’40 Chances: Finding Hope in a Hungry World’ by Howard G. Buffet (Simon and Schuster; October 22, 2013)
Table of Contents:
i. Introduction/Synopsis
PART I: HOWARD G. BUFFET’S BACKGROUND—AND HOW NOT TO FIGHT HUNGER
Section 1. Howard G. Buffet’s Background
1. Howard G. Buffet the Farmer
2. Howard G. Buffet the Philanthropist
Section 2. How Not to Fight Hunger
3. How Not to Fight Hunger: The Short-Term Approach
a. The Seed-and-Fertilizer Approach
b. Food Aid (and Emergency Aid)
c. Emergency Situations
PART II: THE DEVELOPMENT APPROACH
4. An Introduction to the Development Approach
Section 3. Maximizing Agricultural Yields: Improving Seeds and Farming Techniques
5. The Seeds of Development
a. The Need for Seeds
b. The Program for Africa’s Seed Systems (PASS)
6. The Green Revolution
a. The Positive Consequences of the Green Revolution
b. The Negative Consequences of the Green Revolution
i. Efforts to Recreate the Green Revolution
ii. The Reliance on Monoculture and Chemical Fertilizers
7. Plowing and Slash and Burn Agriculture
a. Plowing
b. Slash and Burn Agriculture
8. Conservation Farming: The No-Till Way
9. Conservation Farming Aid
Section 4. Connecting Subsistence Farmers to the Larger Economy
10. From Harvest to Market
a. Storage Systems
b. Transportation Links
c. Connecting Farmers to Markets
Section 5. Challenges to the Development Approach
10. Land Ownership
11. Dysfunctional and Corrupt Governments, and Armed Conflict
a. Dysfunctional and Corrupt Governments
b. Armed Conflict
PART III: THE FUTURE OF HUNGER
12. The Future of Hunger
a. The Problem: A Booming Population
b. The Solution: Conservation Farming
13. Conclusion
i. Introduction/Synopsis
In the developed world, the vast majority of us enjoy a standard of living unmatched in the history of humankind—and going hungry is the last thing on our minds. Nevertheless, it cannot be said that poverty and hunger have been eradicated in the developed world entirely (in the United States, for example, 1 in 6 are considered food insecure—including 16 million children). Still, the greatest problems with poverty and hunger continue to exist in the developing world. Indeed, despite substantial improvements over the past 30 years, poverty remains a significant issue, and nearly a billion of the world’s 7 billion people still face chronic hunger (while about twice that number are malnourished in some way)—and millions starve to death every year.
It is not that many well intentioned people and organizations have not spent a great deal of time and money trying to solve the world’s poverty and hunger issues. Indeed, over the past half century the amount of resources that have been poured into these problems is staggering. So, just why do the problems of poverty and hunger stubbornly persist?
Well, at least part of it has to do with the fact that there are several significant obstacles standing in the way—everything from armed conflict, to corrupt governments, to particular cultural practices etc. The humanitarian Howard G. Buffet has been involved in fighting poverty and hunger for upwards of 30 years, and knows these obstacles all too well. However, Buffet insists that there is yet another reason why all of the well-intentioned efforts have fallen short of reaching their ultimate goal. And that is that many of the approaches have proven to be inadequate (if not downright counter-productive).
The fact is that most of the aid flowing to the poorest parts of the world has been (and continues to be) in the form of projects that are meant to help people in the short-term. For example, NGOs commonly enter an area, drop off bags of seed and fertilizer, and then turn around and leave. This approach may help the area for a season or two, but in the end the seed and fertilizer do run out, and the community is right back to square one. Thus the approach acts more as a band-aid, than a self-sustaining solution that addresses the root causes of poverty and hunger.
Thankfully, in Buffet’s 30 years of work as a philanthropist he has learned that there is indeed a better approach, and one that stands a much better chance of rooting out poverty and hunger for good. The more effective approach is much less about aid as development—less about helping people as enabling people to help themselves.
The development approach involves linking subsistence farmers up with the larger economy, and establishing a self-sustaining ecosystem that will allow this connection to be maintained into the future. It involves things like helping to establish agricultural schools and private seed companies; working with farmers to improve farming techniques and yields (and not in a way that assumes that what has worked well in one place—or one’s own backyard—will work everywhere); establishing grain storage systems; physically connecting farmers to markets; and working with governments to establish and maintain the infrastructure (especially roads) needed to make the system work smoothly.
The development approach may be more involved and take longer to get off the ground, but it pays off in the end, as when it is done well, it only has to be done once (Buffet speaks often about NGOs needing to take an approach that ultimately puts themselves out of business).
And helping impoverished farmers join the larger economy is not just a matter of helping them help themselves. The fact is that the world’s population is continuing to grow, while we are running out of good farmland to farm. The UN estimates that in order to feed the world’s projected 9 billion people by 2050, farmers everywhere will need to increase the planet’s food production by 70%. Part of the solution to this problem must involve helping the world’s subsistence farmers to produce a surplus to help everyone.
But the solution doesn’t end there. Farmers everywhere, including in the developed world, will need to increase their yields to meet the growing demand. However—and this is important—farmers will need to increase their yields in a sustainable way. That is, they will need to do so in a way that does not degrade the soil, or threaten the world’s fresh water or woodlands—as too often happens now.
Thankfully, Buffet’s experience as a farmer (which he has been practising even longer than philanthropy) has shown him that here too there is a solution. And a big part of this solution is a very straightforward approach known as no-till farming. No-till farming is an approach that eschews tilling the soil in favor of planting nitrogen-fixing cover crops. The approach not only increases water retention, saves soil, and reduces the need for chemical fertilizers, it also helps increase yields (and thus it’s a win-win solution). Now it’s just a matter of convincing other farmers of this—which is a big part of Buffet’s project.
