TRIP TO CHINA. A country of contrasts and opportunities

Before travelling to China I had a lot of initial expectations of how the country would look like but no actual first-hand knowledge of it. When I arrived some of my expectations were certified to a certain extent. For example, I was expecting everything to be big in Shanghai, but the size of the buildings and population actually surpassed my initial thoughts. I have learned a lot of valuable things during the trip, both from the academic sessions held at Jiao Tong University but also from the business visits and cultural trips, which opened my eyes in a more practical manner, allowing me to see the real life of Chinese people.

During the 10 days spent in the country we have learned the Chinese way of doing business, with both its opportunities and limitations. I have considered different factors that have to be acknowledged in order to understand China and its business practices: Culture, Size and its economic system.

 

 

Culture

 

Chinese people have a complete different culture to western people, and as a Melia Hotel Manager in Asia-Pacific told us at Jiao Tong University; the best strategy in order to enter this market is to learn and adapt to their culture, instead of trying to change it. Their culture is completely different to ours in basically all aspects; gastronomy (which I personally enjoyed a lot), timetables and specially their relationships with others. During our first day in Shanghai we were introduced to Chinese history, geography, culture and values by an excellent lecturer (Jason Inch). Two concepts were outlined during this session: “Guanxi” and “Mianzi”( also referred as “Face”).

· Guanxi

This is basically the networks of influence a person has and how they keep a good connection. This can involve treating people with special care by giving gifts in special occasions. On the other side this also implies that it is unnecessary to show courtesy to strangers. I experienced this while walking through the streets, where vehicles show little or no respect for pedestrians.

· Face

This is an important cultural concept that must not be underestimated. It is one’s perception to the eyes of others. For example, treating someone with respect gives them “face”, while criticizing or saying “no” directly can cause people to lose face.

These two concepts are of great relevance for managers working with Chinese employees or business contacts. Another curious cultural issue, predominantly seen in Shanghai is showing off with luxury products. Business men in Shanghai need an expensive car in order to give a good image necessary to do business. Same happens with watches, clothes and jewelry.

 

Size

 

Despite being a country, China is more of a continent due to its size with huge regions, each with their own culture and dialect. Therefore when addressing a customer segment or trying to enter a market it is essential to differentiate between the different needs of each region. To put China’s size in context, Shanghai has a population of roughly 24 million; this is approximately half of the whole population of Spain. Further to this, what are considered to be medium size cities have around 5 million people; this is more than most European capital cities. So size matters in China and it can be advantage for doing business, as a small segment group of 1% can be of huge potential for marketing. During a marketing segmentation session we had, it seemed that children accessories and luxury products have big opportunities for future development. CSR can also play a major role in the future as pollution in major cities like Beijing and Shanghai is affecting the well-being of its citizens.

 

(Lujiazui, the financial district of Shanghai. What seems to be fog is actually air pollution, a growing and uncontrollable problem in developing cities of China)

 

Economy

 

Most of the economic activity is concentrated in the East coast, while the west remains wild for doing business. However, as the east consists of most of the economy, the west is starting to flourish, opening the door for massive business opportunities. When considering the business opportunities in China it is important to take into consideration the constant change the country is experiencing. Salaries in Shanghai are increasing at an average rate of 10-15% per year; therefore the perception of cheap labour is changing in the east, enabling the west part of the country to be exploited.

In terms of Government participation in the economy it is huge. Most private companies coming from Europe or the US are in partnership with the Chinese state. Therefore they are not wholly private and so have constant relations with government officials. During our visit to Baosteel and Volkswagen Shanghai we were able to see how government intervention is not as bad as we in the west believe. Our visit to the Volkswagen assembly surprised me for its efficiency, cleanliness and working conditions. It was a fully new and efficient plant that operated very well. On the other side, you can see the lack of transparency when sharing information. One of our teammates asked a simple question to the person in charge of the tour: “How many employees do they have in the plant?” And the tour guide was unwilling to answer the question, as if it was better not say a word. This is an example of how chinese companies are not as “open” as European companies when it comes to the sharing of information.

