The South African government is mulling ways to improve access to food and ensure good nutrition, including proposals to increase public spending on social programmes that affect food security and market interventions.
Problems listed by the National Policy on Food and Nutrition Security approved by the cabinet include inadequate safety nets and emergency management systems to provide for those who cannot meet their immediate food needs and a lack of knowledge and resources for people to make good choices for nutritious diets, among others.
A study in 2012 found that 26 percent of households experienced hunger and 28 percent were at risk of food insecurity.
To read the article titled, “Food security on the table,” click here.Source:Times Live
According to an article articled ‘The Good and Bad of Genetically Modified Organisms’ by Peter Sunday, the African Union a few months back called for an explanation regarding the good and the bad of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) for Ugandans to decide which path to take.
Sunday states that the debate around GMOs comes at a time when 400 African organisations representing small-scale farmers, faith-based organisations, social movements, non-governmental organisations, organic producers, consumers business people have signed an African civil society petition sent to African union denouncing GMOs on the basis of lack safety data on GMOs.
He further states that major trading countries are involved in conflicts in relation to patent rights of the products produced, with others argues that GM corn can trigger health problems like allergies.
To read the article titled, “The good and bad of Genetically Modified Organisms,” click here.Source:New Vision
The World Food Programme (WFP) and the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) have launched an urgent appeal to address a funding shortfall that has already resulted in food ration cuts for a third of all African refugees.
In light of nearly 800 000 refugees in 22 African countries having their monthly food allocations reduced, most of them by more than half since mid-June, WFP appeals for US$186 million to maintain its food assistance to refugees through the end of the year, while UNHCR asks for US$39 million to fund nutritional support and food security activities to refugees in the affected countries.
A joint report by WFP and UNHCR warns that the failure to prevent continued ration cuts will lead to high levels of malnutrition, particularly among children and the most vulnerable.
To read the article titled, “New thinking needed on food aid for refugees in Africa,” click here.Source:IRIN News
Food Bank Angola (BAA) in partnership with local supermarkets held a foodstuffs raising campaign in Luanda, to contribute to the fight against hunger in the country.
BAA chief executive officer, Albina Assis, says the campaign aims to boost her organisation and therefore make the foodstuffs to reach those who need it through specialised institutions.
Assis adds that the campaign is the first conducted by BAA, adding that the items raised will be handed over to social institutions such as Mama Muxima orphanage, Centro Nossa Senhora da Boa Nova and Centre of the Association of Friendship among others.
To read the article titled, “Food Bank runs foodstuffs raising campaign,” click here.Source:All Africa
World Hunger Day, which is being observed on 28 May, is aimed at finding sustainable solutions to ending extreme hunger and poverty.
The United Nations World Food Programme estimates that there are about 842 million undernourished people in the world.
Poor nutrition causes nearly half of the deaths in children under the age of five, amounting to about 3.1 million children each year.
To read the article titled, “World Hunger Day seeks to find sustainable solutions,” click here.Source:SABC News
The United States (US) government has launched a five-year, US$100 million programme to assist more than a half-million hungry Zimbabweans.
US Ambassador to Zimbabwe, Bruce Wharton, states that his country remains committed to the welfare of Zimbabweans.
Nonprofit international development organisations, World Vision and CNFA, will implement the five-year programme in Zimbabwe's most drought-prone provinces.
To read the article titled, “USAID targets Zimbabwe food shortages, malnutrition,” click here.Source:All Africa
A Swazi-based newspaper has reported that people in rural Swaziland are about to die of hunger.
The report states that rain has been scarce this season, adding that crops have failed and food has run out.
The newspaper further quoted one unnamed elderly woman as saying that: “We are starving, literally starving my child. Just like most of the kitchens in this community right now, there is absolutely no food.”
To read the article titled, “'Starvation' to Hit Swaziland,” click here.Source:All Africa
- For centuries, biotechnology has been used to modify food for human consumption. In recent decades, scientists have created transgenic crops, (2) which are widely promoted as solutions to world hunger. Commonly cultivated genetically-modified (GM) crops exhibit traits such as pest resistance, herbicide tolerance, or both. (3) Other traits, such as drought resistance, nutrient enrichment and enhanced robustness lead to further improvements in food productivity and quality. While some countries have readily embraced GM technology (USA, Canada, China), others have taken deeply wary positions against it (Japan, France, Germany).