Here is Howard G. Buffet introducing his new book:
*To check out the book at Amazon.com, or purchase it, please click here: 40 Chances: Finding Hope in a Hungry World
PART I: BUFFET’S BACKGROUND—AND HOW NOT TO FIGHT HUNGER
Section 1. Howard G. Buffet’s Background
1. Howard G. Buffet the Farmer
It may seem odd that the son of Warren Buffet—one of the most successful (and wealthiest) stock-market investors in history—chose to be a farmer, but this is indeed the case with Howard G. Buffet. After an early start working with heavy machinery, a chance encounter with a farmer named Otto Wenz got Buffet hooked on agriculture (loc. 511-15; see also loc. 464, 535).
In 1982 (at the age of 27), Buffet moved to Omaha, Nebraska (where his family is originally from) and rented some land to farm (loc. 536). This was land that Buffet’s father had bought, and then rented back to his son—on the condition that Buffet senior be granted a healthy return. As the author explains, “when I realized in my twenties that I wanted to farm, [my father] purchased some land near Omaha—and I paid him a competitive rent that he insisted return 5 percent annually on his investment” (loc. 343).
(This little anecdote nicely captures Warren’s approach towards his son—and all of his children, really [Howard has two siblings, Peter and Susie]: support was given, but certainly not in the form of handouts. As Buffet explains, “my dad supported my education and my desire to travel. He encouraged all three of us to pursue our interests, and he gave us help and support, but few handouts” [loc. 341]. Elsewhere, Buffet touches on the reasoning behind his father’s approach to parenting. Specifically, Buffet senior did not want to raise spoiled children. As the author explains, “my dad said famously that he would never consider giving his children the bulk of his money, and people would sometimes talk about this statement as if it hinted at a rift between us. That was never the case. He had seen the children of other successful executives develop an attitude of entitlement that he did not want in his children” [loc. 951]).
In any event, by the time Buffet started farming in 1982 he already had a wife and 4 stepdaughters to support—and a son on the way (who was later named Howard Warren Buffet) (loc. 535). So it was the farming life for this young family.
Even today, while Buffet spends much of his time doing humanitarian work, he continues to farm, and feels that farming is his true calling. As the author explains, “I consider myself first and foremost a farmer. I am never happier than when I’m sitting in a tractor or a combine during planting or harvest season” (loc. 465).
2. Howard G. Buffet the Philanthropist
By the late 1980s, Buffet got his first taste of philanthropy. This came about through Buffet’s parents—and particularly Buffet’s mom (Susan Buffet). As the author explains, “in large part due to my mother’s interest and inspiration, my brother and sister and I began our first efforts in philanthropy in the late 1980s. My parents brought us together, and my dad said he was starting a family foundation. Each of us would get to determine where $100,000 a year should be donated. It was aimed primarily at giving opportunities locally: everything from the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission to the Big Brothers Big Sisters of America to the Chicano Awareness Head Start Program” (loc. 959).
The experience gave the Buffet siblings a nice introduction into philanthropy, but soon each of them found themselves wanting to do more. It was at this point, in the late 1990s, that Buffet’s parents began funding the philanthropic efforts of he and his siblings in a more comprehensive way. As the author explains, “soon we each wanted to do more. In 1999, my parents decided that it was time for us to start working with larger amounts of money to have an impact in the philanthropic area we chose. Soon after, Susie, Peter, and I each received roughly $26.5 million to launch our individual foundations” (loc. 963).
Initially, Buffet decided to concentrate his efforts in wildlife conservation (loc. 965). However, it soon became apparent to him that one of the greatest threats to conservation was the need to expand farmland in the poorer parts of the world (loc. 877-82), and thus Buffet concluded that in order to address conservation, poverty and hunger would have to be confronted first (loc. 802, 966). (This may be just as well, since, as will become clear, Buffet’s experience as a farmer has made him particularly well-suited to help fight hunger.)
Over the years, as the Buffet siblings showed themselves to be doing valuable work in philanthropy, both Warren and Susan continued to infuse funds into their foundations. First, in 2004, Buffet’s mother gave each of her children’s foundations $51.4 million. (loc. 972). The following year, Buffet’s mother died of cancer, and in her will she left an additional $51.6 million to Howard, Susie and Peter’s foundations (loc. 976). A year later, in 2006, Buffet senior made a major injection into his children’s foundations by offering $1 billion to each. Then, in 2012, on Warren’s 82nd birthday, he matched this with another billion dollars (loc. 988).
Section 2. How Not to Fight Hunger
3. How Not to Fight Hunger: The Short-Term Approach
The amount of money injected into Buffet’s foundation by his parents makes it much larger than most, and such that it does not need to depend on donors for funds. This is significant because it frees up Buffet’s foundation to work on projects that are bigger in scope, and which may take longer to show tangible results in terms of curbing poverty and hunger (loc. 997). Indeed, most donors tend to be impressed by projects that bring tangible results as quickly as possible, and thus organizations that rely on their donations tend to get tied to these types of short-term projects (loc. 2751-55, 3162-69).
This is actually a significant problem, because short-term projects often don’t address the underlying conditions that are causing the poverty and hunger to begin with. In other words, short-term projects may provide relief, but they do not provide a lasting solution. The author’s son, Howard W. Buffet, contributes several chapters to the book, and he sums up the situation this way: “having to fundraise means that the organization must show tangible progress even when working in complicated, difficult situations where improvements may not occur for some time. Thus, the tendency is to pick activities that are doable but will likely have less long-term impact, rather than evaluate what is needed so that there is something to show for the efforts [in the long-term]” (loc. 2755).
a. The Seed-and-Fertilizer Approach
A prime example of the short-term approach is the practice (still common among many NGOs) of showing up to a community, dropping off seed and fertilizer, and then turning around and leaving. The seed-and-fertilizer approach helps in the short-term to be sure, for it helps improve the size of a crop. What’s more, the crop yields seeds that can be replanted the following year. The problem, though, is that the quality of seed degenerates over time. As Buffet explains, “tired varieties [of seed] lo[se] their potency over time, as insects and diseases f[ind] their vulnerable spots” (loc. 1731). Thus, while the measure may help out for a year or two, the farmers are eventually right back to square one.
