Buyers vs. Sellers

Something that has caught my attention in the literature was Staatz et al.'s suggestion that African smallholders are both the net sellers AND the net buyers of food. Their study of food security in Mali found a record crop harvest in 1989 that led to a surplus of grain. Thus, the government heavily promoted exports in order to boost prices at farm-level, and increase the incomes of the smallholders producing the grain - the net sellers, located in the climatically favourable southeastern region. However, this caused conflict in another region of Mali: the more arid northern area, where farming is less feasible and food such as staple crops are mostly purchased. Putting higher prices on basic food staples, while benefiting those southeastern smallholders, negatively impacted people, particularly poor people, in the northern regions of Mali - the net buyers. In some cases, local officials even attempted to block grain exports as they passed through the northern zones. Here we can see a dilemma constitutive to food policy in many countries, but particularly severe in Africa due to sheer number of rural smallholders: how to reconcile the conflicting needs and interests of net sellers and net buyers of crops, when they may live in the same country, or even the same region?

When considering the variability of Africa's rainfall (see Access Not Amount: Africa's Uncultivated Land) one must not solely focus on how the amount and distribution of water impacts food production. Look further, and it affects the heterogenous means by which individuals and households achieve food security: by growing their own crops, as in wetter southeastern Mali, or relying on markets, like arid northern Mali. Further still, and this impacts the policy interests of individuals, households and regions. Measures of food security have an important role in this discussion as they inform policy and direct interventions such as subsidies or aid. However, overly simplistic measures may present a uniform picture when, as we have seen, there are variable and context-dependent routes to achieving food security, and profiles of food security itself. According to Staatz et al. (1990) commonly used indicators often poor predictors of food security. Consequently, the resulting policy may be overly uniform and ineffective. The measures and indicators of food security need to be improved, for example to be more area-specific; this will be discussed in-depth in a subsequent post. Furthermore, there should be greater focus on strengthening features of agriculture that encourage adaptability and dynamism. Improving productivity, rural markets and agricultural infrastructure can help to decouple individual and household food security from the fluctuations in production due to climate and water availability. For areas even less proximate to food production, it is important to ensure functioning markets outside of, or linked to, agriculture that allow a reliable income stream so food can be purchased. Africa is perhaps set apart from other countries by the significant presence of people growing, selling and buying the same food. Therefore, it may require less strong, static and centrally controlled food policy, and more investment into institutions and organisations that are flexible, and can be controlled locally or regionally. 

Up for discussion: Does food security lessen the impact of water scarcity through 'virtual water'?

A Consideration of Agricultural Value Chains, and Their Relevance to Africa

What is an agricultural value chain?

“The focus should be on the full value chain – from farm to fork, not just production”¹. Claudius Kurtna, a fish farmer from Kenya, highlights in simple terms a concept that is hard to delineate in the literature. While there is no universal definition of the ‘agricultural value chain’, I will be operating under the FAO’s characterisation of the value chain as identifying the set of actors and activities that bring a basic product from production to final consumption². At each stage, or link of the chain, value is added to the product: through processing, packaging, storage, transport, distribution and marketing. While value chain models are inherently market-based, they have emerged alongside the realisation that economic liberalisation in the 1980s and 1990s, accompanied by state withdrawal from agriculture, has not translated into significant poverty reduction². This newer discourse focuses on food security and sustainability, and has been compounded by the global food price crisis in 2007-08, and the threat of climate change. Producers, particularly small-scale and of staple crops, are now seen as central players^2,3.

In my opinion, applying a value chain model to food production in Africa is beneficial for several reasons. Firstly, it is inherently bottom-up, as it begins with the producer, and inclusive. It also clearly identifies current barriers to food security in Africa; considering the ‘chain’ as a whole allows us to see the challenges at each stage, which promotes holistic and sustainable improvements. Finally, as it is couched in the realm of business and markets, it promotes efficiency and adaptability. This not only applies to the industrial processes of production and distribution, but also to the inputs into the chain, of which water is one. Therefore, this body of this post will be divided into two parts: the first part will aim to illustrate the points above by discussing food storage as a stage in the chain that has challenges and opportunities specific to Africa; the second will broadly and briefly consider the role of water in the value chain.