GM technology enables crop cultivation using less chemical and labour inputs. It also boosts agricultural production from marginal soils. (4) These qualities are especially pertinent for Africa, which is gearing up to feed a fast-expanding population on diminishing environmental resources. Yet, two decades after the commercialisation of GM technology, only four African nations are commercially cultivating GM crops.(5) Several African countries, such as Madagascar and Zambia, have banned GM food imports, including food aid, completely.(6) This CAI paper discusses why African nations appear reluctant to embrace the GM bandwagon that promises to fight hunger and poverty. It explores the extent to which GM food contributes to food security, as well as the role it plays in the sustainable development of African nations.
GM technology and food security
More than two billion people suffer nutritional deficiency,(7) and many of them live in Africa.(8) When framed in the discourse of food security,(9) the benefits of GM technology appear irresistible for many African nations. Supporters of GM technology promote the agricultural enhancements from GM cultivation as the vital boost to end hunger.(10) Apart from improving food availability, GM technology further improves access to and utilisation of food by increasing farmer incomes and enhancing the nutritional content in grains.
However, scholars attribute the persistence of famines in Africa to institutional failure and geopolitics (11) and agree that current food production is more than sufficient for meeting the calorific needs of the world.(12) Food security is not limited by food availability but by access and stability. Furthermore, about 30 percent of current food produced ends up wasted.(13) Improving food distribution to the poor, eliminating food waste and arresting over-consumption in wealthy nations advance food security through directly addressing problems with the current food system. GM technology is one of numerous pathways towards improved agricultural productivity.
However, “Agricultural technologies, however productive, cannot resolve what are by definition social, political and economic questions.”(14)
Sustainable development in Africa: Cause(s) for concern
The choice of a development pathway towards greater food security is a political one, and will ultimately be value-laden and contestable. Leaders can work at correcting the problems with current systems and institutions that have resulted in present states of social inequality and environmental degradation, or they can ignore the problems and seek new technical fixes, which may potentially introduce other problems. The precautionary approach, as prescribed in the Cartagena Protocol (15) requires the recognition of areas of uncertainty and the extent of ignorance.(16) In the presence of scientific uncertainty, precaution advocates actions to prevent potentially irreversible harm, even in the absence of scientific evidence.(17)
The results of GM cultivation in Africa so far have been largely positive, in both yield and income. Smallholder farms cultivating Bt cotton (18) in South Africa and Burkina Faso have reported net increases in farmer incomes compared with conventional cotton.(19) Improved yields, as well as cost savings on chemicals and labour, offset the higher seed and harvesting costs. However, these tests assessed only economic outcomes and neglected environmental effects. Among some of the common objections to GM crops are concerns about gene transfer to wild species (20) and the development of pesticide and herbicide resistance,(21) giving rise to super-bugs and super-weeds. These pose real and considerable risks for ecological balance as well as the future viability of agriculture. Studies on the cultivation of Bt crops in China found that the eventual rise of secondary pests necessitated increased applications of pesticide to levels matching those for conventional crops, resulting in the loss of profits for farmers.(22) It is yet premature to determine whether GM crop cultivation results in net gains or losses for African farmers.
In addition to the uncertain long-term economic effects, there are also fears of the impact on food safety arising from unintended gene mutations.(23) As GM technology develops in sophistication and complexity, regulatory oversight becomes increasingly challenging, as the associated risks could be indirect, cumulative and detectable only over long-term horizons.(24) The adoption of a precautionary approach,(25) as most African governments have done through the Cartagena Protocol,(26) is prudent, as GM-owning companies view the agricultural sectors in developing countries with immense interest. Understanding the limitations of existing knowledge (27) and managing risks responsibly within those limitations is the challenge facing current governments.
Lessons from South Africa
As a continental pioneer in GM crop cultivation, South Africa offers lessons for other African countries contemplating the use of this technology. The first of these is that extensive support needs to be provided to farmers throughout the cultivation process of GM crops. Studies have found that many South African farmers are unaware of potential environmental threats from cultivating GM crops.(28) This information gap applies to farmers in other African countries.(29) Poor compliance with requirements on chemical applications and refuge establishment by South African farmers resulted in the development of widespread resistance among stem borers to the Bt toxin.(30) Although this resistance is observed in other GM crop cultivating countries, the non-compliance accelerated the process in South Africa. Before distributing GM seeds on a large scale, African governments need to provide for the training and ongoing extension services for farmers in the appropriate management of GM crops.
