In the past, I did a lot of blogging about Agriculture (see Common Sense Agriculture, Conservation and Energy). After all, agriculture is how I make my living. The opinion article linked below is about the future of feeding the world. I hope that you will take the time to read it and go to the linked information. It is important.
Poverty and Lack of Research Block Path to a Well-Fed World
The lack of good governance is at the root of much of the poverty in the world. Political corruption is one of the biggest problems in Africa and Latin America as well as parts of the Middle East, Asia and many of the former Soviet states. It is a primary reason for the abject poverty of their people.
Showing posts with label agriculture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label agriculture. Show all posts
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Regulating Cattle Emissions and Conspiracy Theories
OK. I’ve finally had enough of the ludicrous idea that the way to control greenhouse gases is to regulate emissions by livestock. I suspect it is really a plan to destroy the livestock industry by those who think we should all become Vegans. Or, maybe it is something even more sinister.
The carbon cycle is relatively simple to describe although its actions are complex. Living things are carbon-based. This includes plants and animals. Plants take carbon-dioxide out of the atmosphere, trap the carbon into their tissue in the form of various molecules such as sugars and then release Oxygen. Animals eat plants (or other animals) and through the process of digestion, break down the complex molecules (such as sugars) from the plant material and utilize the released energy to fuel their existence. In the process of digestion, some of the carbon is released back into the atmosphere as various gases and carbon dioxide is released through respiration. This process cycles the carbon in a somewhat continuous loop. Plants also release carbon when they die. The process of decomposition releases carbon into the atmosphere.
This carbon cycle has continued since the beginning of life on this planet. At one time in pre-history, there was significantly more carbon floating around in the atmosphere which fueled riotous growth of plants. Many of those plants were then trapped in sediment and over time changed to oil, gas and coal or were bound into limestone and other sedimentary rocks.
Until we began releasing the carbon that was “sequestered” in the form of oil, gas and coal, carbon wasn’t a problem. It was cycled through plants and animals just as it is today. It was this release from the utilization of fossil fuels of huge amounts of carbon back into the carbon cycle that created what some scientists today are claiming to be a cataclysmic problem for life on earth. In other words – it isn’t the cattle that are causing “climate change,” it is the burning of fossil fuels that released huge amounts of trapped carbon into the atmosphere that is causing the increase of atmospheric greenhouse gases.
So, why do our government and the governments of other nations throughout the world think the solution lies in regulating gas produced by cattle? Here is one possibility – it is part of the plan to control the world food supply. In the U.S. most crops are subsidized through various support payments. Livestock production is not. Placing regulations on the livestock producers under the guise of controlling greenhouse gas emissions makes sense only in the context of attempting to gain control of one of the few lightly regulated industries left.
It fits into what could be construed as a plan to force a one-world government. The way I see it, if one wanted to control the world you would begin with a series of induced crises. The crises would be designed to gain control of some key things – banking, energy and food. Hmmmm…..we recently saw manipulation of the first two of these items. That leaves food. I wonder what’s really going on behind the scenes in Copenhagen……
The carbon cycle is relatively simple to describe although its actions are complex. Living things are carbon-based. This includes plants and animals. Plants take carbon-dioxide out of the atmosphere, trap the carbon into their tissue in the form of various molecules such as sugars and then release Oxygen. Animals eat plants (or other animals) and through the process of digestion, break down the complex molecules (such as sugars) from the plant material and utilize the released energy to fuel their existence. In the process of digestion, some of the carbon is released back into the atmosphere as various gases and carbon dioxide is released through respiration. This process cycles the carbon in a somewhat continuous loop. Plants also release carbon when they die. The process of decomposition releases carbon into the atmosphere.
This carbon cycle has continued since the beginning of life on this planet. At one time in pre-history, there was significantly more carbon floating around in the atmosphere which fueled riotous growth of plants. Many of those plants were then trapped in sediment and over time changed to oil, gas and coal or were bound into limestone and other sedimentary rocks.
