Tag: interviews

Majola Mabuza, Program Officer, The Southern African Confederation of Agricultural Unions. (Photo: UNFCCC)

SACAU’s Majola Mabuza at COP24: How soil can help meet climate targets

Written by on December 13, 2018. Posted in Features.

.embed-container { position: relative; padding-bottom: 56.25%; height: 0; overflow: hidden; max-width: 100%; } .embed-container iframe, .embed-container object, .embed-container embed { position: absolute; top: 0; left: 0; width: 100%; height: 100%; }

Majola Mabuza, Program Officer, The Southern African Confederation of Agricultural Unions. (Video: UNFCCC)

KATOWICE, Poland (CIMMYT) — Agricultural scientists attending U.N. COP24 climate talks in Katowice, Poland are discussing a wide range of potential solutions to slow global warming and meet targets laid out in the Paris Agreement on climate change.

The agreement, which has been under intense discussion by negotiators, requires keeping global temperatures in check — to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

Delegates participating in a side event session on agriculture, which produces about a third of global greenhouse gas emissions, discussed the role of soil, presenting scientific evidence of the value of recarbonization. Much of the carbon that was formerly stored in soil, which acts as a carbon sink, has been released into the atmosphere, contributing to global temperature increases.

Majola Mabuza, program officer responsible for policy at the non-profit Southern African Confederation of Agricultural Unions (SACAU), participated in the panel on Monday evening and discussed various risks farmers face and hurdles that need to be overcome.

Mabuza, an agricultural economist, whose research interests span institutional economics of farmers’ organizations, food security and the economics of non-conventional agricultural enterprises, shared some views with CIMMYT about recarbonization.

Q: What is the scale of the role soil plays in climate change?

A: The global carbon pool in soils — at a depth of 2 meters — is three times that of carbon found in the atmosphere. As such, both increases in soil organic carbon and protection against losses from this pool are important strategies for environmental protection. Management practices that raise soil organic carbon have co-benefits such as increased productivity and resilience and can in turn improve food security and sustainable rural development.

Land use changes such as intensification of agriculture or converting grasslands into plow lands often turn them into carbon sources, releasing huge amount of carbon into the atmosphere. The time scales of the source and sink function of soils are fundamentally different: whereas building up belowground carbon stocks takes hundreds or thousands of years, depleting these stocks can be measured in decades or even days, [for example in the case of] forest or grassland fires.

Q: Will soil be the silver bullet to meet food security and climate change goals?

A: Not necessarily a silver bullet. To address climate change and improve food security, a lot is required from various actors. For instance, at this conference, we have learned of food that is produced, but almost a third of it is lost or goes to waste along the chain. Lost or wasted food also contributes to emissions in various forms. So, fixing the issue of soils alone will not win the battle, a lot more issues need to be fixed.

At the production stage, soils have an important role to play in reducing carbon emissions. Soil acts as a sink for carbon, the greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. Agricultural management approaches such as conservation agriculture and agroforestry simultaneously improve soil carbon, soil fertility and water conservation. More food will be produced on the same land to meet the needs of the growing population.

Q: What will you speak about at the COP24 side event Soils Advantage: Transforming Agriculture by Recarbonizing the Earth’s Soil?

A: Farmers are essentially the managers of land and soils and are by far responsible for whatever happens to the soil. Are farmers, including smallholders, aware of the connection between soil activities and climate change? Do they know the carbon content in their farms? What incentives are there for farmers to build soil organic carbon within their farm plans? What lessons have we learnt with the promotion of such programs as organic farming, conservation agriculture and/or climate-smart agriculture that we can tag along in the drive to transform agriculture by recarbonizing the soil? While some advocate for rewarding better practices or performance on soil carbon in financial markets by attracting higher land values, lower interest rates on loans, or lower insurance premiums, how practical will this be in developing countries where most smallholders do not own the land they produce from?

Q: What is the purpose of recarbonizing?

