indicators of population, along with the practical and integrative solutions below, will demonstrate why Africa should raise its profile and be a leading voice on how global food security policy unfolds (the impact indicators of water and land will be addressed in a separate blog post).

For example, who are the next generations of farmers and where are they going to come from?

Current continent-wide population growth rates average 2.45 and is estimated to remain on that level until 2050 when it will be home to 1.9 billion people, up from today’s billion. Sub-Saharan Africa’s population is young – more than half of the people living on the continent are under the age of 25 and if the trajectory remains the same, Africa will be host to 29 per cent of the people in the world of that age group by 2050.

What does this mean for the foundations of food security? It means that Africa must encourage its youth to see its food security issues as vital to its development in the first instance, and be a exporting continent of key staples in the second instance.

Most African countries remain major importers of key staples such as rice, maize and wheat, and are not self-sufficient in cassava, cowpeas and other indigenous commodities. Technical innovation and integration of sucessfull practices need to enter the picture more so that self-sufficiency issues are addressed and crop exports increase.

Alternative crop uses must also be sought. For example, Nigeria is host to a cassava-to-glucose agribusiness supplied by several farming cooperatives. This non-traditional use of cassava supplies glucose not only in Nigeria, but to other countries in the West African region.

Solutions can be simple

With its large population, the sheer size of the continent and the relatively weak infrastructure in many places, the affects of poor development in food security policy going forward will likely hit Africa harder than any other region. But solutions need to be thoughtful and forward leaning. So what to do?

First, focus on training this vast cadre of youth to see farming in a new and positive way. This includes using different approaches such as more organized small-scale farmers (cooperatives or groups of cooperatives) that produce quality and improved yields in environmentally-sustainable ways, such as better waste management, and using biogas, solar and wind energy.

Second, work with these new farmers and current farmers (particularly women) to develop and deploy more innovative technology from improved crop rotation to the use of hybrid seeds, water harvesting and climate change sensitive irrigation techniques (such as drip, solar driven, etc.). In addition expand efforts in aquaculture.

Third, seek ways to connect food security to other quality of life issues such as health and education. Some of the best small scale projects in sub-Saharan Africa are examples in the Republic of Congo, Benin, Tanzania, Nigeria, and several other places where cooperative farmers’ health issues are addressed along with food safety and storage problems, or when small gardens are developed for schools, ensuring a healthy school time meal for students, teachers, and mothers who bring their children to school. For example, Benin’s Songhai Integrative Project uses appropriate technology, bio-gas and environmentally-sound approaches to both cooperative farming and small scale agro-industries.

The outcome: reduced hunger, along with poverty reduction as increased, quality yields are sold at market (or exported regionally) for income that can be used to address other quality of life and development issues such as housing, health services and paying for school fees.

With proper planning, the right democratic leadership, transparent resource management; progressive, innovative food security policies; and integrative agriculture inputs and outputs, Africa’s young population can contribution enormously to addressing both continent-wide and global food security issues over the coming decades because many of the world’s future farmers are right now on the continent.

About Dr. Robin Renée Sanders, U.S. Ambassador to Nigeria

Dr Robin Renée Sanders, a career member of the senior Foreign Service, arrived in Nigeria in December, 2007. Most recently, she served as International Advisor and Deputy Commandant at the Industrial College of the Armed Forces in Washington, DC. Prior to this position, she served as the US Ambassador to the Republic of Congo (2002-2005) and as Director for Public Diplomacy for Africa for the State Department (2000-2002). She served twice as the Director for Africa at the National Security Council at the White House; and was the Special Assistant for Latin America, Africa, and International Crime for the Undersecretary for Political Affairs at the State Department (1996-1997). Ambassador Sanders holds a DSc in Information Science and Communication from Robert Morris University, MA in International Relations and Africa Studies, and an MSc in Communications and Journalism from Ohio University. She also holds a BA in Communications from Hampton University.

Dr Sanders is the recipient of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Civilian Honor Award; three State Department Superior Honor Awards; four State Department Meritorious Honor Awards; the ‘President Merit of Honor Award’ from the Republic of Congo, and several citations in Who’s Who of America. She is a national board member of Operation Hope – a non-profit organization focused on empowerment of at-risk communities.

In achieving global food security, agriculture is part of the problem and part of the solution to climate change.