And not only that, but the practice of dropping off free seed and fertilizer renders farmers the passive recipients of aid, and sets up the expectation that this is how aid works. In other words, it tends to encourage a condition of dependency. As Buffet explains, “once bags of food aid or other forms of assistance arrive, many… people in difficult situations adjust their views and believe it is the new way they will eat. It is a cultural response to new resources coming into their territory: ‘If you start feeding me, I will let you keep feeding me; and if you stop feeding me, I will demand to know why.’” (loc. 2644; see also loc. 1801, 2657, 4355). A perpetual condition of dependency is exactly what we don’t want in the fight against hunger.
b. Food Aid (and Emergency Aid)
And if you think that the seed-and-fertilizer approach is counter-productive, sending food directly is often even worse. Take the USAID food program, for example. This program was originally launched in 1954 under the Agricultural Trade Development Assistance Act (loc. 2825). The program was designed to help fight world hunger, while at the same time benefitting both the American farming industry and the American shipping industry. Specifically, “the program was to use American grain surpluses to fight world hunger and help our farmers find markets for their crops—and support our shipping industry as well, as Congress eventually called for at least 75 percent of the aid to be transported on US-flagged vessels” (loc. 2828).
Now, as we shall see in a moment, Buffet does agree that food aid is appropriate under certain circumstances (particularly in crises caused by natural disasters or armed conflict); however, as a sustainable solution to world hunger, the food aid strategy is just as doomed to failure as the seed-and-fertilizer approach (and is possibly even worse, since it demands even less input on the part of the farmers themselves).
But that’s not the worst part about the USAID food program. For, ever since the 1980s, the program has been subverted in such a way that it not only encourages dependency, but it also undermines sustainable development (loc. 2844). This is the case because the US government has entrusted various NGOs with the task of delivering the food aid; and many of these NGOs have turned around and sold the food on the open market in the developing world in order to fund other of their projects. In other words, these NGOs are ‘monetizing’ the US government’s food aid (loc. 2835). As Buffet explains, “we take food grown in the United States, ship it to remote areas at great cost, and then when it gets there, NGOs don’t distribute it to hungry people—they sell it so they can take the cash and use it for other programs and budget expenses” (loc. 2848).
The main reason why this practice is such a threat to sustainable development is this: when the NGOs flood the market with American-grown produce, it drives down the price of the produce, which then cuts into the profits of poor farmers who are also supplying the market. As Buffet explains, “selling imported commodities turned NGOs into quasi grain traders. It would add supply to the local market that was bound to undermine prices for local farmers… More specifically to the developing world, this market distortion would devastate local prices while also having an unintended consequence of discouraging farmers from growing that crop in the future. What was the point of wrecking the price that poor local farmers could get for crops, making them more food insecure, and then turning around to use the cash from that to provide farm training services to the same people or overhead for an NGO? It was worse than being wasteful; it was wrongheaded and even harmful. If the idea of aid is to get people back on their feet so they can better help themselves, why would we possible weaken the local market?” (loc. 2844).
The deleterious consequences of food aid were eventually recognized by numerous donor countries, and many of these countries have since put an end to the practice. For example, “European countries had once allowed monetization as well, but in the mid-1990s both Europe and later Canada moved to change their aid policies; ever since, they’ve sent cash for purchasing and distributing food locally” (loc. 2911).
In the US, though, food aid and monetization continue (loc. 2862, 2911). And while at least one NGO has taken it upon itself to turn its back on monetization (the CARE organization [loc. 2866-90]), most others continue on with it—justifying the practice as a necessary evil (loc. 2903).
For Buffet, though, it is clear that the net effect of monetization is a loss, and that the practice should therefore be put to a stop (if not by the NGOs themselves, then certainly by Washington) (loc. 2862, 2911, 4644).
c. Emergency Situations
Now, let us not misunderstand the author. Buffet is not saying that short-term, emergency food aid is never appropriate. The author does agree that in certain circumstances—especially in the case of natural disasters and in conflict zones—emergency aid is the only appropriate response (3016, 3480). As Buffet explains, “when the issue is conflict or natural disaster, the ‘fundamentals’ are irrelevant until you restore order. Often you are talking about the most helpless people on the planet, and I’ve come to believe that you can’t always decide to help on the basis of whether what you do is ‘sustainable’ or not. There is no safety net, there is no government program to take care of meaningful numbers of people, and there is no mercy from the forces battling for power that surround them. In these situations, which at some level are temporary, withholding the aid does not teach anyone a lesson or motivate better behavior. These are the sobering trade-offs of the real world. Can we keep a village of innocent people under siege alive long enough to later teach them to feed themselves so that they are less vulnerable in the long run? When we give aid in conflict, postconflict, and humanitarian situations, that is what we’re trying to do” (loc. 3021; see also loc. 603, 2183).
PART II: THE DEVELOPMENT APPROACH
4. An Introduction to the Development Approach
For Buffet, then, short-term aid is appropriate in emergency situations; beyond this, though, the way to fight hunger must involve helping the poor to feed themselves. And that’s not all. Ideally what we want is for poor farmers to not only feed themselves, but to grow enough that they can connect up to the larger economy, and thus pull themselves up out of poverty (loc. 2189). Essentially, two things must happen in order to achieve these goals: 1) subsistence farmers must be given the tools to increase their yields beyond their own needs; and 2) these same farmers must be given a way to access markets with their surpluses.
So, what is the best way to achieve these goals? For Buffet, it is not the case that the same approach can be used everywhere. For the fact is that every situation is unique, and each situation requires an approach that is tailor made for the specific circumstances. (This is actually a very important point for Buffet. The author argues that too many well-intentioned people and organizations try to recreate what has worked in one place everywhere else, and that this often results in failure [loc. 613-16, 1036-40, 1757-61, 2235-47]).
