What is a furrow? Another idea.

I have just watched this video by IFAD where Pablo Tittonell, Professor and Chair of the Farming Systems Ecology Group at Wageningen University explains the advantage of conservation agriculture in enhancing food security for farmers in the Global South.

The short lecture, which could be even considered reinventing the wheel for those of us that study these processes on the field, I think is very illustrative and could be certainly used in teaching our students the challenges and the solutions that smallholders deal with on a everyday basis.

What however triggered me to bring our readership´s attention to this video is the use that Prof. Tittonell does of the word "furrow". According to him a furrow is not a water canal or channel but a rut where seeds are planted. His take on the term goes along the argument by Prof Widgren, earlier on this blog, that furrow should not be used to define irrigation canals in Africa as it doesn´t fit into the existing engineering terminology hence not opening up for international comparisons.

Some comments on Oakland Institute's report on Ukraine

Oakland institute released a report last year about Ukraine – Walking on the West Side – that has recently been getting a lot of attention. There was a rather interesting revelation in the report that the EU Association agreement that Ukraine signed contained a clause stating that Ukraine and the EU “will cooperate to extend the use of bio-technology in the agricultural sector”. (I am quoting Oakland here and not the EU agreement, which I have not read). As the Oakland institute report highlighted this may be a way to induce Ukraine to legalize the cultivation of GMO crops, and if so, this is indeed troubling news, which would be unpopular in Ukraine. So this definitely needs to be followed up.

I want to turn now to some parts of the report that I thought were not so good. In particular, the report contained some wrong information and it also had – what I felt was – misinformed criticism of reforms, urged by the World Bank, to improve the business climate in Ukraine. For example, the report states that “in recent years 1.6 million ha have been signed over to foreign companies for agricultural purposes.” (p.4). There is a chart of these companies. The problem is that four of the largest of these companies (in terms of their land bank), totaling around 950,000 ha, are actually Ukrainian companies that are incorporated abroad. Kernel, Mryia, Sintal and MCB Agricole are Ukrainian owned and run companies. Sintal, by the way, was undergoing bankruptcy proceeding earlier in 2014 (here is somewhat dated info on Sintal’s Ukrainian owner) and MCB Agricole (or rather their Ukrainian daughter company Ukrzernprom) got eaten up by competitors already by 2013 (See this article in Russian). And of course Mryia is technical default as of August 2014. This is not to deny that foreign companies are investing in Ukrainian agriculture, but the biggest companies, such as UkrLandFarming or MHP, remain Ukrainian. Generally, it is not going well for the large agroholdings – foreign or Ukrainian – due both to the current conflict and to problems that pre-date the current conflict, so there is a real question concerning the viability of these super large farms. (This is something I am currently researching and hope to have something out soon...)

Also, I do not deny that there are “land-grabbing” concerns, particularly as the new government moves towards lifting the moratorium on agricultural land sales (something, that the previous government was also intent on doing). Nevertheless up to 2013 most land reform proposals still limited corporate ownership of agricultural land and banned foreign ownership of agricultural land. I say up to 2013, because I have not been following this issue over 2014. This issue definitely needs to be monitored, but I think that Oakland exaggerates the degree to which foreigners are taking over or are poised to take over Ukrainian farmland and the Ukrainian ag-sector. To the extent that there is a landgrab going on in Ukraine – and this question is not as clear-cut in Ukraine as it is elsewhere in the world – it is mostly Ukrainians grabbing land from Ukrainians.

Finally, Oakland has rightly drawn attention to the real pain that IMF conditionality will bring about in Ukrainian society. That being said, they appear to be critical of World Bank programs to improve the business climate, arguing that it has nothing to do with fighting corruption. They provide no backing for this assertion. In fact, businesses have been mistreated by Ukrainian officialdom – I have heard loads of stories – and the Ukrainian economy is and was over-regulated, which provided ample opportunity for corruption. Improving the business climate is to a large degree about fighting corruption and arbitrary decisions. In 2013 Transparency International declared Ukraine the most corrupt country in Europe, so there is a lot of work to do here. Of course the World Bank should be monitored and criticized when appropriate, but in this case, I think the World Bank is right. Also, there is research that indicates that corruption is actually a reason why farms are so large in Ukraine and Russia – they need to be big to have enough negotiating power to deal with national and regional governments (Here is a link to the article by Ulrich Koester). Improving the business climate in other words, if it leads to more clear regulations and less corruption, may well level the playing field helping small and medium scale farmers to compete. 

Let me just say, in conclusion, that the Oakland Institute does good work. In this particular report, they raised important points, particularly the bio-technology clause in the EU agreement. I hope they continue to report on this. But this report would have been benefited from a strong dose of Ukrainian reality, which makes all these questions more complex.