Until we began releasing the carbon that was “sequestered” in the form of oil, gas and coal, carbon wasn’t a problem. It was cycled through plants and animals just as it is today. It was this release from the utilization of fossil fuels of huge amounts of carbon back into the carbon cycle that created what some scientists today are claiming to be a cataclysmic problem for life on earth. In other words – it isn’t the cattle that are causing “climate change,” it is the burning of fossil fuels that released huge amounts of trapped carbon into the atmosphere that is causing the increase of atmospheric greenhouse gases.
So, why do our government and the governments of other nations throughout the world think the solution lies in regulating gas produced by cattle? Here is one possibility – it is part of the plan to control the world food supply. In the U.S. most crops are subsidized through various support payments. Livestock production is not. Placing regulations on the livestock producers under the guise of controlling greenhouse gas emissions makes sense only in the context of attempting to gain control of one of the few lightly regulated industries left.
It fits into what could be construed as a plan to force a one-world government. The way I see it, if one wanted to control the world you would begin with a series of induced crises. The crises would be designed to gain control of some key things – banking, energy and food. Hmmmm…..we recently saw manipulation of the first two of these items. That leaves food. I wonder what’s really going on behind the scenes in Copenhagen……
Friday, July 24, 2009
Cornyn to Ag Committee
Agriculture is critical to the Texas Economy. The Texas economy is leading the nation. It is only fitting that Texas Senator John Cornyn be appointed to the Senate Ag Committee. We need conservative voices offsetting the shrill cry of the animal rights activists.
Senator Cornyn Appointed to Senate Ag Committee
Senator Cornyn Appointed to Senate Ag Committee
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Money and Politics -- The Usual
It is obvious to me that agriculture doesn't wield much political power with the current administration. I guess there aren't enough voters who make a living from agriculture for it to be worthwhile for them to apply the federal largesse to this particular segment of the economy. Maybe, they just realize that this is a group whose votes can't be easily swayed by the application of large sums of money. It's much easier to obtain votes among the unions by pouring dollars into industries where they are strong. Besides, what's a few Billion among the Trillions that are being spent????
I must again repeat the quote of Benjamin Franklin -- "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic. Sell not liberty to purchase power."
I must again repeat the quote of Benjamin Franklin -- "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic. Sell not liberty to purchase power."
Monday, July 28, 2008
Bio-fuels Impact on Food Pricing Depends on Location
The impact of bio-fuels on the price of food has been debated almost from the initiation of the U.S. Renewable Fuels Standards (RFS). Most U.S. studies place the impact at 25% or below. A recent EU study places it at 75%. I have seen figures that indicate the impact to be around 150% in Africa. In spite of the apparent inconsistency of these numbers, they reflect the reality of food in each of the areas mentioned.
In the U.S., the majority of food consumed is highly processed. It comes frequently in ready-to-eat packaging, or in heat-and-serve form. In that case, the raw food product makes up only a small percentage of the overall cost of the finished product. A significant increase in the raw commodity price has only minimal effect on the cost of the consumer-ready item.
In Europe, food preferences favor less processing. The items are impacted more by increases in the basic commodity price. In Africa, food items are frequently the raw commodity and all preparation occurs after purchase. In that case, the raw commodity price makes up an extremely high percentage of the cost of the item with the remainder going to transportation costs and profits through the production-to-retailer chain.
The bottom line is that bio-fuels do have a significant impact on worldwide food prices. The severity of that impact depends on the affluence of the society that we are examining. Those least able to afford the impact are the ones most greatly affected.
In the U.S., the majority of food consumed is highly processed. It comes frequently in ready-to-eat packaging, or in heat-and-serve form. In that case, the raw food product makes up only a small percentage of the overall cost of the finished product. A significant increase in the raw commodity price has only minimal effect on the cost of the consumer-ready item.
In Europe, food preferences favor less processing. The items are impacted more by increases in the basic commodity price. In Africa, food items are frequently the raw commodity and all preparation occurs after purchase. In that case, the raw commodity price makes up an extremely high percentage of the cost of the item with the remainder going to transportation costs and profits through the production-to-retailer chain.
The bottom line is that bio-fuels do have a significant impact on worldwide food prices. The severity of that impact depends on the affluence of the society that we are examining. Those least able to afford the impact are the ones most greatly affected.