Nevertheless, Buffet does maintain that there are some general things that must happen in order for sustainable development to occur. The general elements include establishing a system to develop new seeds; working with farmers to improve farming techniques and increase yields; establishing grain storage systems; educating farmers in wise business practices, and connecting them with markets; and working with governments to ensure that the infrastructure needed to keep farmers connected to markets is maintained. Each of these elements are so many cogs in a value chain, which, when they are all present, represent a sustainable agricultural ecosystem.
We shall now explore each of these elements one by one, beginning with the development of seeds.
Section 3. Maximizing Agricultural Yields: Improving Seeds and Farming Techniques
5. The Seeds of Development
a. The Need for Seeds
As mentioned above, agricultural seeds tend to lose their productive value over time, largely because diseases and pests eventually penetrate their defenses (loc. 1767). Thus in order for a sustainable agricultural industry to be maintained, seed strains must constantly be modified to stay a step ahead of the threats.
Unfortunately, because soil conditions, pests, and diseases all differ from area to area, it is often not possible to import seeds from one area into another (loc. 1707). And thus the work of developing seeds must occur at the local level.
Now, many countries support their agricultural industries by way of providing funding for research that goes into seed development, and Buffet does indeed maintain that this is a wise use of government spending (loc. 1724-, 4171-95, 4244-48). Still, in many circumstances the most efficient and sustainable way to ensure seed development is to have a healthy private seed industry do the development work (and then sell their seeds to local farmers). The problem, though, is that a private seed development industry takes some work to get off the ground, and thus Buffet maintains that this is one area where it is very appropriate for aid agencies to direct their attention (loc. 1749-63, 1813-17).
b. The Program for Africa’s Seed Systems (PASS)
Fortunately, at least one man, helped by a couple of major aid agencies, has shown that the effort can be successful, and pay big dividends. The man in question is one Joe DeVries, an agriculturalist, and long time crusader against hunger.
In 2006, DeVries was given $100 million by the Gates Foundation, and an additional $50 million by the Rockefeller Foundation, to go into Africa and undertake a unique project: to help establish private seed companies (loc. 1756). As Buffet puts it, “Joe took it upon himself to become a breeder of seed companies” (loc. 1746). The project is called the Program for Africa’s Seed Systems (PASS). Essentially, PASS helps seed companies get off the ground with both financial aid and consulting help (loc. 1763-67).
Thus far, the program has been an enormous success. As Buffet explains, “literally millions of small farmers all across Africa now get seed through Joe’s Program for Africa’s Seed Systems. PASS is working with more than seventy private, independent seed companies and is headed for one hundred. Joe figures that the African seed companies helped by PASS harvested about 57,000 tons of seed in 2012, or about one-third of all the commercial seed produced in Africa and enough to plant roughly two million hectares. His goal is for seed production to hit 200,000 tons by 2017” (loc. 1767).
Given the incredibly positive impact of PASS, Buffet decided to step in with his own contribution to help DeVries expand his project. As the author explains, “in 2010 our foundation gave Joe $1.6 million to bring his seed breeding program to two postconflict countries, Sierra Leone and Liberia. Later that year, we put in $5 million to bring Joe’s seed breeding program to South Sudan and USAID matched our $5 million. Today Joe’s operation is going strong in South Sudan, one of the most difficult places in Africa to work” (loc. 1817).
Here is Joe DeVries speaking about the successes of PASS:
Seed development is certainly one important component in helping subsistence farmers to produce enough surplus to enter the larger economy. However, an equally important component is that of helping them improve their farming techniques—an area where Buffet specializes.
Before tackling the issue of how to improve farming techniques in the developing world, though, we must first back track a bit and touch on the subject of the Green Revolution.
6. The Green Revolution
a. The Positive Consequences of the Green Revolution
In the early 1960s, several parts of the developing world were on the brink of a food crisis—brought on mainly by a booming population, and a series of adverse climate events. As Buffet explains, “as the 1960’s dawned, agricultural output in the developing world was not keeping pace with booming populations. [Plus] two devastating droughts in Asia killed millions” (loc. 2212).
Tons of food aid flowed in to the affected areas from the developed world (loc. 2212). However, an effort was also made to deliver a more long-term solution.
Enter the eminent Dr. Norman Borlaug. Borlaug had gained notoriety some 20 years prior for helping Mexican farmers overcome a wheat disease know as stem rust. Specifically, Borlaug had helped develop a hybrid wheat that was resistant to the disease (loc. 2207-11). As an added bonus, Borlaug’s wheat also happened to be very high-yielding (especially when combined with certain chemical fertilizers), and thus when the wheat took hold in Mexico, it not only overcame the stem rust problem, it also helped increase production, and “set the stage for a vibrant wheat-growing industry [there]” (loc. 2216).
Now, in the current situation (in the 1960s), high-yielding crops were exactly what were called for, and thus the US government made an attempt to persuade India, Pakistan, and other famine-inflicted parts of the developing world to consider trying to adapt Borlaug’s wheat to their land (loc. 2211-15). Several countries agreed to the project, and Borlaug himself travelled to India and Pakistan to help with the projects there (loc. 2215).
Thankfully, Borlaug’s wheat and farming methods turned out to translate very well in both India and Pakistan, and the projects were a huge success. As Buffet explains, “Borlaug himself taught farmers in India and Pakistan how to maximize yields. He used demonstration plots to show poor Indian farmers that his new approach using the special hybrid seeds and fertilizer could produce five times more grain on the same amount of land than using traditional seeds and old methods. Borlaug also lobbied on behalf of the tools that farmers needed—such as seed and fertilizer—and also the credit they would need to buy the first two… Aid came in from all over the world to help supply the needed seeds and fertilizer. India’s wheat harvest exploded. By the mid-1970s, the country was growing enough grain to build vast national reserves” (loc. 2216).
