Former and current FAO officials and academics have criticised the document, seen by Climate Home News, for pro-industry bias, cherry-picking data and even “disinformation” about the environmental impacts of animal farming. 

The FAO told Climate Home that a final version of the report – part of an assessment consisting of various documents – would be launched in 2025 and that conclusions should not be drawn from the draft text at this stage. 

Estimates of livestock’s contribution to greenhouse gas emissions vary, ranging from 12%-20% of the global total – mostly in the form of methane from ruminants like cows and sheep, and carbon dioxide (CO2) released when forests are cut down for pasture.  

Want climate news in your inbox? Sign up for free to get our weekly newsletter and occasional extra bulletins

Methane, which is emitted in cow burps and manure, is a short-lived greenhouse gas that is 84 times more potent than CO2 over 20 years, making it one of the few available levers to prevent climate tipping points being reached in the near term.   

In a 2024 survey of more than 200 scientists and sustainable agriculture experts, about 78% said livestock numbers should peak globally by 2025 to start bringing down emissions and help keep global warming to internationally agreed limits.   

But the FAO’s draft study offers strong support for growth of the sector, saying livestock’s contributions to food security, nutrition and raw materials for industry make it a “linchpin for human well-being and economic development”.  

It is also described as “critical” for food security, “crucial” for global economies, and “indispensable” for development in sub-Saharan Africa.  

World Bank tiptoes into fiery debate over meat emissions

The report will be submitted to the FAO’s agriculture committee, which has 130 member nations, although the text could change as national representatives thrash out a final version. 

Private-sector lobbyists participating as advisors in national delegations are sometimes also able to influence texts under discussion, according to a July report by the Changing Markets Foundation. 

One FAO insider, who did not want to be named, told Climate Home the draft FAO report had been “biased towards pushing livestock [with] many national interests behind it”.   

The FAO receives around a third of its budget in direct donations from member countries, and the rest in voluntary contributions from the same states and other actors, including businesses and trade associations.   

Tech fixes  

The 491-page draft report, which was overseen by a scientific advisory committee of 23 experts and peer reviewers, does not assess how diets with more plant protein could improve food security.   

One advisory committee member, Professor Frederic Leroy of Vrije Universiteit Brussel, told Climate Home a shift to entirely plant-based diets “would severely compromise the potential for food security worldwide because many of the food nutrients which are already limited in global diets are found in livestock. How much you can move (away from livestock) should be the real investigation.” 

This table from a World Bank report (Recipe for a Livable Planet), published in May 2024, shows that vegan diets are the lowest in emissions (Screenshot/World Bank)

The report’s analysis assumes rising meat production as demand surges among a growing world population with higher incomes. In this context, it proposes “expanding the (livestock) herd size”, increasing production through intensified systems, better use of genetic techniques, and improved land management.   

“Technological innovations” such as feed additives and supplements to suppress methane are another idea backed by the FAO. Those could include experimental methods such as a vaccine announced last week and funded by a $9-million grant from the Bezos Earth Fund that aims to reduce the number and activity of methane-producing microbes in a cow’s stomach.    

Herdsman Musa takes cattle to graze along the Dodowa-Somenya road in Ghana, April 12, 2024. According to environmentalist Kwame Ansah, ‘The unchecked grazing is not only destroying crops but also eroding soil fertility exacerbating land degradation.’ (Photo: Matrix Images/Christian Thompson/via Reuters)

The report’s findings, once approved, will be fed into a three-part roadmap for bringing agricultural emissions in line with the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.  

The first instalment, published at the COP28 climate summit, was viewed internally by some FAO experts as a generic placeholder which largely followed an industry-friendly agenda.    

One ex-FAO official, who requested anonymity, told Climate Home the latest draft report on livestock ploughs a similar furrow and would set expectations for part two of the 1.5C roadmap.   

“The reality is that if they do a (nearly) 500-page report and put 23 experts’ names in front of it, it’s to impress you and say: ‘This is what is going to happen. We’re going to defend the sector’,” the former UN official said.  

Making the case for meat 

The expert added that the study’s panel was skewed toward intensified livestock systems and had “cherry picked” evidence to justify recommendations pointing in that direction.  

Several of the report’s advisory committee members have previously advocated for meat-based diets, and 11 of the study’s contributors work for the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), including one of the paper’s committee advisors.