 

Bureaucracy is another important issue as we were explained during a session on “how to establish a business in China”. Companies trying to establish in China need to pay special attention to tax systems and are recommended to have constant relations with institutions that help ameliorate private and government relationships (like the European Chamber of Commerce).

Overall I have been amazed and shocked by the cultural differences between the east and the west. I have learned a lot on how to do business in China and my final conclusion is that in order to be effective when dealing with Chinese business partners is it important to respect their culture and to learn their modus operandi (i.e. Guanxi). The country is full of contrasts and contradictions. You can see people begging in front of brand new massive skyscrapers and a political regime which seems to work perfectly with its new economic trend: communist China is a capitalist paradise.

Comments Off on TRIP TO CHINA. A country of contrasts and opportunities / 14 Mar 2014 por alvarohernandez
IMSD /

Nelson Mandela and the Robben Island Legacy

As a leader… I have always endeavoured to listen to what each and every person in a discussion had to say before venturing my own opinion. Oftentimes, my own opinion will simply represent a consensus of what I heard in the discussion.

Nelson Mandela  Long Walk to Freedom

 

Last November, the IMSD programme hosted three South African visitors as part of an exchange programme with the University of KwaZulu Natal’s Graduate School of Business and Leadership. Our guests, Bakhetsile Dlamini, Nolwazi Mthembu and Stan Hardman, impressed us all with their commitment to finding collaborative solutions to address South Africa’s development challenges. This emphasis on engaging with diversity owes much to the leadership of a man whom each spoke of with admiration and respect: Nelson Mandela.

Superlatives abound in nearly all references to Mandela. Following his death in December 2013, tributes to his integrity and humanity poured in from around the world. His crucial role in negotiating South Africa’s transition from apartheid to multiracial democracy was highlighted by all. Many agreed that the leadership skills that assisted this process were honed during the 18 years that Mandela was imprisoned on Robben Island.

The initial years of Mandela’s captivity on Robben Island were spent with peers from the Africa National Congress (ANC) such as Govan Mbeki, Walter Sisulu and Ahmed Kathrada. Later, after the Soweto uprising of 1976, this group was joined by a second more radical wave of prisoners. This younger generation, a mix of student activists and trade unionists, deeply influenced by the Black Consciousness Movement, called for a new and more militant stand against apartheid. Many of them were disappointed by what they regarded as the conservative and conciliatory views of the older ANC leaders they met on Robben Island.

Mandela did not shy away from the more confrontational stance of the new prisoners. Instead he sought to reinforce unity by encouraging lengthy, considerate and open debate. Anthony Sampson quotes Mandela as alluding to this period as follows: “Here the past literally rushes to memory and there is plenty of time for reflection. One is able to stand back and look at the entire movement from a distance and the bitter lessons of prison life force one to go all out to win the cooperation of all fellow prisoners, to learn how to see problems from the point of view of others as well, and to work smoothly with other schools of thought in the movement.”

By offering room for discourse around diverse interests, Mandela created the building blocks of change. This process of slow and purposeful discussion extended not just to prisoners but also to the wardens at Robben Island. Through a leadership style based on listening, empathy and commitment to others, collaboration between different, and often hostile, actors was encouraged. Today, as a result of the relationship that developed between them over the years, many former prisoners and wardens live and work together on the island.

In his book Leading like Madiba, Martin Kalungu Banda refers to the Robben Island miracle by which anger and pain were transformed into the raw material for the creation of the Rainbow Nation that emerged in the 1990s. This legacy, as our South African guests reinforced, is of continuing importance in addressing the country’s ongoing challenges.

At a global level too, the Robben Island legacy is something that we can learn from. The UN’s wide-ranging consultation processes for the post-2015 development agenda reinforce the importance of inclusive dialogue between diverse social actors. In order to address the pressing social, environmental and economic problems that we face, the facilitation of spaces for respectful, meaningful and sustained dialogue about our common future is more necessary than ever.