And not only did these projects help solve the food crisis, they also helped raise many of the farmers out of poverty. As the author explains, “in addition to pushing back the food shortages, this Green Revolution, as it came to be known, improved the quality of life more broadly because farmers now had extra crops to sell for money to pay for education, medicine, and other benefits” (loc. 2220).
Over and above the successes in South Asia, others worked to adapt Borlaug’s methods to rice crops in other parts of Asia, and once again success was to be found. As Buffet explains, “the Rockefeller Foundation and others supported research similar to Borlaug’s to raise yields for rice, and, combined with wheat, many millions more in Asian countries were saved from starvation” (loc. 2224).
All in all, then, the Green Revolution was a tremendous success. Millions were saved from starvation; and, what’s more, the project worked to alleviate endemic poverty in several parts of the developing world.
b. The Negative Consequences of the Green Revolution
i. Efforts to Recreate the Green Revolution
However, the Green Revolution has, in the long-run, also had some distinctly negative consequences. To begin with, the success of the Green Revolution in Asia has led many to spend a great deal of time and effort in the attempt to recreate the Green Revolution in other parts of the developing world. Sadly, though, these efforts have been (and continue to be) largely wasted, and in vain.
Why? Because the conditions in many parts of the developing world at present are simply not amenable to the kind of approach taken in the Green Revolution. As the author explains, “in areas of the world experiencing extreme food insecurity today—particularly across the African continent but also in parts of Central America—critical Green Revolution conditions don’t exist. The soils of Africa are some of the most weathered, abused, and challenging to farm on the planet. Many lack nutrients, some are so sandy that water drains right through them, and others are so heavy with clay that plant roots can barely penetrate… Regions where subsistence farmers struggle to stay alive often lack roads and railroads, so it is difficult to transport seeds and fertilizer to where they are most needed… Tribal legacies control landownership, and fifty four different governments have widely varying commitments to helping their own people. African farmers are vulnerable to plant diseases and pest infestations—therefore, monoculture puts their food security at even more risk. Traditionally, farmers have raised multiple crops so that the likelihood of all failing in one season is lower. Finally, there are socioeconomic and infrastructure factors. India had already made a commitment to agriculture by the time Borlaug and the Green Revolution arrived. Agricultural extension existed throughout the country. The central Indian government could handle large-scale purchasing and negotiate with foreign governments for aid, and it could utilize the military to protect certain assets and equipment and move seed and fertilizer. Unlike the colonialists in Africa, who built railroads primarily to mines, colonialists in India built railways to agricultural areas, initially to facilitate cotton exports. That proved invaluable” (loc. 2248).
ii. The Reliance on Monoculture and Chemical Fertilizers
The Green Revolution has not only caused many relief efforts to go astray, though, it has also caused many farmers to go astray. Specifically, the success of the Green Revolution in Asia has influenced many farmers in both the developed and developing world to mimic many of the strategies used therein, and there are some inherent problems with these strategies (and particularly the strategies of relying on 1 crop [called monoculture], and making heavy use of chemical fertilizers).
The most serious problem with relying on monoculture and fertilizers is that this approach ultimately degrades the soil, and eventually renders it completely unproductive. As Buffet explains, “one problem is that nitrogen fertilizer supercharges the growth of various crops but does not replenish organic matter or replace other essential nutrients needed for productive soil. Merely fertilizing is like giving a sick man oxygen and caffeine, but not food. You can speed up his metabolism, make him more alert—even make him more energetic for a short time—but at some point, he will collapse from the lack of calories needed to retain body mass and fuel brain and other basic functions” (loc. 2257).
7. Plowing and Slash and Burn Agriculture
a. Plowing
Of course, a reliance on monoculture and fertilizer is not the only practice that leads to the degradation and erosion of the soil. The very act of plowing (which involves turning over the soil after a harvest) does the same.
Now, the reason many farmers (in both the developed and developing world) like to plow is because it aerates the soil, buries organic stubble and weeds, and brings valuable nutrients to the surface (loc. 2409). However, plowing also has several very negative side-effects, and one of these is that it leaves the soil highly exposed to wind and rain erosion (loc. 2409).
And this is not just a minor issue. Top soil regenerates at a rate of only 1 inch every 500 years (loc. 2391, 3504). Meanwhile, the rate at which a plowed field loses soil to erosion vastly exceeds this. In the United States, for example, where plowing remains the norm, “we lost 1.73 billion tons of soil from US cropland in 2007 due to water and wind erosion” (loc. 3504).
b. Slash and Burn Agriculture
Similarly, the practice of slash and burn agriculture (which is still widely practiced in many parts of the developing world today [loc. 2425]) also leads to the degeneration of the soil (at least when the fields are not left fallow to rejuvenate—which is all too often the case nowadays in many places [loc. 2433-37]). As Buffet explains, “when farmers in the tropics slash and burn rain forest to try to plant food crops, as they did for many years, they get a few years of production at best before they deplete the soil of nutrients. Once that happens and they move on, they leave an ugly scar of empty ground behind them… Farmers in many parts of Africa also practice a form of slash and burn. They find space on their tribal land for growing crops by using a machete to clear away the bush so that sunlight can reach through to the ground. After the harvest is gathered, the leftover stalks and leaves are burned to clear the field for another planting season. After two or three years, the exposed soil is so exhausted that yields plummet. Traditionally, farmers would then move on to hack out another plot and leave the depleted ground alone for several years so that it could recuperate. One of the problems in [many places now, though,] is that the population density is so high and the land available for agriculture so limited that fields cannot be left fallow to rejuvenate” (loc. 2434).