According to the ex-FAO official, ILRI “has been pushing intensified livestock all its life. It’s their identity. It’s what they do.”

The institute co-founded an agribusiness-backed initiative – Pathways to Dairy Net Zero (P2DNZ) – which de-emphasised livestock emissions, framing them as just one of several problems for the industry to tackle.

ILRI did not respond to a request for comment.

IPCC’s input into key UN climate review at risk as countries clash over timeline

Shelby C. McClelland, of New York University’s Center for Environmental and Animal Protection, told Climate Home she was shocked by a repeated claim in the draft FAO report of “a lack of consensus among scientists regarding the contribution of livestock to global greenhouse gas emissions”.  

“This downplays and outright ignores overwhelming scientific evidence from the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], high-profile papers, and other recent studies,” McClelland said. “A statement like this in a supposedly scientific and evidenced-based review by the UN FAO is alarming given their influence on agenda-setting for global climate action.”

Advisory committee member Leroy countered that it was “dangerous” to talk about a scientific consensus when the metrics used to measure methane compared to other greenhouse gases are constantly evolving.  

“This should be part of an open and transparent debate,” he added. “I don’t think we have reached consensus on the way we interpret the effects of livestock agriculture on climate change, the degree of it, how we can measure it and how we can deal with it.” 

Scientists at the FAO first alerted the world to the meat industry’s climate footprint when they attributed 18% of global emissions to livestock farming in the seminal 2006 study, Livestock’s Long Shadow. This analysis found that, far from enhancing food security, “livestock actually detract more from total food supply than they provide.”  

However, the paper sparked a backlash felt by key experts in the agency’s Rome headquarters, as the FAO hierarchy, industry lobbyists and state donors to its biannual $1-billion budget exerted pressure for a change of direction.      

By the time of last December’s COP28, the FAO’s stance had shifted so far that two experts cited in another livestock emissions study called publicly for its retraction. They argued it had distorted their work and underestimated the emissions reduction potential from farming less livestock by a factor of between 6 and 40. 

A deforested and burnt area is seen in an indigenous area used as cattle pasture in Areoes, Mato Grosso state, Brazil, September 4, 2019. (Photo: REUTERS/Lucas Landau)

No ‘carte blanche’ 

Guy Pe’er, a conservation ecologist at the German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research and the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, accused the FAO of turning a blind eye to widespread “hyper-intensive grazing practices” and land use change caused by the world’s growing number of mega-farms.

“We’re currently using more land to feed livestock than humans, and that is causing rapid deforestation in Brazil. Ignoring that is outrageous. When an official organisation is producing disinformation like this, I find it extremely irresponsible,” he said.  

Leroy told Climate Home that different types of livestock farming should not be conflated. “If you have over-grazing and the pollution of water sources, that’s clearly wrong, but other types of animal agriculture are also net-positive [for the environment],” he said.  

If the advisory committee “sees advantages in having livestock agriculture as part of the food system, I think there’s a sound scientific basis to assume that,” he added. “It doesn’t mean that it’s carte blanche or ‘anything goes’ at all.” 

(Reporting by Arthur Neslen; editing by Megan Rowling and Joe Lo)

The post FAO draft report backs growth of livestock industry despite emissions  appeared first on Climate Home News.

Debt-laden growers want an existing government procurement system to be made legally binding and to raise the minimum price for a wider range of crops – which could help them move away from thirsty rice and wheat farming.

But some agricultural analysts argue that bolstering the Minimum Support Price (MSP) for produce would not resolve the wider climate problems farmers face, nor ease demand for scarce water resources.

Expectations mount as loss and damage fund staggers to its feet

Deedar Singh, a 50-year-old farmer from Patiala, joined a march towards Delhi in mid-February and spoke to Climate Home at a camp on the Punjab-Haryana border, 200 km from Delhi. He participated in a similar mobilisation back in 2020 that lasted for just over a year.

With a family of nine to support, he complained that his five-acre landholding and meagre income of 200,000 rupees per year ($2,400) cannot provide a decent quality of life, especially as weather extremes worsen.

“If untimely rain destroys our rice or hot temperatures shrink the wheat grain, our crops are ruined, leaving us unable to even cover the costs of the next cropping season,” said Singh. Most people in his village rely on financial support sent by their children who have migrated abroad, he added.

