theglobaljournal.net: Latest activities of group Food Security

Wildlife Protected Area Conservation Strategy on Balanced Scorecard Perspectives

2016-01-01T11:10:12Z

By Nana Owusu-Ansah

Wildlife Division of the Forestry Commission of Ghana

Naduono74@yahoo.co.uk

Citizens demand the public sector to provide services in timely and appropriate manner in the current knowledge economy (Galavan, Murray and Markides, 2008). Wildlife conservation strategy especially in countries which have signed unto the convention on biodiversity sustainability has been reformed to meet public demand (Larsen, 2006 and Schmidt-Soltau, 2003). The Wildlife Division of Ghana reformed its strategic management to deliver quality service and enhance public participation in conservation (Wildlife Division, 2000). A possible adaptation of wildlife conservation strategy by protected areas in Ghana on a balanced scorecard is the subject of this paper. The author is a wildlife protected area manager.

Protected Area Wildlife Conservation Strategy

Wildlife conservation is aimed at preserving nature for the greater benefit of society. It is for the dwindling benefits from the environment (Schmidt-Soltau, 2003) that informs conservation strategy. Conservation strategy spans across ecosystems, species and genes preservation. Wildlife conservation has led to the establishment of protected areas and also restricting wildlife utilization outside protected areas (Schmidt-Soltau and Brockington, 2007). Protected areas provide recreational, scientific and livelihood improvement benefits. Restriction strategies infringe peoples’ rights of access over wildlife utilization. Law enforcement on wildlife utilization is challenged by financial and human resources inadequacies especially in Africa (Jachmann, 2007). Strict law enforcement has been mixed with collaborative and sensitization strategies to achieve conservation objectives.

Conservation objectives in Ghana are taken from the mission statement of the Wildlife Division which reads “To work effectively with others to ensure sustainable management and development of Ghana’s wildlife and their habitats, so as to optimize their contribution to national socio-economic development (Wildlife Division, 2000)”. The need to work with others to achieve sustainability is necessitated by people’s uncooperative attitude (Larsen, 2006) and the inability of the Wildlife Division to enforce laws (Jachmann, 2007). Innovations to address these shortcomings are required. Figure one shows three prong strategic objectives in managing wildlife protected areas in Ghana.

Figure 1: Wildlife Conservation strategy. Source: Author

Adapting Wildlife Conservation Strategy on Balanced Scorecard

Nivan (2002) stated one of the advantages of the balanced scorecard is its flexibility to measure both financial and non-financial performance either in business or in the public sector. The balanced scorecard measures organization’s performance from four perspectives- customer, internal processes and practices, employee growth and learning and the financial metrics (Nivan). The main objective of wildlife conservation strategy is not to achieve high financial performance from consumptive utilization but from its non-consumptive intrinsic satisfaction.

Anti-poaching Patrol Objectives

Anti-poaching activities are to be both preventive and deterrent-requiring anti-poaching team members to work together. Anti-poaching patrols are initiated at patrol camps. A clear hierarchical structure makes the most senior employee at the camp the leader (Jachmann, 2007). Camps organize patrols, but park managers through their law enforcement officers initiate special patrols where employees are deployed to specific targets including reaching specific spots or spending a number of days on patrol. Patrolling enthusiasm and its effectiveness depends on the park manager generating hot spots (Gratton, 2007) among employees. Leadership role is to explain and relate mission statement of the Wildlife Division encouraging employees to cooperate among themselves and other stakeholders. Teamwork in anti-poaching patrols is equivalent to Gratton’s description of cooperative mindset needed for peer to peer working relationship to devise innovation.

Anti-poaching patrol effectiveness measurement is important to ensure employees meet effective patrol man days of 15 days per month (Jachmann, 2007). The current performance measurement is not linked to employee compensation which demotivates most employees to just meet the minimum patrol requirements. However, some park managers have instituted camp based league on performance to reward employees. Employees on patrol collect data on wildlife and illegal activities sighted. The illegal activities recordings are lag indicators (Nivan, 2002) providing previous poaching incidences records. These indicators however, inform park mangers on deployment initiatives. A balanced scorecard would emphasize on lead indicators including informants’ hints and sightings of keystone species (equivalent to Gratton’s, 2007 signature process) of the protected areas. Species sightings feed into recreational and research measures of wildlife conservation for customer satisfaction on a balanced scorecard.

Conservation Education Objectives

Wildlife conservation education is fashioned to tell the importance of conservation on human welfare and livelihoods. It also spells out the laws governing utilization and the penalties for flouting them. The targets for conservation education is society including employees, tourists and other stakeholders especially those who live near the resources. Special unit within protected areas undertakes this activity. Nivan (2002) recommended the use of various media in developing a balanced scorecard that would be accepted at the executive level cascading unto the lower ranks of the organization. Conservation education dissemination modes include mass media, community durbars, film shows, posters and signage to capture a larger audience.

Conservation education objective is to get support from society in a boundary spanning activity (Gratton, 2007) to generate conservation hot spots for collaboration. The education unit is to tell the Wildlife Division’s mission (Gratton; and Nivan, 2002) to catch on with employees and other stakeholders for effective conservation strategy. The park manager finds resources for the unit to carry its tasks and also takes feedback to inform management decisions.