Clearly, farming practices that degrade and erode the soil are not sustainable. Even in places like the United States, which is blessed with some of the richest and deepest soil on the face of the planet, topsoil isn’t inexhaustible, and (if things don’t change) will eventually be lost entirely (loc. 2399, 3503-07). And in many parts of the developing world, where the soil is far less rich and deep, the time it takes to deplete it is much less (as the slash and burn examples mentioned above demonstrate).
And here’s the thing, history shows what happens when unsustainable farming practices are relied upon: whole civilizations collapse. As Buffet explains, “entire civilizations have died out or had to pick up and move because they destroyed or depleted their soils through over-farming, deforestation, and other practices that waste topsoil much faster than it forms. The Mayans, the Aztecs, the Vikings, and the Easter Islanders all devastated their agricultural productivity by failing to protect and nourish their soils” (loc. 2395).
8. Conservation Farming: The No-Till Way
Thankfully, there is a better way. There is an approach to farming that reduces soil erosion (in some cases by as much as 75% [loc. 4187]). The approach is known as no-till farming (also referred to as conservation farming). And the benefits of no-till farming do not end with saving soil. Indeed, the approach also reduces the need for water, fertilizer, pesticides and herbicides. Finally, and best of all, the approach also has the habit of increasingly agricultural output in the near-term, using less labor. We shall now take a closer look at the approach and its benefits.
Conservation farming varies in its specifics from place to place, but there are a few main general principles. To begin with, the approach involves planting a nitrogen-fixing ‘cover crop’ in addition to the main food crop (often in between the rows where the food crop is planted). When the food crop is harvested (in a way that limits compressing the soil as much as possible) both the stubble from the food crop and the cover crop are left to lie on the field until the next planting season. No plowing is used.
As mentioned above, the approach has several advantages. To begin with, as Buffet explains, “I practice what is called conservation farming. Next to plowed fields, mine are downright messy looking. I don’t remove the stalks of corn or wheat stubble after I harvest. I even plant annual rye or radishes and other noncrop plant species in between the harvested rows of corn. All winter, as the rains come and the snow builds up, those so-called cover crops help me hang on to my topsoil. And in some cases, they help my soil retain, or ‘fix,’ nitrogen so that I can apply less fertilizer for the next crop I grow. In the spring, when it’s time to plant, I put seeds directly into the soil, never disturbing the dirt other than a thin strip where the planter opens up a slot to drop in the seed” (loc. 2417).
In addition to preventing soil erosion and contributing organic material and nitrogen back to the soil (thus reducing the need for fertilizer), the cover crops also help the land retain moisture. This is the case both because the roots suck up moisture and prevent it from seeping through or flowing over the soil, and because the covering shades the ground which keeps it cool and minimizes evaporation (loc. 3937, 4473). Thus conservation farming also requires less water. This is particularly important in places like Africa, where most farms are rain-fed, and there are long periods of drought (loc. 605, 4459, 4498). However, even in places where irrigation does exist, conservation farming helps reduce the need for it, and thus helps conserve water (and money).
Next, cover crops also help reduce weeds, and ward off pests. First, with regards to weeds, as the author explains, “if you plow soil, you bury some weeds, but you also germinate new ones, and a plowed field exposes those young weeds to the sunlight that makes them grow” (loc. 3936). By contrast, cover crops “retard[] weed growth by not allowing sunlight to reach the weed seeds. Meanwhile, when you plant your crop seeds using a no-till approach, you don’t plow: instead you slice through the mat and drop the seed in it. The opening created is just large enough to encourage the crop’s germination and early growth, without also encouraging weed growth” (loc. 3936). When it comes to pests, the mulch from the cover crop invites beneficial insects that feed on destructive ones (loc. 4476). By limiting both weeds and pests, then, conservation farming also limits the need for both herbicides and pesticides, which saves on costs, and also helps the environment.
Finally, and best of all, conservation farming helps increase yields, using less labor. In Ghana, for example, a study was undertaken by the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center to determine the effectiveness of no-till farming, and the study revealed the following: “in normal rainfall years, no-till farmers obtained maize yields 45 percent higher than those of farmers who did not use no-till. After adopting no-till, average family labor was reduced by 31 percent; land preparation and planting, by 22 percent; and labor for weed control (with glyphosate herbicide), by 51 percent: from an average of 8.8 man-days per hectare to 4.3 man-days per hectare” (loc. 4470; see also loc. 4522).
In addition, “similar research projects in other areas of Africa are beginning to show the same impressive results about the value of conservation agriculture… In the Kailo, Dasongo, and Kabambare territories of Maniema Province [in the Democratic Republic of Congo], researchers reported a substantial yield increase (up to 100 percent) for cassava, cereals, and some pulses from these conservation techniques” (loc. 4531).
And the gains have not just been shown in Africa. Take Brazil, for example. As in Africa, many parts of Brazil have a very poor quality of soil (loc. 2427, 4147, 4157-66, 4247). Here too, though, conservation farming has been shown to greatly increase production (loc. 2423-32, 4187-96). So much so, in fact, that it is helping curb the need (and the practice) of clearing rainforests to open up more land for farming (loc. 2423-32, 4220-32).
In short, then, no-till farming is the very approach that is needed to help subsistence farmers increase their yields in a sustainable way.
Here are a couple of short videos about no-till farming:
9. Conservation Farming Aid
Thankfully, several aid organizations (many of them funded by Buffet’s foundation) are now beginning to advocate for and implement no-till farming in parts of the developing world. Indeed, a couple of the results mentioned above have come out of such aid efforts. Let us briefly look at one of the most promising ones.
The example comes out of Ghana, where the agriculturalist and humanitarian Kofi Boa (who works for Ghana’s Crops Research Institute) has succeeded in converting over 100,000 farmers to no-till agriculture (loc. 4466). The shift has greatly improved production (by 45%, as mentioned above), adding to the incomes of the farmers (loc. 4477), and also helping save acres upon acres of forest from being cleared for the purpose of farming (loc. 4451-60).
