Sunday, November 17, 2013
Friday, November 15, 2013
Ambition is what's needed in Warsaw
What do the U.N. climate talks in Warsaw need more: greater ambition or a deal everyone can sign?
Marcin Korolec, Poland’s environment minister and the president of the negotiations, has made clear he wants progress towards a new agreement to curb climate change that every country feels comfortable with.
“I promise you transparency. I promise you an inclusive process. Those are my top priorities,” he said in an opening statement this week. As countries move towards a 2015 deadline for a new global deal, “I will spare no effort to find a consensus,” he said.
But with climate-changing emissions still growing - despite 20 years of negotiations and agreements to limit them - should inclusion be the top priority in Warsaw?
“It’s ambition that’s needed, from my point of view,” says Saleemul Huq, a senior fellow on climate change at the London-based International Institute for Environment and Development.
Right now, “everybody is willing to do something” - a big change from the 2009 Copenhagen talks, when many countries were still refusing to budge - “but the cumulative amount that comes to is insufficient,” he says. “So raising the ambition collectively of everyone is the key. The issue of inclusion has already been solved. Ambition has not.”
Despite the perpetually slow pace of negotiations, greater ambition in cutting greenhouse gas emissions is also getting easier to achieve.
As countries around the world become convinced of the need to act - due to worsening extreme weather, such as Super Typhoon Haiyan which hit the Philippines just before the start of the talks, or other evidence that climate change is taking hold at home - they are ramping up renewable energy initiatives, launching efforts to adapt, and finding that none of it is as impossible as they once thought.
‘IT’S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE’
"One of the consequences of countries tackling climate change emissions at home, in domestic policy, is they learn to do it, and see it’s not rocket science,” says Huq, a native of Bangladesh, a country widely considered as a leader in climate adaptation. “That creates a feedback loop,” where things that had to be pushed at first - like installing solar panels – soon spread because they’re good for everyone, he says.
Even the poorest and most vulnerable countries – which once insisted they had no obligation to cut their own emissions – are stepping up. Many small islands are making pledges to become carbon neutral, out of a desire to stop importing expensive diesel fuel, and a willingness to curb climate change.
“Their emissions don’t amount to a hill of beans, but they’re doing something about them,” Huq notes. “It’s a different, much more positive mindset we have now. Even the smallest polluters are saying, ‘We want to do something ambitious, and we want everyone else to do the same.’”
But is that growing ambition making it into the negotiating rooms in Warsaw? “Not necessarily,” Huq admits. The problem is that negotiators tend to have fixed positions. No major developed countries have increased the ambition of their emissions reduction commitments so far in Warsaw, for instance.
What is needed to change that is support at a higher political level, Huq says.
That may seem a big ask, with Australia’s new conservative government announcing this week it would step away from a 15 percent emissions reduction goal in favour of a lower 5 percent goal, and would try to repeal the country’s carbon tax.
But Australia “is an outlier”, Huq argues. Look instead, he says, at China and the United States, where political leaders are moving more aggressively to confront climate change.
Trigg Talley, the U.S. lead negotiator at the talks, insisted this week that his country wouldn’t budge beyond its “already ambitious” goal to cut emissions 17 percent from 2005 emissions levels.
Still, “what you’re getting now are negotiating positions,” Huq insists. “It doesn’t reflect the real strategy."
Ambition is what's needed in Warsaw
Marcin Korolec, Poland’s environment minister and the president of the negotiations, has made clear he wants progress towards a new agreement to curb climate change that every country feels comfortable with.
“I promise you transparency. I promise you an inclusive process. Those are my top priorities,” he said in an opening statement this week. As countries move towards a 2015 deadline for a new global deal, “I will spare no effort to find a consensus,” he said.
But with climate-changing emissions still growing - despite 20 years of negotiations and agreements to limit them - should inclusion be the top priority in Warsaw?
“It’s ambition that’s needed, from my point of view,” says Saleemul Huq, a senior fellow on climate change at the London-based International Institute for Environment and Development.
Right now, “everybody is willing to do something” - a big change from the 2009 Copenhagen talks, when many countries were still refusing to budge - “but the cumulative amount that comes to is insufficient,” he says. “So raising the ambition collectively of everyone is the key. The issue of inclusion has already been solved. Ambition has not.”
Despite the perpetually slow pace of negotiations, greater ambition in cutting greenhouse gas emissions is also getting easier to achieve.
As countries around the world become convinced of the need to act - due to worsening extreme weather, such as Super Typhoon Haiyan which hit the Philippines just before the start of the talks, or other evidence that climate change is taking hold at home - they are ramping up renewable energy initiatives, launching efforts to adapt, and finding that none of it is as impossible as they once thought.
‘IT’S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE’
"One of the consequences of countries tackling climate change emissions at home, in domestic policy, is they learn to do it, and see it’s not rocket science,” says Huq, a native of Bangladesh, a country widely considered as a leader in climate adaptation. “That creates a feedback loop,” where things that had to be pushed at first - like installing solar panels – soon spread because they’re good for everyone, he says.
Even the poorest and most vulnerable countries – which once insisted they had no obligation to cut their own emissions – are stepping up. Many small islands are making pledges to become carbon neutral, out of a desire to stop importing expensive diesel fuel, and a willingness to curb climate change.
“Their emissions don’t amount to a hill of beans, but they’re doing something about them,” Huq notes. “It’s a different, much more positive mindset we have now. Even the smallest polluters are saying, ‘We want to do something ambitious, and we want everyone else to do the same.’”
But is that growing ambition making it into the negotiating rooms in Warsaw? “Not necessarily,” Huq admits. The problem is that negotiators tend to have fixed positions. No major developed countries have increased the ambition of their emissions reduction commitments so far in Warsaw, for instance.
What is needed to change that is support at a higher political level, Huq says.
That may seem a big ask, with Australia’s new conservative government announcing this week it would step away from a 15 percent emissions reduction goal in favour of a lower 5 percent goal, and would try to repeal the country’s carbon tax.
But Australia “is an outlier”, Huq argues. Look instead, he says, at China and the United States, where political leaders are moving more aggressively to confront climate change.
Trigg Talley, the U.S. lead negotiator at the talks, insisted this week that his country wouldn’t budge beyond its “already ambitious” goal to cut emissions 17 percent from 2005 emissions levels.
Still, “what you’re getting now are negotiating positions,” Huq insists. “It doesn’t reflect the real strategy."
Ambition is what's needed in Warsaw
Sunday, November 10, 2013
United Kingdom finances Ethiopia’s green economy program
By New Business Ethiopia.