A: The purpose is essentially to take carbon back to the soil. A lot of human activities, including deforestation, repeated soil tillage — industrial agriculture — and burning of fossil fuels have disrupted the carbon cycle, taking it out of balance. Too much of the carbon that was once in the soil has been released to the atmosphere, hence a lot of it is now in the atmosphere and some in the ocean, but not enough where it once was and where it is more beneficial for sustainable food production and food security — in soil.

Q: How is recarbonization achieved?

A: The most feasible route is to cover the soil with plants and trees, promote organic farming, conservation agriculture, agroforestry, and climate-smart agriculture practices. Plant photosynthesis has the remarkable ability to capture atmospheric CO2, release the oxygen back into the atmosphere, and convert the carbon into sugars, which are used by plants for growth. A considerable proportion of the captured CO2 is released through the plant’s roots to feed soil microorganisms, which in turn assist the plant in acquiring nutrients. Soil microorganisms use this energy to make soil carbon and humus. If left undisturbed, soil humus can lock carbon into place for an average lifetime of hundreds to thousands of years.

Q: Are there efforts underway to do this?

A: Current programs include organic farming, conservation agriculture and climate-smart agriculture.

Q: In terms of wheat and maize, will this have an impact?

A: A great impact. Maize and wheat are the main staples for the poor in Africa and Asia respectively. If we build our soil recarbonizing program around such staple crops.

Q: What is the impact of crop rotations on soil?

A: Crop rotation is an important practice of any sustainable agricultural system. Crop rotation has the following major benefits: It improves soil fertility — as legumes such as groundnuts and beans fix nitrogen in the soil for the benefit of cereals such as maize. Farmers use less chemical fertilizer because legumes in the soil fix the nitrogen naturally. It helps to reduce weeds, diseases and pests by breaking their lifecycles as crops are rotated. It reduces the risk of crop failure in case of drought or disease and improves crop yield.

Soils Advantage: Transforming Agriculture by Recarbonizing the Earth’s Soil was held on Dec. 11, 2018 at 6:30-9:00 p.m. in the Bieszczady side event room in section G at the COP24 venue.

A farmer's son carries his brother through the family field, planted with BH 546 DT maize, in the village of Lobu Koromo, in Ethiopia’s Hawassa Zuria district. (Photo: P. Lowe/CIMMYT)

Farmers cite climate change as biggest challenge, says World Farmers Organization at COP24 talks

Written by on December 11, 2018. Posted in Features.

Since 2011, farmers in Nyando climate-smart villages, in Kenya’s Kisumu county, have been working with researchers, development partners, and government extension agents to test a portfolio of promising climate change adaptation, mitigation, and risk management interventions. (Photo: K. Trautmann/CCAFS)

KATOWICE, Poland (CIMMYT) — Controversies over fossil fuels, indigenous rights and the intricacies of the 2015 Paris Agreement, which was designed to keep global temperatures from rising no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, are just some of the key topics in focus at U.N. COP24 climate talks.

A vital thread in the climate change narrative, much debated in the corridors of the conference center in Katowice, Poland, is agriculture — a fragile yet vital sector of the global economy which produces about a third of global greenhouse gas emissions.

The member-driven World Farmers Organization (WFO), a group of 1.5 billion farmers from 54 countries, represents the farm community at the United Nations on climate change and other topics, including the Sustainable Development Goals 2030 Agenda.

A new “Climakers” initiative, launched on the sidelines of the COP24 talks, will help address the biggest threat farmers say they fear, according to Luisa Volpe, head of policy development at WFO in an interview. Volpe, who has been with WFO since 2014, formerly worked on farmers programs with the International Fund for Agriculture and Development (IFAD).

“I decided I wanted to move to the other side of the coin and work directly with those who are the targets of big multilateral governmental organizations and government policies,” Volpe said, adding that farmers, tasked with producing more with less for a growing population, are also among those most affected by climate change.

Q: What is the biggest challenge farmers face?