Farmers gather at the Shambhu border, between Punjab and Haryana, to burn effigies of political leaders and shout slogans in support of the protest, February 27 2024 (Photo: Kanika Gupta)

Globally, India accounts for 10% of agricultural output and is the second-largest producer of rice and wheat. It is also the biggest consumer of groundwater. Its 260 million farmers depend heavily on depleting water reserves to irrigate their crops.

That means they are also struggling with climate change, as about 65% of the country’s cropped area depends on rainwater. Erratic rainfall and shorter winters are harming yields, with heavy downpours causing flooding and a sudden spike in temperatures a year ago causing wheat grain to shrink.

The Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) reports that for every 1C increase in temperature, wheat production suffers a significant decline of 4-5 million tonnes.

Debt drives suicides

Water resources are running low and farmers’ input costs have soared – yet the government-administered minimum support price (MSP) has not risen accordingly, said Ramandeep Singh Mann, an agriculturist and member of Kisan Mazdoor Morcha, an umbrella body spearheading the current protest.

That has left farmers with no money to pay for contingencies and has forced many to take on high levels of debt, he said.

“At some point your back breaks. When that happens, there is no other solution but to take extreme steps,” he added, referring to suicides among indebted farmers.

To boost falling yields, farmers are using more inputs like water and fertilisers, leaving them with higher production costs and lower profit margins.

Some states have provided free or subsidised electricity, as well as loan forgiveness for debt-strapped farmers, but since 2014, only half of the intended waiver recipients have benefited, according to a study by the State Bank of India.

These woes have fuelled a growing wave of protest, as farmers feel they have no other recourse.

Nonetheless, Sardara Singh Johl, a 97-year-old agricultural economist from Ludhiana and former vice-chancellor at Punjab Agricultural University, said the latest mobilisation was unlikely to result in the dialogue required to address the broader problems facing farmers.

“They already have MSP for wheat and rice, and these are high-paying crops. Even if you reduce the price risk with MSP, what can you do about the other uncertainties?” he asked.

In mid-February, at the last round of talks with the government, ministers proposed to purchase five additional crops – moong dal, urad dal, tur dal, maize and cotton – from farmers at an MSP for five years through central agencies, but farmers rejected the offer.

Jagjit Singh Dallewal, leader of the non-political Samyukta Kisan Morcha group, which is also involved in organising the farmers’ protest, said the proposal would mainly benefit farmers willing to switch from paddy or wheat to other crops and would not ensure a stable income.

Farmer leaders give a press conference at Shambhu border, between Punjab and Haryana, on February 27 2024. Photo: Kanika Gupta)

Water reserves shrink amid over-use

Economist Johl argued that, irrespective of its profitability, rice is no longer a suitable crop for Punjab as its water table recedes to a dangerously low level.

A study by Punjab Agricultural University found that between 1998 and 2018, groundwater levels in the region had dropped drastically, from 10 metres below ground to 30 metres, largely due to a shift from traditional canal irrigation to widespread adoption of tube wells for water extraction.

Farmers are aware of Punjab’s dwindling water resources, said Mann, but they need guaranteed price support for more crops in order to shift away from water-intensive rice cultivation.

“They know that if they are able to earn as much as they do from paddy, they will grow other crops. But without fair support of MSP, it is hard to make that switch,” he said.

In Somalia, Green Climate Fund tests new approach for left-out communities

Uday Chandra, a professor of government at the Georgetown University in Qatar, said key food-supplying states like Punjab have struggled to get their problems heard and dealt with by the national government.

“The problem is that what the Punjab farmer wants isn’t sustainable,” he said, referring to the state’s shrinking water supplies. “The best way would be to bring them into discussion and find a solution that is specific to them.”

Trucks lined up at the Shambhu border, 200 km from Delhi, after being stopped by the central government from advancing to the Indian capital, February 27 2024 (Photo: Kanika Gupta)

Thousands of farmers who were initially stopped by heavy police control outside Delhi have now made it to the capital after receiving permission to protest at the Ramlila Maidan ground. They are determined to maintain their mobilisation during the general elections – which will take place over several weeks from late April until the start of June – if their MSP demands go unmet.

In 2021, angry farmers backed down after the government rowed back on laws that had sparked huge protests. But they have now returned to direct action, calling on the government to fulfill its promises, including demands for pensions, debt waivers, penalties for selling counterfeit agricultural inputs, and withdrawal from the World Trade Organization.