United Kingdom’s aid agency DFID Ethiopia is set to finance 15 Million pounds to support Ethiopia’s government ambition plan to build a Climate Resilient Green Economy (CRGE) by 2025.
These funds are committed to the CRGE Facility, and will be used to support the implementation of the Sector Reduction Mechanisms process: to generate and fund high quality strategic investments that respond to the priorities of the Government of Ethiopia.
The ministry of finance and economic development of Ethiopia and DFID Ethiopia will sign the agreement this morning (November 8, 2013) in Addis Ababa.
The finance will be used to support the Government of Ethiopia to build a Climate Resilient Green Economy across different sectors. “This transformative approach developed by the Government of Ethiopia will provide a clear example of green economic transformation, not only in Africa but across the world,” the ministry said in its press statement," the ministry said in its statement.
“Ethiopia is one of the world’s fastest growing countries. At the same time, it is highly vulnerable to climatic variability and extremes. Ethiopia has the ambition to become a middle-income country by 2025, but will not follow a traditional development pathway–characterized by carbon intensification, inequitable development and serious environmental degradation.”
"Ethiopia is committed to building a climate resilient green economy. This commitment means that growth in Ethiopia is better for all, able to withstand the shocks and stresses and contributes to the imperative global goal of dramatic and sustained declines in emissions and a successful de-coupling of economic growth from emissions, the ministry further stated."
Ethiopia will eradicate poverty and provide adequate services to our population, and achieve our economic ambitions with zero net growth in Green House Gas emissions, where it is supported to do so, the ministry noted.
Investment Areas
Over sixty priorities for investment have been identified that will enable Ethiopia to both grow its economy while minimizing emissions. In addition, climate resilience strategies are being finalized to identify the costs of climate change and prioritize investments to reduce vulnerability.
To help Ethiopia secure additional investment, from both public and private sources, and to help leverage and manage these resources, the Ethiopian Government has established the CRGE Facility. The CRGE Facility will allow Ethiopia to aggregate resources from a range of sources and deploy it in strategically and effectively.
Funds are pooled within the Facility and programmed out to government led strategic priorities. These investments are designed to be catalytic and to leverage the impact of limited public funds on broader development investments.
The Sector Reduction Mechanism (SRM) is the government process for implementing the CRGE. The SRM does two things. It is expected to help Ethiopia to leverage finance by packaging up financing opportunities into Sector Reduction Action Plans (SRAPs).
While it is anticipated to systematically builds the Ethiopian Government’s capacity to plan and implement a transformation to a Climate Resilient Green Economy.
United Kingdom finances Ethiopia’s green economy program
United Kingdom’s aid agency DFID Ethiopia is set to finance 15 Million pounds to support Ethiopia’s government ambition plan to build a Climate Resilient Green Economy (CRGE) by 2025.
These funds are committed to the CRGE Facility, and will be used to support the implementation of the Sector Reduction Mechanisms process: to generate and fund high quality strategic investments that respond to the priorities of the Government of Ethiopia.
The ministry of finance and economic development of Ethiopia and DFID Ethiopia will sign the agreement this morning (November 8, 2013) in Addis Ababa.
The finance will be used to support the Government of Ethiopia to build a Climate Resilient Green Economy across different sectors. “This transformative approach developed by the Government of Ethiopia will provide a clear example of green economic transformation, not only in Africa but across the world,” the ministry said in its press statement," the ministry said in its statement.
“Ethiopia is one of the world’s fastest growing countries. At the same time, it is highly vulnerable to climatic variability and extremes. Ethiopia has the ambition to become a middle-income country by 2025, but will not follow a traditional development pathway–characterized by carbon intensification, inequitable development and serious environmental degradation.”
"Ethiopia is committed to building a climate resilient green economy. This commitment means that growth in Ethiopia is better for all, able to withstand the shocks and stresses and contributes to the imperative global goal of dramatic and sustained declines in emissions and a successful de-coupling of economic growth from emissions, the ministry further stated."
Ethiopia will eradicate poverty and provide adequate services to our population, and achieve our economic ambitions with zero net growth in Green House Gas emissions, where it is supported to do so, the ministry noted.
Investment Areas
Over sixty priorities for investment have been identified that will enable Ethiopia to both grow its economy while minimizing emissions. In addition, climate resilience strategies are being finalized to identify the costs of climate change and prioritize investments to reduce vulnerability.
To help Ethiopia secure additional investment, from both public and private sources, and to help leverage and manage these resources, the Ethiopian Government has established the CRGE Facility. The CRGE Facility will allow Ethiopia to aggregate resources from a range of sources and deploy it in strategically and effectively.
Funds are pooled within the Facility and programmed out to government led strategic priorities. These investments are designed to be catalytic and to leverage the impact of limited public funds on broader development investments.
The Sector Reduction Mechanism (SRM) is the government process for implementing the CRGE. The SRM does two things. It is expected to help Ethiopia to leverage finance by packaging up financing opportunities into Sector Reduction Action Plans (SRAPs).
While it is anticipated to systematically builds the Ethiopian Government’s capacity to plan and implement a transformation to a Climate Resilient Green Economy.
United Kingdom finances Ethiopia’s green economy program
Saturday, November 9, 2013
The Sickest Places in the World
By Stephen Leahy
Parts of Indonesia, Argentina and Nigeria are among the top 10 most polluted places on the planet, according to a new report by U.S. and European environmental groups.
They are extraordinarily toxic places where lifespans are short and disease runs rampant among millions of people who live and work at these sites, often to provide the products used in richer countries.
“People would be shocked to see the conditions under which their lovely jewelry is sometimes made,” said Jack Caravanos, director of research at the New York-based Blacksmith Institute, an independent environmental group that released the list Monday in partnership with Green Cross Switzerland.
In Kalimantan, Indonesia, local people extract gold using mercury, which is both poisonous and a potent neurotoxin.
“They do this processing inside their homes, not realising the danger,” said Bret Ericson, senior project director of the Blacksmith Institute.
Blacksmith has gone into those homes and measured mercury levels 350 times higher than what is considered safe, Ericson told IPS.
This directly affects the health of 10 to 15 million people, Ericson said. “It is also a huge source of mercury pollution worldwide.”
Once released into the environment, mercury can end up in fish and other foods people eat anywhere on the planet. Low-cost, mercury-free methods for gold mining do exist but this knowledge is not widespread, he said.
The Top Ten Toxic Threats report is the latest in a series of annual reports documenting global pollution issues. The list is based on the severity of the health risk and the number of people exposed.