Enviar comentario / 08 Mar 2014 por ledastott
Sin categoría /

Innovation at the heart of Nike

Just like its athletes, always ready to take on new challenges, breaking records is the way business is done at NIKE. A multinational company that strives at pushing the envelope regarding sustainability through innovation. The importance of these two pillars is embedded by the sustainable business and innovation team managing the lifecycle of a product and its compliance with environmental responsibility.

Over 16000 materials are used in the production phase each year. A pair of shoes alone can use more than 30 materials. Keeping track of the products from their source till their fabrication phase makes the impact assessment a manageable task. Therefore, innovative tools are being created to manage sustainability.  The product creation teams use the Nike materials index to select eco-friendly materials through the innovation project placemat following four strategic steps; Explore, Develop, Pilot and Scale, the level of responsiveness of a project to these core pillars should be an indicator of its sustainability level and potential. Each material’s impacts are assessed in the areas of energy, chemistry, water and waste, to understand each phase independently and how it integrates with the ecosystem, representing the value chain of the company.

Engaging the entire business from suppliers, factories to farmers growing the organic cotton, the main goal is to deliver products and services that combine a high level of performance, innovation and sustainability.

Two additional sustainability indexes are being implemented as well regarding manufacturing, footwear and apparel.

The sustainability journey continues for Nike, and its success is strongly dependent on the innovation factor that the company feels strongly about, making it its culture and main driver of its business, by setting Nike apart from its competitors.

Nike believes that innovation comes in different colours and shapes. Equally important they serve as a response and main tool to many challenges, by increasing the probability of the impossible becoming possible through breakthrough ideas.

The disruptive idea category, is more of an “avant-gardiste” idea that has never been implemented before. Nike is keen on developing this area of expertise that will forge his pioneer identity on the market. The revolutionary innovation come as secondary and is related to the creation of  new ideas followed by the evolutionary category that addresses short term solutions.

Envisioning more growth for the future is a fact for companies. In the case of Nike being a 32 billion dollar company is just a transitory phase that will lead to 37 billion in 2017. Innovation is a key to tackle all obstacles standing in the way of achieving this goal.

From trying to determine what type of sole would be ideal for running shoes, to actually using a waffle maker to create it, this experiment placed Nike on the map, as a leading company in tailoring efficient products for athletes.

According to Steve Jobs; “Innovation distinguishes between a leader and a follower”

Having achieved their leadership on the market, Nike intends to expand it to the sustainability arena as well, since leadership doesn’t recognise division.

 

Comments Off on Innovation at the heart of Nike / 06 Mar 2014 por rimaelkhoury
IMSD /

Nike Campus

The Nike World Headquarters is located near Beaverton, Oregon, in the Portland surrounding area. A combination between urban and outdoor life, creating the perfect atmosphere for working and play and for enjoying both. It has 200-acre, full of moderns building where they have the offices, labs  and also sport installations (gym, swimming pool…), outdoor, we can find a lake, an athletic tracks, football fields, and also a golf court…so the Disneyland for the people who love sports.

The Nike World Headquarters reflects the innovative spirit, values and pride of a global sports company.  It’s more than just a place to work, it’s a comfortable and stimulating environment filled with full-service facilities designed to help you perform better. Also campus life reflects the brand values and interest in its workers career growth and balanvce of work and family, providing them with childcare and pre-school centers.

As we could see in our visit Nike’s workplace community consists of leaders, visionaries and philanthropists who are passionate for the Nike brand, the products we build, sport, human wellness and vitality.  In every corner you could smell innovation and sport in the same breath, really useful and awesome visit.

”If you have a body you are an athlete.”  JUST DO IT.

 

 

Comments Off on Nike Campus / 06 Mar 2014 por marioescamilla
IMSD /

Catastrophic Expenditure and the Agricultural Industry

Each of us, at some point in our lives, has had to make difficult expenditure decisions. Many of us have faced financial shocks which adversely affected our spending, but none of us have ever been pushed to the brink of poverty because of them. Far from the woes of rural life, few of us have experienced catastrophic expenditure.