           

Storage: hidden barrier?

Often highlighted in literature on African agriculture is the need to invest in infrastructure, however this largely focuses on roads, electricity and telecommunications. I only considered the necessity of storage for farming when I heard Dr Annie Kinwa-Muzinga discuss women and agriculture on an episode of the radio show Congo Live⁴. Without storage there is waste: according the FAO, a third of all food produced in sub-Saharan Africa is lost before it reaches the market⁶. This is due to storage that is contaminated, infested with pests, or of inadequate capacity. Poor quality storage at the transport stage means that produce, particularly staple crops like grain and oilseed, simply spills from the back of dilapidated trucks⁷. Another challenge is ‘forced commerce’: poor smallholders have to sell almost all of their crops at harvest time for low prices, because they are unable to store them⁵. Without investment into the infrastructure that links each stage of the value chain, the benefits of market involvement will not be evenly distributed. Private traders will benefit form these low prices, and poor smallholders will be left without^5.

Beyond the necessity of storage to sustain the farmer, it can be considered as an opportunity to add value to produce directly from farms. Kurtna, the aforementioned Kenyan fish farmer, makes high-protein, high-energy biscuits out of his harvest¹. These have a long shelf life, thus can be stored far longer and with greater ease than fresh fish, and target new consumers; for example schools have already ordered the biscuits. In a similar vein is an example given by Dr Kinwa-Muzinga of a female farming cooperative in Ghana that salt or smoke the fish they catch⁴. This preserves it for longer, and makes the product more desirable and worthy of a higher price.

These examples highlight the role of agriculture beyond just food production. It is a business and an agent of positive societal change, in areas like gender equality, malnutrition and education. Catching fresh fish does not improve child education in Africa, but creating nutritious and long-lasting fish biscuits that are sold to schools might be able to. In my opinion, the value chain model reflects and encourages these connections; between different smallholders and farmers, with new consumers, and between small-scale producers and markets at different levels, from local packaging factories to global trade. We need to consider agriculture beyond the initial product.

Water as a production input, and some general conclusions

The relationship between food and water is inescapable: “no other supply chain needs or consumes a natural resource in the [same] proportions”⁸. Water is necessary at almost every stage of the agricultural value chain: to irrigate land and process produce, in packaging factories, transport and refrigeration³. Professor Tony Allan asserts that about 90% of the water needed by an individual or national economy is embedded in their food consumption, as ‘green water’, ‘food water’ or ‘virtual water’. To me, a recent entrant into this academic world, it seems obvious that viewing water as a production input into the agricultural value chain necessitates efficient and sustainable use; it is a resource with extraction costs, and it has a monetary worth that should be accounted for. However, throughout history water has been largely ignored as an economic input, due to an assumption that it is ‘free’ by producers and an overwhelming push for cheap food by consumers and governments⁸.

For these reasons, Allan calls for a paradigm change around water use. If the majority of water is used to produce food, then the natural managers of water are not hydrologists and governments, but farmers. Yet, farmers have not been provided with the necessary resources to both sustain a secure livelihood and “[steward] the water ecosystems on which society itself depends”⁸.

To me, the perspective of agricultural value chains clearly highlights where there needs to be investment to support African farmers. There is infrastructure at every link of the chain that needs to be improved to make agriculture a successful business. Furthermore, infrastructure must come before intensification; any kind of ‘Green Revolution for Africa’ will be futile and damaging if there is nowhere to store the surplus grain. While the agricultural value chain is just a concept, and a complex one at that, it provides an alternative way of looking at food and water in Africa that has the possibility of being profit-oriented and sustainable, with a role for farmers, private corporations and state regulation in turn.