Another lesson is the institutional challenges in governing and regulating GM technologies and products. With many African nations already struggling with weak institutions and lack of technical expertise, (31) the task of regulating the complex and evolving field of GM technology is no mean feat. GM monitoring is costly and time-consuming, and regulatory breaches are frequently reported in African countries. (32) A third lesson is the need for increased public funding for developing GM technology that is relevant and suitable for the local context.(33) Transnational corporations focused on markets in developed countries have funded most of the GM research to date,(34) and they own most of the commercially-available GM products. The South African model of bilateral collaborations in scientific research can promote knowledge sharing and technology development that is useful and applicable locally. (35)
A final, but no less important, lesson from South Africa is the need for transparency and broad participation in regulating GM food. Complaints about the lack of regulatory transparency and civil engagement resulted in strong opposition to GM food in Europe in 1990s.(36) Much of this resistance still persists today. In South Africa, outspoken opposition to GM food prevents widespread acceptance of such food among the public.(37) Aware of the general disconcert towards consuming GM food, corporations vehemently resist regulations requiring the labelling of food products containing GM content.(38) African nations have more at stake in the GM debate than developed countries,(39) which can decide for or against GM products based purely on ethical or philosophical grounds.
For the large pockets of African communities who lack food security, GM technology appears to answer the need for improved yields and enhanced nutritional quality. However, the environmental and health risks of the technology are not yet fully understood, and the wide aversion to GM food may limit its marketability. Moreover, food security is a multi-dimensional problem, with food availability being the area of least concern in the current global situation. A pertinent question then, is whether increasing agricultural yields under current economic and legal regimes will improve the food security of the people who have been rendered food insecure under the same structures and institutions.
Sustainable development requires addressing economic, social and environmental priorities comprehensively. Science and technology play a critical role in this.(40) However, technical solutions need to be accompanied by long-term commitment in policies towards social protection for the poor and vulnerable, without depleting environmental resources. In the quest for sustainable development, African leaders need to identify the key problems that they are trying to solve. With the environment, public health and trade relationships at stake, there is much to consider before deciding whether large-scale cultivation of GM crops is the way forward. Faced with funding and technical limitations, the policy to ‘wait and see’ could turn out to be the most appropriate one for many African nations, for now.
- Christina Cheong is a research associate with the Consultancy Africa Intelligence (CAI) This CAI discussion paper is republished here with permission from CAI, a South African-based research and strategy firm with a focus on social, health, political and economic trends and developments in Africa. For more information, see http://www.consultancyafrica.com. In addition to topical discussion papers and tailored research services, CAI releases a number of fortnightly and monthly publications, examining the latest developments in Africa, across a wide range of interest areas. Notes:
(1) Christina Cheong is a research associate with CAI, with an interest in food security and urban poverty issues. Contact Christina through Consultancy Africa Intelligence's Enviro Africa unit (email@example.com). Edited by Liezl Stretton. Research Manager: Angela Kariuki.
(2) Transgenic crops are produced by transplanting genes from foreign organisms to conventional crops in order to imbue them with desired characteristics.
(3) ‘Transgenic crops by trait’, GMO Compass, 19 January 2007, http://www.gmo-compass.org.
(4) ‘Possible benefits of GM crops in developing countries’, Nuffield Council on Bioethics, http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org.
(5) James, C., ‘Executive summary: Global status of commercialized biotech/GM Crops’, ISAAA Brief 44, 2012, http://www.isaaa.org.
(6) UNEP, 2006. Africa Environment Outlook 2 – Our Environment, Our Wealth. Progress Press Ltd, Malta. http://www.unep.org.
(7) Muthayya, S., et al., ‘The global hidden hunger indices and maps: an advocacy tool for action’, PloS one, 12 June 2013, http://www.plosone.org.
(8) ‘The state of food insecurity in the world’, FAO, IFAD and WFP, 2013, http://www.fao.org.
(9) Food security is a complex issue with several dimensions. The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) describes food security in terms of availability, access, utilisation and stability. ‘The state of food insecurity in the world’, FAO, IFAD and WFP, 2013, http://www.fao.org.
(10) Berman, J., et al., 2013. Can the world afford to ignore biotechnology solutions that address food insecurity? Plant Moelecular Biology, 83(1-2), pp. 5-19.
(11) Devereux, S., 2009. Why does famine persist in Africa? Food Security, 1(1), pp. 25-35; Molesley, W., 2012. Famine myths: Five misunderstandings related to the 2011 hunger crisis in the Horn of Africa. Dollars and Sense, March, pp. 17-21.