Call for high-tech solutions

Mann said climate change is compounding their woes – yet while the government acknowledges the problem, it is doing little to help the sector deal with it.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

However, at the ICAR’s Annual General Meeting last month, Arjun Munda, Union Minister of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, said the Modi government is committed to bolstering the agricultural sector and supporting farmers, including with high-yielding, resilient seed varieties released by ICAR in the past decade.

It also issues Agromet weather-based crop advisories with the India Meteorological Department to about 60 million farmers twice a week and promotes practices for more efficient use of water and nutrients.

But protesting farmers said the government’s measures are failing to help them adapt adequately to a changing climate and water shortages.

Bhupinder Singh, a farmer in Punjab’s Mohali district, discusses his transition to organic farming methods as a means to prevent the burning of stubble remaining after rice cultivation, November 26 2023. (Photo: Kanika Gupta)

Haranjeet Singh, 53, of Ludhiana in Punjab, said the rice variety farmers are now planting gives smaller harvests, after the government suspended use of a more productive but thirstier variety which also took longer to mature and produced more stubble – a major cause of air pollution when burned.

“Unfortunately, these new seeds don’t give us as much yield,” he said. “We are spending the same amount of money and getting less in return.”

Madhura Swaminathan, daughter of the late MS Swaminathan – the architect of India’s Green Revolution which boosted crop yields and tackled the nation’s food scarcity issues in the 1970s – believes greater use of technology could help.

The professor at the Indian Statistical Institute in Bangalore pointed to an example she encountered in Amritsar a few years ago, where groundwater sensors were connected to mobile apps, enabling users to remotely control water pumps and conserve water.

“We must embrace new technologies, farming practices, and techniques to tackle the challenges brought by climate change,” she said.

The post What will it take to protect India’s angry farmers from climate threats? appeared first on Climate Home News.

Energy, water and land are being squandered as the world throws out as much as half the food it produces.

A report, Global Food: Waste Not Want Not, by the UK’s Institute of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE) has found that 30-50%, or 1.2-2 billion tonnes, of produced food is wasted by poor storage, bad distribution and exacting quality standards in the developed world.

“As water, land and energy resources come under increasing pressure from competing human demands, engineers have a crucial role to play in preventing food loss and waste by developing more efficient ways of growing, transporting and storing foods,” said Dr Tim Fox, head of energy and environment at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers.

“But in order for this to happen Governments, development agencies and organisation like the UN must work together to help change people’s mindsets on waste and discourage wasteful practices by farmers, food producers, supermarkets and consumers.”

With the global population set to top 9 billion with scarce water and energy resources and climate change making conditions for farmers even harder, cutting waste could help to reduce surging food prices.

“Most people don’t realise that food waste is not only a moral conundrum  wasting food when so many people are hungry, but an environmental problem as well,” Danielle Nierenberg, co-founder of the Food Tank told RTCC.

Some supermarkets, including Waitrose in the UK have begun selling ‘ugly’ fruit and vegetables, that would otherwise be discarded. (Source: Flickr/Sean_Hickin)

“We forget that all of the resources and ingredients, that go into making food,artificial fertilizer and other agrochemicals, water, soil fertility, fossil fuel energy, etc, are also wasted when we either food is lost because of pests, disease, or improper storage or because we simply throw it away.”

Agriculture uses 2.7 trillion cubic metres of water a year, that’s 70% of all freshwater use. Wasting 2 billion tonnes of food also means wasting 35% of the world’s fresh water supplies.

The World Economic Forum’s Global Risk report identified water scarcity as the top societal threat facing the world.

Water is also under increasing demand from the growing populations, industrialising nations and to fulfill an expanding appetite for hydropower.

Improper rice storage can waste 80% of harvests between farm and table. (Source: Flickr/katushau)

Hydropower rich Brazil is currently facing a water and energy crisis following a dry summer. India recently announced plans to build 292 dams in the Himalaya to solve its energy crisis but there are concerns the resulting effect on water supplies could be worse.

While improved farming techniques have improved crop yields, land degradation from poor management and aggravated by climate change means 12 million hectares of land become barren each year.

The IMechE report, notes that just one hectare can provide enough rice or potato for 22 people a year.