PS. There’s a lot of context about the GMO question in Ukraine missing from the report. Basically, farmers in Ukraine have been using GMO seeds for a long time despite it being illegal. According to this article (in Russian) from Zerkalo Nedeli, a third of corn, and 70% of soy grown in Ukraine is from GMO seeds. See also this article (in Russian) from Kommersant, which basically says the same thing. The previous government – the one that negotiated the EU agreement with the EU – actually tried to legalize GMO in 2013.  The question is how those GMO seeds got into Ukraine. Now that would be an interesting report to read. 

Re-reporting and exchange trip to East Africa

Lowe Börjeson, Lars-Ove Westerberg and I have just come back from a 10 days field trip to Kenya and Tanzania. The aim of the trip was to conclude the research project financed by SIDA titled "Current expansion and past dynamics of small-holder irrigation farming in African dry-lands, measuring landscape, labor and climate interactions”. 

During this trip participants and research assistants from Tot, Sibou in Kenya and Engaruka in Tanzania had the opportunity to meet each other and visit the other study site. It was an insightful trip for all of them as they finally got to meet the people and see the places that I had been talking to them about in the last 4 years.

This 10 days were a great learning experience for all of us. Not only could participants and assistants share knowledge about farming and irrigation practices or reciprocal cultural customs, but it also created an amazing setting for us as researchers to share the results of our work.

The booklet that we had written in English and had been translated in Marakwet and Swahili was distributed among participants during several meetings we had with local farmers and women´s groups, for instance. In this setting, participants and research assistants could discuss about similarities and differences between their villages without our intermediation, which was truly the first objective of this trip: facilitate reciprocal learning. 

Often participants when they received the booklet asserted that we were the first researchers to come back to present the results of our study, especially in the form of a book. That was a rewarding comment, which made us reflect on the ethics of doing research. Research should primarly be for the benefit of participants. However, this principle is often bypassed due to lack of funding or time in the final stage of many research projects. 

Popular science publications

Fresh from the print three publications from the Dept of Human Geography on the SIDA financed research project that has been going on in Marakwet, Kenya and in Engaruka, Tanzania. 

These are popular science publications where we tried to simplify the language of our findings to report them back to informants and participants in our upcoming trip which will close the research project. 

The overall project looks at three variables: soil, climate and labor. These aspects can give an indication of the type of changes that happened in these irrigation systems and what have been the triggers behind them. In this booklet results are presented according to location and focus on: agricultural practices, women´s and men´s labor tasks, soil and water characteristics, adaptation weather variability and how all of these aspects have changed over time. 

Research results are seldom reported back to informants and participants. They can sometimes be of benefits for the community involved, but they most important can trigger further debate between researchers and participants. We are convinced that knowledge is situated and constructed with participants. Hence, trustworthy and socially responsible research must openly and critically engage participants until the end of research projects.  

PDF versions of these booklets are available here. 

A guest blogger from Burma

In this blog we host Emelie Svensson who is a MA student at LUMID at Lund University and received a MFS scholarship to do her research in Burma. Here are some of her reflections. 

Burma is often called ‘the land of the golden pagodas’, even though I have not visited any of them; it is certainly true, as there is a golden stupa at every mountaintop and city corner. I often think about the far better use this gold could have done if it was sold and the money used for hospitals, roads and education for the people. Burma has since the coup in 1962 been ruled by an authoritarian military junta, now lead by the ‘civilian’ president U Thein Sein. Both political freedoms and ethnic minorities have been heavily supressed during this long period of ruthless dictatorship, which have been using the so-called ‘dived and rule’ principle instituted by the former suppressors, the British Empire. However, reforms have been visible in the political system in Burma during at least the last six years. The military junta changed their uniforms into suits and began with what they call the ‘Seven-step roadmap to democracy’. Ceasefire agreement and peace negotiations between the national military and armed ethical minority groups have been initiated. These changes have open up the country to both curious tourists, international investments, and it has enabled both press and parts of the democracy movement to return from years in exile.

It might sound like a saga were the bad guys finally realise that their actions have been bad and now are trying to genuinely change the situation. Thus, this is not the case. Burma is still very unstable and the power remains solely within the government and the military, and the changes mostly benefit the government and it’s crony’s. Journalists are continually being imprisoned (and there have recently been cases of extra-judicial execution) for writing about issues that are sensitive to the government. Members of the student movement get imprisoned for protesting and demanding their rights. In addition to this, several fighting between the military and ethnic armed groups are currently on-going both in the north of Shan state, in Kachin state and in Karen state.

