How do you know you’re having an impact when there are 9 billion people to feed? Ben Pratt, president of the Mosaic Company Foundation for Sustainable Food Systems, on how to do more with less while maximizing impact in the sustainable agriculture space.

By Devex Partnerships // 27 March 2025

When it comes to advancing sustainable agricultural practices, getting the most out of scarce resources, such as water and land, is critical. The same is true for the foundations dedicated to this same cause.

“We realize that in a resource-scarce world, we can’t fund every program in the world,” said Ben Pratt, president of the newly relaunched Mosaic Company Foundation for Sustainable Food Systems. “For us, it really comes down to education.”

For the past two decades, the foundation has worked with its partners to empower farmers in Brazil, India, and the United States with the tools and knowledge they need to achieve agricultural self-sufficiency. Prioritizing measurable impact in these specific regions has allowed the foundation to multiply the positive effect of its funding, Pratt explained.

“We want to help smallholder farmers access and use inputs, soil, and water efficiently and sustainably,” said Pratt, who also serves as the vice president of public affairs for The Mosaic Company. “Then, we want to move on to other farmers in the same regions so we can have a much more broad-based impact.”

As the foundation enters its next phase, it is sharpening its focus on farmer-led initiatives to increase yields, bolster soil health, and protect water.

“We’re going from a sort of broad-based corporate foundation that would consider funding a wide range of things to really honing our focus on this single strategy,” Pratt said of the foundation’s relaunch. “I would say it’s an evolution,” he added. “The foundation has been around for 20 years, and this represents a progression of that important work.”

Speaking to Devex, Pratt explained how the foundation plans to build on its previous successes to maximize its impact in the sustainable agriculture space.

This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

What has the foundation achieved so far that gives you hope for further success moving forward?

Our foundation’s been around for about 20 years, and we’re very proud of the work we’ve done in many regions of the world. One of our most proud accomplishments is a program in India, the Krishi Jyoti project. It means “enlightened agriculture.” We work with a third party there, the Sehgal Foundation, and it’s not too much to say that we have fundamentally improved hundreds of thousands of lives in India.  

We’ve done that by going into villages where people have been farming the same very small plots of land for many generations without sufficient inputs, without sufficient water, and we train them to apply and use them efficiently. This has boosted yields by 35% and transformed entire communities.

One of the first sets of these farmers I met about a decade back came to an event we had just a couple of years ago — and he is proof the program has worked. The cohort of farmers is sustainable, self-sufficient, and productive, feeding their families and selling some of what they produce for income rather than falling far below formerly subsistence-level farming. And that’s incredibly gratifying to see thousands and thousands of farmers who have gone from not being able to live with what they produce to being very productive and staying that way for the long term.

What are the biggest lessons the foundation has learned so far from working with its partners to advance sustainable agricultural practices?

One is that long-term, committed partnership is key. We can provide funding, and we can be there to help with agronomic expertise and people, but we need third-party NGO partners who can bring the whole thing together and be boots on the ground for us.

The most important thing about measurable, meaningful, and growable impact for us is this ability to go to a specific place, spend a couple of years with farmers in that area, training them and improving their infrastructure. After bringing them to a level of self-sufficiency, we can reinvest program resources with their neighbors. We’re not perpetually funding the same few people, but multiplying the impact of our limited resources to transform entire communities.

Are there any unique challenges facing farmers in each of the regions you work in?

In India, where there are something like 300 million farmers — there are almost as many farmers in India as there are people in the United States — and they, by and large, farm very small plots of land. They need access to education, credit, inputs, and most of all, especially in this climate change-impacted world, they need water. Water is a scarce resource in many parts of India where the summer temperatures are getting into 120 deg Fahrenheit (and above) these days.

In Brazil, a lot of people who know about agriculture think of Brazilian farmers as these megafarmers who have 200,000 hectares of land. However, there are also a lot of smaller farmers who are significantly disadvantaged against those much larger peers, and they need the same kinds of access I mentioned.

Then, in the U.S., it’s a different model for us. Farmers recognize that food security also relies on soil health and nutrient stewardship. We want to make sure that farmers get the most value out of the products they use by optimizing nutrient use efficiency and protecting top soil from erosion. The foundation’s leadership in [the] 4R Nutrient Stewardship [framework] funds technical assistance to increase capacity, and expands best practices in nutrient use efficiency to 10 million acres.