Previous reports have documented that the disease burden of pollution is comparable in scope to tuberculosis or malaria, posing a threat to 200 million people. Globally, one-fifth of cancers and 33 percent of disease in children can be blamed on environmental exposures, but this is far higher in low income countries, the report notes.
The Blacksmith Institute has conducted more than 3,000 initial risk assessments in 49 countries since the last list of polluted sites released by the two groups in 2007. Some sites listed in 2007, such as the lead battery recycling site in Haina, Dominican Republic, have been fully remediated.
“The good news is countries like India have come to grips with their pollution problems,” said Ericson. India has imposed a “Clean Energy Cess” or coal tax to help fund a clean energy fund of up to 400 million dollars which will inventory and clean up contaminated areas.
However, one of the emerging issues around toxic hotspots are clusters of poorly-regulated small-scale industries now found in many countries. There are more than 2,000 industries along the Citarum River in Indonesia, contaminating an area 13,000 sq km in size with lead, mercury, arsenic and other toxins, the report found.
“Clean-up is beginning thanks to a 500-million-dollar loan from the World Bank, but it will take a decade or more to complete,” said Ericson.
Near Buenos Aires, Argentina an estimated 50,000 small-scale industries dump a toxic mix of chemicals and metals into the air, soil and water. At least 20,000 people living along the Matanza Riachuelo river are exposed to dangerous levels of toxins, the report shows. The World Bank is also funding a major clean-up, with Blacksmith providing technical support.
Some toxic hotspots are so big and so badly polluted it will cost billions of dollars and take decades to clean up, said Stephan Robinson of Green Cross Switzerland.
“There are places that will be on our list for many years,” Robinson told IPS.
Russia has two of these. Russian authorities have finally acknowledged the issue and set aside three billion dollars to clean up Soviet-area legacy sites. One of these is Dzerzhinsk, a city of 300,000 people where chemical weapons like sarin, VX gas, mustard gas, and phosgene were manufactured for 50 years. At least 300,000 tonnes of waste from their manufacture were disposed of in the groundwater.
Birth defects are very common and the average lifespan of residents has fallen to the low forties. The situation is similar in Siberia’s Norilsk region, where the world’s biggest nickel smelter has killed all the trees within a 30-km radius.
“There has been lots of talk about improving pollution controls in Norilsk but not much action,” said Robinson.
A new site that will be on the list for years is the very polluted Niger Delta in Nigeria. Millions of barrels of oil have been spilled over the years and a U.N. study found two-thirds of the sites tested to be highly contaminated. Petroleum and its byproducts are very toxic, and when combined with poor nutrition, are a major unrecognised health threat for the 30 million people who live there, the report noted. The U.S. has been the major export destination for Nigerian oil.
The Sickest Places in the World
Parts of Indonesia, Argentina and Nigeria are among the top 10 most polluted places on the planet, according to a new report by U.S. and European environmental groups.
They are extraordinarily toxic places where lifespans are short and disease runs rampant among millions of people who live and work at these sites, often to provide the products used in richer countries.
“People would be shocked to see the conditions under which their lovely jewelry is sometimes made,” said Jack Caravanos, director of research at the New York-based Blacksmith Institute, an independent environmental group that released the list Monday in partnership with Green Cross Switzerland.
In Kalimantan, Indonesia, local people extract gold using mercury, which is both poisonous and a potent neurotoxin.
“They do this processing inside their homes, not realising the danger,” said Bret Ericson, senior project director of the Blacksmith Institute.
Blacksmith has gone into those homes and measured mercury levels 350 times higher than what is considered safe, Ericson told IPS.
This directly affects the health of 10 to 15 million people, Ericson said. “It is also a huge source of mercury pollution worldwide.”
Once released into the environment, mercury can end up in fish and other foods people eat anywhere on the planet. Low-cost, mercury-free methods for gold mining do exist but this knowledge is not widespread, he said.
The Top Ten Toxic Threats report is the latest in a series of annual reports documenting global pollution issues. The list is based on the severity of the health risk and the number of people exposed.
Previous reports have documented that the disease burden of pollution is comparable in scope to tuberculosis or malaria, posing a threat to 200 million people. Globally, one-fifth of cancers and 33 percent of disease in children can be blamed on environmental exposures, but this is far higher in low income countries, the report notes.
The Blacksmith Institute has conducted more than 3,000 initial risk assessments in 49 countries since the last list of polluted sites released by the two groups in 2007. Some sites listed in 2007, such as the lead battery recycling site in Haina, Dominican Republic, have been fully remediated.
“The good news is countries like India have come to grips with their pollution problems,” said Ericson. India has imposed a “Clean Energy Cess” or coal tax to help fund a clean energy fund of up to 400 million dollars which will inventory and clean up contaminated areas.
However, one of the emerging issues around toxic hotspots are clusters of poorly-regulated small-scale industries now found in many countries. There are more than 2,000 industries along the Citarum River in Indonesia, contaminating an area 13,000 sq km in size with lead, mercury, arsenic and other toxins, the report found.
“Clean-up is beginning thanks to a 500-million-dollar loan from the World Bank, but it will take a decade or more to complete,” said Ericson.
Near Buenos Aires, Argentina an estimated 50,000 small-scale industries dump a toxic mix of chemicals and metals into the air, soil and water. At least 20,000 people living along the Matanza Riachuelo river are exposed to dangerous levels of toxins, the report shows. The World Bank is also funding a major clean-up, with Blacksmith providing technical support.
Some toxic hotspots are so big and so badly polluted it will cost billions of dollars and take decades to clean up, said Stephan Robinson of Green Cross Switzerland.
“There are places that will be on our list for many years,” Robinson told IPS.
Russia has two of these. Russian authorities have finally acknowledged the issue and set aside three billion dollars to clean up Soviet-area legacy sites. One of these is Dzerzhinsk, a city of 300,000 people where chemical weapons like sarin, VX gas, mustard gas, and phosgene were manufactured for 50 years. At least 300,000 tonnes of waste from their manufacture were disposed of in the groundwater.
Birth defects are very common and the average lifespan of residents has fallen to the low forties. The situation is similar in Siberia’s Norilsk region, where the world’s biggest nickel smelter has killed all the trees within a 30-km radius.
“There has been lots of talk about improving pollution controls in Norilsk but not much action,” said Robinson.
A new site that will be on the list for years is the very polluted Niger Delta in Nigeria. Millions of barrels of oil have been spilled over the years and a U.N. study found two-thirds of the sites tested to be highly contaminated. Petroleum and its byproducts are very toxic, and when combined with poor nutrition, are a major unrecognised health threat for the 30 million people who live there, the report noted. The U.S. has been the major export destination for Nigerian oil.