While we need to better understand greenhouse-gas emissions from agriculture we do know they are significant. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that direct emissions are about 14% of global emissions (similar to those from transport) and emissions from deforestation are 17% of global emissions – but because farming is a major driver of deforestation the majority of these are due to agriculture.

The total of emissions from agriculture is even higher when the indirect emissions from energy for fertilisers and other agrochemicals, irrigation, agro-processing and packaging, and transportation are taken into account.

While we don’t have accurate or definitive figures we can realistically say that over a third of global emissions are due to agriculture.

However, using our existing knowledge on better land practices and husbandry we sequester carbon into soils and plant biomass. Again, it is estimated that potentially agriculture could sequester up to 6000Mt CO2 per year, or 88%, of its total annual CO2 emissions.

We know that agriculture, especially in developing countries, will be seriously affected by climate change but on the degree and locations of these impacts we are less certain. But unless we put in place adaptation to climate change many millions of the poorest in the world will suffer the most.

Game plan

We therefore need to look for triple wins –mitigation, adaptation and food security benefits.

To achieve this we are going to need radical change. As Richard Jacobs mentioned in his post ‘Don’t write off organics’ on this blog, organic and ecological approaches can improve yields especially in places where yields are low.

However, while these approaches are essential we will need to marry these techniques with the best of the most modern scientific approaches to produce the food we need. We need to become more efficient in how we use energy to produce our food and consider emissions from the whole food chain, which is much more than simple food or air miles.

This is a common agenda for developed and developing countries even though smallholder farmers and their communities in the developing world have specific challenges and lower carbon footprints than their developing world counterparts.

We need to put aside polarised arguments on whether GM crops and ‘industrial agriculture’ or ecological and organic approaches are the solution. It’s time for a radical rethink on how we can feed the world and to do it sustainably this has to combine the best of all approaches.

Out of Africa

We are looking to help do this at the Africa College – a research partnership between the University of Leeds and research institutions in Africa that are working on food security and human health.

Africa College is tackling these problems in a number of ways. For example, at a ‘landscape scale’ what matters is production of both food and the level of biodiversity (especially for the services that help produce food such as pollination).

The optimal way to design a landscape that produces food and biodiversity depends on a number of factors. Sometimes, using the whole land farmed extensively does best (e.g. organic agriculture). Sometimes, you get both more food and more wildlife if you separate areas out for specialised conservation areas and conventionally farm the rest; this allows some areas to be farmed for high productivity.

This potentially gives a route forwards: we need both high productivity and sustainability. Moving to a greener agriculture is necessary for sustainability (e.g. precision farming, low-input, no-till) but this need not entail a wholesale conversion to organic methodologies.

At the scale of the plot, some of our research indicates that GM crops and those developing non-GM biotechnologies can help make farming more sustainable. Crops can be modified to enable them to grow in conditions they otherwise wouldn’t, places prone to drought for example, and be resistant to pests that would otherwise require spraying with insecticides. Such crops may provide high yields and also require less chemical and energy input.

GM crops will carry a risk that needs proper evaluation; however, not using them also carries a cost: more land will be required to grow the food needed, and conversion of the extra land to farming may impact heavily on the local environment.

We are also working with our African partners on the use of biotechnology, including GM, to benefit smallholder farmers. For example bananas are a staple food for over 60 million Africans whose food security is at threat when yields are reduced by plant diseases and pests. This includes nematodes, and the growth of bananas at high density for several years over large areas increases nematode populations and consequently the severity of the crop damage; it is estimated that losses exceed 35% in sub-Saharan Africa.

Most edible bananas are sterile and produce no seeds slowing their natural evolution and improvement by conventional plant breeding. Africa College partners are working together in public research using plant biotechnology to provide nematode resistant cooking bananas and plantains to benefit smallholder farmers in Africa.

About Mr David Howlett

David Howlett is Executive Director of Africa College and a visiting senior research fellow in climate change and agriculture at the University of Leeds. He is currently working with research scientists across different faculties at Leeds and with African research partners to increase the impact of their research. He is working to turn research results into evidence to inform agriculture and climate change policies.

Before joining Leeds, David worked for the UK Government’s Department for International Development (DFID) where he worked on food and climate change policies. Prior to this he led DFID’s agriculture research team. David has lived and worked in Asia and Africa and most recently was a United Nations Development Programme adviser based in the Vice President’s Office in Tanzania. He has undertaken research on sustainable land management while working for international and national research organisations in Africa, Asia as well as the Pacific.