Common in rural areas of both high- and low-income nations, catastrophic expenditure generally occurs when a household faces such high medical costs, that they are unable to cover any of their other basic needs and fall into a spiral of poverty[1]. In my view, however, this is not limited to healthcare costs. With global trade in agriculture, fluctuations in commodity prices have made food expenditure so unpredictable, that they can leave low-income households penniless.

Such fluctuations ought to be controlled through financial regulation, but because of the power brokers hold, we may be better off focusing on rural safety nets and effective agricultural support initiatives. Though some may argue that policies like the Common Agricultural Programme (CAP) exist to help rural communities, according to Oxfam, the CAP does little to protect the most vulnerable. With “about 80 per cent of direct income support going into the pockets of the wealthiest 20 per cent – mainly big landowners and agribusiness companies”[2] it is clear that subsidies alone cannot solve rural livelihood problems, even in high-income nations.

With most agricultural programmes failing to protect rural families and creating trade issues in low-income countries, it is no wonder that there is a great deal of animosity towards them. However, the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) argue that we cannot only focus on poor families within cities and that if we invest in the correct agricultural programmes, millions of people could escape the poverty trap. We have to recall that “70 per cent of the developing world’s 1.4 billion extremely poor people [are] living in rural areas”[3], so though the media may highlight urban poverty (it is tough to find someone who has not heard of the Favelas in Rio de Janeiro), we need to consider those at the margins of society. For these families, who “spend 50 to 70 percent of their income on food”[4], any minor change in commodity prices or wages can drive them towards catastrophic expenditure.

Facing food price hikes, rural households have little choice but to select the cheapest products. Unfortunately, these tend to have the lowest nutritional value and threaten individuals’ overall wellbeing[5]. Malnutrition impacts learning abilities, productivity and health, as illustrated in a study wherein children from rural regions who received ‘nutritional interventions’ “earned wages as adults that were 50 percent higher than those of nonparticipants”[6].

So how do we give these households the stability they so desperately need? In Europe, catastrophic expenditure over healthcare costs is rare, since most nations have insurance policies. Additionally, lower-income nations have begun to understand the importance of – and started implementing – social safety nets. Thailand, for instance, initiated a universal coverage programme in 2001[7], which has helped reduce poverty figures. Following this example, could we not create a similar insurance scheme for food expenditure?

As detailed in my blog ‘Disaster Management or Disastrous Management’, rural development relies on individuals taking ownership of programs, so the effectiveness of such an insurance scheme would be secured by its inherent autonomy. Rather than relying on food stamps and donations during food crises, rural households could pay a regular premium (either in cash or crops) and receive a bundle of nutritious goods in return. The scheme managers, by purchasing food in bulk, would be less sensitive to price instability. Ultimately the feasibility of such a scheme would have to be tested, but it is clear that we cannot sit back and allow rural families to continue living in such an inconstant manner.

Beyond regulations of financial speculation and agricultural support, it is our duty to come up with creative solutions to this problem. Otherwise, we are simply creating a global example of catastrophic expenditure: in which our global resources are all directed towards the wellbeing of developed nations, and none are left to pull rural households out of poverty.

 

Comments Off on Catastrophic Expenditure and the Agricultural Industry / 28 Feb 2014 por anabeatriceacuna
IMSD /

Food waste is not only food waste

“Don’t waste food, do you know how many people do not have enough to eat?” It is very common to hear people saying things like this, but how many times have you heard something like “don’t waste your food, do you know how many people do not have access to water and energy?… Probably not once!

Food waste is a term that we have always used, but ignore its complete meaning. Around one third of the food produced in one year for human consumption gets lost or wasted, that is 1.3 billion tonnes. What we see is food, but blind to our eyes are all the other ingredients that may not be so obvious like water, energy and land. Just take a look at the following information provided by GRACE Communications Foundation in their report Food, Water and Energy: Know the Nexus

“To make a single pizza requires 333 gallons (1,260 liters) of water, enough to fill almost ten bathtubs!”

“Producing one calorie of food requires about one liter of water. That means you “eat” more water than you drink.”

“Approximately 2.5 percent of the U.S. energy budget is “thrown away” annually as food waste.”

“About 25 percent of all freshwater consumed annually in the U.S. is associated with discarded food; globally such waste consumes as much water as in Lake Erie.”