Collaborative Resource Management Objectives

Due to past failure of sole application of stringent laws, collaborating with communities to manage wildlife is no longer an option, but a requirement for effective conservation strategy (Larsen, 2006). The objective is to have governance structures at the community level. It also links livelihoods to conservation through investments in enterprises like eco-tourism and collection of non-timber forest products (Wildlife Division, 2000). Other collaborative objectives include improving research on the unique aesthetic sites and species. The park manager’s role include collaborating with other law enforcement agencies including the Police and the Judiciary to ensure arrested poachers are prosecuted and sentence to deter others. The park manager seeks opportunity for investors to get conservation businesses in fringe communities.

Balanced scorecard Perspectives and Conservation Objectives

This section adapts wildlife conservation strategic objectives onto a balanced scorecard by integrating them into the four perspectives of finance, customer satisfaction, employee growth and learning and internal processes and practices. Nivan (2002) stated the four perspectives on the balanced scorecard must interlink with each other such that they will culminate in improving organizational performance. The park manager is the team leader for the balanced scorecard introduction in a protected area. He should champion the planning by leading and providing material resources needed to achieve organizational mission.

For example the protected area management anti-poaching activities can be planned on employee growth and learning perspectives. Again effective employee deployment for anti-poaching patrols can be assessed on the internal processes and practices perspective. Although implementation requires budgetary demands, its effectiveness should results in increase financial receipts from fees and charges from royalties, research and tourism. Table one shows a matrix of conservation strategy integrated into the four balanced scorecard perspectives (Nivan, 2002). Measures, targets and initiatives can be set from the objectives in the matrix.

Balanced Scorecard Perspectives

Protected Area Conservation Strategy

Anti-poaching patrol Management Objectives

Conservation Education Objectives

Collaborative Resource Management Objectives

Customer Satisfaction

-To conserve animal for tourism and research.

-To regulate wildlife trade.

-To ensure tourists and researchers’ safety.

-To promote species for tourism and research.

- To erect signage to educate customers.

-To educate on ecosystem functions and laws.

-To provide investment opportunities for businesses and not for profit organizations into wildlife conservation.

Internal Processes and Practices

-To improve rate of employee deployment.

-To detect poaching and counteract promptly.

-To effectively process poachers to court.

- To have database on wildlife species.

-To gather feedback from stakeholders for improvement.

-To present organizational principles and values to employees at all levels and other stakeholders.

-To provide platform for communities’ engagement.

-To create informant arrangements for effective anti-poaching patrol.

-To work with police and courts to enhance arrested poachers prosecution.

Employee Growth and Learning

-To measure employee patrol performance.

-To link compensation to patrol performance.

-To determine employee training needs.

-To develop and outsource training programmes for employee.

-To gather educational response feedback for continuous improvement.

-To support anti-poaching by using community governance structures.

-To get feedback on employee performance.

Financial Metrics

-To budget for anti-poaching activities.

-To increase revenue from tourists and fees.

-To publicize sites for increase tourist visit and research receipts.

-To budget for its activities.

-To increase revenue in rents and royalties from investors.

-To reduce operational cost through effective network of community governance.

Table 1: Balanced Score Card perspective on protected area strategy: Source; Author.

Conclusion

The balanced scorecard translates organizational vision to long term objectives that is operationalized into strategies (Kaplan and Norton, 1996). Wildlife conservation strategy on a balanced scorecard would measure beyond financial performance of protected areas in Ghana which is the core mandate and not revenue generation focus. The balanced scorecard as a management system, strategic management system and communication tool (Nivan, 2002) would present conservation strategy to employees and external stakeholders at the protected areas. Deep thinking and reflections to identify leverages (Gratton, 2007) in protected areas are required and park managers must provide leadership in its introduction.

References

Galavan, R. Murray, J. & Markides, C. (Eds.) (2008). Strategy, innovation and change: A challenge for management. Oxford University Press, New York.

Gratton, L. (2007). Hot spots why some teams, workplaces, and organizations buzz with energy-and others don’t. Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc. San Francisco.

Jachmann, H. (2007). Monitoring law enforcement performance in nine protected areas in Ghana. Biological Conservation: Science Direct. Retrieved from: www.Elsevier.com.

Kaplan, R.S. & Norton, D.P. (1996). Using the balanced scorecard as strategic management system. Harvard Business Review, Product 4126.

Larsen, P.B. (2006). Reconciling indigenous peoples and protected areas: Rights, governance and equitable cost and benefit sharing (Discussion Paper). IUCN: Gland. Retrieved from:http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/iucn_reconciling_ip_an_pa.r

Niven, P. R. (2002). Balanced score card step-by-step: Maximizing performance and

maintaining results. John Wiley & Sons, New York

Schmidt-Soltau, K. (2003). Conservation-related resettlement in Central Africa: Environmental and social risks. Development and Change 34 (3). pp.525–551. Institute of Social Studies, Oxford.

Schmidt-Soltau, K. & Brockington, D (2007). Protected areas resettlement: What scope for voluntary relocation. World Development 35, (12). pp. 2182–2202. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2007.02.008

Wildlife Division (2000). Wildlife Division policy on collaborative community based

wildlife management. Author; Accra. Retrieved from: http://www.fcgh.org.

Hungry For A Better Future?

2013-05-22T18:08:02Z

Eric Darier is a senior campaigner on Ecological Agriculture for Greenpeace International.

Let’s not mince our words: chemical intensive industrial agriculture is a failure. No doubt, future generations will wonder why we were so blind about its destructive impacts and hesitated so long before switching to ecological farming.