How can the next generation of farmers be equipped with what they need to lead on best sustainable agriculture practices?

First of all, we need farmers, and we need to make farming an appealing business and an appealing lifestyle. This isn’t [only] beneficial for us — it’s for everybody around the world. We need younger people, kids growing up on farms, to see that what their parents are doing is an appealing way of living and they can make a good living at it. So that’s the first thing we really need to keep attracting people to farming. The only way to do that is to make sure current farmers are successful.

That’s why for the foundation, we are really focused on educating current farmers, and helping to make sure that as many farmers as possible around the world have access to all the information and innovations they need to be as productive as they can be. Then, while we’re doing that, we should educate them about the necessity of good environmental stewardship.

Keep in mind the world needs its food system at large to grow and be more productive and sustainable because the U.N. still expects us to have 9 billion people on this earth by 2050. And we can’t bring a lot more land into agricultural production because you can’t deforest land as a primary means of achieving food security and still meet global climate goals. So we need the land that is there to be maximally productive, and that’s what we’re hoping to focus on through the foundation with particularly disadvantaged farmers around the world.

The post Empowering community development through sustainable agriculture appeared first on IPNN.

Parasitic weeds are ruthless freeloaders, stealing nutrients from crops and devastating harvests. But what if farmers could trick these invaders into self-destructing? Scientists at UC Riverside think they’ve found a way.

Across sub-Saharan Africa and parts of Asia, places already struggling with food insecurity, entire fields of staples like rice and sorghum can be lost to a group of insidious weeds that drain crops of their nutrients before they can grow. Farmers battle these parasites with few effective tools, but UCR researchers may be able to turn the weeds’ own biology against them.

This trick is detailed in the journal Science, and at its heart lies a class of hormones called strigolactones—unassuming chemicals that play dual roles. Internally, they help control growth and the plants’ response to stresses like insufficient water. Externally, they do something that is unusual for plant hormones.

“Most of the time, plant hormones do not radiate externally—they aren’t exuded. But these do,” said UCR plant biologist and paper co-author David Nelson. “Plants use strigolactones to attract fungi in the soil that have a beneficial relationship with plant roots.”

Unfortunately for farmers, parasitic weeds have learned to hijack the strigolactone signals, using them as an invitation to invade.

Once the weeds sense the presence of strigolactones, they germinate and latch on to a crop’s roots, draining them of essential nutrients.

“These weeds are waiting for a signal to wake up. We can give them that signal at the wrong time—when there’s no food for them—so they sprout and die,” Nelson said. “It’s like flipping their own switch against them, essentially encouraging them to commit suicide.”

To understand strigolactone production, the research team led by Yanran Li, formerly at UCR and now at UC San Diego, developed an innovative system using bacteria and yeast. By engineering E. coli and yeast cells to function like tiny chemical factories, they recreated the biological steps necessary to produce these hormones. This breakthrough allows researchers to study strigolactone synthesis in a controlled environment and potentially produce large amounts of these valuable chemicals.

The researchers also studied the enzymes responsible for producing strigolactones, identifying a metabolic branch point that may have been crucial in the evolution of these hormones from internal regulators to external signals.

“This is a powerful system for investigating plant enzymes,” Nelson said. “It enables us to characterize genes that have never been studied before and manipulate them to see how they affect the type of strigolactones being made.”

Beyond agriculture, strigolactones hold promise for medical and environmental applications. Some studies suggest they could be used as anti-cancer or anti-viral agents, and there is interest in their potential role in combating citrus greening disease, which is doing large-scale damage to citrus crops in Florida.

Scientists still have questions about whether the weed suicide strategy will work in real-world fields. “We’re testing whether we can fine-tune the chemical signal to be even more effective,” Nelson said. “If we can, this could be a game-changer for farmers battling these weeds.”

This research was led by distinguished UCR professor and geneticist Julia Bailey-Serres.

More information: Anqi Zhou et al, Evolution of interorganismal strigolactone biosynthesis in seed plants, Science (2025). DOI: 10.1126/science.adp0779

Journal information: Science 

The post Triggering parasitic plant ‘suicide’ to help farmers appeared first on IPNN.