The Sickest Places in the World
Friday, November 8, 2013
Climate change: Global emissions hit record high, UN says
By John Heilprin, Associated Press
Carbon dioxide pollution levels in Earth's atmosphere hit a record high in 2012, according a UN report released Wednesday. The concentration of carbon dioxide, a primary contributor to global warming, is far beyond the level some scientists and environmental groups say is the upper limit for a safe level.
World carbon dioxide pollution levels in the atmosphere are accelerating and reached a record high in 2012, the U.N. weather agency said Wednesday.
The heat-trapping gas, pumped into the air by cars and smokestacks, was measured at 393.1 parts per million last year, up 2.2 ppm from the previous year, said the Geneva-based World Meteorological Organization in its annual greenhouse gas inventory.
That is far beyond the 350 ppm that some scientists and environmental groups promote as the absolute upper limit for a safe level.
As the chief gas blamed for global warming, carbon dioxide's 2012 increase outpaced the past decade's average annual increase of 2.02 ppm.
Based on that rate, the organization says the world's carbon dioxide pollution level is expected to cross the 400 ppm threshold by 2016. That level already was reached at some individual measurement stations in 2012 and 2013.
Scientists say the Earth probably last had this much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at least a few million years ago, when sea levels were higher. Carbon dioxide levels were around 280 ppm before the Industrial Revolution.
Trapping heat as a greenhouse would, carbon dioxide accounts for three-quarters of the planet's heat-trapping gases that scientists say are causing sea levels to rise, glaciers to melt and some weather patterns to change. Methane, another destructive greenhouse gas, traps heat much more effectively but has a shorter life span.
Atmospheric methane also reached a new high of 1,819 parts per billion in 2012, which is 260 percent higher than the pre-industrial level. Methane comes from natural sources such as wetlands and termites, but about 60 percent comes from cattle breeding, rice growing, landfills and other human activities.
The rising amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere shows how people have "upset the natural balance of our atmosphere and are a major contribution to climate change," said Michel Jarraud, the secretary general of the World Meteorological Organization.
Carbon dioxide remains in the air for a century, some of it far longer, which means that a lot of future warming is already locked in.
The Nobel Peace Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is headquartered at the organization, says starvation, poverty, flooding, heat waves, droughts, war and disease are likely to worsen as the world warms from man-made climate change.
The warming of the planet since 1950 is "unprecedented," the panel says, and the Earth will warm by at least 2 more degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius) this century, unless the world drastically cuts emissions, which appears unlikely.
Climate change: Global emissions hit record high, UN says
Carbon dioxide pollution levels in Earth's atmosphere hit a record high in 2012, according a UN report released Wednesday. The concentration of carbon dioxide, a primary contributor to global warming, is far beyond the level some scientists and environmental groups say is the upper limit for a safe level.
World carbon dioxide pollution levels in the atmosphere are accelerating and reached a record high in 2012, the U.N. weather agency said Wednesday.
The heat-trapping gas, pumped into the air by cars and smokestacks, was measured at 393.1 parts per million last year, up 2.2 ppm from the previous year, said the Geneva-based World Meteorological Organization in its annual greenhouse gas inventory.
That is far beyond the 350 ppm that some scientists and environmental groups promote as the absolute upper limit for a safe level.
As the chief gas blamed for global warming, carbon dioxide's 2012 increase outpaced the past decade's average annual increase of 2.02 ppm.
Based on that rate, the organization says the world's carbon dioxide pollution level is expected to cross the 400 ppm threshold by 2016. That level already was reached at some individual measurement stations in 2012 and 2013.
Scientists say the Earth probably last had this much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at least a few million years ago, when sea levels were higher. Carbon dioxide levels were around 280 ppm before the Industrial Revolution.
Trapping heat as a greenhouse would, carbon dioxide accounts for three-quarters of the planet's heat-trapping gases that scientists say are causing sea levels to rise, glaciers to melt and some weather patterns to change. Methane, another destructive greenhouse gas, traps heat much more effectively but has a shorter life span.
Atmospheric methane also reached a new high of 1,819 parts per billion in 2012, which is 260 percent higher than the pre-industrial level. Methane comes from natural sources such as wetlands and termites, but about 60 percent comes from cattle breeding, rice growing, landfills and other human activities.
The rising amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere shows how people have "upset the natural balance of our atmosphere and are a major contribution to climate change," said Michel Jarraud, the secretary general of the World Meteorological Organization.
Carbon dioxide remains in the air for a century, some of it far longer, which means that a lot of future warming is already locked in.
The Nobel Peace Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is headquartered at the organization, says starvation, poverty, flooding, heat waves, droughts, war and disease are likely to worsen as the world warms from man-made climate change.
The warming of the planet since 1950 is "unprecedented," the panel says, and the Earth will warm by at least 2 more degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius) this century, unless the world drastically cuts emissions, which appears unlikely.
Climate change: Global emissions hit record high, UN says
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
Flowers and Garbage in Cuba
By Trina Moyles, Permaculture
Trina Moyles visits an urban permaculture community garden in Cuba. The two acre site has been transformed from a dumping ground for garbage into an abundant food and flower source for the local area as well as a place to learn permaculture principles.
"Let us not run away from our garbage. We should learn the art of making compost. Using that compost we will grow a lot of flowers. Don't think that without compost you can have flowers. That is an illusion. You can have flowers only with compost." - Thich Nhat Hanh (1998)
Seventeen years ago, Edith’s story began with garbage.
The year was 1996. It was seven years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and Cuba, being an island country who had depended on the Soviet powers for imported food goods, was still hungry from the crisis that had come awash on its shores.
State farms, accustomed to producing sugarcane, tobacco and coffee for the export, responded to the crisis like slugs: slow to diversify and fill the food baskets of Cuban citizens. At the same time, the US trade embargo tightened the noose around Cuba’s neck. The world was wondering: would Cuba trade political ideology for food? The Cuban state scrambled to reorganize the way food would be grown on the island, where, and by whom. And the Cuban citizenry reacted even faster, resurrecting the memory of the guajiro/a (peasant farmer), turning to the traditional guataca (hand-hoe) and sowing seeds in unconventional spaces.
Edith, from the city of Sancti Spiritus (the geographical heart of Cuba) was one of the Cuban citizens with the eyes to see flowers in garbage. To see food in waste.