Friday, July 25, 2008
We Can Do Better
We frequently see the debate between “environmentalists” and the rest of us as framed in an “us” vs. “them” manner. Business people feel that the environmental movement is nothing but a roadblock to progress. People in developing countries see environmental groups preventing them from experiencing the luxuries of the west because they hinder the utilization of the natural resources at hand.
Environmental groups often carry names like “Friends of the Earth” or “Save the Wildlife.” Those types of names carry with them a stigma that immediately sets on edge the typical businessman.
What if the debate became a completely economic one?
There is within the economic community the idea that when external costs are internalized into the price of a good or service, the decision to allocate resources to that good or service often changes. An example of internalizing these externalities would be the impact of a uranium mine on the Navajo Reservation. In order to avoid the potential complexities of the decision, let’s limit it to one possible issue – or, external cost -- the impact of the mining activity on the water supply of a community.
Suppose that the mine is located within the watershed of a Navajo community. To fully understand the cost to develop the mine, the potential pollution of the community’s water supply must be examined. Such examination would need to include preventative measures and possible remediation in the event of contamination. It also would need to look at long-term effects to wildlife residing in the watershed. Wildlife might provide hunting lease income to the reservation. It might also be of significant cultural value that would be difficult to price. It might affect tourist income from photography or viewing. It might impact local artisans who utilize specific clays located within the watershed.
With the exception of preventing and remediating potential contamination, none of the impacts mentioned are direct costs to the mine owner/operator. They are however, external costs to the community of locating the mine in their watershed.
How does one determine the value of natural resources? We can estimate the value of mineral deposits. We can value land based on the transactional market for similar properties. But, how do we value the less obvious things such as: filtering the water supply, tourism, hunting and fishing, recreation, moderating effects on climate, flood protection, erosion control and other items about which we don’t currently understand?
Hopefully in the near future, we will see attention paid to such values. Such things must be part of an overall land use plan before disruptive activities are begun. We need oil, natural gas, wind energy, solar energy, coal and we need minerals that can only be obtained through extractive activities. Surely we have learned enough of the complex interactions of the environment to begin to make sound evaluations of our activities in a broader sense. We must learn to utilize our resources without destroying our surroundings. Let’s drill – but let’s do so in an environmentally informed manner. Let’s build windmills for electrical generation – but let’s situate them in a manner that retains the benefits of our wild lands. Let’s learn from the unintended consequences of our past mistakes – such as ruined lakes and streams from coal mining or oil and gas extraction. We can do better.
Environmental groups often carry names like “Friends of the Earth” or “Save the Wildlife.” Those types of names carry with them a stigma that immediately sets on edge the typical businessman.
What if the debate became a completely economic one?
There is within the economic community the idea that when external costs are internalized into the price of a good or service, the decision to allocate resources to that good or service often changes. An example of internalizing these externalities would be the impact of a uranium mine on the Navajo Reservation. In order to avoid the potential complexities of the decision, let’s limit it to one possible issue – or, external cost -- the impact of the mining activity on the water supply of a community.
Suppose that the mine is located within the watershed of a Navajo community. To fully understand the cost to develop the mine, the potential pollution of the community’s water supply must be examined. Such examination would need to include preventative measures and possible remediation in the event of contamination. It also would need to look at long-term effects to wildlife residing in the watershed. Wildlife might provide hunting lease income to the reservation. It might also be of significant cultural value that would be difficult to price. It might affect tourist income from photography or viewing. It might impact local artisans who utilize specific clays located within the watershed.
With the exception of preventing and remediating potential contamination, none of the impacts mentioned are direct costs to the mine owner/operator. They are however, external costs to the community of locating the mine in their watershed.
How does one determine the value of natural resources? We can estimate the value of mineral deposits. We can value land based on the transactional market for similar properties. But, how do we value the less obvious things such as: filtering the water supply, tourism, hunting and fishing, recreation, moderating effects on climate, flood protection, erosion control and other items about which we don’t currently understand?