Zimbabwe’s food security prospects have received a significant boost, with the government targeting a 340% increase in major crop production for the 2024/2025 summer season, a move set to enhance national self-sufficiency and rural livelihoods.

The update, presented during the first post-Cabinet press briefing of 2025 by the Minister of Lands, Agriculture, Fisheries, Water and Rural Development, Dr. Anxious Jongwe Masuka, highlighted that the Grain Marketing Board has enough reserves to sustain rural communities until the next harvest in April 2025.

The private sector has been instrumental in maintaining grain supply, importing a total of 1.35 million metric tonnes between April 2024 and February 2025, comprising 1.13 million metric tonnes of maize, 220,092 metric tonnes of wheat, and 374 metric tonnes of wheat flour.

The government has issued 1,021 maize import permits for a total of 5 million metric tonnes while closely monitoring stock levels, import prices, and supply sources to prevent arbitrage. The 2024/2025 Summer Season Plan aims to increase cereal production to 3.2 million metric tonnes, a substantial jump from the 744,000 metric tonnes recorded in the previous season, with overall major crop production expected to rise from 915,000 metric tonnes to over 4 million metric tonnes.

Preliminary data indicates that 99% of the targeted maize area has been planted, while the Zimbabwe Statistics-led Government-wide First Round Crops, Livestock, and Fisheries Assessment is being finalized to provide a more accurate picture of crop plantings. Under the Presidential Input Scheme, the farming sector has already surpassed its target, achieving 11.4 million plots against the projected 9.5 million plots, marking a 20% increase above target and a 16% rise from the 2023/2024 season’s 9.8 million plots.

Cotton farming has also expanded significantly, with the total planted area reaching 203,875 hectares, a 40% increase from the 145,265 hectares recorded in the previous season. Tobacco farming continues to grow, with 127,000 growers registered for the 2024/2025 season, reflecting a 10% rise compared to the same period last year, and 92% of these farmers participating under contract. The total planted area for tobacco stands at 132,851 hectares, a 16% increase from the previous season.

As part of the Tobacco Food Security Initiatives, tobacco merchants are supporting contracted farmers with maize and sorghum inputs, reinforcing the government’s broader agenda to enhance agricultural sustainability and ensure food security for all Zimbabweans.

The post Zimbabwe Targets 340% Surge in Crop Production as Government Strengthens Food Security Measures appeared first on IPNN.

Director, Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Impact Action Platform, Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Direct link: https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/11/cop29-agriculture-loss-damage-fund//

• COP29 must offer targeted finance to countries whose agricultural sector has been hardest hit by the climate crisis.
• The Loss and Damage Fund can help support smallholder farmers in low- and middle-income countries.
• In order to have the greatest impact on the agricultural sector, climate finance must be guided by data.

After the last UN climate talks in Dubai were dubbed the “Food COP”, it makes sense that COP29 focuses on finance. The food and agriculture sector is frequently the hardest hit by the worsening impacts of climate change, with droughts, floods and heatwaves undermining food production and food security, causing devastating economic losses.

This year’s talks in Baku, Azerbaijan, therefore present a pivotal opportunity to build on the historic Loss and Damage Fund agreed in 2023 to compensate the countries that are simultaneously most dependent on agriculture and exposed to climate risks not of their own making.

An estimated $3.8 trillion worth of crops and livestock have been lost due to disaster events in the past 30 years, equivalent to $123 billion per year. These losses have not been fairly distributed: The highest relative losses have been inflicted on lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs), ranging between 10 and 15% of their total agricultural GDP.

Cycle of devastation

Even more than impacting economies, crop and livestock losses from disasters have cascading impacts on food security, health, water and environment, especially in vulnerable rural communities. From 2008 to 2018, agricultural losses to disasters in LMICs averaged 6.9 trillion kilocalories per year, equivalent to 7 million adults’ caloric intake. In Latin America and the Caribbean, this was a loss of 975 calories per day, or 40% of an adult’s recommended daily allowance, followed by Africa (559 / 23%) and Asia (283 / 12%).