References

¹ BBC Africa. 2011. Why young Africans are swapping the office for the farm. Accessed 15/11/16 from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-36914887

² Elbehri A & Lee M. 2011. The role of women producer organizations in agricultural value chains: lessons from Africa & India. FAO: Rome.

³ Besada H & Werner K. 2015. An assessment of the effects of Africa’s water crisis on food security and management. Int J Wat Res Dev. 31(1): 120-33.

⁴ Congo Live, 2015. Gender issues in agriculture in DRC and across Africa. Accessed 10/11/16 from: https://www.mixcloud.com/congolive2/gender-issues-in-agriculture-in-drc-and-across-africa-dr-annie-kinwa-muzinga/

⁵ Havnevik K, Bryceson D, Birgegård LE, Matondi P & Beyene A. 2007. African Agriculture and the World Bank: Development or Impoverishment? Nordic Africa Insitute: Uppsala.

FAO. 2011. Global food losses and food waste – Extent, causes and prevention. FAO: Rome.

⁶ Wildeboer E & Bosch P. 2015. Why we must invest in local food storage in sub-Saharan Africa. Guardian sustainable business. Acessed 20/11/16 from: https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/jan/15/invest-local-food-storage-sub-saharan-africa

⁷ Allan JA. 2015. Water and Food Security: Food-water and Food Supply Value Chains. In Antonelli M & Greco F (eds.), The Water We Eat, Springer Water: Switzerland.

Urban Agriculture in Nairobi, Kenya

Urban agriculture (UA) is defined as the production, processing and selling of food in and around cities. The specific type of UA that appropriates unused open spaces emerged as a growing practice in the late 1970s, linked to escalating poverty, rising food prices and shortages¹. This was concomitant with increasing population density and economic downturn in much of Africa, exacerbated by structural adjustment policies that decreased government spending and devalued currency. Attitudes towards UA have fluctuated, alongside the wider discourse of African development: as a practice associated with the poor and marginalised, it has been excluded from aims of modernity; it has been undermined as part of the ‘informal’ sector, with little potential for economic growth or independence; it has, more recently, been touted as a sustainable solution that showcases the best of ‘indigenous’ agriculture. UA is clearly an important practice in many African urban centres; it should not be ignored or romanticised, but understood in terms of its contributions and its problems. A limited range of urban agriculture’s costs and benefits will be discussed below, framed by the case study of Nairobi, Kenya and with a focus on the role of water.

Nairobi is a prime UA location for several reasons: historically, colonial ambitions of making it a ‘green city’ with ‘sanitary buffer zones’ (to keep mosquitoes from people, and Africans from Europeans) left swathes of open land¹; furthermore, Nairobi has seen huge urban population growth and an expansion of the city limits that absorbed formerly rural farming areas^{1, 3}. In the late 1980s it was estimated 20% of households in Nairobi practised urban farming; recent estimates are hard to find, but its prevalence is likely to have increased with population density and poverty¹. Farming seems to be practised everywhere possible, from roadsides to the gaps between railway tracks¹. It is disputed whether UA in Nairobi is predominantly for subsistence or cash income^{2, 4}. Subsistence agriculture is largely associated with women, and over 60% of urban farmers in Nairobi are female². While commercial agriculture is often the aim of developers, subsistence farming makes important contributions to the livelihood of the whole household, particularly in terms of nutrition and food security. While all socioeconomic groups practise UA, it is primarily the remit of poor households¹.

The role of water in UA is seldom discussed, perhaps because water and agriculture are only married in more rural images of river basins, large irrigation schemes and dams. For this kind of farming, water is decidedly a ‘production input’ rather than a natural resource². This might be because it is not often from a natural source; in Nairobi for example, water for irrigation is conveyed mainly from Nairobi River and sewers². While this is cost-effective and reduces waste, contamination is a major issue in urban irrigation and can pose serious health risks. Water from the Nairobi River has levels of faecal coliform bacteria similar to that drawn directly from the sewers; a staggering 19,000X the WHO recommended levels for irrigation water². While there is the potential for simple and low-cost sanitation treatments, these might require group cooperation unless carried out individually before use, as well as government regulation; to regularly check water quality, and ensure consumers that what they are paying for is clean and safe².