And Kofi has no intentions of stopping in Ghana. With a big monetary boost from Buffet’s foundation, Kofi has recently established a new Center for No-Till Agriculture (loc. 4552). As the author explains, “the center will not only coordinate and promote research into the techniques that provide the best results for smallholder farmers but also serve as a resource for cross-sector partnerships and agribusiness development… Farmers who visit the center to learn about conservation agriculture will also learn about financing opportunities, if they choose to purchase conservation-based equipment. Our goal is to support agribusiness through a demand-based approach to philanthropy, in which charitable dollars catalyze private sector markets. We’re hoping that the center’s outreach activities and Kofi’s dedicated leadership will make the center well known throughout Ghana, and then West Africa, and eventually across the continent of Africa” (loc. 4560).
Section 4. Connecting Subsistence Farmers to the Larger Economy
10. From Harvest to Market
Getting subsistence farmers the seeds and farming techniques they need to increase yields enough to enter the larger economy is important, but it’s only half the battle. The other half of the battle is to connect these farmers to markets, and to do so in a way that maximizes their ability to earn profits. For this to happen, farmers need access to grain storage systems; transportation links to get their produce to market; and access to the markets themselves. Let us now look at each of these elements one by one, beginning with storage systems.
a. Storage Systems
Storage systems are important because without them, farmers are forced to sell their produce immediately after harvest, when prices are at their lowest (loc. 624-28). Essentially, then, storage facilities allow farmers to retain control of the fruits of their labor, and to sell their produce when prices are highest, in order to maximize profits (loc. 2327).
Thus Buffet advises that development efforts (both by aid organizations and governments) must provide for storage facilities in their projects (loc. 2326). And when Buffet enters an area to help with development, storage systems are one thing that he is sure to pay heed to. To give just 2 examples, Buffet has helped establish storage systems in Afghanistan (when he was asked to go there to help with the re-development of that country’s agricultural industry [loc. 3631]), and also in Nicaragua (loc. 4875).
b. Transportation Links
For farmers to get their produce to market they need transportation links. And, unfortunately, in many parts of the developing world, these transportation links just don’t exist. Thus a big part of effective development is working with governments to ensure that the appropriate transportation links are opened up and properly maintained (loc. 5105). As Buffet explains, “I sometimes think Americans hear phrases such as ‘Africa has poor roads,’ and it’s like hearing ‘New York City’s Times Square is crowded on New Year’s Eve.’ They nod in agreement, even though they have no idea what it’s like to operate and move around a country with villages that cannot be accessed in any practical sense except on foot or perhaps by animal cart or motorbike. But for countries such as Sierra Leone or South Sudan, the roads are such significant impediments to getting anything done, yet often nobody in government owns the problem. There is no organized assessment of the roads’ current state or what a better system would look like. Government ministers may ask would-be investors in the country to build roads as opportunities arise, but often those roads are one-offs that get built to a mining area or a destination of interest to the investors. They aren’t designed according to a long-term plan” (loc. 5152).
Now, in at least some cases, corrupt governments simply have no intention of helping their people, and thus working with them to help improve infrastructure is a moot point (loc. 2244, 5109). In other cases, though, governments truly do want to help their people, and simply lack the knowledge and tools to do so effectively. And that’s where Tony Blair comes in.
In 2008, Blair established a foundation called the Africa Governance Initiative (AGI), which aims to “teach the basic principles of running a peace-seeking, effective, responsive government to the leaders of some of the poorest, most conflict-ridden and disorganized countries on the planet” (loc. 5093). Thus far, AGI has been invited to work with the governments of Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Guinea, and South Sudan, and the foundation has already helped yield some substantial gains (loc. 5097).
Here is Tony Blair introducing AGI, and (in the second video) boasting AGIs accomplishments:
Buffet has been in contact with Blair, and the two agree that transportation links to agricultural areas are a very important part of effective governance (loc. 5145). Thus if all goes according to plan, Blair’s AGI project should help make this a priority in Africa.
c. Connecting Farmers to Markets
The final link in the chain is to connect farmers to markets, and this takes work. As Buffet puts it, “markets are not automatic. Markets do not appear magically when farmers have a surplus” (loc. 4620; see also loc. 4633). The World Food Programme executive, David Stenson, is even more adamant about the importance and difficulty of connecting poor farmers to markets. As Stenson explains, “‘the biggest market failure we have in the developing world for small-scale farmers is getting a buyer… Often you either have no buyer, or you have only one buyer who has his own costs to cover and wants low prices. Farmers need to be connected to markets’” (loc. 4633).
Fortunately, several aid organizations have now begun the work of ensuring that poor farmers do have access to markets. One of the most impressive of these is a program called Purchase for Progress (P4P), put on by the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP). P4P buys produce from poor farmers and uses it to feed people in emergency situations (and also to support school food programs in poorer parts of the world). As Buffet explains, “WFP addresses food insecurity brought on by conflicts, droughts, floods, tightening food markets, and the global economic slowdown. To provide relief, it buys more than $1 billion worth of commodities every year, and it increasingly buys the commodities from farmers in the regions where the aid is needed. That’s a lot of purchasing power. Purchase for Progress is an innovative vehicle that leverages the WFP’s networks to create a stable and reliable market for smallholder farmers’ output. Instead of taking the money the developed world donates toward famine relief and other aid programs and then going back and buying crops and staples from the developed world and shipping it to these struggling regions, P4P cuts out two steps and uses the funds to purchase locally from farmers who are themselves struggling. That is not necessarily ‘easier,’ but it is simpler and, I believe, a stronger model. It not only satisfies an immediate need, such as food for hungry schoolkids, but also the presence of a strong, stable buyer for local crops creates an incentive for smallholder farmers to learn to farm better and more efficiently” (loc. 4630).