Disaster events are also becoming worse and more commonplace, increasing fivefold in the past 50 years. With populations in some of the poorest and most food-insecure nations projected to grow the most in the time to 2050, decisive action must be taken now. Otherwise, we risk communities and entire nations becoming permanently trapped in the cycle of climate destruction and recovery, entirely dependent on international food aid.

Crop yields are suffering and will continue to plummet without support for farmers struggling to cope with the impacts of climate change. Already, projections show rice yields in Asia could drop by as much as 50% by the end of the century, while its population is forecast to remain largely the same.

The Loss and Damage Fund, however, has the potential to correct the present imbalance, ensuring food security and keeping farmers in business. In LMICs – where agriculture makes up an average of 25% of national GDP and directly employs as much as 35% of the population – smallholder farmers should be the ultimate recipients of support. With more financial support, smallholder farmers can access improved seeds, training and climate-resilient technologies to increase productivity and better withstand intensifying droughts, floods, cyclones and other climate-related shocks.

This, in turn, strengthens food security, reduces poverty and fosters economic growth. Agriculture can serve as the backbone of more climate-resilient rural economies and catalyze growth in adjacent sectors, such as transportation, processing and retail, thereby creating broader economic stability and development.

Quantifying agriculture

To realize these gains, climate finance must be guided by evidence and data. The science already exists: Climate attribution research can successfully identify the extent to which human-induced climate change influences specific extreme weather events and patterns. By pinpointing climate change as a driver of specific floods, droughts, heatwaves and other weather events impacting agriculture, cutting-edge research can quantify the impacts of climate change on agriculture.

Attribution science can not only inform compensation claims and financial aid in vulnerable nations and regions, but also enhance our understanding of long-term damage in agricultural systems and inform targeted adaptation strategies. United Nations studies have already demonstrated yield losses of 2-10% in wheat yields in Morocco and Kazakhstan, and maize in South Africa.

But this research has its limits. There are important data gaps for many rural agricultural communities, where robust climate monitoring and historical records are lacking at present. This scarcity of localized, high-quality data hinders the precision of attribution studies in some of the regions worst affected by climate change, limiting researchers’ ability to accurately assess and quantify loss and damage in these areas.

However, tools exist to help plug data gaps by providing cutting-edge methodologies, improved metrics and tailored climate information systems. For example, CGIAR collaborates with national agricultural research systems and local partners around the world to collect and analyze climate data in underserved regions. Upscaling initiatives such as these to improve monitoring systems and curate specialized tools for real-time loss and damage tracking will be integral to pinpointing where finance will deliver the most significant rehabilitative impact.

As global leaders convene at COP29 and discuss where resources from the Loss and Damage Fund are to be prioritized, farmers must be at the forefront. By channeling resources strategically, we can ensure an equitable transition to sustainable food systems, reducing emissions and building resilience against future climate shocks simultaneously. Leaders must recognize that climate justice means prioritizing those who bear the greatest burden while contributing the least to global emissions, and ensuring no one is left behind.

The post Farmers must be front of the line for climate compensation after COP29. Here’s why appeared first on IPNN.

In 2024, the government declared a national state of disaster following widespread crop failures and famine in the country.

Speaking at the country’s first post-cabinet press briefing of 2025, Dr Anxious Jongwe Masuka, minister of Lands, Agriculture, Fisheries, Water and Rural Development, said the Zimbabwean Grain Marketing Board had enough reserves to sustain rural communities until the next harvest in April 2025.

“The private sector has been instrumental in maintaining grain supply, importing a total of 1,35 million tons between April 2024 and February 2025, comprising 1,13 million tons of maize, 220 092t of wheat, and 374t of wheat flour,” he added.

Masuka said the government issued maize import permits for a total of five million tons.

Zimbabwe’s 2024/25 Summer Season Plan was aimed at pushing up grain production to 3,2 million tons compared with the 744 000t recorded in the previous season.

According to Masuka, cotton production had also grown significantly, with the total planted area reaching 203 875ha, a 40% increase from the 145 265ha planted in the previous season.

“Tobacco farming continues to grow, with 127 000 growers registered for the 2024/25 season, reflecting a 10% rise compared to the same period last year, and 92% of these farmers participating under contract. The total planted area for tobacco stands at 132 851ha, a 16% increase from the previous season,” Masuka said.