Methods of conveyance in Nairobi include open channels and motorised pumps, but water scarcity is a major barrier to irrigation, especially as soil moisture and rainfall are low². Water availability could be improved by the building of small dams in peri-urban areas (where there is more space) and rainwater harvesting in the denser parts of the city. However both of these require funding or credit, technical support and collective action. Agricultural collectives or cooperatives can have multiple benefits, but the potential for group formation might vary spatially. In peri-urban areas small plots are controlled by individual farmers or households, leading to competition for resources and trade², however intra-urban farmers tend to cultivate community land, so cooperation is necessary from the get-go.

Limited land and water availability make UA less common in the most densely populated areas of the city: informal or ‘slum’ settlements. These are also the areas that could benefit dramatically from small-scale urban farming, especially to combat malnutrition. This has lead to new innovations in UA, for example Kibera sack farming⁵. Kibera, located in Nairobi and one of Africa’s largest slums, has recently taken up a form of ‘vertical’ farming that uses sacks filled with manure, soil, and small stones than encourage drainage. From the tops and sides of the sacks, vegetables such as kale, spinach, tomatoes and onions are grown. Sack farms are cheap, and save water by retaining soil moisture. This is a great example of the government’s relatively recent engagement with UA, as it is an initiative of the National Youth Agency⁶.

I have attempted to briefly highlight some of the main issues with water use in UA, as well as its potentially extensive benefits. In my opinion, two overarching themes emerge. First: the practises of UA vary extensive within the boundaries of the city; programmes and policies should be willing to engage with this heterogeneity, tailoring interventions and support to specific areas rather than implement sack farming, or small dams, or agricultural cooperatives universally. Innovations often emerge from specific, localised problems and this should be encouraged. Second: while NGOs and donors can have an important role in funding and technical support where necessary, government promotion and regulation is essential. Urban farmers may lack incentives to care for the land they use if the government does not acknowledge them, and regulation is necessary to ensure producers and consumers are not exposed to unnecessary health risks. This appears to be improving in Nairobi with the passing of the 2014 Nairobi County Urban Agriculture Promotion and Regulation Bill, which both encourages the use of vacant land and recognises the need for legislation. Urban agriculture already supports many livelihoods, not just in Kenya, but needs to be recognised as flawed, and always considered as inextricably tied to its local context.

¹ Foeken D & Mboganie Mwangi A. 1998. Farming in the city of Nairobi. African Studies Centre Working Paper. 30: 1-37.

² Cornish GA & Lawrence P. 2001. Informal irrigation in peri-urban areas: A summary of findings and recommendations. DFID’s Water KAR Project R7132. Report OD 144. Wallingford, UK.  

³ Nairobi: Impacts of Urban Growth. UNEP. Accessed 5/11/16 from: http://www.unep.org/pdf/poster_nairobi.pdf

⁴ Memon PA & Lee-Smith D. 1993. Urban Agriculture in Kenya. Canadian Journal of African Studies. 21(1): 25-42.

⁵ Gallaher CM, Kerr JM, Njenga M, Karanja NK & WinklerPrins A. 2013. Urban agriculture, social capital, and food security in the Kibera slums of Nairobi, Kenya. Agriculture and Human Values. 30(3):389-404.

⁶  Mayoyo P. 2015. How to grow food in a slum: lessons from the sack farmers of Kibera. The Guardian. Accessed 1/11/16 from: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2015/may/18/how-to-grow-food-in-a-slum-sack-farmers-kibera-urban-farming

A Case for Sustainable Markets: Machakos, Kenya

Introduction

A prevailing debate in many studies of development is the Malthusian approach, which asserts the detrimental impact of population growth on the environment, against Boserupian: the idea that population growth creates enough technological innovation to sustain itself.