“If we wasted just 5 percent less food, it would be enough to feed four million Americans; 15 percent less waste could feed 25 million Americans annually.”

Food, water and energy are interrelated, the two latter are necesary to produce and transport everything we eat.

Water is used in crops irrigation, in industrial livestock farms, for energy generation, for cleaning and maintaining hygenic production, for cooling purposes e.g. to cool the steam to turn turbines in a nuclear power plant… and the list goes on and on.

Energy involves fuel production and electricity used for transportation, to operate machinery, produce fertilizers, move and pump water, and for processing and packaging food.

But also land is very important, since it is used to grow crops and as landfill. Agriculture leads to land degradation, and the regeneration process is slow and sometimes it is not even possible. Close to 30% of the fertile land is used to produce the food that ends up wasted, that is around 1.4 hectares of land.

And what about CO2 emissions? we not only emmit more by transporting the waste, the waste itself produces methane, which is one most harmful greenhouse gases. It is estimated that 3.3 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent come from the food that is produced but not eaten.

Food waste by itself is already a big issue considering that there are 842 million hungry people around the world. However, we need to add  the 780 million people that lack access to an improved water source, as well as the 1.3 billion people who lack access to electricity and the 2.6 billion people who use biomass for cooking, causing harmful indoor pollution.

Said in different words, 1 in 8 people go to bed hungry each night, 1 in 9 people do not have clean water for drinking and sanitation and 1 in 5 people still need electricity at home.

So food waste is not only food waste, it is misspending a variety of resources that are scarce, difficult to regenerate and not accesible for everybody. Next time you decide to throw away some food remember that it is not just about food. If you go to the supermarket buy the amount of food that you can eat before it gets rotten, or if you go to a restaurant only order the amount of food that you can actually eat. Try to measure your eating habits and modify your purchases according to them.

 

Comments Off on Food waste is not only food waste / 28 Feb 2014 por yvonneroca
IMSD /

How can we face the sustainable food production challenge?

One of the most important tests that the food industry is facing today is the sustainable production challenge. Currently, 870 million people are suffering from hunger and malnutrition; and the majority of them are living in rural areas. Besides, the world population is expected to reach 9.1 billion people by 2050. Additionally, the economy will triple the size due to the economic growth of developed countries; which will highly increase food demand. Satisfying the basic needs of those people will suppose a great challenge for agriculture, as food production should rise and the way that food is produced should be transformed.

On the other hand, agriculture is also being threatened by the impacts of climate change, ecological degradation and natural resources scarcity. Yields are drying up due to the overuse of the past decades. However, there is huge potential for yield growth in developing countries by small-scale agriculture; which could meet the sustainable production challenge while delivering agricultural development for people in poverty [1]. Furthermore, climate change poses a serious risk for food production. Firstly, rising temperatures will affect negatively yield growth. Secondly, extreme weather events could have a big impact on poor farmers and its crops.

At the same time, higher incomes and increasing urbanization have caused a larger demand of products like meat, dairy, fish, fruit, and vegetables; which require a bigger use of scarce resources such as land, water or atmospheric space.  In this context, food production must be doubled in the next 40 years to feed 9 billion people, and this challenge must be achieved in a truly sustainable way within environmental boundaries [2].

For these reasons, the Food Footprint should be reduced in order to lessen greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity losses and water pollution. The Food Footprint is based on the Ecological Footprint, which is the sustainability indicator which measures the total environmental pressure of the human population in the environment [3]. This way, the Food Footprint is the segment of the Ecological Footprint which is due to food production. The Food Footprint consists of these elements: land used for food production, land required to absorb carbon dioxide food emissions and sea area needed for fishing.