A: The view of the farmers that I represent is that climate is the most important challenge because climate may have an impact on the harvest, on the seeds, on the area where they want to harvest, whether they should move, migration of young farmers to the city, on the kind of products they can produce. Climate change also has an impact on market prices. Of course there are others — they include access to infrastructure, access to financing, having proper insurance and availability and access to financing mechanisms. Farmers say that among this range of issues they may face, climate is probably the most intense because it’s probably the one that they cannot control. They’re just influenced by it and there is little that they can do. Foreseeing weather patterns is very limited — with technology they’re able to predict weather patterns one week before, but not longer. It’s really challenging for them.

23-year-old Ruby Mehla receives regular updates on weather and climate-smart practices through voice messages on her registered mobile phone in the climate-smart village of Anjanthali, Haryana state, India. (Photo: Prashanth Vishwanathan/CCAFS)

Q: How are farmers managing the challenge of climate change?

A: This is something that represents the common ground for all the farmers of the world despite differences in terms of geographical area, in terms of type of business that they manage. Last May in Moscow, during the WFO general assembly, WFO got a unanimous mandate from all of our constituency — made up of national farmers organizations from all over the world — to initiate, establish and propose a new agenda for climate, driven by the farmers themselves. Basically, our members realized that the impact of climate change on farming is something that’s common to all farmers around the world. Their proposal is to first create a broad alliance with the farmers organizations worldwide who may have either a regional voice or a global voice in order to represent all the areas of the world and work together — to join their hands in a new initiative on climate change.

Q: How will the initiative take shape?

A: The outcome of the initiative will be an overarching document with which we as a farmers organization can advocate at the international level and our members can advocate at the national level. What we’re planning to do is to organize a series of regional workshops to meet the farmers themselves and collect case studies and best practices of what farmers are already doing to mitigate and adapt to climate change. Farmers, as all other sectors of the world, are contributing to the causes of climate change. This agenda would not work if we don’t add other actors to the alliance. It’s farmers first, but then a close dialogue with CGIAR.

We’ve started with CCAFS, the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security. We want to work closely with them to make sure that the practices we propose to governments as examples to follow and to scale up when they propose their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) — country level contributions to reducing emissions as part of the Paris Agreement — are effective and science based. Here, we propose to close the gap with science and improve cooperation between farmers and science, so that science really responds to the questions farmers pose — to which they align their practices. In this sense, the scientific research can be more aligned to what farmers actually need, while the farmers may improve their own practices by also responding to the needs of the research.

To really tackle climate change challenges, we need innovation and technologies that are science-based and sustainable, because the main principle of all these agendas is sustainability. What we propose is that farmers contribute by improving their access to innovation research and technology to make their production more sustainable.

Q: Could you explain how you intend to take this practice to a global scale?

A: The other actors we plan to involve are those belonging to the food value chain, because we think that farmers alone cannot be the only solution. That’s why we’re establishing a partnership, for example, with the International Fertilizer Association as well as the International Seeds Federation. We’re in a partnership with Crop Life because they represent a huge element in the food chain. It has to be a global movement if you really want to achieve something that’s effective and efficient. We’ll expand also to other actors in the food chain. We’re also negotiating with multilateral governmental organizations because we need their support for advocacy work we want to do. Governments will become the targets instead of being those who will just propose and impose policies to the farmers. In our view, farmers have the solution in their hands already. What we have to do is to put them in a condition to really influence and feed the political documents that governments will adopt and that will become national policies.

*A farmers group stands for a photograph at a demonstration plot of drought-tolerant (DT) maize in the village of Lobu Koromo, in Ethiopia’s Hawassa Zuria district. (Photo: P. Lowe/CIMMYT)*

Q: What is Climakers and the farmer-driven climate change agenda you launched at COP24?

A: Climakers are those who become part of the global alliance for this new initiative. The alliance is global, the agenda is farmers-driven. Farmers expressing their needs and their challenges and their best practices — together with science and the multilaterals and the private sector is that of supporting the agenda, supporting the farmers and take it to the governments. Climakers is the name we have chosen for those who are on the farmer side because we think that farmers may make the climate.