Systemic Failures

The jury has deliberated for too long. But the verdict is obvious: guilty. Let us revisit some of the evidence against the dominant and unsustainable industrial agriculture model. An increased dependency on polluting inputs (synthetic fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides that are also fossil-energy intensive) – too many potential toxic substances from agriculture are now in our air, water, soil and bodies. A reduction of the diversity of seeds and livestock due to increased corporate concentration that favors hybrid and genetically engineered (GE) seeds. A dogma of productivism that values higher production levels in the short-term while ignoring the negative impacts on ecosystems, biodiversity, rural communities, animal and human health.

The other ecosystem services that we all enjoy like clean air and drinkable water have been sacrificed to the alter of this unsustainable agricultural system. Huge public agriculture subsidies (read: taxpayers’ money) that transit via farmers but end up in the coffers of giants multinationals selling chemicals and seeds. Together with various trade agreements, international dumping of food commodities and policies (for instance Europe’s Common Agricultural Policy) depresses local food production in countries where there are so many needs. In some countries, agriculture subsidies result too often in the over-production of food commodities that can worsen the diet.

Despite the so-called (chemical) "Green Revolution," the number of people undernourished recently went up to 970 million despite the fact the quantity of food calories available exceeds what is needed now and in the future. Focusing nearly exclusively on food production, regardless of the direct and indirect costs, is simply irresponsible. Let us remember that: about 70 percent of water use by humans already goes to agriculture, 30-50 percent of food is never eaten; meat consumption is a very inefficient way to provide proteins while increasing pressure on deforestation to grow soya to feed livestock; and 1.4 billion people are now overweight, which can cause more illnesses such as heart disease, diabetes, some cancers and the like.

Increased extreme weather events – for instance drought and flooding – have negative impacts on agriculture, especially on industrial agriculture. Industrial agriculture is often less resilient in contrast to ecological farming, as the latter is better integrated into stronger ecological systems. This is one more reason why it is urgent to switch to more resilient and ecological farming. Industrial agriculture also creates conditions for the emergence of potential epidemics caused by unsustainable practices, especially those related to industrial animal farming such as avian flu, resistance to antibiotics and meat scandals (mad cow, horse meat).

No Shortage of Solutions for Feeding the World Ecologically

Feeding the world should be done ecologically in order to guarantee the long term survival of the human race. The entire food system has to be refocused around ecological imperatives. The good news is that we know already what has to be done and what is working. The new ecological food system must maintain food and agriculture systems based on biodiversity of seeds, breeds, soil, micro-flora and fauna, pollinators and diversity of diets. It must reduce food waste at all levels from production to consumption instead of increasing production and promote a more equal distribution of existing food resources. It must encourage balanced and healthy nutritive diets, which means for example lowering animal protein production and consumption to levels that are sustainable. It must reduce inequalities and extreme poverty, which are still the main causes of hunger and disease. It must abolish agriculture subsidies or de facto dumping trade practices that discourage ecological and small-scale farming. And it must encourage ecological farming that can produce roughly 80 percent more food per hectare in developing countries.

Practical policy changes to encourage ecological farming solutions already exist. For example, a 2008 United Nations process that involved 900 experts from 110 countries (International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development - IAASTD) identified policy options that Greenpeace welcomes. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food also published several reports that presented solutions to food hunger.

The Transition To an Ecological Food System

While we already know the systemic causes of the problems and their solutions, policy-makers still fail to implement the necessary changes. The chemical industrial food system lobby managed to make us think there was no alternative. So half of the obstacle is to remind ourselves of the systemic failures of industrial agriculture and that ecological solutions are already there. Ecological farming is not only a solution to feeding an ever growing population – it is the only ecologically sustainable long-term solution.

The other half of the obstacle is to shift the money currently invested into chemical intensive industrial agriculture into ecological solutions. This can be done through a number of means. Firstly, by abolishing public subsidies for polluting industrial agriculture and using the funds to assist farmers to transition to ecological farming. Secondly, by changing our personal and collective food habits to organic foods, to low or no meat-based diet, to more seasonal and local produce. Thirdly, by building direct solidarity linkages between farmers and consumers, for instance the network of Community Supported Agriculture (CSA). Fourthly, by citizens getting involved in actual food production such as urban agriculture and community agriculture. Fifthly, by greater public participation in the growing citizen food movement that fights against some of the worse aspects of the industrial food system. Sixthly, by improving the life of the existing 2.6 billion small-scale farmers already producing the majority of the world’s food to empower them to provide more and better food to some of the poorest in the world – including themselves.

Finally, we should resist technological based solutions that promise the sky, such as genetic engineering or pesticides that often fail to deliver and create other problems making the situation worse. Our challenge is to re-learn to work with nature not against her. In agriculture, working with nature is called ecological farming. We are all eaters and we all must also reclaim and control our food.

Opinions voiced by Global Minds do not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Global Journal.

Photo © Paola Viesi

The Future Of Food

2013-03-27T11:17:02Z

Agriculture is at a crossroads. Since the global food crisis of 2007 and 2008, foreign investment has soared as a means to lower costs and ensure the long-term viability of worldwide supplies. At the same time, a growing chorus of experts and activists is questioning the sustainability of a status quo approach. The industrial production system favored by major agribusiness players has failed to address the challenge of chronic hunger, nor account for adverse environmental impacts – is ‘agroecology’ the future of food?