“At a time when 870 million go to bed hungry each night, and climate change is already acting as a break on crop yields and pushing up food prices, our waste of food cannot continue,” Tim Gore, Oxfams’s international policy advisor on climate change.

“With demand for food set to increase in the years ahead, we must change our wasteful behaviour in rich countries, boost investment in small scale farming in poor countries, and slash the greenhouse gas emissions that are increasing the costs of feeding a warming world,” he told RTCC.

As nations develop, the appetite for meat also increase placing additional pressures on the amount of land required to feed the population.

According to the IMechE report, producing 1 calorie of food requires 7-10 calories of energy input. As agriculture becomes increasingly mechanised this figure could rise.

Meeting fuel and electricity demands for agricultural production, storage and transport with sustainable sources is essential, IMechE claims.

The post Colossal food waste hitting energy, land and water supplies appeared first on Climate Home News.

Hawaii is targeting a Green Blue Economy as it tackles its energy and food security problems, according to Jacqueline Kozak, part of the islands’ delegation at a recent UN environmental summit.

With pressures on food security and a reliance on imported energy, Kozak believes the response of Hawaii can set an example for the wider world.

“Islands are a microcosm of the planet and the [environmental] challenges facing islands are felt more urgently and first,” said Kozak, who is also a member of the Hawaii Invasive Species Council.

“The urgency of our food, energy security and our biodiversity loss has really motivated us to find innovative and integrated approaches to a more sustainable future for Hawaii.”

Kozak says the islands’ pursuit of a “Green Blue Economy” with sustainability and water at its core, is the cornerstone of its policies.

“When Captain Cook landed in Hawaii there were 1m indigenous people living self-sufficiently.Now we are dependent on imports and we have an enormous problem with affordability because we have to import everything,” said Kozak.

The Islands have a 40% renewable energy a target and a 30% energy efficiency goal by 2030. It currently imports 90% of all its energy.

Local food production will also be doubled in effort to reduce its food imports that currently account for 85% of the island’s consumption.

Protecting freshwater supplies will be key to enabling the state’s agriculture sector to flourish, according to Kozak.

The islands’ Governor Neil Abercrombie, was elected on a sustainability ticket and is spearheading many of Hawaii’s efforts.

Hawaii is also part of the Ecoislands initiative, recently launched on the UK’s Isle of Wight.

RTCC Video: Jacqueline Kozak on Hawaii’s sustainable push for self sufficiency

The post Hawaii’s Green Blue economy tackles climate change challenges head-on appeared first on Climate Home News.

It has been described as the perfect storm for food production; dwindling water resources, unpredictable weather patterns and more mouths to feed.

The green movement has in the past pointed the finger at the agricultural community for its impact on forest clearances, fertiliser use and, in the developed world, a large carbon footprint from machinery and transport.

Farmers in the global north and south alike are facing similar challenges. Radical change is needed to mitigate and adapt to climate change whilst maintaining a high output, and the solutions to these problems are under scrutiny.

The debate over how to feed the world's growing population without intensifying environmental damage is highly complex. (Source: Flickr/UGA College of Ag)

So what can farmers do to boost production while remaining environmentally sustainable?

The technology route is one way out.

The agricultural machinery manufacturer New Holland believes one form of farming that its kit makes possible, could have a big impact.

No-till farming basically means you don’t plough your fields and you don’t remove the scraps from the last harvest.

Not disturbing the soil keeps more CO2 locked in and the nutrients from the rotting previous crop reduces the need for fertilisers.

For every hectare of land operated this way in Brazil, a tonne of CO2 is saved every year.

‘Idiots and lunatics’

“Many people think farmers are only bad for the environment but that is not true. Farmers today have accepted and realise that being environmentally sustainable is not a choice for them. Technology can help and there is huge potential for no-till but farmers need to be helped along,” Bernhard Kiep, VP New Holland Latin America told RTCC.

“Better education can show that farmers can have an economic return from switching to no till.

“No rational human being wants to destroy the environment. You must either be an idiot or a lunatic. If you explain to farmers that this technology will improve their land and their soil but that they need to be patient and invest in the long term, then they are switching.”

No-till does require special equipment, sold by New Holland amongst others, that allows farmers to work with the land and plant seeds in unploughed fields.