Livestock enterprises contribute substantially to the world’s greenhouse gases, largely through deforestation to make room for livestock grazing and feed crops, the methane ruminant animals give off, and the nitrous oxide emitted by manure.  Estimates of this contribution vary widely (10-18% (PDF), or more, of global greenhouse-gas emissions) and are still being researched – it’s a complex question and hotly debated.  

Whatever the exact figure, many worry these greenhouse-gas emissions will only grow due to increasing livestock production to meet the surging demand for meat and milk in developing countries.

But significant livestock-related greenhouse gas reductions could be quickly achieved in tropical countries by modifying production practices, which were recently detailed in a paper by myself and a colleague published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. For example, switching to more nutritious pasture grasses, supplementing diets with even small amounts of crop residues or grains, restoring degraded grazing lands, planting trees that both trap carbon and produce leaves that cows can eat, and adopting more productive breeds can all be employed relatively quickly to reduce emissions.

Such changes could increase the amount of milk and meat produced by individual animals, thus reducing emissions because farmers would require fewer animals.

For example, in Latin America switching cows from natural grasslands to more nutritious sown pastures can increase daily milk production and weight gain by a factor of three. Fewer animals would then be needed to satisfy demand, while farmers’ incomes could be raised substantially.

There are several other well-documented options that could increase incomes for smallholders while at the same time reducing overall emissions.

Supplementing grazing with feed consisting of crop residues, such as the leaves and stalks of sorghum or maize plants, is one example. There is also potential to boost production per animal by crossbreeding local with genetically improved breeds, so providing more milk and meat than traditional breeds while emitting less methane per kilo of meat or milk produced. Supplementing cattle diets with the leaves of certain trees, such as Leucaena leucocephala, has similar effects on meat and milk production and incomes.

These options could not only reduce methane emissions, but some of them, such as planting improved pastures and agroforestry tree species, can also sequester carbon directly.  For example, if about 30 percent of livestock owners in the tropical regions of Latin America switch from natural grass to improved grasses such as some of the Brachiaria species, this alone could reduce carbon dioxide emissions by about 30 million tons per year.

Payback time

It would be a useful incentive if these farmers were allowed to sell the reductions they achieve as credits on global carbon markets. Overall, at US$20 per ton, which is roughly what carbon is currently trading for on the European Climate Exchange, we calculate that poor livestock keepers in tropical countries could generate about US$1.3 billion each year in carbon revenues.  Such carbon payments could make a meaningful contribution to many livestock-keeping households.

My colleague and I have calculated that, for a range of readily-available options for poor livestock keepers to increase production in the tropics, these could save about 7 percent of all livestock-related global greenhouse-gas emissions (a conservative estimate, as we did not consider the full range of options available to livestock keepers, nor did we consider nitrous oxide emissions). Consumption of milk and meat may double in the developing world by 2050, so it’s critical to adopt sustainable approaches now that reduce the negative effects of increasing livestock production while allowing countries to realize the benefits, such as better nutrition and higher incomes for livestock-producing households.

At the same time, reductions in the consumption of livestock products in developed countries could result in additional and substantial reductions in emissions. 

But back in the tropics, many livestock keepers are highly dependent on their animals for food, for income, as ‘engines’ to prepare their land, and as tradable assets. They need technological options and economic incentives that help them intensify their production in sustainable ways. Hence, carbon payments would be a welcome additional incentive that could help to bring about useful and much-needed changes in smallholder livestock production as well as bringing about a more conducive enabling environment.

About Philip Thornton

Philip Thornton is a Theme Leader and Senior Scientist with the Challenge Programme on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) at the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) in Nairobi, Kenya, and an Honorary Research Fellow in the Institute of Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences at the University of Edinburgh.  He has worked mostly in Latin America, Europe, North America and Africa, on systems modelling and impact assessment. His current research interests revolve around integrated assessment at different scales and evaluating the possible impacts of global change on agricultural systems in developing countries.

We now believe rinderpest has been eradicated from the world. When finally confirmed in 2011, rinderpest eradication will be the only disease conquered after smallpox back in the 1970s.

Rinderpest was one of the most devastating virus diseases of livestock known to man. Closely related to measles in humans, rinderpest (from the German ‘cattle plague’) has probably been around since before the birth of Christ and devastated European powers in the 17th century.