Edith saw potential in a two-hectare plot of garbage. It was a basuera, a garbage dump, with heaping piles of waste: food waste, material waste, industrial waste, human waste, located in the middle of residential buildings. It was a space used for throwing not growing. Yet, somehow, Edith envisioned, instead, una linda flor, a beautiful flower.
Edith, alongside her late-husband, father, and two children, received the land 'in usufruct' (on loan) from the Cuban government based on the agreement that they would turn a wasted space into a productive space.
Linda Flor – Beautiful Flowers in the City
By the late 1990s, Edith and her family had successfully transformed the former garbage dump into a flowering organiponico called 'Linda Flor' meaning ‘pretty flower.’
Organiponicos are Cuban-borne, the name describing the small spaces in urban locations for growing vegetables, fruits, flowers, herbs, and medicinal plants. Foodstuffs grown at organiponicos are sold directly to Cubans and neighborhoods. It’s not uncommon to spot a woman in curlers, waiting at the Punta de Venta (Point of Sale) for organiponico workers to harvest the green onions that she’s purchased (at government regulated prices) for the pot of soup that’s simmering in her home’s kitchen…just across the street.
In the first years of operating her organiponico, Edith focused mainly on flower production, growing what she described as 'monocrops of flowers' in long lines of concrete raised beds. Edith employed men and women from the neighborhood to help her cultivate and cut fresh flowers for sale in the Sancti Spiritus markets. She and her family often relied on applying chemical pesticides and fertilizers, particularly after several years of harvesting and exhausting soils in the raised beds.
Natural disaster struck in 1998. Hurricane Georges swept up and spat out every beautiful flower at Linda Flor. Discouraged but undeterred, Edith and her family picked up the broken pieces of their labor of love, and planted once again.
In 2001, Edith participated in a training course on ‘La Permacultura Criolla,’ a sustainable agriculture and human systems concept that had arrived in Cuba via Australian and New Zealand organizations, and had been slowly spreading to farmers and producers through a Cuban institution, Fundación Antonio Nuñez Jimenez de la Naturaleza y el Hombre (FANJNH), Foundation for Nature and Man.
After learning more about the ethics and principles of la permacultura (biodiversity, cooperation and crops/animals that serve multiple purposes), Edith began transforming her monocrop of flowers into a diverse, integrated system. Edith’s organiponico now grows a plethora of decorative flowers, cacti, vegetables, fruits, and even integrates small animals into the system. Rabbits are raised in elevated cages where the manure falls into worm composting for organic fertilizers. Guinea fowl are raised in a cage above a pond filled with tilapia fish (so the manure falls into pond for fish food). And most importantly, Edith has colonized a number of hives for pollination of her flowers.
Today - Edith’s organiponico has developed into a permaculture demonstration site that employs 19 workers, and involves 36 families. Edith is a promotora (promoter) with FANJNH and instructs other farmers and producers how to integrate permaculture theory and practice into their own growing sites. On an annual basis, hundreds of Cuban and international farmers/students visit Linda Flor to learn about Edith’s inspiring story of transforming garbage into food and flowers.
Edith has vowed to never again return to the use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers.
Community Waste into Community Food
Edith is passionate about using local resources to build organic soil through composting and mulching, and recycling nutrients back into flower and food production.
Community composting system
Edith’s solution to producing more organic soil, on site, involved - literally - knocking on her neighbor’s doors for help. She developed the idea to collect organic waste (kitchen scraps, toilet paper rolls, papers, cardboard, etc.) from residents at the two apartment buildings surrounding Linda Flor. One of her workers uses a bicycle-cart to pick up organic waste from 40 households, twice a week, for large-scale composting. A bucket of waste from every participating household really adds up. Through layering compost piles of organic/non-organic materials (found on-site) Edith is able to produce 220 tons of organic soil on a yearly basis. After harvesting flowers and food from the raised beds, Edith adds organic soil to the beds to ensure optimum quality and yields, and a constant supply of vegetables and fruits to her neighbors.
Composting Toilets
Edith’s system includes one of the most beautiful bathrooms and composting toilets that I’ve ever laid eyes on. The composting toilet was an innovation brought to Cuba from a farmer-to-farmer visit in Mexico. One of FANJNH’s promoters traveled back to Cuba with a special ‘toilet seat’ in her suitcase, and the basic building blue-print. At Linda Flor, Edith’s workers use the toilet on a daily basis. The seat directs solid/liquid waste into distinct compartments, as urine requires aeration (to release ammonia), and feces requires the mixing of sawdust/ash (and six month’s time) to break down into usable compost. Urine is diluted with water, and sprayed as a foliar organic fertilizer - some people describe it as “liquid gold” (rich in nitrogen). Composted solid waste (or ‘humanure’) is applied at the base of fruit trees, decorative plants, and non-vegetable crops.
La Lombricultura - Worm Culture
In order to replace nutrients in the soil, at a rapid pace, Edith employs millions of other workers at Linda Flor. They’re small in size and large in number, and they live to do three things: eat, reproduce and defecate. Red wiggler worms are common in Cuba. At Linda Flor, they are located beneath a number of raised rabbit cages. Rabbit manure and urine falls through the wire mesh directly into the worm beds. Edith and her workers also add organic scraps, including vegetable and flower waste, to nourish the worms who feed vigorously and convert waste into uber-rich organic soil.
A Flower Doesn’t Last Forever - The Future of Linda Flor
Regardless of Edith’s creative efforts at Linda Flor to develop a successful and inspiring community permaculture and food production site, one aspect of Cuban culture prevails: “Nadie es el dueño de la tierra” - No one is the owner of the land…but the Cuban state, of course. This is also the main distinction between Bill Mollison’s original concept of permaculture and Cuba’s permacultura (embedded within their socialist political structure). Land ‘in usufruct’ means that the government can decide for how long land can be utilized, and for what purpose.
In Edith’s neighborhood, the Cuban state had begun to shift its priority from food production to expanding residential infrastructure. When I visited Linda Flor in 2011 and 2012, Edith expressed some anxiety that she would be ‘relocated’ to another site, and potentially lose upwards of 10,000 plants growing at her nationally-recognized organiponico.
“No es facil - It’s not easy,” she lamented over the potential outcome, worry written across her brow. “Pero hay que conseguir - But I have to keep moving forward.”
While the future of Linda Flor is somewhat uncertain, Edith’s conviction for permaculture, community development, and organic agriculture continues to grow - ever straying from her original vision of seeing potential in perceived nothing.