Dust rises in a field in Bangladesh as a farmer ploughs his field. (Source: UN/John Isaac)

Kiep says that the equipment is economical on medium and small sized farms – not just large industrialised ones – and that it can raise peasant farmers to economically successful farmers, a goal China’s government is targeting.

Encouraging farmers, which Kiep describes as traditionally “conservative” to invest requires tangible case studies to be communicated to them as well as the educational and institutional support necessary for the shift. Kiep is confident they will ultimately make the right decisions.

“Farmers are rational, they need to protect their soils, it’s the most important asset they have,” he said.

Is organic the answer?

Another high profile methodology that is widely touted is organic farming.

“Organic farming reduces pollution and greenhouse gases released from food production by restricting the use of artificial chemical fertilisers and pesticides,” said Clio Turton, spokesperson for the Soil Association, a charity that campaigns for sustainable food and land use as well as certifying organic produce in the UK.

“Our research has also found that if all UK farmland was converted to organic farming, at least 3.2 million tonnes of carbon would be taken up by the soil each year – the equivalent of taking nearly one million cars off the road,” added Turton.

The main criticism levelled at organic agriculture is that it leads to lower yields and puts crops at risk of disease. So would this change clear cars off our roads and food off our plates?

Turton points out that while there are 1 billion under nourished people globally, there are also 1 billion overweight, suggesting that the issue is as much about distribution as production.

A cereal bank in Niger where a patchy harvest contributed to rising food prices. (Source: UN Photo/WFP/Phil Behan)

“Organic and other agro-ecological farming systems can help the world feed itself, but as well as changing our farming systems, we need to eat differently, feed our livestock differently, and waste less food,” she said.

So how is the agricultural world responding?

“There are lots of signs that farmers globally are becoming more concerned with sustainable practices, whether in the uptake of approaches like integrated pest management and min-till, or indeed the rapid growth of organic farming worldwide,” says Turton.

Encouraging this continued sustainable trend is tricky however as not all that glitters is green.

“The challenge for us all, and particularly for policy makers and the food sector, is to provide a regulatory and market environment that channels that interest in the most effective direction. Biofuels is a case in point, where green sounding policies used farmers’ business nous and goodwill to support a massive own goal for climate change and food security.”

Paying for change

The CGIAR, a global agricultural research partnership, says prompting change in developing countries will require a persuasive argument.

“Poor farmers will not get on board with greenhouse gas cuts unless there are major incentives for them,” says Vanessa Meadu, spokesperson for CGIAR’s Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security programme.

“These incentives can include payments from the carbon market but they must also help enhance day-to-day life. For example, planting trees on farms can help reduce carbon emissions but for a poor farmer, trees are most valuable because they provide fruit, fodder, timber, shade and additional, diversified income,” she explains.

“They are adjusting their farming activities to climate changes, but not necessarily fast enough or in the most effective way,” says Meadu. “Farmers have been adjusting to changing conditions for thousands of years but the shifts brought by climatic changes are unprecedented and they may not have the tools to adjust nor any way to know what kind of changes are coming up.”

Farmers clearly have many options and lots of hard decisions to make as the conditions under which they operate become increasingly unpredictable and turbulent.

Helping them make the right decisions is a huge responsibility for governments, civil society and the research community and one that will impact us all.

RTCC VIDEO: Bernhard Kiep, New Holland Agriculture on the benefits of no-till farming

The post Can farmers fight climate change, lower their CO2 emissions and keep the world’s growing population fed? appeared first on Climate Home News.

Today we look at how the conservation and sustainable use of Prunus Africana is improving the lives of small-scale farmers in Africa.

The African Cherry tree Prunus Africana has medicinal properties that have earned it a valued place in small-scale farming communities. Scientists at Bioversity International with partners are studying the conservation and sustainable use of this species in an effort to help rural communities improve livelihoods.

The African Cherry tree can play a crucial role in local economies is managed sustainably. (Source: Barbara Vinceti, Bioversity International)

The African Cherry tree is an evergreen tree species that grows in the mountains of sub-Saharan Africa, especially Kenya, Madagascar and Cameroon. Chemicals extracted from the bark of the tree are used in pharmaceutical products to treat enlarged prostate (benign prostatic hyperplasia), a common condition that affects up to half of men over the age of 50. This market demand provided an important source of income for small-holder farming communities, especially in Cameroon. In 2007 alone, its annual export trade was worth 1.3 million euro, with around 4000 tonnes of bark exported annually to Europe.