Regina Tchelly grew up in a poor household in the hinterlands of Paraiba, a tiny coastal state in the tropical northeast of Brazil. While her childhood was far from easy, Tchelly never experienced the pangs of povertydriven hunger. She was imbued from a young age with a particular form of rural resourcefulness that teaches one not to let any food go to waste, as well as how to cook delicious and healthy dishes from ingredients others would discard. When Tchelly turned 20, she followed the well-travelled path south to Rio de Janeiro to become a maid. Working for wealthier families, she could not believe the amount of food being thrown away. More importantly, Tchelly came to realize that if people were educated in how to make full use of every available ingredient, poverty could be reduced as a barrier to a satisfying and nutritious diet.

With start-up capital of less than $100, Tchelly ultimately launched Favela Orgânica in 2011 – an organic catering business and cooking school run from her tiny kitchen in the recently ‘pacified’ favela of Morro da Babilônia. In weekly classes for a rapidly expanding community clientele, Tchelly teaches fellow favela residents how to use natural food scraps like banana peel and carrot leaves to eat well on an extremely limited budget. As a successful social entrepreneur – the initiative has influenced a burgeoning movement well beyond her immediate neighborhood – and leading voice on waste and food recycling, Tchelly has become a regular and passionate advocate at international food fairs and conferences focused on sustainability, gastronomy and agriculture.

The growing attention to food waste is more than justified. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has calculated that we lose 1.3 billion tons of food between field and table every year. To put that figure into perspective, this equates to approximately one-third of all food produced globally, with a value of almost $1 trillion. As United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Executive Director, Achim Steiner, declared recently, “wasting food makes no sense – economically, environmentally and ethically.”

Food waste, however, is only one part of a larger, structural problem. Between 2006 and 2008, global prices increased by 83 per cent. Yet despite the price-reducing effect the subsequent economic downturn has had on other internationally traded commodities, food prices are not declining. In fact, 2012 saw the cost of wheat increase by almost 30 per cent, with soybeans following a similar upward trend. Corn, another crucial staple in much of the developed world, has reached an all-time high due to extreme weather in key producing areas, including the Midwest of the United States (US), Ukraine, Kazakhstan and parts of Latin America and the Black Sea region. This surge in food prices, when combined with insecurity in relation to production and stocks, has led prominent analysts to issue dire warnings about a looming food crisis in the year ahead.

The FAO, meanwhile, forecasts a future that could be even gloomier. The earth’s population is estimated to grow from just under seven billion to over nine billion by 2050 – equivalent to adding another two Europes to the world. Based on this projection, in order to maintain the current food-to-people ratio, productivity will have to increase by approximately 70 percent in the next 40 years. The solution may appear self-evident: intensify production to replenish the world’s granaries and find new ways to increase yields to avoid future crises. Yet, such logic only holds if we are facing a scarcity problem – in other words, insufficient food for everyone. This is not the case.

Based on FAO data, the world produces enough food to feed the entire global population. The problem is this food does not reach everyone in the same way. According to prominent author, professor and activist, Raj Patel, the ratio of chronically hungry to overweight individuals is currently one billion to nearly two billion – a substantial increase from the figures of 800 million to one billion cited in the first edition of his influential book Stuffed and Starved upon its release in 2007.

The problem of distribution then, is critical. It is also fundamentally rooted in the logic of market capitalism: food is treated like any other commodity and is sold to the highest bidder. This makes perfect sense from a profitmaximization standpoint – less so if you cannot afford to feed yourself or your family. Distribution and access is an issue not only for food insecure citizens and small-scale farmers in the developing world, but also for those in developed countries that have lost their purchasing power and livelihoods in the wake of the global recession. Think of the approximately 46 million people in 2011 that lived under the poverty threshold in the US (there were less than 40 million in 2008), or of the 250,000 Greeks that line up everyday to receive a free meal from the Greek Orthodox Church.

The sad irony is that while the poor (new and old alike) are going hungry, nearly half of the world’s cereal production is used to feed animals to satisfy an increasing demand for meat products. In an official report to the Human Rights Council in December 2010, the United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Olivier de Schutter, estimated meat consumption would increase from 37 to 52 kilograms per person between 2000 and 2050. The report also noted that reallocating cereals used in animal feed to human consumption was “a highly desirable option in developed countries where excess animal protein consumption is a source of public health problems.” Similarly, even accounting for the energy value of the meat produced, the loss of calories resulting from feeding cereals to animals instead of humans “represents the annual calorie need for more than 3.5 billion people.”

Beyond distribution issues, capital and technology-intensive industrial agriculture also requires massive areas of land to be cultivated via monoculture planting. This specialization, in order to maximize production per hectare, demands large amounts of water, chemicals to fertilize crops and control weeds and pests, significant energy and the development of a supporting infrastructure – from research to storage, transport to markets. It also has a deleterious environmental impact. Cultivating the same crop on the same land year after year increases erosion, depletes the nutrient reserves in soil (decreasing fertility), increases salinization and alkalinization, drastically reduces biodiversity, exploits and pollutes local water resources and contributes to the resurgence of pests that have developed a genetic resistance to pesticides.

De Schutter has warned that increasing food production to meet future needs is insufficient as a strategy in itself. Expanded production will “not allow significant progress in combating hunger and malnutrition if it is not combined with higher incomes and improved livelihoods for the poorest.” Similarly, short-term gains will be offset by long-term losses if they are achieved while further degrading ecosystems, threatening the ability of the global agricultural sector to maintain required levels of production in the future. A growing chorus of voices has begun to stress the need to find a better way. De Schutter himself has made a cogent case for ‘agroecology’ – praising the virtues of a system that would facilitate the “transition towards a low-carbon, resource-preserving type of agriculture that benefits the poorest farmers.”