(12) Godfray, H.C.J., et al., 2010. Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science, 327, pp. 812-818.
(13) Cederberg, C., et al., 2011. Global food losses and food waste: Extent, causes and prevention. FAO: Rome.
(14) Zerbe, N., 2004. Feeding the famine? American food aid and the GMO debate in Southern Africa. Food Policy, 29, pp. 593-608.
(15) The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity is an international agreement on risk management arising from modern biotechnology.
(16) UNEP, 2006. Africa environment outlook 2 – Our environment, our wealth. Progress Press Ltd: Malta. http://www.unep.org.
(17) Myhr, A. and Traavik, T., 2003. Genetically modified crops: Precautionary science and conflicts of interests. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 16, pp. 227-247.
(18) Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) cotton is a GM cotton variety produced by Monsanto. It contains an insecticide that is harmful to certain insects and is one of the most popular GM crop properties.
(19) Vitale, J.D., et al., 2011. The commercial application of GMO crops in Africa: Burkina Faso's decade of experience with Bt cotton. The Journal of Agrobiotechnology Management and Economics, 13(4), pp. 320-332; Morse, S., Bennett, R. and Ismael, Y., 2004. Why Bt cotton pays for small-scale producers in South Africa. Nature Biotechnology, 22, pp. 379-380.
(20) Azadi, H., and Ho, P., 2010. Genetically modified and organic crops in developing countries: A review of options for food security. Biotechnology Advances, 28, pp. 160-168.
(21) Van den Bergh, J., and Holley, J., 2002. An environmental–economic assessment of genetic modification of agricultural crops. Futures, 34, pp. 807-822.
(22) Lang, S., 'Seven-year glitch: Cornell warns that Chinese GM cotton farmers are losing money due to 'secondary' pests’, Cornell Chronicle, 25 July 2006, http://www.news.cornell.edu.
(23) Levidow, L., 2002. Ignorance-based risk assessment? Scientific controversy over GM food safety. Science as Culture, 11(1), pp. 61-67.
(24) Hussey, K. and Dovers, S., 2013. Uncertainty. Routledge Handbook of Global Environmental Politics, pp. 231-245. Extensive animal feeding trials are conducted in developed countries to ascertain the safety of GM crops prior to marketing. See,EFSA, 2008. Safety and nutritional assessment of GM plants and derived food and feed: The role of animal feeding trials. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 46(1), pp. 2-70.
(25) Mayer, S. and Stirling, A., 2002. Finding a precautionary approach to the technological developments – Lessons for the evaluation of GM crops. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 15(1), pp. 57-71.
(26) UNEP, 2006. Africa environment outlook 2 – Our environment, our wealth. Progress Press Ltd: Malta, http://www.unep.org.
(27) Westley, F., et al., 2011. Tipping toward sustainability: emerging pathways of transformation. Ambio, 40, pp. 762-780.
(28) Kruger, M., Van Rensburg, J.B.J. and Van den Berg, J., 2012. Transgenic Bt maize: Farmers’ perceptions, refuge compliance and reports of stem borer resistance in South Africa. Journal of Applied Entomology, 136(1), pp. 38-50.
(29) Bifubyeka, E., ‘From Curitiba to African farms, spreading biosafety knowledge’, Appropriate Technology, June 2006.
(30) Kruger, M., Van Rensburg, J.B.J. and Van den Berg, J., 2012. Transgenic Bt maize: Farmers’ perceptions, refuge compliance and reports of stem borer resistance in South Africa. Journal of Applied Entomology, 136(1), pp. 38-50.
(31) Adenle, A., 2014. Stakeholders’ perceptions of GM technology in West Africa: Assessing the responses of policymakers and scientists in Ghana and Nigeria. Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Ethics, 27, pp. 241-263.
(32) ‘Below the belt, below the breadline – South Africa’s inequitable and GM contaminated bread industry’, African Centre for Biosafety, 20 May 2014, http://www.acbio.org.za; Roger, D.D. and Gone, S., 2014. Evidence of the presence of genetically modified foods in the Sudano-Sahelian Zones of Cameroon. Food and Nutrition Sciences, 5(10), pp. 922-928.
(33) Morris, J., 2011. Modern biotechnology – Potential contribution and challenges for sustainable food production in sub-Saharan Africa. Sustainability, 3, pp. 809-822.