All of the traded bark has been harvested from wild trees. However, overharvesting of bark from wild trees led to a ban on international trade of the tree’s bark in 2007. Without the trade, many local communities struggle to earn any income, many of them living in harsh subsistence farming conditions.

But in spite of the ban, some smallholder farmers have continued to plant seedlings and maintain the forests and the biodiversity contained within it, hoping the ban will be lifted and that community plans such as improved health and education facilities can be realized.

Mr. Peter, a Cameroon farmer who has been planting Prunus Africana trees for 18 years, said: “I do it because I love it. But of course, I hope harvesting can begin again soon so I can earn a decent income for my family.”

For the restrictions to be lifted, EU regulators needed evidence that sustainable harvesting techniques will be successfully adopted to avoid overharvesting in the future. Bioversity International and partners are helping to share information on how this tree can be harvested sustainably. Local farmers associations and extension workers know how to harvest the bark so that trees are not killed or significantly damaged. In addition, farmers in Cameroon have planted many African Cherry trees to eventually supplement or replace the dependence on wild harvest.

Barbara Vinceti - Bioversity International Chemicals extracted from the bark of the tree are used in pharmaceutical products to treat enlarged prostate, benign prostatic hyperplasia. (Source: Barbara Vinceti, Bioversity International)

With the objective of conserving the species for future benefits and improving livelihoods now, three CGIAR centres (CIFOR, ICRAF and Bioversity International) have conducted studies and developed guidelines for sustainable management and conservation of the species.

The information produced by these centres has contributed to having the trade ban partially lifted, which allows exports to flow to Europe again, improving the livelihoods of small-scale farmers who depend on this tree as a source of income.

In addition, Bioversity international and partners have analysed genetic diversity throughout the species’ range to identify areas of highest conservation concern.

The analyses showed that the highest genetic diversity both in genetic markers and bark chemistry was found in Kenya, Madagascar and Cameroon, showing that these areas need to be targeted as a high priority for conservation.

Scientists looked at how the distribution of suitable habitat for the species is likely to change with changing climate and found that the area that is predicted to be suitable for Prunus Africana by 2050, based on projected climate conditions, will be less than half of the area that is currently suitable for the species. The populations in Cameroon appear to be especially vulnerable, adding urgency to the need for conservation of their genetic resources.

Bioversity International uses agricultural biodiversity to improve people’s lives. We carry out global research to seek solutions for three key challenges: Sustainable Agriculture, Nutrition, Conservation.

Partners for this project included the Federal Research and Training Centre for Forests, Natural Hazards and Landscape, Vienna, Austria, and national partners from nine collaborating countries.

The post Rio+20 Business Focus: Kenya, Madagascar and Cameroon focus on preserving life-giving African cherry tree appeared first on Climate Home News.

A young Somali refugee at a sprawling camp established across the border in Ethiopia. (Source: UN/Eskinder Debebe)

A new drought warning has been issued for the Horn of Africa following a meeting of experts in Rwanda.

The region suffered its worst drought in six decades last year and now the Intergovernmental Authority on Development Climate Prediction and Applications Center (ICPAC) has predicted below average rainfall in the March-May rainy season.

If proved correct, the results on food security in the region could be serious, a UN official cautioned.

“This is not good news for farmers in areas which have been affected by agricultural drought in recent years,” said Youcef Ait-Chellouche, Deputy Regional Coordinator of the UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR).

“We must plan for the probability that rainfall will be erratic and there will be long dry spells which will impact on crop production and food security,” he added.

It is difficult to directly link the droughts the Horn of Africa has suffered to climate change. Continued political unrest in the region allied to poor farming techniques and a reliance on livestock are all contributing factors.

Research does however suggest that climate change will make rainfalls increasingly unpredictable, with growing periods for crops declining by up to 20% come the end of the century.

The 30th Greater Horn of Africa Climate Outlook Forum (GHACOF 30) in Kigali, Rwanda, considered how the prospect of recurring uncertainty in rainfalls could be mitigated for.

Two years of drought and the recurrence of conflict in Somalia have compounded the situation.

“People’s resilience and coping capacity has been eroded by the last two difficult years especially in Somalia so it’s clear that we must act now,” said Ait-Chellouche. “The general consensus from this meeting is that the Horn of Africa is still very much at risk.”