The case of the Machakos District supports the latter; it went from degradation to sustainability despite dramatic population growth. Established as the first administrative centre for the British colony (before the creation of Nairobi, around 50km away) Machakos is an area of hilly, semi-arid terrain. In 1930, with a population of 250,000, it was near barren: a combination of droughts, intensive livestock grazing, shifting cultivation and removal of woodland had heavily eroded the topsoil and depleted vital nutrients. Machakos was seen as far in excess of the land’s carrying capacity, and was condemned to a terminal decline in crop yields.

  

Then, see Machakos 60 years later: the population has risen to 1.5million and despite land expansion population density has increased dramatically. At the same time, agricultural output has increased from 0.4 tons per capita (1932) to 1.2 (1987) and from 10 to 110 tons per km². Food sufficiency and living standards have improved. This has also been achieved despite a tricky climate of frequent, unpredictable droughts and topographically variable rainfall that is distributed bimodally in December-January and March-April.

How did Machakos achieve its success?

Conservation projects began in the 1930s, and in the 1940s terracing was made compulsory by the colonial government. However, the combination of enforced community work and the unknown effects of terracing demotivated many of the local people. Following independence, a new soil and water conservation campaign was launched in the 1970s. Its uptake was greater; likely due to concern about low crops yields and food security in an uncertain future. The project received multilateral support from local government, the Ministry of Agriculture and a donor agency (Swedish International Development Agency). The primary focus was the building of bench terraces, formed by throwing land from a ditch up-slope. Once several of these embankments are formed, the land between is left to level off. Bench terraces conserve soil, prevent further erosion and increase soil moisture by essentially keeping the water in place between each embankment. They also avoid wasting land, as the waterlogged ditches can be used for fruit trees and the sloping banks for fodder crops. While low maintenance in the long term, bench terraces require substantial labour mobilisation for the initial set up. In Machakos, mwethya groups provided this: community work parties that focused their efforts on private farms in turn. Thus, the project looked beyond individual households and sourced motivation from the community’s common aim of higher yields. It is important to note that the majority of mwethya workers are women, as the men are often engaged in off-farm work.

Machakos also provides other examples of so-called ‘indigenous’ agricultural techniques that are resilient, sustainable and adapted to the variability of the climate. Mortimore et al. cite the example of a single farm, belonging to former waiter Mr. Musyoki, which used the following techniques alongside bench terraces:

• Cut-off drains with bananas planted in the pits
• Diversion of roadside run-off for crop use
•  Conservation tillage (leaving the previous year’s crop residue on the fields)
•  Mixed cropping
•  Live fencing (e.g. hedges) for windbreak
•  Supplemental irrigation from pond storage
• Mulching for fertilizer
• Grafting of trees e.g. for resilience

Livestock was also important in conservation. Machakos went from common land subject to shifting cultivation, to private and enclosed plots. This limited farmers’ abilities to freely graze their animals. Several adaptions developed, such as the use of crop residues as fodder, planting suitable grasses on seriously degraded land, and a switch to stationary stall-feeding. This kind of dynamism and flexibility is integral to successful and sustainable conservation and intensification.

Conclusion

Up to now, I have focused on the actual techniques used on the farms, but to conclude I would like to look at the wider enabling context. Market principles, and the literal markets, facilitated and promoted change in Machakos. Trading in the local open-air market, and the proximity to the larger markets of Nairobi, allowed households to buy and sell depending on their specific demands. Income was diversified; from regular income provided by meat and milk to off-farm work. Alongside subsistence agriculture, cash crops (mainly coffee) were grown, and the cash invested into tools and infrastructure. Mutually beneficial connections were made between markets; for example canning factories provided credit, incentives and knowledge to fruit and vegetable farmers. Circular migration was also important, as the external labour market employed people and returned them with education and new ideas. In the case of Machakos, market engagement echoed the flexibility and responsiveness necessary for farming in a variable climate. 