(34) UNEP, 2006. Africa environmentoOutlook 2 – Our environment, our wealth. Progress Press Ltd: Malta, http://www.unep.org.
(35) Morris, J., 2011. Modern biotechnology – Potential contribution and challenges for sustainable food production in sub-Saharan Africa. Sustainability, 3, pp. 809-822.
(36) Frewer, L., et al., 2004. Societal aspects of genetically modified foods. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 42, pp. 1181-1193.
(37) ‘Nestle folds to consumer pressure over GMOs in South Africa’, Sustainable Pulse, 12 May 2013, http://sustainablepulse.com.
(38) Meadows, D. H., ‘Poor Monsanto’, Whole Earth Catalog, 1999, http://www.wholeearth.com.
(39) Paarlberg, R., 2010. GMO foods and crops: Africa’s choice. New Biotechnology, 27(5), pp. 609-613.
(40)Beddington, J., 2010. Food security: Contributions from science to a new and greener revolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 365, pp. 61-71.
- Climate change comes with never-before-experienced impacts. For example, crop yields and growing seasons will decrease even as changing rain patterns will worsen people’s access to water. Yet Africa’s population is projected to reach two billion in less than 37 years, and in 86 years three out of every four people added to the planet will be African.
Decreasing crop yields and increasing population will put additional pressure on an already fragile food production system. That is why experts have warned that if the current situation persists, Africa will be fulfilling only 13 percent of its food needs by 2050. This situation will further threaten about 65 percent of African workers who depend on agriculture for their livelihoods including children and the elderly, who are particularly vulnerable to food insecurity.
Hunger already affects about 240 million Africans daily. By 2050, even a change of about 1.2 to 1.9 degrees Celsius will have increased the number of the continent’s undernourished by 25 percent to 95 percent (central Africa +25 percent, East Africa +50 percent, Southern Africa +85 percent and West Africa +95 percent). The situation will be dire for children who need proper nourishment to succeed in their education. The Economic Commission for Africa (ECA) has estimated that African countries could lose between two and 16 percent of gross domestic product due to stunting of children as a result of malnutrition.
Climate-Stressed African Agriculture
Changes in climate such as higher temperatures and reduced water supplies, along with other factors like biodiversity loss and ecosystems degradation, affect agriculture. According to Science, a leading international research journal, by 2030 Southern Africa and South Asia will be the two regions in the world whose crop production is most affected by climate change. For example, while wheat varieties grow well in temperatures between 15ºC and 20ºC, in sub-Saharan Africa the average annual temperature currently exceeds this mark during the growth season. Therefore, if current climate trends continue, by 2030 wheat production is likely to decline by 10 to 20 percent from 1998 - 2002 yields.
Food insecurity will likely lead to social unrest, as has been the case in the past. For example, between 2007 and 2008, riots took place in several countries when prices of staples peaked. In 2010, hundreds of protesters took to the streets in Mozambique after wheat prices went up by 25 percent due to a global wheat shortage caused in part by wheat-crop-destroying wildfires from record heats in Russia. The increase in bread prices led to fires, violence, looting and even death.
Fears extend beyond wheat scarcity. The Africa Adaptation Gap Report by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the United Nations (UN) organ responsible for promoting sustainable use of the environment, confirmed the World Bank’s recent findings that with warming of about 2ºC, all crop yields across sub-Saharan Africa will decrease by 10 percent by the 2050s greater warming which is more likely to cause crop yields to decrease by up to 15 or 20 percent.
Further bad news for African agriculture is that by the middle of this century, wheat production could decrease by 17 percent, maize production by five percent, sorghum production by 15 percent and millet production by 10 percent. Additionally, if climate warming exceeds 3ºC, all present-day cropping areas for maize, millet and sorghum will be unsuitable for those crops. The question becomes, is Africa’s agricultural system ready to respond?
Protecting Water Resources
Increasing crop production amid climate change has been done before, and analysts believe that African countries need to incorporate this knowledge in their planning. They will also need to protect and fortify their water resources, which are critical to food security.
In the coming years, water for agriculture will be stretched to a painful extent. According to UNEP, 95 percent of agriculture relies on rainfall for water in Africa. The World Bank notes that it is very likely that by 2100 the total availability of water in all of Africa could decline by more than 10 percent. In addition, climate change threatens biodiversity and ecosystems, which are the foundation of agriculture.