By Annelie Coleman

The post Zimbabwe targeting a 340% increase in crop production in 2025 appeared first on IPNN.

A major agricultural breakthrough is underway in South Africa, as SUISO launched a $1.7 billion (about R31.5 billion) coal-to-fertiliser initiative in Kriel, Mpumalanga. This ambitious project is poised to significantly boost food security in sub-Saharan Africa by enhancing local fertiliser production and reducing reliance on costly imports.

Sub-Saharan Africa, home to over a billion people, currently has only five fertiliser plants, a stark contrast to China’s 277 plants serving a population of 1.4 billion.

This disparity highlights the urgent need for local fertiliser production to support the region’s growing agricultural demands.

SUISO’s new facility aims to bridge this gap by producing 1.5 million tonnes of nitrogen-based fertilisers annually, including urea and controlled-release variants. The impact on South Africa’s maize production – currently at 15-17 million tonnes per year – could be transformative, significantly increasing yields and bolstering food security.

Workers at the SUISO facility in Mpumalanga, where 4 000 jobs are being created during construction, with nearly 1 000 permanent positions by 2029. Photo: Supplied/Food For Mzansi

Economic benefits for farmers

South Africa’s maize industry, valued at R46.3 billion, is projected to grow to R55.6 billion by 2029. By replacing 1.2 million tonnes of imported urea fertiliser annually, SUISO’s project will protect farmers from volatile global supply chains while ensuring more affordable and reliable access to fertilisers.

Located on a 900-hectare site with integrated feedstock and production facilities, the SUISO plant is designed to minimise logistical costs, further enhancing its affordability for local farmers.

These include advanced decarbonisation and carbon capture techniques, as well as PurActive coatings for controlled-release fertilisers. These innovations optimise nitrogen use efficiency, increasing yields by up to 5% while minimising waste and environmental impact.

SUISO’s facility will leverage state-of-the-art technologies with a track record spanning 830 reference plants worldwide.

In addition, the facility will produce 234,000 tonnes of clean, zero-sulphur blue methanol annually, aligning with the forthcoming South African Fuel Act of 2027.

Job creation and skills development

Beyond agriculture, SUISO’s investment will stimulate local economic development. The construction phase alone will generate 4 000 jobs, with 981 permanent positions once the facility is fully operational in 2029.

To support workforce development, the onsite Gerhard Potgieter Engineering Training College will train and upskill 400 employees, ensuring long-term skills sustainability in the industry.

Global trading giant ETG (Export Trading Group) will serve as SUISO’s exclusive offtaker, guaranteeing that fertiliser produced in Mpumalanga reaches the most vulnerable regions of sub-Saharan Africa. This partnership is said to directly support smallholder farmers, empowering them to improve crop yields and secure their livelihoods.

By Ivor Price

The post SUISO’s R31.5b fertiliser project set to shake up agriculture appeared first on IPNN.

The absence of a census has led to significant gaps in the country’s structural agricultural statistics. The aim of the census is therefore to fill these gaps in order to help transform Zimbabwe’s agrifood systems.

The FAO recently announced that it was providing technical assistance to Zimbabwe to help the country develop an NALC plan of action, which the government could use to start mobilising the required resources to undertake the census. The FAO was also helping Zimbabwe compile and update its national food balance sheet (FBS) at the same time.

“This collaboration is part of FAO’s broader efforts to support the country in strengthening its agricultural data systems and ensuring food security for its population,” the FAO said.

Dominique Habimana, FAO regional statistician for Africa, said that the census would form a key step towards providing the main statistical outputs of Zimbabwe’s Strategic Plan for Agricultural and Rural Statistics (2025 to 2029), and Zimbabwe’s National Strategy for the Development of Statistics (2022 to 2026).

“The upcoming NALC will give the snapshot of the current situation of [the agriculture] sector and serve as the baseline on different agricultural subsectors with complete enumeration. The NALC will also allow for creating, for the first time, a solid sampling frame for subsequent agricultural surveys,” he added.

The post Zimbabwe to conduct first agri sector census since independence appeared first on IPNN.