Hopefully in the near future, we will see attention paid to such values. Such things must be part of an overall land use plan before disruptive activities are begun. We need oil, natural gas, wind energy, solar energy, coal and we need minerals that can only be obtained through extractive activities. Surely we have learned enough of the complex interactions of the environment to begin to make sound evaluations of our activities in a broader sense. We must learn to utilize our resources without destroying our surroundings. Let’s drill – but let’s do so in an environmentally informed manner. Let’s build windmills for electrical generation – but let’s situate them in a manner that retains the benefits of our wild lands. Let’s learn from the unintended consequences of our past mistakes – such as ruined lakes and streams from coal mining or oil and gas extraction. We can do better.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Subsidies, Trade, Agriculture and Security
Rising global food prices have created some interesting dynamics in recent trade discussions. In the past, agricultural subsidies and import/export tariffs have been a sticking point in any negotiations. One reason for this is that many countries wish to protect their agriculture industry due to security concerns. If world agricultural product prices are low, many industrialized countries cannot compete on the world market. Their producers are threatened with failure. So, the governments of those highly developed economies typically subsidize their farmers in some fashion so that they can remain in business and thus keep agriculture viable.
With high food prices, the subsidies are not as necessary to maintain viability for famers in advanced economies. They can compete with low-cost producers such as Brazil. This provides the opportunity for those governments to offer a cut in farm subsidies in exchange for things like reduced import tariffs for manufactured goods in countries that have erected barriers to protect their industry for reasons similar to industrialized countries protecting agriculture.
Ultimately, the most efficient way to allocate the world's resources is with a completely open, free market. This of course would necessitate that the world's governments all feel safe enough from their neighbors to believe that dropping protective barriers is prudent. Those barriers are like an economic stockade or fort. Just as a country seeks to protect itself militarily, it must protect itself economically.
In the last 30 years, the U.S. has exposed itself economically, yet has maintained its world preeminence in some respects, by its military power. Countries fear to take economic retaliation on the U.S. because of the potential for an overwhelming military response. Our dependence on foreign oil has weakened our position. We now are at extreme risk due to our high dependence on foreign sources of petroleum. Have we stretched our military capacity to the point that the military threat is less likely to offset that economic threat?
We must achieve energy self-sufficiency. We also must remain vigilant to maintain our food security. The greatest strength of our country is our economic system. It is also our greatest point of vulnerability. If we are hostage to foreign sources of energy -- or, through exposing our agricultural sector to extreme market vulnerability by eliminating a system of price subsidies -- we offer ourselves to the mercy of our enemies.
With high food prices, the subsidies are not as necessary to maintain viability for famers in advanced economies. They can compete with low-cost producers such as Brazil. This provides the opportunity for those governments to offer a cut in farm subsidies in exchange for things like reduced import tariffs for manufactured goods in countries that have erected barriers to protect their industry for reasons similar to industrialized countries protecting agriculture.
Ultimately, the most efficient way to allocate the world's resources is with a completely open, free market. This of course would necessitate that the world's governments all feel safe enough from their neighbors to believe that dropping protective barriers is prudent. Those barriers are like an economic stockade or fort. Just as a country seeks to protect itself militarily, it must protect itself economically.
In the last 30 years, the U.S. has exposed itself economically, yet has maintained its world preeminence in some respects, by its military power. Countries fear to take economic retaliation on the U.S. because of the potential for an overwhelming military response. Our dependence on foreign oil has weakened our position. We now are at extreme risk due to our high dependence on foreign sources of petroleum. Have we stretched our military capacity to the point that the military threat is less likely to offset that economic threat?
We must achieve energy self-sufficiency. We also must remain vigilant to maintain our food security. The greatest strength of our country is our economic system. It is also our greatest point of vulnerability. If we are hostage to foreign sources of energy -- or, through exposing our agricultural sector to extreme market vulnerability by eliminating a system of price subsidies -- we offer ourselves to the mercy of our enemies.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Water Resource Planning
Growing up in West Texas, one learns to appreciate water. The area in which I was raised is one of the prime agricultural areas of the state -- thanks to the Ogallala Acquifer. If it wasn't for that acquifer, it would be a dry place indeed.
The demands for good, clean drinking water are increasing as populations grow. Not only is that water needed for drinking, it is needed for agriculture. The world cannot feed itself without irrigation. Developing and maintaining our water resources is crucial to our survival.
There are water deficit areas and water surplus areas throughout the world. It would be great if we could pipe water from the surplus areas to the deficit areas. The problem is, water runs downhill but has to be pumped up hill. Most surplus areas are at lower elevations while deficit areas are at the higher ones.