An obvious caveat to this success story of modern development is the applicability of these techniques to other contexts. Machakos’ success relative to the rest of sub-Saharan Africa was due, in part, to its proximity to Nairobi, a conservation system (terracing) that had been established (albeit not accepted) for a long time, and already-present labour groups in the mwethya. Also, the poorest household may not feel the benefits of Machakos-style projects, for example female-headed households that cannot afford to release the labour. Furthermore, while Machakos was touted as a success story in the 90s, it is hard to find research on its present state. Further population growth is likely, due to a youthful age structure despite typical family size decreasing. Michael Mortimore, a leading researcher into the area, predicted more intensification: new and repaired roads, electrification of houses and workshops, and greater diversification in labour and incomes. Looking at local news stories and government mandates indicates that Machakos is now aiming for international investment. Hopefully this will proceed without compromising the evident success of linking small-scale practices with each other, and with wider markets. Machakos embodies the general principles that connecting farming systems to individual household economies is effective to improve food security and water conservation. It also reiterates the importance of including women in agricultural development: ensuring their participation in planning, gearing education towards them, and empowering them to lobby for what they need. At the simplest level, supporting and intensifying what is already there.

Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. Looking after our land...the national soil and water conservation project -  Machakos District. FAO Corporate Document Repository. Accessed 24/10/16 from: http://www.fao.org/docrep/x5301e/x5301e06.htm#1.%20the%20national%20soil%20and%20water%20conservation%20project%20%20%20mackakos%20district

Government of Machakos. Department of Water and Irrigation. Accessed 24/10/16 from: http://www.machakosgovernment.com/GovernmentDepartmentsMachakos.aspx?DptID=5

Mortimore M & Tiffen M, 1992. Environment, population growth and productivity in Kenya: a case study of Machakos District. Development Policy Review. 10(4): 359-87. 

Mortimore M, Tiffen M & Gichuki F, 1993. Sustainable growth in Machakos. ILEIA Newsletter. 9(4): 6-10.

Mortimore M, Tiffen M & Gichuki F, 1994. More People, Less Erosion: Environmental Recovery in Kenya. Wiley, Chichester. 

Mutinda M, 2016. Light of hope for Machakos citrus farmers. HiviSasa. Accessed 24/10/16 from: http://www.hivisasa.com/machakos/agriculture/158864

Zaal F & Oostendoorp RH, 2002. Explaining a miracle: Intensification and the transition towards sustainable small-scale agriculture in drylands Machakos and Kitui Districts, Kenya. World Development. 30(7): 1271-87. 

The Blue Revolution

'The Green Revolution Revisited and The Road Ahead' - Norman E. Borlaug, 2000

Norman Borlaug won the 1970 Nobel Peace Prize for his role as the 'father of the Green Revolution', but his 30th anniversary speech focussed on the shortcomings of rapid agricultural expansion and future implications. I want to highlight two interesting points he raised:

(1) A need to depart from treating water as a "free good" and "God-given right" - instead pricing it in relation to the cost of delivery, to incentivise efficient use. This both echoes and contradicts Richard Taylor's point in lecture 2 about the differences in how humans treat water compared to oil or coal. Water access has multiple social and environmental barriers, compared to, say, solar energy; in this sense, one could argue it is not truly a renewable resource. Much like the 'contraction and convergence' argument in relation to carbon emissions, should Africa be told to use water sustainably after the West (and others) have used it freely and unlimitedly to develop?

(2) He calls for a 21st century 'Blue Revolution' to complement agricultural expansion, saying that water use should be "wedded" to land use. Instead of prioritising fertiliser and seeds, with an 'add water and stir' mentality, water use should be productive and sustainable; he calls for a focus on smaller scale, water-saving technologies, such as drip irrigation. 

Personally, I'm more inclined to think that we should not see sub-Saharan Africa's (SSA) lack of irrigation and low yields as a delay in catching up with the rest of the world. It is an area that has been doing things differently: using different technologies for a different climate, and should aim to improve and support these existing agricultural systems rather than blindly replace them with, say, irrigation systems on massive scale. However, I think dual discourses emerge from the West: one of intensification and expansion to alleviate poverty at all costs, and the other espousing sustainability and a 'green' future. It is hard to know which is more problematic. Perhaps while we are all preoccupied with this, SSA has already quietly found a balance between the two. 