Q: In terms of the COP24 negotiations, are you getting any sense of what could be happening that could benefit farmers or are more demands being put on farmers?

A: I see it [as] a very slow process. We were very happy when we saw the concept of food security and food production in the Paris Agreement because although there is no mention of agriculture, at least they mentioned food production. It means that probably some little political will to address the farming sector is there. There is a will to implement the Paris Agreement in the agricultural sector. The negotiation is very slow between north and south regarding the mitigation and adaptation issue, and also the fact that financing for climate change is there, but probably the way it is managed is not really supporting the communities because the channels are too complicated and too long… There are probably some seeds up there, but it’s still a long way. That’s why farmers want to propose an icebreaking agenda.

Q: Are there any other key points you would like to make in the context of climate change?

A: One element that is a little bit controversial for me is critical in the development of agriculture and also in tackling climate change, which is innovation — innovation in terms of practices, in terms of technology, in terms of research, but also in terms of creating financing for farmers and to support rural areas. These have to come from the government side, from the value chain actors, from the farmers themselves and also from the science, from the research centers.

If we close the gap between the farmers and the science, it’s probably the way out for boosting development for the rural areas. We don’t have to be scared of being innovative. Innovation doesn’t mean GMOs. Innovation may also mean an innovative way to treat soils. It may be a new way to access markets, create access to finance for farmers, but also an innovative way to interact between governments and the farmers themselves. To me, innovation is the way out really, that can give a boost to this process.

Q&A: Expanding CIMMYT’s research agenda on markets and business

Written by Emma Orchardson on November 21, 2018. Posted in Features.

TEXCOCO, Mexico (CIMMYT) — Food security is heavily dependent on seed security. Sustainable seed systems ensure that a variety of quality seeds are available to farming communities at affordable prices. In many developing countries, however, farmers still lack access to the right seeds at the right time.

In the past, governments played a major role in getting improved seed to poor farmers. These days, however, the private sector plays a leading role, often with strong support from governments and NGOs.

“Interventions in formal seed systems in maize have tended to focus on improving the capacity of seed producing companies, which are often locally owned small-scale operations, to produce and distribute quality germplasm,” says Jason Donovan, Senior Economist at International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT). “These local seed companies are expected to maintain, reproduce and sell seed to underserved farmers. That’s a pretty tall order, especially because private seed businesses themselves are a fairly new thing in many countries.”

Prior to the early 2000s, Donovan explains, many seed businesses were partially or wholly state-owned. In Mexico, for example, the Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, Agrícolas y Pecuarias (INIFAP) produced seed and supplied it to a market-oriented entity which was responsible for distribution. “What we’re seeing now is locally owned private seed businesses carving out their space in the maize seed market, sometimes in direct competition with multinational seed companies,” he says. In Mexico, around 80 locally owned maize seed producing businesses currently exist, most of which have been involved in CIMMYT’s MasAgro Maize project. These are mostly small businesses selling between 150,000 and 500,000 kg of hybrid maize per year.

In the following Q&A, Donovan discusses new directions in research on value chains, the challenges facing private seed companies, and how new studies could help understand their capacities and needs.

*Seed storage warehouse at seed company Bidasem in Celaya, Guanajato state, México. (Photo: X. Fonseca/CIMMYT)*

How does research on markets and value chains contribute to CIMMYT’s mission?

We’re interested in the people, businesses and organizations that influence improved maize and wheat seed adoption, production, and the availability and quality of maize and wheat-based foods. This focus perfectly complements the efforts of those in CIMMYT and elsewhere working to improve seed quality and increase maize and wheat productivity in the developing world.