Impressed by the program, Buffet has helped fund it in a big way. As the author explains, “we eventually gave more than $12 million to establish a P4P office in Rome and launch an integrated program in seven countries… Our foundation helped P4P launch in the African countries of Sierra Leone, Liberia, and Sudan, as well as the Central American nations of El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, and Nicaragua” (loc. 4681).
Altogether, P4P has been tremendously successful thus far, as it has “helped half a million farmers in twenty-one countries and is bringing healthy, needed food to food-insecure people in distress” (loc. 4711).
Here is a short clip about the World Food Programme’s Purchase for Progress program:
While the P4P program may be the largest project intended to connect poor farmers to markets, it is by no means the only one. Several NGOs (such as the organization Green House [loc. 4287]) are working hard to connect farmers with social entrepreneurs who are eager to source their produce from the developing world (such as the Seattle chocolate maker Joe Whinney, CEO of Theo Chocolate, who purchases his cocoa beans from the Democratic Republic of Congo through Green House [loc. loc. 4416-24]). And this trend also stands to have a very positive impact (loc. 4323).
Section 5. Challenges to the Development Approach
The development approach requires many steps, cooperation from numerous partners, much time and money, and is by no means easy to get off the ground—even at the best of times. Unfortunately, though, there are often significant barriers standing in the way ready to compromise the approach, or even undermine it entirely.
At least some of these barriers are idiosyncratic and local in nature; which is why Buffet insists that any attempt to help a particular community must be geared to the specific conditions and circumstances therein (loc. 613-16, 1036-40, 1757-61, 2235-47). However, there are also significant barriers that are common to many areas, and these must be touched upon.
10. Land Ownership
One of the most significant barriers to development is the problem of land ownership. The fact is that in many parts of the developing world the farmers that farm the land are not the direct owners thereof. Rather, the land is owned by the state, a tribal leader, or some other landlord (loc. 2128-32, 2154, 2243, 2433, 2508, 4900). As Buffet explains, “according to the NGO Landesa, which has been working on land reform since 1981, 75 percent of the world’s poor live in rural areas where land is a fundamental asset and a primary source of income, security, opportunity, and status. Yet more than half these families lack either access to land or a secure stake in the land they have often farmed for generations” (loc. 4892; see also 2128-32, 4849-54).
The absence of land ownership is a problem because without it, there is little incentive for farmers to favor a long-term, sustainable approach, and one that will help maximize productivity and profits. As Buffet explains, “everywhere in the world, farmers who own their own land take better care of the soil than those who do not. In any place where we are asked to invest resources these days, one of the first questions we ask is, ‘What is the land tenure situation? Are farmers connected to and incented to work and improve their land, or do they feel vulnerable and subject to being booted off their land?’” (loc. 2501; see also 2131).
And the numbers bare out that private ownership is indeed very beneficial. For example, as the author explains, “Landesa has compiled data showing that land rights are a significant advantage for subsistence farmers. In regions around the world that Landesa has surveyed, annual family income increases by 150 percent when farmers secure land rights, and agricultural production typically increases by 60 percent” (loc. 4895).
Thankfully, several organizations (including Landesa) are working to improve the land ownership situation in places where farmers do not own their own land. And in at least some situations, significant progress has been made. In 2010, for example, the aid organization Catholic Relief Services in Central America worked with local governments in Nicaragua to help farmers in that country become full land-owners, and the project was an enormous success (loc. 4863).
Still, much more work needs to be done around this issue (loc. 4893-4901), and Buffet’s foundation happily funds organizations that work to advance the goal of landownership (loc. 4854, 4906).
11. Dysfunctional and Corrupt Governments, and Armed Conflict
a. Dysfunctional and Corrupt Governments
Improving land ownership rights for farmers does of course require the cooperation of governments where the issue exists. But this is not the only aspect of the development approach where the government is a much-needed ally. As we have seen above, securing the necessary infrastructure and transportation links to allow farmers to get their produce to market is also an important area where the cooperation of governments is vital. But even over and above this, there are many ways in which the goodwill of governments can help the cause (funding research into agriculture being another big one) (loc. 4251, 4716, 5136).
Unfortunately, the level of commitment on the part of governments is not always where we would want it to be (loc. 1409, 2188)—and at other times the level of commitment is there, but the knowledge and tools to help with the situation are lacking. In the latter case, aid organizations (such as Tony Blair’s AIG foundation, mentioned above) can help, and thus this is an important part of the development effort. In the former case, though, where the level of commitment on the part of the government simply is not there, the hope of full development must ultimately be abandoned. In these situations the best that can be hoped for are stop-gap measures (including emergency aid) intended to help the poor and hungry as much as possible (loc. 2183-99).
b. Armed Conflict and War
Another set of circumstances that completely undermines the effort at full development is armed conflict . Where chaos reigns, full development simply cannot be achieved (loc. 1383), and emergency aid is often the only workable approach (loc. 1379-1421, 1449-70, 1935-51).
PART III: THE FUTURE OF HUNGER
12. The Future of Hunger
a. The Problem: A Booming Population
Helping poor farmers help themselves is a worthwhile goal in itself, of course, for it helps end poverty and hunger in the most impoverished parts of the planet. However, there is another reason for wanting to help subsistence farmers increase yields and join the larger economy. And that is that we are ultimately going to need to increase yields everywhere in order to feed the world’s growing population. As Buffet explains, “to feed the world on a daily basis by 2050, the FAO forecasts that farmers all over the globe will have to increase food production by 70 percent” (loc. 257).
This will require a mammoth effort, and part of it must include helping subsistence farmers increase yields to the point that they are producing a surplus. However, increasing yields in the poorest parts of the world will not be enough. Yields will need to be increased everywhere—including in the developed world. And once again, this must be done in a way that is sustainable.
Unfortunately, there are still far too many places in the developed world where the approach to farming is one that is ultimately unsustainable. Indeed, the issues of plowing and relying on monoculture and chemical fertilizers that plague many parts of the develo