So what am I doing in Burma if I am not visiting temples and pagodas (which seem to be the main destination of most tourist that are visiting the country)? Currently I am collecting data for my Master thesis in development studies. I have had the opportunity to do this, as I got a MFS (Minor Field Study) scholarship from the department of human geography at Stockholm University.

In this study I am looking deeper into young women’s participation in the Burmese student and youth movement to understand how these women perceive the current political situation in Burma. This study is especially relevant as Burma is undertaking this democratisation process, or at least this is what the international community seems to believe even if the national opposition, the Burmese civil society together with many scholars are sceptical toward the direction of this process. The civil society, especially the student and youth movement, are important actors in the political landscape in Burma. I will look at the participation and role of women in the civil society using feminist democracy theory, which discuss on the importance of bringing women’s (and other marginalised groups) experiences to the arena to make an inclusive community democratic dialogue.

So how is my study going? I have travelled across the country to meet with youth organisations and the young women working in them. I started in the very south of the country in Dawei and I have travelled to Lashio the north of Shan stat (close to the Chinese border) and tomorrow I am taking a 17 hour bus to the town of Kalay in the north east, close to the Indian border. The women that I have talked to have very interesting both horrifying and more hopeful stories including everything from imprisonment, working underground, having babies, taking important steps toward democracy, war, people fleeing, and loud protest against the new education system. Even though a new night-bus awaits, and my stomach is grumpy as a 5-year old, I am loving this amazing experience and the opportunity to meet so many smart, brave and hard working women in this intriguing and important movement!

  

Canals and furrows now published in Azania

Furrow irrigation

In the summer 2013 I posted a comment on terminology on the Farmlands blog Furrows in Africa -- canals in the Americas ? With some additional comments and references it is now published in Azania;

Abstract _This brief comment argues that the use of the term furrow system for locally developed irrigation in Eastern Africa is misleading in an international comparative perspective. It is at odds with the terminology in irrigation engineering and also with the archaeological terminology used outside Eastern Africa. Internationally, the term canal is used for the artificial watercourses that bring water from the source to the field, while furrow irrigation refers to one specific way of applying water to the individual field.

Find the published version at this link. Do not hesitate to write to mats.widgren@humangeo.su.se if you want a digital offprint.

In response to an earlier blog post

Last week Prof. Martin Jones published a blog post on food plants in Marakwet. He writes about the market in Kolowa in East Pokot "A link between cash crops and men as posited by recent writers such as Caretta and  Börjeson (2014) was not as immediately evident, as the market and other places contained many entrepreneurial women." and then he adds " Caretta and  Börjeson detail a series of crop varietal names which overlap with, but do not entirely match the longer list compiled by Helena.  This is unsurprising as all parties are recalling varietal names, sometimes from their parents’ and grandparents’ generations.  Further enquiries would clarify these, and indeed some terms may have multiple usages." 

In response to Prof. Jones´ statements I would like to add two points. First of all, our article referred mostly to women´s and men´s labor as in cultivation, not in trading. However, it is true that women are the principal, if not the sole, sellers at market, especially at the one in Kolowa and at Tot centre. This circumstance however does not mean that women have control over cash crops or, if you like, more recently introduced crops that have brought about livelihood diversification through sale. Women in fact sell minimal quantities in these local markets, while men deal directly with wholesalers. Yet another instance in which local patriarchal structures are manifested. This power configuration points also to the fact that the informal economy is often feminized and feeds off the care economy i.e. unpaid work. Moreover, as showed by Carney (1993) in The Gambia, markets risk being saturated by women selling vegetable decreasing their returns.  

Secondly, Prof. Jones correctly states that crop names have changed through generations and that the ones mentioned in our articles constitute a partial listing. In fact, while I never heard some of the name mentioned in his blog post, I could remember other ones. Indicative of this multiplicity of names is the fact that once when I was carrying an interview, also with the assistance of Helena Chepto, a lady who was originally from a Chesongoch used a different name than Helena to indicate the same long term millet seeds that we were looking at. Hence, crop varietal names are not only generation specific, but also place specific within Marakwet. As Prof Jones indicates, it is high time to record and archive seeds and crops varieties in Marakwet. This cultural richness risks being lost with the commercialization of seeds which the new Red Cross-sponsored Tot-Kolowa irrigation project could be the dawn of. A forthcoming publication by me and Wilhelm Östberg will discuss this project and the projects in the last 40 years by of Kerio Valley Development Agency more in depth. 

Finally, I welcome Prof. Jones´ blog post because I think it is the perfect examples of how academic communication and debate can be enhanced through new and quicker forums, such as blogs. While articles drafts are not often shared among academicians hence, missing an opportunity to improve a colleague´s work, blogs can be useful straightforward and easy means to make early work visible and open up for comments.