Flowers and Garbage in Cuba
Trina Moyles visits an urban permaculture community garden in Cuba. The two acre site has been transformed from a dumping ground for garbage into an abundant food and flower source for the local area as well as a place to learn permaculture principles.
"Let us not run away from our garbage. We should learn the art of making compost. Using that compost we will grow a lot of flowers. Don't think that without compost you can have flowers. That is an illusion. You can have flowers only with compost." - Thich Nhat Hanh (1998)
Seventeen years ago, Edith’s story began with garbage.
The year was 1996. It was seven years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and Cuba, being an island country who had depended on the Soviet powers for imported food goods, was still hungry from the crisis that had come awash on its shores.
State farms, accustomed to producing sugarcane, tobacco and coffee for the export, responded to the crisis like slugs: slow to diversify and fill the food baskets of Cuban citizens. At the same time, the US trade embargo tightened the noose around Cuba’s neck. The world was wondering: would Cuba trade political ideology for food? The Cuban state scrambled to reorganize the way food would be grown on the island, where, and by whom. And the Cuban citizenry reacted even faster, resurrecting the memory of the guajiro/a (peasant farmer), turning to the traditional guataca (hand-hoe) and sowing seeds in unconventional spaces.
Edith, from the city of Sancti Spiritus (the geographical heart of Cuba) was one of the Cuban citizens with the eyes to see flowers in garbage. To see food in waste.
Edith saw potential in a two-hectare plot of garbage. It was a basuera, a garbage dump, with heaping piles of waste: food waste, material waste, industrial waste, human waste, located in the middle of residential buildings. It was a space used for throwing not growing. Yet, somehow, Edith envisioned, instead, una linda flor, a beautiful flower.
Edith, alongside her late-husband, father, and two children, received the land 'in usufruct' (on loan) from the Cuban government based on the agreement that they would turn a wasted space into a productive space.
Linda Flor – Beautiful Flowers in the City
By the late 1990s, Edith and her family had successfully transformed the former garbage dump into a flowering organiponico called 'Linda Flor' meaning ‘pretty flower.’
Organiponicos are Cuban-borne, the name describing the small spaces in urban locations for growing vegetables, fruits, flowers, herbs, and medicinal plants. Foodstuffs grown at organiponicos are sold directly to Cubans and neighborhoods. It’s not uncommon to spot a woman in curlers, waiting at the Punta de Venta (Point of Sale) for organiponico workers to harvest the green onions that she’s purchased (at government regulated prices) for the pot of soup that’s simmering in her home’s kitchen…just across the street.
In the first years of operating her organiponico, Edith focused mainly on flower production, growing what she described as 'monocrops of flowers' in long lines of concrete raised beds. Edith employed men and women from the neighborhood to help her cultivate and cut fresh flowers for sale in the Sancti Spiritus markets. She and her family often relied on applying chemical pesticides and fertilizers, particularly after several years of harvesting and exhausting soils in the raised beds.
Natural disaster struck in 1998. Hurricane Georges swept up and spat out every beautiful flower at Linda Flor. Discouraged but undeterred, Edith and her family picked up the broken pieces of their labor of love, and planted once again.
In 2001, Edith participated in a training course on ‘La Permacultura Criolla,’ a sustainable agriculture and human systems concept that had arrived in Cuba via Australian and New Zealand organizations, and had been slowly spreading to farmers and producers through a Cuban institution, Fundación Antonio Nuñez Jimenez de la Naturaleza y el Hombre (FANJNH), Foundation for Nature and Man.
After learning more about the ethics and principles of la permacultura (biodiversity, cooperation and crops/animals that serve multiple purposes), Edith began transforming her monocrop of flowers into a diverse, integrated system. Edith’s organiponico now grows a plethora of decorative flowers, cacti, vegetables, fruits, and even integrates small animals into the system. Rabbits are raised in elevated cages where the manure falls into worm composting for organic fertilizers. Guinea fowl are raised in a cage above a pond filled with tilapia fish (so the manure falls into pond for fish food). And most importantly, Edith has colonized a number of hives for pollination of her flowers.
Today - Edith’s organiponico has developed into a permaculture demonstration site that employs 19 workers, and involves 36 families. Edith is a promotora (promoter) with FANJNH and instructs other farmers and producers how to integrate permaculture theory and practice into their own growing sites. On an annual basis, hundreds of Cuban and international farmers/students visit Linda Flor to learn about Edith’s inspiring story of transforming garbage into food and flowers.
Edith has vowed to never again return to the use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers.
Community Waste into Community Food
Edith is passionate about using local resources to build organic soil through composting and mulching, and recycling nutrients back into flower and food production.
Community composting system
Edith’s solution to producing more organic soil, on site, involved - literally - knocking on her neighbor’s doors for help. She developed the idea to collect organic waste (kitchen scraps, toilet paper rolls, papers, cardboard, etc.) from residents at the two apartment buildings surrounding Linda Flor. One of her workers uses a bicycle-cart to pick up organic waste from 40 households, twice a week, for large-scale composting. A bucket of waste from every participating household really adds up. Through layering compost piles of organic/non-organic materials (found on-site) Edith is able to produce 220 tons of organic soil on a yearly basis. After harvesting flowers and food from the raised beds, Edith adds organic soil to the beds to ensure optimum quality and yields, and a constant supply of vegetables and fruits to her neighbors.
Composting Toilets
Edith’s system includes one of the most beautiful bathrooms and composting toilets that I’ve ever laid eyes on. The composting toilet was an innovation brought to Cuba from a farmer-to-farmer visit in Mexico. One of FANJNH’s promoters traveled back to Cuba with a special ‘toilet seat’ in her suitcase, and the basic building blue-print. At Linda Flor, Edith’s workers use the toilet on a daily basis. The seat directs solid/liquid waste into distinct compartments, as urine requires aeration (to release ammonia), and feces requires the mixing of sawdust/ash (and six month’s time) to break down into usable compost. Urine is diluted with water, and sprayed as a foliar organic fertilizer - some people describe it as “liquid gold” (rich in nitrogen). Composted solid waste (or ‘humanure’) is applied at the base of fruit trees, decorative plants, and non-vegetable crops.
La Lombricultura - Worm Culture
In order to replace nutrients in the soil, at a rapid pace, Edith employs millions of other workers at Linda Flor. They’re small in size and large in number, and they live to do three things: eat, reproduce and defecate. Red wiggler worms are common in Cuba. At Linda Flor, they are located beneath a number of raised rabbit cages. Rabbit manure and urine falls through the wire mesh directly into the worm beds. Edith and her workers also add organic scraps, including vegetable and flower waste, to nourish the worms who feed vigorously and convert waste into uber-rich organic soil.
