Rational Agriculture

According to a BBC story, Mali has a "David and Goliath GM struggle". The reason? There is a move to consider introducing Bt cotton varieties, which would resist pests and require less spraying. That sounds quite sensible, to evaluate available technology and decide whether or not to use it. Siaka Dembele, of the country's agricultural research institute (the IER), says that they have seen figures showing that improved yields are possible, and are now embarking on a 5-year study, together with USAid, Monsanto and Syngenta to see whether this could be beneficial for Mali.

But some people are trying to stop this. According to the article:

"That's an absurd proposition," says Asseto Samake, a professor of genetics and biology at the University of Mali. "The claims they are making for this cotton are absolutely false."

"Our farmers in West Africa achieve record production using just their digging sticks and regular seeds and they have great difficulty selling what they produce, because subsidies in America and Europe have made the world price for cotton fall.

"So why do they come now with their GMOs and technology to solve a problem that they created? It's a big farce!" adds Ms Samake, who is a member of the Coalition to Protect Mali's Genetic Heritage that formed when word leaked from IER about the USAid-funded project on BT crops.

Hidden in the knee-jerk anti-GM reaction is some truth: agricultural subsidies do distort the market, and do disadvantage farmers in Mali and elsewhere. But this has nothing to do with GM or any other agricultural technology. The "Coalition to Protect Mali's Genetic Heritage" is another environmentalist, anti-globalisation front, led by people with strong beliefs and closed minds. They cleverly represent themselves as David in the struggle against the American Goliath.

Perhaps Bt cotton won't work in Mali. But, if there's money available for the project and local scientists and farmers want to do the evaluation, why should anyone want to stop them?

This is not a new story, but one which is pertinent, given the current climate change meeting in Montreal (where, as normal, no practical progress will be made). This is also my first posting to this blog for a while, not through loss of interest, but pure lack of time. So, let me get on with some musings, and try to establish a more regular pattern of postings again.

What sparked this was a story on BBCi last month (Water builds the heat in Europe). Researchers from the World Radiation Center in Davos (no, I didn't know this existed, either) reported that about 70% of the observed rise in average temperatures across Europe was due to water vapour. Now, on one hand, this shouldn't surprise us too much: atmospheric water vapour does indeed have a much greater effect on temperature than the very low levels of carbon dioxide present. However, the received wisdom is that carbon dioxide is highly persistent in the atmosphere - it takes a long while for a relatively high level to decay - whereas water vapour varies much more. In fact, one of the prime pieces of logic behind the IPCC's assertion that the present trends in climate are largely anthropogenic is that carbon dioxide's relatively small effect is boosted by a feedback mechanism whereby water vapour levels are increased.

Be this as it may, changes in climate influence farming patterns. Recently, we've heard that southern Europe may become a desert while the UK experiences what is currently a Mediterranean climate. However, other people tell us that the Gulf stream will be shut down and the UK (and presumably western parts of continental Europe) will be gripped by a new ice age. One things for sure: they can't both be right (although if either came to pass, it would be hailed as a success for climate models, run as evidence-free predictive experiments).

Which brings me (finally) to the subject of agriculture. Significant changes in climate will lead to different cropping patterns. This has happened before, and will happen again. As long as sufficient food can be grown, it really doesn't matter too much where it is grown. Since we really don't know how climate will change, farmers will have to adapt to the changes over a period of time as they occur. Farmers are good at this; they've been doing it for a long time.

The other point which is relevant to agriculture is that temperature changes are expressed as averages over a year. Now, my understanding is that much of the predicted temperature increase actually occurs in winter and at night. In other words, we might get fewer frosts in winter, and balmier nights in summer. This could be as significant for cropping patterns as higher daytime summer temperatures. Who knows? I don't, and I really don't believe climate modellers or the IPCC do, either.