Agroecology was conceived as a convergence of agronomy and ecology. In practical terms, the approach draws upon ecological principles to design and manage agricultural systems that are productive, but also resource conserving. That is, which sustain yields and optimize the use of local resources while minimizing the negative environmental and socio-economic impacts of modern technologies. Although first coined in the 1920s, the concept began to take shape in parallel with the rise of the environmental movement of the 1970s and has assumed an increasingly prominent role in global policy discussions around the ‘right to food’ (the FAO, UNEP and Biodiversity International are all supporters). Core agroecological principles include: recycling nutrients and energy, rather than introducing external inputs; integrating crops and livestock; diversifying species and genetic resources; and focusing on interactions and productivity across the agricultural system, rather than on individual species. But how could we both increase production and advocate for systemic change along agroecological lines? “There is nothing contradictory there,” explains Patel. “Small-scale production can produce more food than industrial agriculture.” He adds, “that’s one of the big myths that needs to be cleared away. Industrial agriculture is about growing a monoculture. When everything works out perfectly in laboratory conditions, those crops can outperform similar crops. But that is not the real world, where there is variability and climate stress – where ground water is less predictable, where pests are variable. What you need is not a magic crop, but a portfolio of crops.” Studies on multiple cropping systems conducted in Mexico as early as the mid-1980s already indicated that a corn monoculture had to be cultivated on a plot of land of 1.73 hectares to produce the same amount of food as a smaller one hectare plot planted with a mixture of maize, squash and beans. Agroecology champions can point to similarly encouraging data drawn from a large University of Essex study completed in 2006, which identified 286 projects of resource conserving technologies in 57 developing countries encompassing a total area of 37 million hectares. The average recorded crop yield increase was 79 percent, with one quarter of the projects reporting a 100 percent increase in relative yields.

The UN is not the only institution backing systemic change. The European Union (EU) has also begun to look in a similar direction. With discussions launched over a new Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) – a set of programs currently accounting for approximately €50 billion, or almost half, of the EU budget – the EU could be on the verge of a radical reform of the way agriculture is done in the old continent. “Until now, the CAP has invested a large amount of money in the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund, whose role is to support farmers’ income through market measures and direct payments tied to agricultural production,” says Michele Antonio Fino, a professor at the University of Gastronomic Sciences in Pollenzo, Italy. “These subsidies would end up in the pockets of farms or businesses that maximized production through industrial agriculture and the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides.” Fino sees an opportunity to divert a larger portion of CAP funds to the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, where “payments will mainly be allocated to those farmers that green-up their businesses and produce sustainably.”

But things are not so simple in Brussels. Various interest groups are working to retain their market share. “Lobbies are trying to influence the vote so as to block or at least re-write the majority of the measures that should make the European productive system more sustainable,” says Carlo Petrini, Founder and President of Slow Food International. Described as the Don Juan of the food world – and more importantly, as someone who has single handedly changed the way we think about eating – Petrini remains skeptical about the possibility for genuine change embodied in the reform process. “With the most recent amendments, we passed from greening to green-washing: 82 percent of European farms and producers would, in fact, be exempted from greening-up their companies.”

Predictably, progress has been swifter outside the EU institutional logjam. In 2009, Ecuador passed a framework law that placed special emphasis on provisions targeting small scale farmers. In particular, by promoting access to capital and investment for small and medium sized agricultural enterprises, alongside a participative approach to food sovereignty laws and integrated educational initiatives. In Brazil, a net food exporter where the right to food is now enshrined in the Constitution, a 2010 law establishing a national program of technical assistance and rural extension for family farming and agrarian reform focused its support on the expansion of agroecological activities. While agribusiness accounts for 62 percent of the country’s agricultural production value and is largely responsible for Brazil’s monocultural export-led sector, family farms employ approximately three-quarters of all rural labor and produce most of the population’s basic foodstuffs. Support to this group has been critical for food availability and access.

Yet the debate between status quo industrial agriculture versus the mainstreaming of more sustainable practices does not always tilt in favor of the latter. The public consultation process intended to feed into Australia’s first-ever National Food Plan has been marked by conflict between the entrenched interests of powerful agribusiness and retail players and an increasingly combative coalition of civil society stakeholders. Following the release of an interim ‘Green Paper’ in July, which discussed potential policy directions focused largely on boosting exports and realizing Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s vision of Australia as a future “food bowl of Asia,” the Australian Food Sovereignty Alliance launched a counter project titled the People’s Food Plan. This document – based on the Canadian People’s Food Policy Project – is being developed through the input of consumers, farmers, community organizations and food businesses with the aim of providing bottom up, shared alternatives prioritizing resilience, sustainability and equity.

While state support can bolster or obstruct efforts towards agroecological reform, the debate over the future of food is not only being played out in plush parliamentary offices or the multilateral corridors of power in Brussels, New York or Geneva. It is also taking a non-institutional form in the often-heated discussions between those advocating for a polished and rebranded version of the 1960s Green Revolution – which succeeded in improving yields in Mexico and South Asia, though with high social and environmental costs – and those pushing for a more fundamental rethinking of production systems. The cause of sustainable, healthy and quality food is not only being taken up by NGOs, civil society actors and analysts, but also by peasants, farmers, consumers and chefs.