A Flower Doesn’t Last Forever - The Future of Linda Flor
Regardless of Edith’s creative efforts at Linda Flor to develop a successful and inspiring community permaculture and food production site, one aspect of Cuban culture prevails: “Nadie es el dueño de la tierra” - No one is the owner of the land…but the Cuban state, of course. This is also the main distinction between Bill Mollison’s original concept of permaculture and Cuba’s permacultura (embedded within their socialist political structure). Land ‘in usufruct’ means that the government can decide for how long land can be utilized, and for what purpose.
In Edith’s neighborhood, the Cuban state had begun to shift its priority from food production to expanding residential infrastructure. When I visited Linda Flor in 2011 and 2012, Edith expressed some anxiety that she would be ‘relocated’ to another site, and potentially lose upwards of 10,000 plants growing at her nationally-recognized organiponico.
“No es facil - It’s not easy,” she lamented over the potential outcome, worry written across her brow. “Pero hay que conseguir - But I have to keep moving forward.”
While the future of Linda Flor is somewhat uncertain, Edith’s conviction for permaculture, community development, and organic agriculture continues to grow - ever straying from her original vision of seeing potential in perceived nothing.
Flowers and Garbage in Cuba
Saturday, November 2, 2013
Debunking myths on cassava - Agriculture and Ecosystems Blog
By Tin Maung Aye, Keith Fahrney, Adrian Bolliger and Rod Lefroy, CGIAR
Rumour has it that planting cassava is inherently bad for the soil. The crop is capable of widespread soil erosion, damaging the environment and reducing the productivity of other crops by removing too many nutrients from the soil, so the popular mantra goes. Yet at the same time, cassava can apparently grow well in poor, degraded soils with no or very little fertilizer application at all.
Cassava’s low demand for – and highly efficient use of – water and most nutrients has earned it a reputation as an ideal crop to cultivate on poor soil. But the association between degraded soil and the crop itself seems to have stuck, and the stigma is difficult to shake off.
As with most rumours, you have to dig a bit deeper to get to the roots of the truth.
We can quell the rumour if we can share the information that we as researchers have about how to prevent soil erosion and better manage cassava production systems with the people who need to know. Proper erosion control and soil fertility management is at the heart of sustainable cassava production, and has the potential to boot smallholder livelihoods.
The facts…
In Southeast Asia, cassava production has increased rapidly and many people want to be part of the boom. Rapid population growth and economic development have driven many people, especially the poorest, to grow cassava on sloping land. But farming on the slopes is usually deterred and sometimes banned – which does not stop farmers from planting cassava on slopes because it grows well, at least for a number of years. Consequently, harvests go unreported, and best soil management practices and adoption of tried and tested sustainable soil management techniques are not as broadly adopted as they should be.
Concerns that cassava exacerbates soil erosion arise from the fact that growing it on steep slopes without intercropping or contour planting will cause erosion. This is because cassava is a large plant that needs to be planted at wide spacing to get high root yields. During the two to three-month period before cassava leaves grow enough to close the crop canopy, the soil between plants is left exposed to direct rainfall, which in turn results in soil run-off and loss. The steeper the slope, the greater the soil loss.
It is important to both protect the soil surface from the direct impact of raindrops and slow down the runoff and soil loss by reducing the length of the slope. The International Center for Tropical Agriculture’s (CIAT) research has highlighted great opportunities for mitigating soil erosion in Southeast Asia. Intercropping cassava with fast ground-covering, short-term crops like peanut is recommended because it protects the soil surface, provides a quick harvest and income, and helps control weeds. Mulching with crop residues or grass on the soil surface protects soil from direct raindrop impact, greatly improves water infiltration and can further reduce erosion.
Planting strips of forage grasses like Paspalum atratum or shrubs such as Tephrosia candida along slope contours will act as a barrier, breaking the slope length and preventing the loss of topsoil – the most fertile part of the soil – while inducing the formation of natural terraces to capture moisture, reduce the angle of the slope and increase yields. The forages can also feed animals in integrated crop-livestock smallholdings.
The nutrient myth
As a poor man’s crop, smallholders practicing shifting cultivation often plant cassava as the final species in a sequence of crops on cleared land before allowing the land to return to fallow. They do this for two main reasons.
First, after three to four-year crop sequences with inadequate replacement of nutrients removed during harvests, the soil is usually depleted. Hence, only cassava will produce well on the impoverished soils of the plot. After the cassava, on the other hand, few crops at all will grow adequately. This reinforces the myth that cassava induces soil depletion, when in reality the soil has already been starved of nutrients before the cassava cycle has even started. In contrast to most other crops, cassava is capable of growing and providing some root yield even when soil fertility is low.
The second reason cassava is an ideal final crop in a shifting cultivation sequence is that it does not have a fixed harvest period. It can be stored in the soil for up to two years and harvested when other food has run out, often doubling in yield during that time. If soils are not tilled prior to planting and the crop remains in the ground for two years, the soil erosion hazard from planting on sloping lands is less than from an annual crop like maize that is commonly tilled before planting each year.
Although not a particularly “nutrient hungry” crop when compared to say maize, the nutrients cassava does take up still need to be replaced. Combined soil type-dependent soil fertility management is needed, using both organic and inorganic fertilisers as well as legume intercrops that can enrich the soils through biological nitrogen fixation, and a range of techniques that increase soil organic matter.
All of the above techniques can be combined to increase productivity, restore soil fertility and reduce soil erosion. At the same time, they can contribute additional income, food or livestock fodder for smallholder households.
Information bottle-neck
The facts remain that growing any crops on sloping land requires proper soil management, and whatever you take out of the soil, you have to put back. These are facts of which more development workers, farmers and policy makers need to be aware.
Cassava is a largely ignored crop in terms of research, extension and policy agendas. While there is no doubt that things are changing, there is still concern, particularly at policy level, about perceived environmental damage caused by cultivating cassava – in particular soil degradation – and governments are reticent to promote expansion of the crop.
This lack of incentive inspires less than optimal cultivation and has a negative impact on potential industrial supply. At the same time as educating farmers about soil fertility and erosion management, we need to educate policy makers that, with the right management, growing cassava on slopes is not only possible, but can also be environmentally sustainable and provide a good income for poor smallholder farmers. Indeed, at a time when demand for cassava starch in food processing and biofuel industries looks set to grow – both domestically and in export markets – cassava offers more potential than ever to boost smallholder livelihoods.