Access, Not Amount: Africa's Uncultivated Land

According to a 2014 Deutsche Bank report, sub-Saharan Africa has 202 million hectares of uncultivated, arable land; a majority share of the global total. Of the land that is cultivated (also around 200 million hectares), only 3% is irrigated and crop yields remain below potential and the global average (1,2). 

Physical reasons for this include the underlying geology of sub-Saharan Africa, and the variability of its climate. Beneath much of southern and eastern Africa is weathered, crystalline basement rock: this is not very transmissive, so does not provide significant groundwater discharges that could be used for large-scale irrigation (3). Secondly, sub-Saharan Africa's climate is hugely variable. The Hadley cell results in hemispheric winds that flow towards the equator, accumulating moisture on route. The intersection of these moist winds forms the inter-tropical convergence zone (ITCZ), which oscillates between north and south. The movement of the ITCZ determines the seasonality of rainfall in sub-Saharan Africa, with the exception of temperate South Africa (3). Further south and north, at the tips of the ITCZ's oscillating pattern, are areas with one distinct rainy season. At lower latitudes, such as Nairobi, the annual rainfall has a bimodal distribution. The land subjected to this is also very variable, including: mountainous rain shadows; flood susceptible lava plateaux; and basins formed by down-warping between lithospheric faults. (3). Low yields have also been associated with more anthropogenic factors, such as lacking infrastructure and soil depletion (2).

So, how can sub-Saharan Africa agriculturally expand across land, and into climates, that seem so incompatible with food security? Traditional 'development' approaches, starry-eyed with the apparent success of the Green Revolution, talk of new technologies, fertilisers and resistant seeds (2). However, there is a case instead to increase productivity on existing land, that mostly farmed by small-holders (4). A mindset of bigger, faster, and more might only be compatible with a few areas of Africa, for example those that do have the geology and groundwater supplies for large-scale irrigation. Agricultural practices in sub-Saharan African are already adapted to climate variability; is there a way to strengthen the existing techniques, such as supplementary irrigation, to ensure food security. 

This brief consideration of the current state of food production in Africa has been a roundabout journey to an important conclusion. One must also consider problems of access, from the beginning to the end of the supply chain. What incentive is there for small-scale farmers to invest into the land they cultivate, if informal ownership systems mean it could be 'transferred' away from them by the government at any moment?  What is the point of producing enough to feed sub-Saharan Africa if the population at large does have the purchasing power to buy the food, or it is exported to feed other countries? 

Over the course of this blog, I hope to explore topics including:

• Potentially problematic motivations behind an 'African Green Revolution'
• Approaches to virtual water and food imports
• The potential of small-scale irrigation, and how to work with climate variability
• Urban farming
• Land regeneration

Farming, food, land and water: is the problem of access, or amount?

1: Schaffnit-Chatterjee C, 2014. Agricultural value chains in sub-Saharan Africa. Deutsche Bank Research. Accessed 10/10 at: https://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/DBR_INTERNET_EN-PROD/PROD0000000000333152/Agricultural+value+chains+in+Sub-Saharan+Africa%3A+From+a+development+challenge+to+a+business+opportunity.pdf

2: Toenniessen G, Adesina A & DeVries J, 2008. Building an Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa. Ann NY Acad Sci. 1136: 233-42.

3: Taylor RG, 2008. Water Resources and development challenges in eastern and southern Africa. In: Bowyer-Bower T & Potts D (Eds.), East and Southern Africa: Regional Development Text, RGS-IGB Developing Areas Research Group. Addison-Wesley Longman (London). Ch. 7: 198-228.

4: Douglas K, 2015. Forget uncultivated land - Africa must produce more on existing farms. How We Made It In Africa. Accessed 11/10 at: http://www.howwemadeitinafrica.com/forget-uncultivated-land-africa-must-produce-more-on-existing-farms/