According to the World Food Programme, there are currently 925 million undernourished people. Increasing pressure on agriculture by climate change could make the situation worse.

RELATED VIDEO: Rodney Cooke from the International Fund for Agricultural Development explains how farmers in Africa are adapting to the effects of climate change.

Rodney Cooke, Director, International Fund for Agricultural Development from Responding to Climate Change on Vimeo.

The post New Horn of Africa drought warning appeared first on Climate Home News.

Former US President Bill Clinton and Microsoft founder Bill Gates are among those supporting innovation in agriculture. (Source: UN)

While many of the goals and good intentions of the green movement have not changed, technology has allowed the methods to advance significantly. 

Writing exclusively for RTCC, Dr Darren Hughes of the Rothamsted Institute introduces the new generation of ‘techno-greens’.

For those of you old enough to remember, Tom and Barbara Good were the iconic ‘green’ couple from the BBC’s mid-1970s sitcom The Good Life.

Decades before terms like sustainability and climate change were mainstreamed, Tom and Barbara were doing their bit to lessen the negative impact humans have on their environment by being more self-sufficient and seeking natural alternatives to consumer products.

Much credit should be given to the Goods. Whist their lifestyle was considered “alternative” and comedic in the 70s, they can also be considered as being well ahead of their time, influencing an entire generation to think ‘green’.

Today, nearly 40 years on, their messages still resonate. Whilst Tom and Barbara did try and embrace modern technologies, for example Tom’s fairly disastrous methane-powered car, they did not have, nor could they imagined, the technologies at our disposal today.

Meet the tablet-wielding techno-greens 

Technology has been embraced by activists, academics and NGOs in the green movement. (Source:Flickr/Rightthinkingbrain)

Yet, even today there are those of a particular generation or persuasion who believe that the only way to move forward is to go backwards.

That is, some people in the community of the environmentally conscious (those who consider themselves to be “green”), still feel that a regression toward simplicity is the way forward, or (if you’ll pardon the pun) to go back to the ‘good’ old days.

Fortunately, there is also a more youthful generation of tablet-wielding, smart phone-holding, technology-savvy ‘techno-greens’, who believe that it is only with the appropriate use of technology that we will be able to tackle the many complex, interwoven issues that will allow humans to adapt to and mitigate climate change. Whilst no spring chicken, I would be proud to consider myself a ‘techno-green’.

There are already an amazing array of technologies that exist now, for example the technologies that allow us to harness energy from wave, wind and the sun, or systems and machinery which allow us to utilise energy far more efficiently, GPS and clever water sensors that allow highly efficient precision farming, even the technologies supporting social media that allow us to take Responding to Climate Change’s messages to new audiences (see my earlier blog). These are to name a few.

What’s more the progress of technology is so rapid that we have stuff of science fiction waiting for us round the corner.

And yes, this does include genetic modification of plants. Love it, or loathe it, there is no doubt that this type of technological tool does offer us new possibilities.

The arguments raging over GM crops are well rehearsed and available elsewhere e.g. in Mark Lynas’ blog.

I must admit to being a little bored by the arguments as to whether GM is right or wrong, good or bad. The only thing that matters to me is whether GM technology will allow us to produce crops that benefit our heath, the environment and the resource poor, faster or better than other conventional techniques.

My hope is that this ‘techno-green’ generation are coming of age and getting themselves into more influential positions in academia, government and industry and will provide some ballast to the arguments posed by some of the noisier technophobe Luddites.

Death and progress

The famous scientist, Max Planck, rather brutally explained what happens when there is a paradigm shift: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

That said, I also urge a bit of caution to the techno-greens, that some of the wisdom of simplicity is not lost. Ironically, it is the complex technology that allows us to have simple lifestyles!

Although historically, it is also the farmer who has led the way for rapid and dynamic adoption of technology into their business. The farm has inadvertently become the experimental platform where traditional knowledge and modern technologies combine.

Tom and Barbara Good were not wrong; their fundamental principles were the same as ours, for humans to coexist more symbiotically with their environment.

But technology has given us a real opportunity to do this better now. I believe it is the technology-savvy generation that will make this happen, so move over Tom and Barbara and let the ‘techno-greens’ have a go.

Dr Darren Hughes is head of communications and public policy for Rothamsted Research

The post Meet the techno-greens appeared first on Climate Home News.