The catch is there’s still no agreed-upon definition for regenerative agriculture. So how can food products branded as regenerative be verified if meanings are disputed?

There’s no way of knowing whether “regeneratively grown” claims are genuine or effective without a monitoring, reporting and verification system. How does regenerative compare to organic? Many farmers and researchers worry the term is ripe for greenwashing in food marketing and product labelling.

The first thing to say is that this term has been around for decades.

Take 21st-century regenerative agriculture champion Gabe Brown. He is a well known North Dakota rancher and author of From Dirt to Soil, the holy grail of regenerative agriculture manuals. Brown documented how he replaced synthetic fertilisers with compost and diverse cover crops. He transformed his parched, trampled and microbe-depleted soil into a nutrient-rich system and boosted crop yields. He has inspired farmers worldwide.

The original definition of regenerative agriculture, coined by Robert Rodale of the Rodale Research Institute in the US over 40 years ago, focused on soil biology as the key to supporting nutrient recycling between plants, animals and the land, leading to healthier crops and improved economic productivity without agricultural chemicals.

Even back in 1943, The Living Soil by British farmer and botanist Eve Balfour critiqued chemical-intensive industrial farming practices. Her book was a seminal text in the organic farming movement and led to her founding the Soil Association charity.

Regenerative and organic methods overlap. Both involve crop rotation (changing the crop type grown in a field to manage pests and minimise disease) and diverse cover cropping (growing beneficial crops to protect the soil all year round alongside production crops to prevent erosion and increase organic matter).

They both require minimum or no ploughing (leaving the soil partially or completely undisturbed to maintain soil structure, hold water and allow soil organisms to thrive), and focus on composting (turning organic matter into nutrient-rich material for soil microbes).

Both types of farming also welcome cows, pigs, sheep and other livestock onto farmland to fertilise the soil by grazing and pooing. And both prioritise soil health and see chemical inputs as harmful to thriving ecosystems.

But regenerative agriculture is not just another way of saying “organic”.

Organic is a much more prescriptive definition. It has strict rules, certification standards and inspections from certifying bodies. Organic excludes the use of synthetic pesticides, fertilisers and genetically modified seeds.

It enables certified organic farmers to enjoy premium prices and offers consumers assurance about what organic does and does not allow. It offers transparency on agrichemicals, though does not offer data and information about biodiversity or greenhouse gas emissions.

Regenerative, in definition and practice, is not so clear – it operates as a broad set of guiding principles that can be adapted to a particular farm circumstance in a flexible way.

This ambiguity is a double-edged sword. It gives farmers the freedom to tailor regenerative principles to their contexts, but it can also leave consumers feeling dazed and confused.

Many UK farmers view this flexibility as necessary, given each farm operates within a different combination of local environmental conditions (like soil type or microclimate) and business goals. A one-size-fits-all definition and approach to regenerative agriculture seems impractical in such diverse settings

This is where it gets messy. An organic carrot might be grown in a monocultured system (associated with reduced biodiversity), while a regeneratively farmed carrot might be grown in a biodiversity-rich cover-cropped system, but with the use of some synthetic chemicals like glyphosate.

The lack of a standardised definition risks undermining the credibility of regenerative farming. Certification programmes aligned with regenerative principles could help regenerative agriculture gain more accountability while staying true to its core vision. Without monitoring, reporting and verification systems in place, it’s very difficult for farmers to credibly market their crops as “regenerative”.

Shopping for regenerative foods

Regenerative agriculture could drive the expansion of carbon-neutral foods beyond speciality products like chocolate, wine, coffee and tea, to more everyday items in our shopping baskets.

By design, regenerative agriculture lowers greenhouse gas emissions associated with farming — everything from potatoes and wheat to bananas and tomatoes. It reduces the reliance on synthetic fertilisers which are carbon intensive to produce, cuts fuel use and promotes no or minimum tillage and cover cropping that pull carbon from the atmosphere into the soil.

If evidenced through regenerative agriculture standards and certifications, these efforts could create a food system that is not only sustainable, but also carbon neutral. As this movement gathers momentum, it could reshape supply chains and up the ante on corporate sustainability commitments. Supermarkets and businesses might proactively choose to source their food products from regenerative farms to reduce their climate impact.