It doesn't make a lot of sense to take water from deficit areas -- such as the Texas Panhandle -- and send it downhill to Dallas. Especially when it draws from an acquifer that is already being slowly depleted by its primary user -- agriculture.
Perhaps it is time for Texas to take a hard look at the state's overall water situation and develop a plan for the future. If we don't, we may severly handicap our children and grandchildren by our failure.
The demands for good, clean drinking water are increasing as populations grow. Not only is that water needed for drinking, it is needed for agriculture. The world cannot feed itself without irrigation. Developing and maintaining our water resources is crucial to our survival.
There are water deficit areas and water surplus areas throughout the world. It would be great if we could pipe water from the surplus areas to the deficit areas. The problem is, water runs downhill but has to be pumped up hill. Most surplus areas are at lower elevations while deficit areas are at the higher ones.
It doesn't make a lot of sense to take water from deficit areas -- such as the Texas Panhandle -- and send it downhill to Dallas. Especially when it draws from an acquifer that is already being slowly depleted by its primary user -- agriculture.
Perhaps it is time for Texas to take a hard look at the state's overall water situation and develop a plan for the future. If we don't, we may severly handicap our children and grandchildren by our failure.
Saturday, July 5, 2008
Tomato Industry Bust Now Lets Tank the Jalapeno Growers
Losses to the tomato industry mount and we still don't know the cause of the salmonella outbreak. Why? Because it's extremely difficult to track down is why.
People panic. The media hypes the danger. We all lose.
It will be a long time before the tomato industry recovers the $100 million plus that it has lost during this debacle. Now the jalapeno growers are facing a similar situation.
The Democrats are using the issue to push for more controls. "Let's have farm of origin labelling," the say. They don't stop to think of the cost. Add the cost of implementation to the $100 million already lost and the tomato industry may never recover. So, let's throw government money at the problem. Either way, the consumer will pay for it. We will face much higher prices for tomatoes for some time now because of shortages.
Dear consumer: WASH YOUR FOOD WHEN PREPARING IT! It won't cure all ills but it will help. Be thankful for such an abundant supply and assortment.
People panic. The media hypes the danger. We all lose.
It will be a long time before the tomato industry recovers the $100 million plus that it has lost during this debacle. Now the jalapeno growers are facing a similar situation.
The Democrats are using the issue to push for more controls. "Let's have farm of origin labelling," the say. They don't stop to think of the cost. Add the cost of implementation to the $100 million already lost and the tomato industry may never recover. So, let's throw government money at the problem. Either way, the consumer will pay for it. We will face much higher prices for tomatoes for some time now because of shortages.
Dear consumer: WASH YOUR FOOD WHEN PREPARING IT! It won't cure all ills but it will help. Be thankful for such an abundant supply and assortment.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Help: Guest Worker Program Wanted
Farm labor -- particularly seasonal labor in fruit and vegetable farming -- is a difficult issue. Most of the jobs last for only short periods and are difficult, back-breaking, hot, laborious jobs. They are jobs that few U.S. workers will take. They often are for low wages.
Just across the border to the south of many large agricultural areas where fruits and vegetables are primary crops, live large numbers of unemployed, or underemployed, workers who would jump at the chance to gain additional income by working in the fields. They are hindered from doing so by the border.
Border security is a major issue for our country. It is one that I won't dwell on in this post. It is also a factor in how to deal with the issue of migrant labor from south of the border.
It is time for a guest worker program. It must be part of a larger immigration reform that provides for border security. It is important for agriculture and therefore important to the U.S. consumer who desires -- and even demands -- low-cost, reliable food supplies.
Just across the border to the south of many large agricultural areas where fruits and vegetables are primary crops, live large numbers of unemployed, or underemployed, workers who would jump at the chance to gain additional income by working in the fields. They are hindered from doing so by the border.
Border security is a major issue for our country. It is one that I won't dwell on in this post. It is also a factor in how to deal with the issue of migrant labor from south of the border.