With a mortality rate of up to 90%, major epidemics in the late 1890s killed over 80% of African cattle and other wildlife in southern Africa. Along the Horn of Africa, an estimated one-third of the population of Ethiopia and two-thirds of the Maasai people of Tanzania died of starvation.

In the 1980s the virus struck again, killing an estimated 100M animals from Senegal to Somalia in Africa and from Turkey to Bangladesh in Asia. Economic losses totalled US$2Bn in Nigeria alone.

Coordinating action

Following the development of a live attenuated vaccine by British virologist Walter Plowright in 1962, early eradication efforts in the 1960s and 70s eventually stalled, but showed the war might be winnable.

As the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) mobilised a new eradication campaign, the Global Rinderpest Eradication Programme, (GREP) in the 1990s, The Institute for Animal Health (IAH), Pirbright, UK, was designated the FAO World Reference Laboratory for rinderpest in 1994 and thereafter provided a global diagnostic service for all countries involved in the programme. This included rinderpest diagnosis, molecular characterisation, the provision of training and technical backup, and the production and quality control of diagnostic kits and research to further our understanding of rinderpest virus biology.

What lessons have been learned along the way?

The main factors in the success of GREP, from an IAH perspective, were the development of the right technology for field use in Africa and Asia, successful transfer of that technology along with technical backup, and the provision of standardised diagnostic kits that everyone could use.

Appropriate technology

The Plowright vaccine induces life-long immunity after a single vaccination, but only if the vaccine is maintained at the correct temperature before administration. The vaccine virus is rapidly inactivated at temperatures greater than 4C and so involved the strict use of a cold-chain. Seromonitoring was therefore essential to monitor the performance of the vaccination teams and to establish levels of herd immunity.

However, at the start of the Pan African Rinderpest Campaign and subsequently GREP, most laboratories were unable to carry out the virus neutralisation test to see if it had worked and mass testing was impossible.

To tackle this problem, IAH developed an indirect ELISA test (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) and underwent two-year field trials in Tanzania to make sure it worked under tough local conditions.

The test performed well and was later replaced with an improved test (a monoclonal antibody-based competitive ELISA) which gave greater specificity (>99.5%), sensitivity and reproducibility. It also greatly reduced the number of false-positive results which saved unwarranted and expensive field investigations. Furthermore, the use of this single test harmonised results and increased participants’ confidence when communicating during regional workshops.

Rapid diagnosis and detection was essential during the latter stages of the eradication programme. The development of a rapid pen-side test proved invaluable in countries such as Pakistan and Somalia and empowered the field veterinarians to take prompt action to stamp out the last remaining pockets of infection.

Technology transfer

The Rinderpest Laboratory Network established by the Joint Division FAO-International Atomic Energy Authority with the assistance of IAH Pirbright proved the ideal vehicle for technology transfer.

Annual co-ordination meetings were always linked to training courses and updates in diagnostic techniques, software programs or epidemiological strategies.

The success of this process is highlighted by the fact that the project holders are now regarded as experts in their own right and have assisted many other countries in establishing similar technology.

Standardised diagnostics

The provision of standardised quality controlled reagents played a major part in the eradication programme, and large batches of antigen and control sera were produced to minimise test variation between laboratories.

This was further enhanced by the use of a monoclonal antibody-based assay, and a single batch of monoclonal antibody was used for all the competitive ELISA kits produced.

External quality assurance panels showed a 98% agreement between laboratories in Africa; a much higher figure than that reported for HIV testing at that time.

Recommendations for the future

The strategy used for rinderpest eradication, although not applicable to all diseases, could be used as a blueprint for other diseases such as peste des petits ruminants (meaning ‘disease of small ruminants’, known as PPR virus).

Key factors for success include the availability of an excellent vaccine (which we have), secure long-term funding, the establishment of a Secretariat in FAO Rome as a global co-ordination unit, and evolution of the OIE Pathway to Freedom from Rinderpest guidelines which gave clear advice to all countries at each stage of the process.

However, let it not be forgotten that the drive and determination of a few key people was also essential to this remarkable success.

This story highlights the importance of continued support for applied, problem-driven research in agriculture and food security.

Addressing significant animal health problems through appropriate research and development – allied to excellent technology transfer and empowerment of local scientists – has played a key role in this major achievement.

About John Anderson

John Anderson joined the Institute for Animal Health (then the Animal Virus Research Institute) in 1968 as a technician in the World Reference Laboratory (WRL) for foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) before being seconded to Nairobi, Kenya, in 1971 to work on FMD carrier status in local cattle and the role of wildlife in FMD epidemiology.

He returned to IAH Pirbright in 1977 and worked on FMD, rinderpest and bluetongue viruses and was designated Head of the WRL for rinderpest in 1994 where he developed the indirect and competitive ELISAs and pen-side test for rinderpest which were used throughout the Global Rinderpest Eradication  Programme.

He was in charge of the serological testing during the 2001 FMD outbreak in the UK and was awarded the MBE for Services to Animal Health in 2003. In 2006, he was appointed Acting Head of IAH’s Pirbright Laboratory until his retirement in 2008.

There have been few reports noting the growing food security issue that has arisen over the last few months in the West Africa Region. We all need to pay more attention to this so that it doesn’t turn into a regional crisis.

Affected countries in West Africa are doing their best to manage the ever-growing food security issues related to staple commodities, particularly grains. The US Agency for International Development has called this the “Hunger Gap” as many of the regions poor have already exhausted not only available food stores but are also not having access to affordable and adequate food (nutritional food). See the FEEEDS™ blog-itrrs page, defining the elements of food security.

The next harvest is still months away. For many countries in the West Africa region that is October. The affected countries in West Africa that are potentially affected by this “Hunger Gap” are Nigeria, Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger and parts of Chad.

Although for many of the Sahel countries food security is always a challenge, the rains have come late and not in abundance (or too erratic) in many places, exacerbating the already difficult food situation for many of the regions’ populations. The erratic nature of the rains have produced drought in some areas, negatively impacted planting seasons, and delaying the replenishment of water sources.

In Nigeria, the drought and food shortages are affecting the northern area of the country in states that are on the front lines of the Sahel such as Sokoto, Borno, Yobe, Katsina, Zamfara, Katsina, Jigawa and Kano. The Government of Nigeria has not only responded to the needs of its people by releasing key stables from its National Strategic Food Reserve (NSFR) of some 80,000 metric tons of assorted food survival grains (sorghum, maize, millet, cow peas, etc.) to help its people, but it is also assisting neighboring states such as Chad and Niger Republic.

All commodities from the NSFR are to be sold at 30 per cent subsidy – but these subsidized commodities still may not reach those most in need, particularly already malnourished children. Thus the potential effect of this “Hunger Gap” in Nigeria could be close to 15 million people. In recent weeks planting has been accomplished in the Sokoto, Zamfara and Kebbi states, but other states are still challenged by the erratic rainfall affecting both planting and harvest seasons.

The US Government is very much focused on food security world-wide, but particularly in Africa through its $48M “Feed the Future Initiative” for the region. The “Feed the Future Initiative” also includes non-Africa countries such as Haiti, Bangladesh, and Cambodia. It is projected that Nigeria will get approximately $51M to address the fundamentals of food security including developing markets and hybrid seeds.

I have seen first-hand the success of the US Government-funded MARKETS program in these areas, but the international donor community needs to keep the food security situation of the affected West Africa countries front and centre on its radar screen over the next few months so that all vulnerable people (particularly children) have in their reach the fundamentals of food security: accessibility, availability, affordability, and adequate (nutritional) commodities in order to avoid a crisis later in 2010.

Outlook: Let’s Pay Attention! Current early warning assessments note that things have improved somewhat for replenishing some water sources and the physical condition of some livestock. Watch the food security situation in northern Nigeria and the other affected West African States. The next couple of months will give us a better idea of the food security challenges for the remainder of 2010.

This article is based on a blog post originally published on The Africa Post. For more on the West Africa food crisis, see the post by Kirsty Hughes of Oxfam GB.

About Dr. Robin Renée Sanders, U.S. Ambassador to Nigeria

Robin Renée Sanders, a career member of the senior Foreign Service, arrived in Nigeria in December, 2007. Most recently, she served as International Advisor and Deputy Commandant at the Industrial College of the Armed Forces in Washington, D.C. Prior to this position, she served as the U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Congo (2002-2005) and as Director for Public Diplomacy for Africa for the State Department (2000-2002).She served twice as the Director for Africa at the National Security Council at the White House; and was the Special Assistant for Latin America, Africa, and International Crime for the Undersecretary for Political Affairs at the State Department (1996-1997). Ambassador Sanders holds a Doctor of Science Degree in Information Science and Communication from Robert Morris University, Masters of Art degree in International Relations and Africa Studies, and a Masters of Science degree in Communications and Journalism from Ohio University. She also holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in Communications from Hampton University.