Take La Via Campesina, for instance – an international network bringing together approximately 200 million peasants, small and medium-sized farmers, indigenous people and agricultural workers from 70 countries across Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas. The organization was responsible for introducing the influential idea of ‘food sovereignty’ – the right of populations to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through sustainable methods, as well as to define their own food and agriculture systems. Other similar networks promoting sustainable and equitable agriculture include the Réseau des Organisations Paysannes et des Producteurs Agricoles de l’Afrique de l’Ouest, the Eastern & Southern Africa Farmers’ Forum, the Assessoria e Serviços a Projetos em Agricultura Alternativa and Movimento dos Trabalhadores Sem Terra in Brazil.

Proponents of an alternative production system can also be found in more industrialized nations. Slow Food was founded in 1986 in Piedmont, Italy. Since its inception, the movement has advocated for locally-sourced, healthy and good food, combined with environmentally-conscious production. Located at the crossroads of sustainable agriculture and gastronomy, in 2000 Slow Food began planning and developing an initiative that could encapsulate its approach to production and consumption. The result – a rapidly expanding suite of ‘Presidia’ projects aimed at maintaining biodiversity, boosting producer income and local employment in rural areas and improving the social role of producers while strengthening organizational capacity. In pursuing the Presidia initiative, Slow Food hopes to at the same time make a cultural contribution by promoting forgotten products, crops and producing regions.

According to the first long-term evaluation study released last year, the results have been “remarkable from an economic point of view,” confirming the existence of a growing number of high quality products, which at the same time have “strong cultural and environmental value.” In fact, despite some difficulties linked to implementation, the number of Presidia has grown in almost a decade to over 400 projects in 50 countries. Products like Aged Asiago cheese from the Italian region of Veneto – which was on the verge of disappearing in 2000 – have been preserved, along with traditional techniques of ageing. Reflecting the broader goals of the project, the Presidium also helped safeguard the local high mountain pastures and revitalize a dying sector.

Slow Food’s emphasis on products and producers points to perhaps the final piece of the agroecology puzzle – namely, consumers. While the place for the consumer in the debate over sustainable agricultural practices is crucial, the room for maneuver is relatively small. On the one hand, it is true that by shopping differently we send a clear message of the products we want in our shopping basket. On the other, these issues are primarily structural and systemic, making genuine change complicated. Fortunately “consumption is only a small part of what we can do every day,” insists Patel. “It is one of these myths of green-capitalism that the only thing we have to do to change the world is to shop. Historically, all the big changes that have happened in the world have come not though shopping differently, but through protest and standing in solidarity with the people affected by these systems. We are affected too. So we need to explore possibilities other than eating sensibly, shopping as locally, seasonally and sustainably as possible, and making sure workers are paid a fair wage. We need to move beyond that.” While fair-trade and green certification schemes can appear to re-frame personal food preference as political choice, they in reality only represent the tip of the iceberg when it comes to deep, systemic impact shaping global agricultural practices. What supermarkets and other parts of the retail web can represent, however, is the first step in our engagement with the challenge of food insecurity. A step towards the understanding that by advocating for agroecology, by taking part in urban community gardening associations, by reducing food waste, by paying attention to dietary choices and by asking questions and caring about products beyond their pricetag, established processes can change. Ultimately, the way the agricultural system is shaped and run at the global level – despite the ease with which one can feel remote or insulated – impacts all of us three times a day, everyday.

Subscribe or order a copy of The Global Journal.

Photo © Paola Viesi

Water

2012-11-02T16:38:02Z

Water, David L. Feldman, Polity $39.95.

Water is required by every living thing, yet a growing number of people face difficulties accessing it. Climate change, urbanization, pollution, energy use, agriculture, population growth, and migration, all contribute to water stress. With uneven distribution and unequal use, water management has become a major 21st century challenge. David Feldman’s book explores many facets of the issue – including distribution, use, climate impact, control and charges – and suggests how threats to freshwater sustainability might be prevented through international cooperation. Freshwater allocation and quality, as well as the extent to which other species’ needs are considered, varies greatly by country. These discrepancies can be explained by the wide-ranging values and moral principles of nations. Indeed, utilitarians tend to promote the general welfare of individuals with little regard for other species and future generations. Progressive conservationists, on the other hand, believe the obligation to care for natural resources is rooted in the intrinsic value of nature as a whole. Whether water is a human need or a human right also remains highly controversial. This can be seen in the contrast between the communitarian notion of rights in many indigenous communities and the property-based concepts of water rights held in more modern societies, as well as the opposed models of public and private water supply. Feldman concludes that while the environmental policies of sovereign states may vary, none can ignore the water needs of plants and animals, or those related to human health.

-A. S.

Schizophrenia at the UN and State Level

2012-05-18T19:35:15Z

The Fight for the Right to Food: Lessons Learned, by Jean Ziegler, Christophe Golay, Claire Mahon, Sally-Anne Way, Palgrave MacMillan, £74.00.