It is time for a guest worker program. It must be part of a larger immigration reform that provides for border security. It is important for agriculture and therefore important to the U.S. consumer who desires -- and even demands -- low-cost, reliable food supplies.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Re-thinking Indian Agriculture
Growth of the Indian economy is one of the contributing factors to escalating oil and food prices in the world. Oil is an area that little can be done about by India. Agriculture and food production is another issue altogether. But, it is an area that will require new thinking by the government in order to find a solution.
The Green Revolution saw India transform from a nation that was starving into a nation that fed itself. The evolution into an industrialized economy however, has left agriculture behind and placed pressure on farmers that was unheard of several years ago. State control of agricultural infrastructure such as granaries and also policies regarding pricing of commodities have slowly pushed the farm sector to the brink of collapse in many areas.
Almost 50% of India is arable land suitable for agriculture. Much of that land is being lost to urbanization and industrialization. There is little incentive for farmers to produce crops when they can sell their land to developers at inflated prices. Especially when they are barely surviving from farming income.
India needs to revisit its internal agricultural policies. They need to re-examine pricing mechanisms for all inputs and all produce. They need to address infrastructure needs. Instead, the government policies seem to focus on industrial and technological sectors at the expense of agriculture. Growing import requirements for food may cause them to look again. The next Green Revolution in India will need to include better mechanisms for food transport and a free-market approach to prices.
The Green Revolution saw India transform from a nation that was starving into a nation that fed itself. The evolution into an industrialized economy however, has left agriculture behind and placed pressure on farmers that was unheard of several years ago. State control of agricultural infrastructure such as granaries and also policies regarding pricing of commodities have slowly pushed the farm sector to the brink of collapse in many areas.
Almost 50% of India is arable land suitable for agriculture. Much of that land is being lost to urbanization and industrialization. There is little incentive for farmers to produce crops when they can sell their land to developers at inflated prices. Especially when they are barely surviving from farming income.
India needs to revisit its internal agricultural policies. They need to re-examine pricing mechanisms for all inputs and all produce. They need to address infrastructure needs. Instead, the government policies seem to focus on industrial and technological sectors at the expense of agriculture. Growing import requirements for food may cause them to look again. The next Green Revolution in India will need to include better mechanisms for food transport and a free-market approach to prices.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Africa Should Be Feeding Itself
The amount of arable land in Africa is sufficient for feeding the people of that continent. According to the FAO, only 14% of Africa's arable land is under cultivation. So, what's the problem?
The first is good governance. Until there is a stable political environment in the various countries on the continent, there can be no long-term effort to alleviate the other issues that are faced.
The second is infrastructure. Much of Africa remains barely accessible by road and rail. Many of the roads are not all-weather surfaces and thus subject to seasonal usage. Grain handling facilities are inadequate. Water resources for irrigation are non-existent. Produce is generally brought to local markets and not easily transported to population centers.
The third is dependence on foreign aid. The problem with the aid is that it has been misdirected. The misdirection takes two forms. One is that corrupt officials sometimes seek to profit from the aid. The second is that it is a band-aid approach -- treating the symptoms and not the causes. The aid needs to be in the form of technical assistance to develop good governance and the necessary infrastructure for the country. It also should be targeted at developing farming technology suitable to local conditions and the necessary systems to move produce to market. Humanitarian aid will be necessary until Africa can feed itself.
The fourth major issue is outside interference. This often takes the form of political pressure from governments seeking access to natural resources such as oil. However, of greater concern to the local people are pressures from environmental and other do-good groups to "preserve" large tracts of land that could be feeding people. There is a need for good conservation measures and the preservation of bio-diversity, however, the needs of the people should be weighed in any measure aimed at soothing the misguided souls who would sacrifice the people of Africa to assuage their feelings of guilt over their Western lifestyle. It is a "we-got-ours" but "you-can't-have-yours" approach.
Africa needs to build on the resources of the continent. Land for agriculture is number one. Instead, many African leaders see a panacea by leap-frogging into a more industrialized economy. They need to capitalize on what they have first and then build from that.
There are many other issues. The above list is merely the beginning.
The first is good governance. Until there is a stable political environment in the various countries on the continent, there can be no long-term effort to alleviate the other issues that are faced.