Dr. Sanders is the recipient of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Civilian Honor Award; three State Department Superior Honor Awards; four State Department Meritorious Honor Awards; the “President Merit of Honor Award” from the Republic of Congo, and several citations in Who’s Who of America. She is a national board member of Operation Hope – a non-profit organization focused on empowerment of at-risk communities.

Next week, over 200 farmers, policymakers, agricultural researchers, agrodealers and non-governmental organisations from across Africa and around the world will be gathering in Namibia for the annual FANRPAN Policy Dialogue to discuss the state of food security in sub-Saharan Africa and future priorities for continuing progress.

Food security on the continent is still only a goal; the reality is that agricultural growth has been erratic, leaving one third of the African population chronically malnourished.

But with the right agricultural policies and programmes in place to support farmers, an economically productive and stable food supply is a viable future for Africa.  In fact, one estimate is that agricultural output in Africa could increase from $280Bn today to $880Bn by 2030.

To achieve this growth, farmers need access to quality inputs that help them to increase agricultural productivity, including improved seed, fertiliser and crop protection products as well as secure access to land and water resources. They need to be trained on crop and natural resources management, in particular climate change adaptation strategies, and given the means to changes the techniques they use in their fields.

Finally, farmers need to be supported in accessing markets through better post-harvest storage facilities and stronger infrastructure links, as well as information technologies that provide weather, crop and market alerts. These can form the basis for an inclusive marketplace and a fairer trading environment.

At the core of agricultural development lies the need for increased funding. The World Bank has calculated (PDF) that agricultural growth is at least twice as effective at eliminating poverty as growth from any other sector. Without investment into the back end of the agricultural production chain, these economic gains remain untapped.

Africa has a history of underinvestment in agriculture, which is being addressed by the Comprehensive African Agricultural Development Program (CAADP).  CAADP was set up by the African Union  as part of its New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) in 2003 to help African countries reach a higher path of economic growth through agriculture-led development.  In adopting the CAADP goals, twenty African governments have agreed to increase public investment in agriculture to a minimum of 10 per cent of their national budgets – substantially more than the four to five per cent average they commit today – with the aim of raising agricultural productivity by at least six per cent on average each year

And there is more promise. FANRPAN’s research into Malawi’s agricultural input subsidy programme has shown that from 2005, when the initiative was launched, to 2008, average maize yields in Malawi increased from 0.8 tonnes per hectare to 2.9 tonnes per hectare. In the space of five years, Malawi has transformed itself from being a food deficit nation to a grain exporter.

My recent video interview with the Malawi President Bingu wa Mutharika outlines how this transformation can occur across the continent.

But while Africa has one-quarter of the world’s arable land, it produces only 10 per cent of its total global output, whilst holding an estimated 60 per cent of the world’s uncultivated, arable land. Better knowledge sharing, technology transfer and public-private collaboration are needed to help bridge this gap into the future.

The challenges for food security are multi-faceted.  Sectors such as livestock and fisheries, an area of focus at this year’s FANRPAN Policy Dialogue, are also important sources of livelihoods for many Africans. After many years of neglect, these sectors are also being recognised as means of entering new markets and generating wealth as well as being key social safety nets during lean times

However, livestock and fisheries are also amongst the most climate-sensitive agroeconomic sectors. Consequently, for the 200 million Africans who rely on livestock for their livelihoods, and the 10 million Africans employed in fisheries(not to mention the 70 per cent of Africa’s rural poor who keep livestock), climate change will have serious implications and must be addressed in the region’s climate adaptation strategies

Achieving food security in Africa will require a sustained effort from experts in every sector and from every discipline. Collaborative approaches and committed investments of time, technologies and research funding will guide the way to a more prosperous tomorrow

As a supporter of the Farming First coalition, we call on policy-makers and practitioners to develop locally sustainable value-chains fairly connected to global agricultural markets, and to continue creating knowledge networks and policies centred on helping subsistence farmers to become entrepreneurs.

About Lindiwe Majele Sibanda

Dr Lindiwe Majele Sibanda is the CEO of the Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network (FANRPAN) and is a spokesperson for the Farming First coalition