While the world is growing richer, we are currently witnessing the worst hunger crisis in human history. How is this outrageous situation still possible? “We need political solutions rather than complicated technical solutions to hunger,” states Professor Jean Ziegler. The former UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food finds, as key obstacle to the realization of the right to food, the “schizophrenia” of the UN system and of state policies. On the one hand these institutions promote human rights and social justice while they simultaneously undermine the right to food by advancing liberalization of agricultural trade and privatization of public utilities. The author describes as an emblematic case his two missions in Niger, where the new market paradigm imposed by IMF and the World Bank has produced more inequalities than benefits. The appalling problem of hunger is also exacerbated by other factors such as desertification, land degradation and the increasing production of bio-fuels. Ziegler does not linger on the political problems or on the new threats that prevent the eradication of hunger and malnutrition: as a fundamental element he envisages the development of the normative framework of the right to food. The author deals with, in a very accurate and passionate manner, the most relevant conceptual and legal developments of this human right. The book is interesting because it is enriched by documented experiences during Ziegler’s missions as a Special Rapporteur in eleven countries, from Bolivia to Lebanon and from India to Mongolia. It is an excellent reference not only for scholars and students but for any ‘right to food’ advocate.

–N.Z.

Famine, Foreigners... and Journalists

2012-05-18T18:47:41Z

Famine and Foreigners: Ethiopia Since Live Aid, by Peter Gill, Oxford University Press, $18.95, £9.99.

In 1984, the terrible famine, which swept across the north of Ethiopia claiming some 600,000 deaths, gained unprecedented, but late, media attention in the West. In particular, the Live Aid concert initiated by Bob Geldof brought together international artists in an attempt to raise awareness. The operation, motivated by genuine concern and empathy, proved to be a media success. But it also attracted much criticism. For example, the image of Africa as portrayed in the Live Aid concert may have contributed to constructing and fueling a stereotypical image of Africa as the ‘Dark Continent’, a place ‘in despair and beyond repair.’ Since then, Ethiopia in particular has become the focus of this myth of ‘starving’ Africa. According to Gill, it has reached such a point that ‘food’ has become the F-word, difficult to use without raising the suspicions and affronting the sensitivities of the Ethiopians themselves. As a press and TV journalist, Peter Gill was the first reporter to reach the epicenter of the famine in 1984. Since then, he has closely followed the changes in the country, its development and politics. His book tries to grasp the evolution of the last 25 years, partly relying on interviews, including ones with Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz and development economist Jeffrey Sachs. In addition, he collected a wide range of testimonies and opinions through his travels from towns to countryside, from schools to local organizations. It provides interesting insights into the practical difficulties of implementing development, and the complicated relationships between the people, the local politicians and foreign aid workers. But there is an irresolvable contradiction in Gill’s book. In the new preface he recognizes that, in the one-dimensional image of Ethiopia and Africa created by the media and aid agencies in the Western world, “there is a real danger that we ignore the progress – and thus the potential for progress.” Similarly, he points out the failure of current media to recognize the broader economic changes overtaking the continent. However, his book does not aim to fill such a gap. In fact, the book is underlined by a strong sense of Afro-pessimism, which is made explicit in the conclusion. Discussing the possible failure of Prime Minister Meles Zenawi to open up the political space and leadership in the years leading up to 2015, he predicts: “There will be a cost to the modest but real progress that Ethiopia has made under his government. It will be borne by poor and hungry Ethiopians.” Despite his awareness that one-dimensional, negative and pessimistic images of the continent are self-fulfilling, he seems to be contributing to this very image. If even self-aware journalists do not provide us with ‘different’ stories (if not in their news reports, at least in their books), the perception Western societies have of Ethiopia, and Africa more generally, will take a long time to change. An interesting read for those who want to update their knowledge of the current political context in Ethiopia, and to hear first-hand testimonies from players and people involved in development; not so good for those waiting to read new news out of Africa.

-T.N.

Empty Granaries And Food Aid In West Mali

2012-03-09T16:23:31Z

In 12 years volunteering for the Red Cross, I have never seen a catastrophe like the current food crisis here in the Sahel region of Mali.

I live in Kayes town, which is in west Mali near the border with Mauritania, Senegal and Guinea, and I’ve been visiting some of the most remote villages in this region, where people are truly in need.

Families have shown me the inside of their granaries and they are bare – not holding even one kilogram of rice. When even the head of the household is crying because they can’t afford to buy food in the market - then you know things are bad.

In this region, people survive by growing their own food, but this year many crops failed completely. The rainy season usually starts in June, which is when people begin planting millet, maize and sorghum. The harvesting is normally finished by November.

But in Fegui village, for example, where the Red Cross is distributing food aid, last year was a disaster. In June, it rained heavily for two weeks and then there were floods. Some people lost their homes and livestock and for a month stagnant water lay everywhere. Many seeds that had been planted were washed away and then afterwards, it didn’t rain again. When the time came to harvest the crops, there was nothing there.

It has now been several months since people have run out of food. Some families have animals – goats and sheep – which are like their savings in the bank. They don’t eat the animals but sell them to buy cereals, which can feed a family for longer.

However the bad rains, failed crops and less fodder available for animals have affected market dynamics. Since November, as families run out of cereal stocks and fodder to feed their animals, they have had no choice but to sell them. But this makes the price drop considerably and now people’s ‘savings’ are not stretching so far.

Previously, you could sell an animal for 15,000 CFA francs, but today you will only get 10,000 CFA. Yet at the same time that the price for animals is decreasing, the reduced harvest across the country means the price of grain is increasing. A month ago 1 kilogram of rice in Kayes cost 375 CFA francs; today it costs 550 CFA.

People here are used to hard times and there is a great sense of solidarity. Those who are selling their animals to buy millet or rice often come to the aid of their neighbors who have nothing. However, no family here has sufficient animals or grain reserves to keep them going till the next harvest in November. In one or two months they will have nothing to eat.