We are also interested in the nutrition and diets of urban and rural consumers. Much of the work around improved diets has centered on understanding fruit and vegetable consumption and options to stimulate greater consumption of these foods. While there are good reasons to include those food groups, the reality is that those aren’t the segments of the food market that are immediately available to or able to feed the masses. Processed maize and wheat, however, are rapidly growing in popularity in both rural and urban areas because that’s what people want and need to eat first. So the question becomes, how can governments, NGOs and others promote the consumption of healthier processed wheat and maize products in places where incomes are growing and tastes are changing?

This year, CIMMYT started a new area of research in collaboration with A4NH, looking at the availability of processed maize and wheat products in Mexico City — one of the world’s largest cities. We’re working in collaboration with researchers form the National Institute of Public Health to find out what types of wheat- and maize-based products the food industry is selling, to whom, and at what cost. At the end of the day, we want to better understand the variation in access to healthier wheat- and maize-based foods across differences in purchasing power. Part of that involves looking at what processed products are available in different neighborhoods and thinking about the dietary implications of that.

Your team has also recently started looking at formal seed systems in various locations. What direction is the research taking so far?

Our team’s current priority is to advance learning around the private sector’s role in scaling improved maize varieties. We are engaged with three large projects: MasAgro Maize in Mexico, Stress Tolerant Maize for Africa (STMA) and the Nepal Seed and Fertilizer Project (NSFP). We are looking to shed light on the productive and marketing capacities of the privately owned seed producing businesses and their ability to get more seed to more farmers at a lower cost. This implies a better understanding of options to better link seed demand and supply, and the business models that link seed companies with agro-dealers, seed producing farmers, and seed consumers.

We are also looking at the role of agro-dealers — shops that sell agricultural inputs and services (including seed) to farmers — in scaling improved maize seed.

At the end of the day, we want to provide evidence-based recommendations for future interventions in seed sectors that achieve even more impact with fewer resources.

*Farmers purchase seed from an agro-dealer in Machakos, Kenya. (Photo: Market Matters Inc.)*

This research is still in its initial stages, but do you already have an idea of what some of the key limiting factors are?

I think one of the main challenges facing small-scale seed producing businesses is the considerable expense entailed in simultaneously building their productive capacities and their market share. Many businesses simply don’t have a lot of capital. There’s also a lack of access to specialized business support.

In Mexico, for example, a lot of people in the industry are actually ex-breeders from government agencies, so they’re very familiar with the seed production process, but less so with options for building viable businesses and growing markets for new varieties of seed.

This is a critical issue if we expect locally owned seed businesses to be the primary vehicle by which improved seeds are delivered to farmers at scale. We’re currently in the assessment phase, examining what the challenges and capacities are, and hopefully this information will feed into new approaches to designing our interventions.

Is the study being replicated in other regions as well?

Yes, in East Africa, under the Stress Tolerant Maize for Africa (STMA) project. We’re working with seed producing businesses and agro-dealers in Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda to understand their strategies, capacities, and needs in terms of providing improved seed to more farmers. We’re using the same basic research design in Mexico, and there is also ongoing work in the Nepal Seed and Fertilizer Project. Given that we are a fairly small team within CIMMYT, comparable cross-regional research is one way to punch above our weight.

Why is this research timely or important?

The research is critical as CIMMYT’s impact relies, in part, on partnerships. In the case of improved maize seed, that revolves around viable seed businesses.

Although critical, no one else is actually engaged in this type of seed sector research. There have been a number of studies on seed production, seed systems and the adoption of improved seed by poor farmers. A few have focused on the emergence of the private sector in formal seed systems and the implications for seed systems development, but most have been pretty broad, examining the overall business environment in which these companies operate but not much beyond that. We’re trying to deepen the discussion. While we don’t expect to have all the answers at the end of this study, we hope we can shift the conversation about options for better support to seed companies and agro-dealers.

Jason Donovan joined CIMMYT in 2017 and leads CIMMYT’s research team on markets and value chains, based in Mexico. He has some 15 years of experience working and living in Latin America. Prior to joining CIMMYT he worked at the Peru office of the World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF), where his research focused on business development, rural livelihoods, gender equity and certification. He has a PhD in development economics from the University of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS).