In 2009, European Union (EU) governments committed to sourcing 10% of transport energy from renewable sources by 2020: they are set to meet this target almost exclusively using biofuels made from food crops. This decision has several important implications for developing countries, according to this report. Land grabs are occurring in developing countries with poor protection of land rights – most of which are to grow crops that can be used for biofuels – which means that many land deals for biofuel production are concluded without the consent of affected communities. Affected countries in Africa include Mozambique, Kenya and Ethiopia. In terms of production, if the land used to produce biofuels for the EU in 2008 had been used to produce wheat and maize instead, it could have fed 127 million people for the entire year. On top of this, biofuel mandates are an incredible inelastic source of demand for food crops; by 2020, EU biofuel mandates alone could push up the price of some foods by as much as 36%. Biofuel mandates are not even a solution to climate change; modeling shows that plowing up carbon sinks to meet EU biofuel mandates could be as bad for the environment as putting an extra 26 million cars on Europe’s roads. Oxfam concludes by calling on EU governments to scrap EU biofuel mandates.
Poverty and health
The Sixth Africa Agriculture Science Week was held in Accra from 15-20 July 2013. However, the authors of this article express their concern that the current scientific approach to improve agricultural productivity, and food nutrition of small-scale farmers in particular, is being heavily distorted and influenced by well-funded information campaigns of the big agro-chemical companies. These agribusinesses, and their allies aim to increase their profits by selling chemicals and inputs and one of their key objectives is to introduce patented genetically engineered seed into Ghana and other African countries. The authors argue that genetic engineering (GE) is not about science, it is about money. They point out there is very little record of success in developing countries in helping small scale farmers to improve productivity and adapt to climate change. GE seed is also more expensive for farmers than saving seed for the next planting. The authors argue that small scale Ghanaian farmers need research and extension in support of agro-ecological farming, and this includes access to markets, infrastructure, good roads and transportation, and protection from landgrabs.
The author of this paper identifies two main concerns with regard to biofuel policies: one involves the likely consequences of biofuels for greenhouse gas emissions because of the ploughing up of forests and grasslands and their release of carbon, while the other involves the consequences for hunger and poverty. What is not broadly understood is that the two consequences closely and inversely relate: the less farmers plough up forest and grassland, the greater the impacts on hunger; but the lower the impacts on hunger, the more farmers emit greenhouse gases from land use change. Much of the uncertainty about the consequences of biofuels relate to how much of which undesirable response the world will get. When biofuels divert crops from food there are three basic alternative responses: (1) the crops are not replaced; (2) crops are replaced by land use change; and (3) crops are replaced by boosting production on existing agricultural land. The author argues that the evidence indicates that biofuels are fuelling hunger, land grabs and climate change.
While the challenges facing agriculture are clearly urgent, this paper questions the thrust of ‘sustainable intensification’. Sustainable intensification is reported by the author to include technology-based approaches through strategies developed without participation of small farmers. The author argues that most of the world’s food is grown by small farmers, without the use of industrial inputs, and using traditional seed varieties. Small farmers have raised their own priorities as a sustainable agriculture that builds on farmers’ own expertise and knowledge, with clear land rights, and rights for women, including agrarian reforms; agricultural research that starts by asking farmers what they need; knowledge and technologies that are based on agro-ecological principles, including compost, integrated pest management and mixed cropping; seed development based on traditional varieties; and mechanisms to protect local farmers from unfair competition from imported products.
The Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP), launched by African heads of state in 2003, offered the prospect of a new, intensified focus on agriculture throughout the continent. Ten years on, how successful has CAADP been? This paper offers a brief assessment, with its authors examining if agricultural budgets have increased, if the focus of spending has improved, and if CAADP is providing ‘fair shares’ to the millions of smallholder farmers who do most of Africa’s farming and produce most of its food. The key CAADP commitment made by African states was to allocate 10% of public expenditure to agriculture. Yet, as of 2010, only eight countries have exceeded the 10% target. Although the adoption of CAADP-aligned national strategies has played a role in increasing agricultural investment in some (though not all) countries, there are serious problems with the focus of spending, especially in the lack of adequate support to the needs of smallholder farmers, notably women farmers. The authors note that CAADP is promoting a farming model associated with the Green Revolution, which promotes the use of expensive external inputs such as chemical fertilisers, pesticides and genetically modified or hybrid seeds bought from agribusiness companies; they argue this comes at the expense of promoting sustainable agriculture approaches that are likely to benefit poor farmers much more. One of the biggest failures for CAADP-aligned national investments is that they have not recognised the potential of smallholders’ own investments or their potential to build on their ‘fair share’, the authors conclude.
Household air pollution (HAP) from solid fuel (biomass or coal) combustion is the leading environmental cause of death and disability in the world. The health effects of HAP and unsafe stoves are documented in this paper to be in seven areas (cancer; infections; cardiovascular disease; maternal, neonatal, and child health; respiratory disease; burns; and ocular disorders). Gaps in four cross-cutting areas were found that are relevant to research on HAP (exposure and biomarker assessment, women's empowerment, behavioural approaches, and programme evaluation). The authors argue that it is vital that researchers partner with implementing organisations and governments to evaluate the impacts of improved stove and fuel programmes to identify and share evidence regarding the outcomes of the many implementation programmes underway, including the socio-behavioural aspects of household energy use.
The key message of this report is that without better understanding the determinants of smallholders’ participation in agricultural markets, and formulating appropriate measures to facilitate improved participation, initiatives seeking to promote the adoption of productivity enhancing technology by smallholder producers are likely to have limited success. Smallholders’ participation in markets is crucially important for improved food security and poverty reduction. Attempts to improve smallholder productivity will have limited success if smallholder linkages to markets are not strengthened simultaneously. Limited smallholder participation in markets is not necessarily a result of a lack of commercial orientation per se, but the result of constrained choice in a risky environment. Smallholders are very heterogeneous, facing different types of constraints and opportunities, and will react differently to new market opportunities. Public policy interventions are generally needed to foster smallholder market integration, the authors argue. These interventions need to be prioritised and sequenced according to evidence-based diagnosis of the constraints faced by different categories of smallholders. Evidence-based policy-making could help minimise the risks of policy failure.
What do newer emerging external funders do in the field of agricultural cooperation in Africa? And how does this relate to the African Union’s Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)? This paper from ECDPM looks at Brazilian agricultural cooperation in Ghana side by side with the CAADP process in the country. It finds that while Brazil largely supports the country’s CAADP investment plan, it does not engage with the process around it. This is not necessarily the result of a conscious policy choice or bad will, but due to the fact that CAADP might not be very attractive for newer external funders as currently designed, the author argues. Yet, there are clear trends towards cooperation and joint learning between Brazil and Western external funders, which might provide some space for CAADP to play a role in facilitating these exchanges.
The Commission on Social Determinants of Health (CSDH) was tasked by the World Health Organisation (WHO) with summarising the evidence on how the structure of societies, through myriad social interactions, norms and institutions, are affecting population health, and what governments and public health can do about it. To guide the Commission, the WHO Secretariat conducted this review and summary of different frameworks for understanding the social determinants of health (SDH). Developing a conceptual framework on social determinants of health (SDH) for the CSDH needs to take note of the specific theories of the social production of health. Three main theoretical non-mutually exclusive explanations were reviewed: (1) psychosocial approaches; (2) social production of disease/political economy of health; and (3) eco-social frameworks. In turning to policy action on SDH inequities, three broad approaches to reducing health inequities can be identified, based on: (1) targeted programmes for disadvantaged populations; (2) closing health gaps between worse-off and better-off groups; and (3) addressing the social health gradient across the whole population. A consistent equity-based approach to SDH must ultimately lead to a gradients focus. However, strategies based on tackling health disadvantage, health gaps and gradients are not mutually exclusive. They can complement and build on each other.
The global food system is under acute and rising pressure - and Africa's farmers are feeling its full force. There is still more than enough food in the world to feed everyone, says the Panel in this report, but population and economic growth as well as the search for low-carbon energy sources are driving up demand for arable land, while climate change, ecological constraints and lower levels of productivity growth in agriculture are limiting food supply. While these emerging strains in the global food system offer Africa some opportunities, they also carry very large risks. Higher food prices could create incentives for African governments to invest in agriculture and raise productivity, or they could lead to a dramatic worsening of poverty and malnutrition among vulnerable populations. Africa's vast untapped potential in agriculture could become a source of rural prosperity and more balanced economic growth, or it could act as a magnet for more speculative investments, land grabs and the displacement of local communities. Carbon markets might open up opportunities for small farmers to benefit from climate change mitigation efforts in rich countries, though the benefits have so far proven limited and the future of these markets remains uncertain. What is certain is that Africa's farmers will bear the brunt of dangerous climate change, with drought and unpredictable rainfall patterns reinforcing rural poverty and undermining food systems.