To avoid concerns about degradation by cassava production and pollution from cassava processing, this insight must be extended to the private sector. Private companies need to promote sustainable production techniques as they source their processing feedstock. They need to make informed decisions about the appropriate location of processing plants and ensure that the processing industry manages waste in an efficient and environmentally responsible way. Using waste as a source of bio-gas or animal feed, for example, would be a step in the right direction.
Digging up the truth
Informed decisions about where and how to grow cassava should take into account site-specific information such as soil fertility requirements, the risk of soil degradation, bio climatic conditions, on-farm food and animal feed needs, as well as market access and demand. Then the myths will be truly debunked and cassava can be recognized as a hardy, flexible crop with promising economic potential for the poor of the region.
Debunking myths on cassava - Agriculture and Ecosystems Blog
Rumour has it that planting cassava is inherently bad for the soil. The crop is capable of widespread soil erosion, damaging the environment and reducing the productivity of other crops by removing too many nutrients from the soil, so the popular mantra goes. Yet at the same time, cassava can apparently grow well in poor, degraded soils with no or very little fertilizer application at all.
Cassava’s low demand for – and highly efficient use of – water and most nutrients has earned it a reputation as an ideal crop to cultivate on poor soil. But the association between degraded soil and the crop itself seems to have stuck, and the stigma is difficult to shake off.
As with most rumours, you have to dig a bit deeper to get to the roots of the truth.
We can quell the rumour if we can share the information that we as researchers have about how to prevent soil erosion and better manage cassava production systems with the people who need to know. Proper erosion control and soil fertility management is at the heart of sustainable cassava production, and has the potential to boot smallholder livelihoods.
The facts…
In Southeast Asia, cassava production has increased rapidly and many people want to be part of the boom. Rapid population growth and economic development have driven many people, especially the poorest, to grow cassava on sloping land. But farming on the slopes is usually deterred and sometimes banned – which does not stop farmers from planting cassava on slopes because it grows well, at least for a number of years. Consequently, harvests go unreported, and best soil management practices and adoption of tried and tested sustainable soil management techniques are not as broadly adopted as they should be.
Concerns that cassava exacerbates soil erosion arise from the fact that growing it on steep slopes without intercropping or contour planting will cause erosion. This is because cassava is a large plant that needs to be planted at wide spacing to get high root yields. During the two to three-month period before cassava leaves grow enough to close the crop canopy, the soil between plants is left exposed to direct rainfall, which in turn results in soil run-off and loss. The steeper the slope, the greater the soil loss.
It is important to both protect the soil surface from the direct impact of raindrops and slow down the runoff and soil loss by reducing the length of the slope. The International Center for Tropical Agriculture’s (CIAT) research has highlighted great opportunities for mitigating soil erosion in Southeast Asia. Intercropping cassava with fast ground-covering, short-term crops like peanut is recommended because it protects the soil surface, provides a quick harvest and income, and helps control weeds. Mulching with crop residues or grass on the soil surface protects soil from direct raindrop impact, greatly improves water infiltration and can further reduce erosion.
Planting strips of forage grasses like Paspalum atratum or shrubs such as Tephrosia candida along slope contours will act as a barrier, breaking the slope length and preventing the loss of topsoil – the most fertile part of the soil – while inducing the formation of natural terraces to capture moisture, reduce the angle of the slope and increase yields. The forages can also feed animals in integrated crop-livestock smallholdings.
The nutrient myth
As a poor man’s crop, smallholders practicing shifting cultivation often plant cassava as the final species in a sequence of crops on cleared land before allowing the land to return to fallow. They do this for two main reasons.
First, after three to four-year crop sequences with inadequate replacement of nutrients removed during harvests, the soil is usually depleted. Hence, only cassava will produce well on the impoverished soils of the plot. After the cassava, on the other hand, few crops at all will grow adequately. This reinforces the myth that cassava induces soil depletion, when in reality the soil has already been starved of nutrients before the cassava cycle has even started. In contrast to most other crops, cassava is capable of growing and providing some root yield even when soil fertility is low.
The second reason cassava is an ideal final crop in a shifting cultivation sequence is that it does not have a fixed harvest period. It can be stored in the soil for up to two years and harvested when other food has run out, often doubling in yield during that time. If soils are not tilled prior to planting and the crop remains in the ground for two years, the soil erosion hazard from planting on sloping lands is less than from an annual crop like maize that is commonly tilled before planting each year.
Although not a particularly “nutrient hungry” crop when compared to say maize, the nutrients cassava does take up still need to be replaced. Combined soil type-dependent soil fertility management is needed, using both organic and inorganic fertilisers as well as legume intercrops that can enrich the soils through biological nitrogen fixation, and a range of techniques that increase soil organic matter.
All of the above techniques can be combined to increase productivity, restore soil fertility and reduce soil erosion. At the same time, they can contribute additional income, food or livestock fodder for smallholder households.
Information bottle-neck
The facts remain that growing any crops on sloping land requires proper soil management, and whatever you take out of the soil, you have to put back. These are facts of which more development workers, farmers and policy makers need to be aware.
Cassava is a largely ignored crop in terms of research, extension and policy agendas. While there is no doubt that things are changing, there is still concern, particularly at policy level, about perceived environmental damage caused by cultivating cassava – in particular soil degradation – and governments are reticent to promote expansion of the crop.
This lack of incentive inspires less than optimal cultivation and has a negative impact on potential industrial supply. At the same time as educating farmers about soil fertility and erosion management, we need to educate policy makers that, with the right management, growing cassava on slopes is not only possible, but can also be environmentally sustainable and provide a good income for poor smallholder farmers. Indeed, at a time when demand for cassava starch in food processing and biofuel industries looks set to grow – both domestically and in export markets – cassava offers more potential than ever to boost smallholder livelihoods.
To avoid concerns about degradation by cassava production and pollution from cassava processing, this insight must be extended to the private sector. Private companies need to promote sustainable production techniques as they source their processing feedstock. They need to make informed decisions about the appropriate location of processing plants and ensure that the processing industry manages waste in an efficient and environmentally responsible way. Using waste as a source of bio-gas or animal feed, for example, would be a step in the right direction.
Digging up the truth
Informed decisions about where and how to grow cassava should take into account site-specific information such as soil fertility requirements, the risk of soil degradation, bio climatic conditions, on-farm food and animal feed needs, as well as market access and demand. Then the myths will be truly debunked and cassava can be recognized as a hardy, flexible crop with promising economic potential for the poor of the region.
Debunking myths on cassava - Agriculture and Ecosystems Blog
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)