 

Some of the solutions propose to accomplish a sustainable food system are reducing biofuel demand for food crops, improving soil and water management, making fertilization more efficient or improving the feed efficiency of ruminant livestock [4]. However, what can we do as consumers to promote sustainable behaviors patterns at this scenario and reduce our Food Footprint? Some of the measures proposed for individuals are the followings:

• Avoid wasting food. The production of food uses important quantities of water and energy, and the food which is not consumed creates waste. It is estimated that about 25% of the food is thrown away after being purchased
• Acquire food in season. Buying locally produced, seasonal food leads to a reduction in food miles and less packaging required to preserve fresh produce.
• Buy less processed food. Processed food usually requires more energy and water to produce.
• Consume less meat. Meat is the most resource-intensive food product, as a single serve of meat is estimated to create five kilograms of greenhouse gases.

Tackling these challenges is not going to be an easy path. Nevertheless, some changes can be made at both political and individual levels in order to build a better future in terms of food equity, security and sustainability.  As responsible citizens, we can start reducing the impacts of our consumption and making pressure on governments, as a previous step to achieve medium and longer-term solutions.

References:

[1] OXFAM INTERNATIONAL (2011) Growing a Better Future: Food justice in a resource-constrained world

[2] Foley, J. “Can we feed the world and sustain the planet? A five-step global plan could double food production by 2050 while greatly reducing environmental damage” in Scientific American, November, 2011

[3] ISAUK Research & Consulting (2007) A Definition of ‘Carbon Footprint’

[4] World Resource Institute (2013) Creating a Sustainable Food Future: A menu of solutions to sustainably feed more than 9 billion people by 2050

Comments Off on How can we face the sustainable food production challenge? / 28 Feb 2014 por martagomezmanchon
IMSD /

Maize in Contemporary Mexico

Maize has been an integral part of Meso-American culture for over 10 000 years. Today there are a total of 59 varieties are native to Mexico, each with their own uses in approximately 600 different food preparations specific to certain varieties. Today, traditional agricultural varieties of maize, as well as agricultural practices are being replaced in favour of promises of high yield from new hybrid and transgenic seeds, and conservation techniques which are highly unsuitable for the rural Mexican context. With national demand for maize to reach 39 million tonnes per year by 2025, and corn prices remaining stubbornly high, Mexico must find a solution to their current deficit in corn production, or face ever rising food import bills from neighbouring USA, and a devastating loss of local culture.

Since Mexico opened up its borders to North American free trade in the 1990s, maize production has doubled, to approximately 23 million tonnes per year. However, a study by Timothy Wise in 2009 has estimated that despite this massive increase, Mexican maize farmers suffered an annual loss for maize farmers of $72 million between 1997 and 2005, as a result of an increase in imports of cheaper subsidised US yellow maize competing with traditional Mexican white maize. For Mexico’s 3 million white maize farmers, this has been a brutal blow. Imported US maize is supported by billion dollar subsidies, which allowed US farmers to sell maize bellow its production cost, forcing Mexican farmers to decrease prices, and accept the associated losses, undermining the integrity of maize production in Mexico.

Since the 1990s, Mexican import dependence has increased from 7% to 34% in 2010, which when coupled with rising food prices since the 2007 crisis and increased interest in biofuels, has put Mexico is an unfortunate position. On average Mexico spends $2.5 billion a year on yellow maize imports from the US (10 million tonnes), which represents not only a financial issue as import bills rise, but climate and cultural issues as well.

Rich biodiversity has been known to increase resilience to climate change, as crops are more adaptable. For a country like Mexico, which is believed to be particularly vulnerable to droughts and storms associated with extreme weather patterns, agricultural resilience is paramount. Additionally, traditional Mexican cuisine requires a variety of maize strains in order to survive. Moving forward demands respect for sustainable agriculture both ecologically, and socially – protecting the next generation’s access to valuable natural resources, and the rich biodiversity associated with Mexican culture.

Public investment in agricultural infrastructure and programs is direly needed to optimise Mexican maize production while minimising inputs of valuable water resources. Small to medium-scale farmers represent the highest potential for growth, with the possibility to almost double their yields, under the right conditions.

The government has seen positive results of an increased yield of 55 and 70%  have been recorded as result of a pilot project by the Strategic Project for High-Yield Maize (PROEMAR), founded in 2008. The project focused on cost effective measures to improve resource use, for example soil analysis to prevent over fertilisation, thus protecting water resources for eutrophication.