So, what does all this mean for your weekly shop? While the term regenerative might not yet offer the clarity of organic, your consumer choices matter. When you buy food labelled as regenerative, you’re signalling to the retailer that soil health and sustainability matter to you.

Hold suppliers to account by asking questions. Look for clear information about how products are sourced, the farming practices used and the environmental impact of those practices in labels. Do any certifications or reports verify these practices? Are greenhouse gas emissions reported? Which environmental outcomes have been achieved?

We believe that the revival of regenerative agriculture has potential to help reform and transform our food and farming systems. The future of carbon-neutral food hinges on clear accountability measures and how this regenerative agriculture market evolves.

By Jessica Chapman and Brian Reid

The post Regeneratively farmed is the new buzz label on supermarket shelves – but what does it actually mean? appeared first on IPNN.

I focus on smallholder agriculture because most of the food in the region is generated by farms that are only a few acres or hectares in size. And, while African economies are diversifying, most Africans still depend on crops and livestock production for income.

Across the region there is a strong link between fighting hunger, poverty and improving productivity and incomes on smallholder farms. But we must be careful to avoid pursuing solutions that damage the broader ecosystem.

In my research, I have explored how farmer innovations and local knowledge can contribute to maintaining crop varieties, livestock, pollinators, soil micro-organisms and other variables essential for a sustainable agriculture system. What scientists call agriculture biodiversity or agrobiodiversity.

My work puts me firmly on the side of people who today advocate for an approach to food production that’s called “agroecology” or “environmental conservation.” This means a focus on farming methods that protect natural resources and vulnerable ecosystems while respecting local knowledge and customs.

At the same time, however, in certain contexts I do support approaches that are viewed as “wrong” to many contemporary advocates of agroecology. These include the use of certified, commercial seeds for improved crop varieties, fertilisers, and genetically modified crops.

Opposition by agroecologists is rooted in a mix of concerns. With certified seeds, there is wariness about the cost to farmers and the impact on the common practice of saving seeds from one season to the next. For fertilisers, the focus is on run-off caused by their excessive use in places like North America and Europe. Opposition to genetically modified crops involves unease with using genes from unrelated species to improve crops. In addition to this is the potentially higher price of modified varieties.

While this may seem contradictory to some, I know that agroecology and advanced farming practices can co-exist in Africa. Indeed, to ensure African farmers and food markets can thrive while protecting local ecosystems – especially as climate change presents a host of new food-related challenges —- they must co-exist.

In my view, supporters of agroecology who strongly oppose new inventions are sincere in their beliefs that they are advocating for the interests of Africa’s farmers and the preservation of vulnerable ecosystems. Unfortunately, if successful, such hardline positions will narrow the options available in ways that will be harmful to both.

Weighing up the options

The three issues that appear to be most contentious for certain advocates of agroecology: fertilisers, commercially produce improved seeds and genetically modified crops.

Let’s start with synthetic fertilisers. The main concerns with fertilisers are related to their misguided and excessive application. In some places, this has contributed to the degradation of freshwater and saltwater ecosystems. However, rather than an absolute ban on using them, I prefer strategies that consider their safe and, modest use.

There are many situations on African farms today where modest amounts of synthetic fertilisers – applied in combination with other sustainable soil management strategies, such as crop rotation and intercropping – will do more to restore degraded landscapes than cow or sheep manure alone.

For the farmers I’ve worked with, the manure from their livestock may be enough to fertilise the small garden outside their kitchen, but it won’t be nearly enough to fertilise entire farms. Particularly if they hope to grow enough food to sell.

Seed debates

Some agroecology advocates also firmly oppose commercial seeds in favour of those saved by farmers from season to season. There are concerns about the cost of new seeds to farmers and also that crop diversity will narrow as varieties, that farmers have planted for generations, will be lost.

Again, I look for evidence of outcomes, as do most farmers I encounter. Overall, the farmers I’ve worked with in Africa are radically practical and carefully evaluate their options. They will purchase a commercial seed if they see clear evidence that it is worth the investment. For instance, that it provides superior yields, or other qualities, while retaining the flavour and texture they and their customers prefer. If not, they will use seeds saved from previous years.