Biodiversity losses and ecosystem degradation will affect the quality of the soil and the vegetation upon which livestock depends, states the World Bank, adding that potential reductions in water, biodiversity and crops should compel Africa to pay closer attention to its current food system. In short, Africa needs an approach that works with nature, not against it.
New and Better Approaches
There is a continuing argument as to whether the industrial agricultural revolution will solve some or all of Africa’s climate change problems. However, experts maintain that industrial agriculture currently accounts for one third of all greenhouse gas emissions - the very element most responsible for climate change. Additionally, they believe that the resources and infrastructure required to operate an industrial agricultural system in Africa are impractical for smallholder farmers.
New machines also mean fewer hands, which may increase joblessness while reducing wages, affecting many who depend on agriculture. Because current practices cannot meet future demands, Africa must apply new and better approaches.
In July 2013, African leaders made an ambitious pledge to end hunger by 2025. They mean to do this by encouraging farmers to move away from cash crops, fragile cropping systems and heavily fertilizer- and pesticide-dependent systems and to adopt sustainable and climate-resilient practices. According to findings by the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) nutrient depletion alone accounts for US$1 billion to US$3 billion per year in natural capital losses.
Unlocking Africa’s potential requires that policy makers in agriculture and the environment join forces with civil society and non-governmental organisations to consider options that will enable the environment and farmers to cope with climate change. One of the options being advocated is the ecosystem-based adaptation, which is to mitigate climate change impact through the use of natural systems such as drought-resistant varieties, more efficient methods of water storage and more diversity in crop rotation, says UNEP.
In Zambia, 61 percent of farmers who applied an ecosystem-based adaptation, such as natural resource conservation or sustainable organic agricultural practices, reported surplus yields. Some yields even increased by up to 60 percent, while sales of surplus crops grew from 25.9 percent to 69 percent.
In Burkina Faso, farmers are using indigenous methods to rehabilitate land. By digging small pits (locally referred to as zaï) on barren plots and filling them with organic matter, some Burkinabe farmers are able to add nutrients to the soil while enhancing groundwater storage to improve crop productivity. These farmers have reclaimed 200 000 to 300 000 hectares of degraded lands and have produced an estimated 80 000 to 120 000 additional tonnes of cereal.
Other options include protecting watersheds and reinforcing their capacity to hold water and carry it to those who need it most, using integrated pest management, which is a natural and cost-effective way of protecting crops using agroforestry, intercropping and crop rotation, which bring nutrient diversity to fields and ensure continued and improved production yields in a natural way maintaining forests and using forest foods using natural fertilisers like manure and using natural pollinators like bees, which, according to a recent study, could increase fruit yields by five percent. These alternatives are cost-effective: the project in Zambia costs only US$207 per person. Similar projects in Uganda and Mozambique cost just US$14 and US$120 per person, respectively.
A Ray of Hope
The most pessimistic forecast about the impact of climate change suggests that Africa may lose 47 percent of agricultural revenue by 2100, while the most optimistic predicts a loss of only six percent. The latter scenario depends on the assumption that climate change adaptation practices and infrastructure are already in place. But the difference between six and 47 percent is huge, which itself is a strong argument for investment in adaptations that will unlock Africa’s vast natural resources.
Analysts believe that if Africa is to fortify agriculture and curb hunger, it will need to work with the natural environment, making it more resilient and productive under climate change.
The changing climate does not have to mean greater food insecurity in Africa. Many communities across the continent are already building resilience by stimulating their existing ecosystems and available natural resource bases. Building on such good practices, and properly managing the unavoidable effects of climate change, will unlock Africa’s potential to feed itself. The future need not be a future of want.
- Dr. Richard Munang is UNEP’s Africa regional climate change coordinator. He tweets at @MTingem. Jesica Andrews is ecosystem adaptation officer with UNEP’s Regional Office for Africa. This article first appeared in the Africa Renewal Magazine – Special Edition on Agriculture.
International Food Policy Organisation suggests in a report that hunger could be eliminated by 2025 if enough resources are committed and countries scale up policies proven to work.
In the 2013 Global Food Policy Report, Shanggen Fan, director general of International Food Policy Research Institute, points out that, "Based on the successful experiences of several developing countries, we see the clear potential for ending hunger and under-nutrition by 2025 if the necessary policies and investments are adopted.
Hunger is a continuing concern in many parts of the world, particularly with food prices rising, population growth continuing and extreme weather associated with climate change affecting harvests.
To read the article titled, “Scale up policies that work to eliminate hunger by 2025 - food expert,” click here.Source:All Africa