When I talk to people, they tell me they are worried no one will come to help them. They say, “those who must die, will die and those who have to survive, will be saved.”

For me personally, it is also a struggle to feed my family, but I feel very proud and privileged to be a Red Cross volunteer. When we visit communities to find out what they need I often go with something to share – crackers, peanuts or biscuits. We eat together and build trust. When an old person weeps because I have brought something for them to eat – even before beginning to talk – I am truly touched.

But we need to find more long-term solutions so people do not need to depend on aid. For example, investment and training in more modern farming techniques and also diversifying sources of income. Fegui village is not far from a river and encouraging the community to work more on vegetable gardens as opposed to just the traditional cereals could help, particularly in providing food in between harvests. But at the moment, it’s hard because they have absolutely nothing to invest in seeds or water pumps.

I know that Red Cross volunteers like me in other parts of Africa are helping to introduce farming methods that will help them to be prepared the next time drought comes, or prices rise, and we will do that here too.

For now, I am glad that we’ve been able to distribute rice, oil, sugar and salt to 591 families in Fegui, but want to shout out to the world that we need help to protect people’s health and help families survive till the next harvest.

N’faly Traore, 42, Malian Red Cross Society volunteer

Mooncake and Dragon-Whisker Noodles

2012-03-06T18:03:16Z

Chinese Food, Liu Junru, Cambridge University Press, £12.99

Do you know when to eat a mooncake? Dragon-whisker noodles? And that if you show up unexpectedly at the door of a Mongolian tent they will prepare a feast with a whole lamb to welcome you? As millions across the world recently welcomed the year of the Dragon, and China’s clout and soft power are reaching today far beyond the former Chinese empire, Liu Junru’s book is a mustread for anyone seeking to understand China and its culinary culture and traditions. On a first trip to China, the neophyte will quickly realize how food bears an importance out of the ordinary in Chinese people’s daily lives. In a country where the first question people ask each other when they meet is not “how are you?” but rather “have you had your meal already?” in-depth knowledge of China’s eating and drinking habits is mandatory for businessmen and travelers alike. Liu Junru’s book is a true gem; the author navigates comfortably through the vast array of Chinese culinary traditions; the author’s writing style is clear, concise and unassuming, in a leisurely way unveiling the secrets of Chinese cuisine, history and cooking techniques, the intricacies of table etiquette, and new trends in eating habits. Liu Junru explores the main eight Chinese culinary traditions and ventures to explain eating habits, taboos and cooking customs of Chinese national minorities. The reader quickly learns the basics in the fine art of mixing the “five flavors” and skillfully combining food colors to please the eye, and how to guarantee health benefits from the food we eat. Crisp and captivating, this book makes a comprehensive and pleasant read; the perfect travel companion on a long-haul, China-bound flight.

–I.M.

#20 - Action Contre la Faim

2012-01-23T12:32:24Z

Check out if Action Contre la Faim is in The Top 100 NGOs 2013 Edition!

Combating hunger worldwide.

Active presence in 40 countries.

Arriving on a ‘second wave’ of NGOs committed to reversing the traditional silence of the humanitarian community in the face of injustices witnessed on the ground, Action Contre la Faim was founded in 1979 by a group of French intellectuals aiming to draw attention to the ‘scandal’ of widespread, chronic hunger as a critical development issue in its own right. The organization is committed to ending hunger through emergency operations - whether caused by natural disasters, conflicts, epidemics or poverty - as well as longer-term programs to promote people’s autonomy.

In the 40 countries where Action Contre la Faim is currently active – including Afghanistan, the Central African Republic, Chad, Haiti, Mongolia and Somalia – the organization seeks to integrate its programs into regional and national systems in order to offer not only a short-term response, but also sustainable, locally relevant solutions. Action Contre la Faim’s programs focus on four key areas: nutrition and health, food security, water and sanitation, and advocacy.

In practice, the organization’s activities have included establishing therapeutic feeding centres in situations of acute malnutrition, de-contaminating wells, improving sanitation systems, working with local communities to develop tailored food livelihood strategies and disseminating detailed field-based research to draw attention to the underlying causes of hunger.

(Logo © ACF)

#100 - FareShare

2012-01-23T12:11:57Z

Check out if FareShare is in The Top 100 NGOs 2013 Edition!

Giving surplus food a purpose.

Over 35,000 people fed daily.

Fuelled by the belief that ‘no good food should be wasted’, FareShare was established in the United Kingdom in 1994 and its model has since been replicated internationally. Originally operating as an initiative run by Crisis – a charity battling homelessness – the project was spun-off as an independent organization in 2004. Simultaneously tackling waste and hunger, FareShare repurposes surplus goods from the food and beverage industry and provides them to non-profit organizations working with disadvantaged local communities.

FareShare has a national network of over 700 charities receiving food, enabling these grassroots organizations to redistribute funds toward other programme costs. Moving beyond providing only nutritional wellbeing, their ‘Eat Well, Live Well’ programme also acts as a means for clients to gain employability training and certifications. The organization is using its position within the food industry to provide training modules for National Vocation Qualifications in warehousing, distribution, and storage. Complementing these efforts as part of its mission to relieve food poverty, a further initiative – the ‘Eat Well Road Show’ – provides training for FareShare community members regarding basic food hygiene, nutritional advice and practical cooking skills.

In 2011, the organization’s food redistribution contributed more than 8.6 million meals to individuals in need. Moving forward, FareShare hopes to triple its impact – redistributing 20,000 tonnes of food per year.