Expanding their options with commercial seeds can empower farmers. It helps them make choices that can help to improve both household income and sustainably boost production to meet consumer demands. These outcomes align with agroecological principles.

Genetically modified crops

When it comes to genetically modified crops, I focus on the traits they contain and the agroecological conditions where they are to be used. Again, context is critical. There are clearly contexts where genetically modified seeds —- once thoroughly tested to prove they are safe —- can be compatible with agroecology.

For example, varieties of maize, cotton and cowpea are now being developed for, and increasingly cultivated by, African farmers. The genetically modified traits are used to help address pests and other stresses, including drought. These crops undergo extensive trials and national regulatory reviews to assess their safety and consider their release to farmers for use.

New varieties of genetically modified maize and cowpea that can fight off destructive crop pests are especially attractive. They contain traits acquired from a safe, naturally occurring soil bacteria called Bacillus thuringiensis or Bt. It has also been used for decades as an organic crop protection spray. Incorporating Bt traits directly into the crop itself reduces the need to treat fields with expensive and, in some instances, potentially toxic pesticides that may result in huge problems for people and the environment from inappropriate use. In this context, the genetically modified seeds —- if affordable – could be the optimal choice from an agroecological perspective.

Bt cowpea was recently approved in Nigeria and Bt maize is being evaluated as an option for fighting destruction caused by the recent arrival of fall armyworm pests on the continent. Bt cotton is already grown in several countries in Africa where it offers higher yields and reduces the need for pesticides.

However, farmers in Burkina Faso are no longer growing Bt cotton due to concerns about the quality of the fibres produced by the variety available to them, though not its pest-fighting properties. These quality concerns point to the need to support local breeding efforts, as Nigeria is now doing with its Bt cotton varieties, as opposed to rejecting the technology itself.

No perfect solution

The difficult issues around Bt cotton production in Burkina Faso are evidence that there are no perfect solutions.

But we know the results of a lack of choices – where African farmers plant only the seeds from varieties they have been cultivating for decades and have limited options for maintain soil health and dealing with crop pests. It has contributed to a situation where crop yields have stagnated, lands are degraded of basic nutrients, consumers’ demands must be met with costly food imports. Those who depend on agriculture suffer high rates of poverty and hunger.

We also know from the experience of farmers in other countries about the pitfalls of an over-reliance on a small range of commercially produced crop varieties and unchecked use of fertilisers and pesticides.

But we will not overcome these challenges by narrowing the options for addressing them. Instead, we should be open to a wider range of practices and innovations.

For me that means embracing the core focus of agroecology – supporting environmentally sustainable food production that benefits local farmers, consumers and ecosystems – while avoiding the wholesale rejection of certain technologies that, in the right context, can be instrumental to achieving this critical goal.

By Ratemo Michieka

The post No perfect solution: Africa’s smallholder farmers must use both traditional and new practices appeared first on IPNN.

We can view 2024 in SA’s agriculture as a “mixed” year. Indeed, GDP figures will show a sharp contraction in agricultural fortunes in the year. But a deep dive shows a more nuanced picture of mixed performance. The field crops and livestock subsectors, for example, had their fair share of challenges, while the horticulture subsector had a better year.

A midsummer drought led to a 23% decline in SA’s 2023-24 summer grains and oilseeds to 15.40-million tonnes. Animal disease continued to be a big challenge for farmers. It is understandable because there have been various cases of foot-and-mouth disease in cattle, African swine fever in pigs, and avian influenza in poultry over the past three years.

A positive development last year, though not agriculture-specific, is the improvement in electricity supply. It contributed to the sector and partly to the robust horticulture production. In considering the dependence of SA’s agriculture on horticulture, it is worth highlighting that all of SA’s horticulture — fruits and vegetables — depends on irrigation that needs an adequate power supply. In crucial field crops, about 20% of maize, 15% of soy bean, 34% of sugar cane, and nearly half of wheat are produced under irrigation.

As we start 2025, the sector has renewed optimism regarding expected better rainfall and improvements on the animal disease control front. This year’s focus should remain on the opening of export markets, improvement of the network industries, and improving municipality performance.

By WANDILE SIHLOBO

The post SA’s agriculture in 2024 and outlook for 2025 appeared first on IPNN.