The second is infrastructure. Much of Africa remains barely accessible by road and rail. Many of the roads are not all-weather surfaces and thus subject to seasonal usage. Grain handling facilities are inadequate. Water resources for irrigation are non-existent. Produce is generally brought to local markets and not easily transported to population centers.
The third is dependence on foreign aid. The problem with the aid is that it has been misdirected. The misdirection takes two forms. One is that corrupt officials sometimes seek to profit from the aid. The second is that it is a band-aid approach -- treating the symptoms and not the causes. The aid needs to be in the form of technical assistance to develop good governance and the necessary infrastructure for the country. It also should be targeted at developing farming technology suitable to local conditions and the necessary systems to move produce to market. Humanitarian aid will be necessary until Africa can feed itself.
The fourth major issue is outside interference. This often takes the form of political pressure from governments seeking access to natural resources such as oil. However, of greater concern to the local people are pressures from environmental and other do-good groups to "preserve" large tracts of land that could be feeding people. There is a need for good conservation measures and the preservation of bio-diversity, however, the needs of the people should be weighed in any measure aimed at soothing the misguided souls who would sacrifice the people of Africa to assuage their feelings of guilt over their Western lifestyle. It is a "we-got-ours" but "you-can't-have-yours" approach.
Africa needs to build on the resources of the continent. Land for agriculture is number one. Instead, many African leaders see a panacea by leap-frogging into a more industrialized economy. They need to capitalize on what they have first and then build from that.
There are many other issues. The above list is merely the beginning.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
African Infrastructure and Agriculture
The food situation in many parts of the world is critical. Here in the U.S. we complain about rising prices yet our grocery shelves continue to be well-stocked with every imaginable item of food.
Africa is one continent that experiences chronic food shortages. In addition to the shortages, the rising price of food commodities makes it difficult to impossible for many of the poorest to purchase their food needs.
There are many reasons for the problems faced by Africa. The largest is the seemingly unending political unrest in every nation on the continent. The unrest is fueled by greed, corruption, inter-tribal warfare, religious persecution, inadequate infrastructure, difficult terrain and interference by external groups whose agendas often are at odds with the general welfare of the people.
The U.S. has been the largest provider of aid to Africa for many years. That aid is funnelled through various groups including both private and governmental charities. Much of the food aid is channeled through the World Food Program of the U.N. The trouble with such charity is that it does nothing to solve the cause. It merely treats the symptoms.
The U.S. Milleneum Challenge Corporation and the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa have formed an alliance focused on helping the small-scale farmers of Africa develop their farming enterprises rather than rely on outside capital to come into the various agricultural areas to develop corporate-scale farming. Part of their focus is to build the necessary infrastructure to allow the small-scale farmers to get their produce to market. It is estimated that 40% of the farm products are lost due to the inability to store properly or to transport food crops.
We take for granted the vast network of paved roads in the U.S. We forget how critical they are to keeping our grocery shelves stocked with an astounding assortment of food products. The realities in Africa are vastly different.
Africa is one continent that experiences chronic food shortages. In addition to the shortages, the rising price of food commodities makes it difficult to impossible for many of the poorest to purchase their food needs.
There are many reasons for the problems faced by Africa. The largest is the seemingly unending political unrest in every nation on the continent. The unrest is fueled by greed, corruption, inter-tribal warfare, religious persecution, inadequate infrastructure, difficult terrain and interference by external groups whose agendas often are at odds with the general welfare of the people.
The U.S. has been the largest provider of aid to Africa for many years. That aid is funnelled through various groups including both private and governmental charities. Much of the food aid is channeled through the World Food Program of the U.N. The trouble with such charity is that it does nothing to solve the cause. It merely treats the symptoms.
The U.S. Milleneum Challenge Corporation and the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa have formed an alliance focused on helping the small-scale farmers of Africa develop their farming enterprises rather than rely on outside capital to come into the various agricultural areas to develop corporate-scale farming. Part of their focus is to build the necessary infrastructure to allow the small-scale farmers to get their produce to market. It is estimated that 40% of the farm products are lost due to the inability to store properly or to transport food crops.
We take for granted the vast network of paved roads in the U.S. We forget how critical they are to keeping our grocery shelves stocked with an astounding assortment of food products. The realities in Africa are vastly different.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)