This week and the week after, all attention are on Paris. Global political leaders, corporations, civil societies, NGOs, Trade Unions, scientists, the media and other interest groups shall meet on the platform called the Conference of Parties (COP).
This is the 21st edition since the 1995 agenda to review the implementation of the conventions, otherwise known as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
They shall discuss ways of reducing green house gases (GHG) in the atmosphere, how to adapt to the existing effects of climate change among other issues. A key issue for discussion among food and agriculture interest groups will be how to feed the growing global population in a sustainable manner in light of a changing climate.
Without going into details of what happens at the COP, the purpose of this article is to discuss some of the effects of climate change on agriculture in Ghana and proposals made in dealing with the effects.
Additionally, the article will discuss the Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs:basically means laboratory removal of a gene from one organism to improve or change another organism) drought resistivity nexus and some recommendations.
Some of the phenomenon of climate change includes drought, change in rainfall patterns, high temperature, excessive rains, to mention but a few.
These events entirely influence agriculture and food production negatively. For example, in the month of June 2015, it was reported that drought had hit the Northern region of Ghana, specifically, Bimbilla, Yendi, Wulensi and their surroundings. Farmers had planted their roots, tubers, and expecting rains but it ceased after a few rains in March. Crops wilted and farmers could not harvest.
Farmers’ investments just went down the drain. This situation is similar with farmers in the Brong Ahafo region who also suffered the same fate. What these situations mean is that, for that particular season, income of farmers, and national food supply, will reduce.
This further strains the living conditions of farming families and exacerbates the poverty situation among farmers. In a country with virtually no social protection for farmers, the impact is even severe. For workers, high prices of available food places stress on their wages implying that with their available wage, they can only buy less food for themselves and their families.
Securing a three square meal for the unemployed is far from reach if not impossible. These events in Ghana and in other parts of the world have attracted the attention of the various stakeholders in the Food and Agriculture, including the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).
The vagaries of climate change coupled with the increasing demand for food due to increasing population and the global food crises between 2007 and 2008, FAO developed the Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA) module. The module addresses the challenge of food and nutrition security vis a vis climate change.
It has three main pillars: sustainably increasing agricultural productivity and incomes; adapting and building resilience to climate change; reducing and (or) removing greenhouse gases emissions, where possible. This framework have been discussed at the global and national levels.
At conferences and workshops in countries, it has received massive buy-in. Ghana for example has developed a National Climate Smart Agriculture policy to mainstream climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies into all agricultural policies and programmes. Within the context of Climate Smart Agriculture and drought resistant crops, GMOs have been cited-some of its products are drought resistant. There is however a worrying trend in Ghana concerning GMOs and drought resistivity.
It is touted as a panacea to the challenges posed by climate change as far as drought is concerned-an issue that have been hotly debated. I would like to expand the discussions by saying that in a mix of agricultural practices and technologies, and their adaptation and mitigation properties in the FAO document, GMOs are mentioned among other practices and technologies as Climate Smart. It mentions its effectiveness as an adaptation strategy.
The document is however quick to admit that it is UNCERTAIN about its mitigation properties. Additionally, and most importantly, it adds the challenge with this technology as far as small holders and peasant agriculture is concerned- it comes with high investment costs; high prices of improved varieties, high input costs such as fertilizer, concerns with long-term potential impacts such as loss of crop biodiversity, health concerns, limited enabling environment to support transfer of technology.
GM seeds often require enormous chemical inputs, including fertilizers, which leads to degradation of soil nutrients and further cause climate change. Many GM crops (like maize, soy and cotton) are grown commercially for animal feed and (or) export, and as such, require large tracts of land-increasing landless peasants.
In order to increase production, and in order to decrease risk of contaminating GM with non-GM crops, many farmers will mono-crop, only planting one variety-which is also bad for the soil and risky for the farmer. If the crop fails, the farmer is without income, and without subsistence crops. Lastly, GM seeds cannot be replanted, and thus be repurchased every year, placing heavy financial burden on farmers.
Fortunately, there are other, truly climate resilient modes of agriculture. Agroecology, for instance, promotes multi-crop farming and the use of organic fertilizers and manures. This mode of agriculture not only helps replenish the soils (by rotating crops which fix nitrate into the ground, as well as using nitrate-rich manure), but also helps reduce risk for the farmer. If one crop fails, there are back-ups.
Moreover, agroecology promotes the use of reusable seeds, both indigenous and otherwise, and encourages seed saving, banking and exchange. In other words, agroecology encourages building on what a community already has. For instance, Ghana is blessed with native drought-resistant seeds, mainly cowpea and millet.
Additionally, the CSA module mentions some proposals with evidence from countries: No-till/minimum tillage; cover cropping; mulching; composting; appropriate fertilizer and manure use; precision farming; crop rotations, fallowing (green manures), intercropping with leguminous plants; conservation tillage, system of rice intensification (SRI) and so on.
In addressing climate change and agriculture and food production, solutions should be forward-thinking and productive, not just reactionary. GM crops threaten to erode Ghana’s soils further. A climate smart solution would rather build soil resilience.
By nurturing the soil, establishing community seed banks, and relying on low-input agriculture. Ghana’s farmers will be able to contribute to food security at the family, community and national levels, and build self-sustaining farms for future generations.
–
By: Daniel Oberko