In addition, a return to traditional agricultural practices that are more suited to Mexico’s needs is widely viewed as positive step for maize prodcution, as well as cultural heritage. Milpa, for example, is a traditional agricultural practice that has shown positive results in increasing yield in small to medium scale farms, which are currently producing only 57% of their full potential. Milpa involves intercropping several crop varieties (maize, beans, squash, pepper, yuca etc) in order to preserve oil quality, and reduce vulnerability of run off and erosion associated with mono-cultivation. In fact, studies have shown that it takes 1.7 planted hectares planed in monoculture to produce the same amount of food as 1 hectare of intercropped land. Furthermore, diversifying crop plantations also serves to decrease Mexico’s vulnerability to climate affects.

It seems that that a best step forward for Mexico is perhaps returning to traditional methods.In combination with sustainable resource management and public investment, it is estimated that in 10 to 15 years Mexico will reach an annual production of 57 million tonnes. This means that Mexico will be able to meet national demand (expected to reach 39 million tonnes in 2025) while protecting cultural heritage around maize production, as well as consumption.

References:

Fernández, Antonio Turrent, Wise, Timothy A, and Garvery Elise 2013 Achieving Mexico’s Maize Potential
http://www.yale.edu/agrarianstudies/foodsovereignty/pprs/10_FernandezWiseGarvey_2013.pdf

Santini, Christina 2006 The People of the Corn.
http://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/mexico/people-corn

Comments Off on Maize in Contemporary Mexico / 28 Feb 2014 por asyamarhubi
IMSD /

Farming Intensity = Food Security?

The term “global food crisis” was brought to our attention in 2008 when rapidly increasing food prices brought about a period of both social and political unrest in many countries across the globe.  The food system suddenly did not appear as stable as it had seemed; between 2006 and 2008, the market price for rice had risen by 217% and wheat by 136%.  Rapid population increases, the world financial crisis and extreme weather conditions (believed to be the effects of global warming) all had a massive knock-on effect on agricultural production.

As is so often the case, the worst effects of the crisis were felt in the most vulnerable areas of the world.  In 2009, the Global Hunger Index reported that one billion people in the world were undernourished with the state in 29 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and Southern Asia being described as exceptionally critical.  Experts predict that by 2050, millions will face starvation as the prices of staple foods double.  This naturally leads to the question:

 

What can be done to ensure food security?

A logical answer would be to try and increase overall yields.

 

This has indeed been discussed by many: from increasing the intensity of agricultural production through to taking advantage of advances in genetically modified (GM) technology to introduce more hardy, bountiful crop varieties.  It has been argued that GM crops, when farmed intensively, could not only provide increased yields, but could provide crops fortified with essential vitamins and minerals. While the public-debate surrounding GM or so-called “Frankenstein” foods may not be as strong as it was 10 years ago, many environmentalists warn against the implementation of GM crops in regions such as Sub-Saharan Africa claiming that their benefits are overstated. Worries still exist concerning the unknown long term risks of GM crops, how they could potentially affect gene flow and whether crops, engineered in the Northern hemisphere, can be adapted to areas such as Sub Saharan Africa. What’s more. Friends of the Earth have commented that GM crops cannot fulfill promises of increased yields and currently crops requiring less water or that are salt resistant only exist as expensive lab experiments.

 

An increasingly common opinion in the sustainable development field is to focus on maintaining local biodiversity in order to achieve food security.  Intensive farming methods often result in the removal of competing crops, failing to replenish soil with nutrients which leads to the degradation of ecosystems.  This impacts essential resources such as biodiversity and the availability of clean water which consequently threaten human health and social stability. The effects of climate change only exacerbate the situation.  The UN sustainable knowledge platform emphasises these risks and recommends the implementation of sustainable land management.  With focus on smallholders, NGOs such as SOS Sahel have worked with local communities in Ethiopia to develop land management strategies, often based on traditional practices, using indigenous.crops.  Techniques such as mixing/rotating crop varieties naturally returns nutrients to the ground – sparing use of fertilizer – and water management have brought about significantly increased yields whilst ensuring that surrounding ecosystems are respected.  Furthermore it is claimed that this approach not only addresses issues surrounding food security, but also tackles other key areas such as animal welfare, improving rural economies.

While it would be wrong not to take advantage of new technologies in the face of a food shortage, caution should be taken.  People living at subsistence levels have no safe margin of error should things go wrong.  Any solution will be complex, however given the fragile nature of such borderline ecosystems, sustainable principles must be taken into consideration.

Comments Off on Farming Intensity = Food Security? / 28 Feb 2014 por davidthorpe
IMSD /

ASAP. NOT “AS SOON AS POSSIBLE”, BUT “ADAPTATION FOR SMALLHOLDER AGRICUTURE PROGRAME”.

 

ASAP show us a program that was launched by IFAD in 2012, for driving smallholders agriculture through successful benefit approaches, improving rural development with relevant adaptation know-how and technologies.

 

These short of programs are becoming a central issue, and companies are raising awareness.  Global populations continue growing in developing countries and at the same time new incomes increase as a consequence of middle class growing. This is creating a new situation of high global demand food. Brazil, India and China are turning into new emerging markets. By 2018 food consumption expected to increase an 18% over 2005 figures. So smallholders are shifting into main actors in the agriculture market.

 

Companies rely more and more in this new source: SMALLHOLDER FARMS, because they see them as an important segment of the global food market. Then, smallholder farmers are facing the aim of feeding huge amount of people, but the lack of resources makes this impossible. Poor market linkages, low access to credit, lack of resources, many other barriers to improve the productivity as fertilizer, no diversification in their crops or non irrigation systems are some of them making smallholder  vulnerable to risk. In addition, the lack of access to financial support, which can goes accompanied by technical assistance of organizations that can increase the smallholder productivity makes these smallholder famers very vulnerable.

 

Most of the smallholders are in Africa, Asia and Latin America and they are an opportunity for buyers, lenders and other actors in the agricultural value chain, because the main issue of smallholders is the need of being part for formal value chain finance. In agriculture, social lenders focuses on producer organizations and small and growing business that engage farmers, improving livelihoods and environmental stewardship through better access to finance in the value chain. For instance, belonging to a producer organization is one way of finding access to finance, certifications as technical assistance. The inputs cost will increase, but as well, their yields, and at the end of the day, profits will be higher.

 

And again, their bigger weakness is that they have a lack of access to finance, so smallholders farming methods often turned to survival tactics that affects wrongly to the in ecosystems in which farmers depend on.  Lenders has established a successful model for provide them short-term export trade financing to producer organizations and agricultural business that reach smallholders farms. They are two different ways of doing, meeting with smallholders finance needs on the trade financing model; expand on the work of social lenders who are covering other financial needs such as equipment or analysis financing;  or at last but not least, financing through  buyer lender partnerships.

 

So at a first solution, access to appropriate credit could empower smallholders to help meet the growing global demand of food. Moreover, get better prices, reaching higher yields and achieving superior quality, while improving smallholders livelihoods and spreading benefits through the value chain. In the other hand, this will reduce upstream risk for buyers.

 

Furthermore, to meet the increased of demand, buyers are cultivating smallholder’s production because it provides them an alternative in increasing sustainable quality and production and by this, engagement with smallholders experimenting with new models of financing them. Sustainable sources have been implemented because of the Fair Trade and organic food demanded by developed countries. So this meeting in sustainability commitments is requiring a certified supply in order to apply the increase of potential in quality and yields.

 

Sources:

http://dalberg.com/documents/Catalyzing_Smallholder_Ag_Finance.pdf

http://www.ifad.org/climate/asap/asap.pdf

http://www.actionaid.org/sites/files/actionaid/policy_briefing-_smallholder-led_sustainable_agriculture.pdf

 

 

Comments Off on ASAP. NOT “AS SOON AS POSSIBLE”, BUT “ADAPTATION FOR SMALLHOLDER AGRICUTURE PROGRAME”. / 28 Feb 2014 por sofiagarcia-carretero
IMSD /