The mentally-ill patients of the Regional Mental Hospital in Nagpur earned Rs 1 Lakh and 34 thousand by banana cultivation.

Under the skill development program, these patients were rehabilitated and based on their interest were put into the farming sector within the hospital premises.&nbsp;

Madhuri Thorat, Medical Superintendent, Regional Mental Hospital said, "Farming has a soothing effect on the minds of the mentally ill patients and so we are encouraging them to do farming. And this is also helping them earn a livelihood from this and proving the society wrong that they cannot do anything. Also, the patients enjoy doing these activities and this reduces the symptoms of depression in the patients.

"She further added that the hospital is also in the process of giving them reasonable pay from the revenue generated by the banana cultivation.

Pravin Kakde, Farming Project Head said, "The patients who come here are usually from the rural background and we give them the skill according to their interest. We also help these patients to develop their interest in farming activities or other activities."

"This has turned out to be very fruitful as sometimes the patients themselves have taught us about the best techniques and seasons to cultivate banana," he further added.

The mentally-ill patients of the Regional Mental Hospital in Nagpur earned Rs 1 Lakh and 34 thousand by banana cultivation. Under the skill development program, these patients were rehabilitated and based on their interest were put into the farming sector within the hospital premises.

The mentally-ill patients of the Regional Mental Hospital in Nagpur earned Rs 1 Lakh and 34 thousand by banana cultivation. Under the skill development program, these patients were rehabilitated and based on their interest were put into the farming sector within the hospital premises. Madhuri Thorat, Medical Superintendent, Regional Mental Hospital said, "Farming has a soothing effect on the minds of the mentally ill patients and so we are encouraging them to do farming. And this is also helping them earn a livelihood from this and proving the society wrong that they cannot do anything. Also, the patients enjoy doing these activities and this reduces the symptoms of depression in the patients. "She further added that the hospital is also in the process of giving them reasonable pay from the revenue generated by the banana cultivation. Pravin Kakde, Farming Project Head said, "The patients who come here are usually from the rural background and we give them the skill according to their interest. We also help these patients to develop their interest in farming activities or other activities." "This has turned out to be very fruitful as sometimes the patients themselves have taught us about the best techniques and seasons to cultivate banana," he further added.

Mentally-ill patients earn Rs 1 lakh through banana cultivation in Nagpur

Vertical farming can be practiced even in Urban centres

Vertical Farming: From Lab to Plate

In the last 40 years, India’s agricultural productivity has increased by 40 per cent to 500 per cent.&nbsp;

Availability of food, however, still remains a major concern because of poor packaging, inefficient traders, absence of sheltered storage and many more factors.&nbsp;

Among the many frequently faced challenges in the Indian food supply chain, the high volatility in the wholesale market ranks number one.&nbsp;

Owing to the massive size of the supply chain, quality control is another big hurdle. Seasonality and availability are also handicaps, although relatively smaller.&nbsp;

There are limited consolidators available who work with contractual rates; this poses another threat to the fluency of the chain.

There is no differentiation between the product cost and logistics cost, which results in an increase in the total cost of the produces. There are other major issues that impact the supply chain and food quality.

The fragmented nature of the food industry is a major obstacle in the entire supply chain as it consists of organised players like hotel chains and catering businesses, and unorganised players such as small food joints and restaurants. This results in an uneven volume demand and supply pattern.&nbsp;

Also, the involvement of third-party vendors in the supply chain creates a disruption in the flow, resulting in a price increase.

Sharp fluctuations in food price inflation have raised questions about the functioning of the Indian food supply chain itself. There is no standard tool or method to assess the fluctuation rate and predict future patterns. Hence the practice of forward-buying is not popular in India.

The supply chain’s lead time in India is impacted to a large extent by the absence of technology. The manual labour system in the country increases the cost of importing goods, e.g., the cost of importing a container in India is $500 as opposed to the $300 in foreign ports.

Only 6 per cent of the entire logistics network falls under the organised category in India. The lack of organised logistics acts as a barrier in the transportation of produce from the farms to the consumers.&nbsp;

Though the government has introduced 100 per cent FDI in the logistics sector and many organised players like DHL and TNT, among others, are coming in the market, the reach is limited only to the commercial areas. This is due to the poor infrastructure in the remote areas of the country. In India, the cold chain has not matured enough to procure products directly from the farmers; it is instead supplied by the wholesalers.&nbsp;

This results in many perishable products like exotic vegetables/fruits or dairy products losing their quality because of the time it takes to reach the consumers.&nbsp;

In turn, it impacts the farmers and the pricing of the product. The absence of private players has become one of the root causes of this poor structure.

One of the ways to curb the problem is to introduce supply chain partners into the system to address end-to-end delivery. The concept of having a single vendor is at a nascent stage and the government must encourage this concept and make way for the players by easing norms.

In India, some compliance is lost in the traditional route of buying from traders and wholesalers. Besides, there are many big players such as Big Basket, HyperPure by Zomato etc, who are present in the retail industry and are gradually foraying into the B2B space.&nbsp;

Here’s how they help solve some of the challenges. The sustainability of their business model is hinged on direct national sourcing capability and Farm to Fork models for fruit and vegetable chains and backward integration to mills and manufacturers for staples, therefore, eliminating middlemen and distributors.&nbsp;

The best infrastructure for storage, sorting and grading is needed. It is important to leverage technology-enabled end-to-end supply chain capabilities to optimise logistics, track fulfilment rates and share live dashboards.

The ability to forecast market fluctuations is a must. All these challenges result in higher cost and poor quality. Incorporating the aforementioned solutions can help smoothen the process and make things beneficial for both the stakeholders and the customers.&nbsp;

 
(This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-challenges-of-streamlining-food-supply-chain-management-2764954">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

In the last 40 years, India’s agricultural productivity has increased by 40 per cent to 500 per cent. Availability of food, however, still remains a major concern because of poor packaging, inefficient traders, absence of sheltered storage and many more factors.

In the last 40 years, India’s agricultural productivity has increased by 40 per cent to 500 per cent. Availability of food, however, still remains a major concern because of poor packaging, inefficient traders, absence of sheltered storage and many more factors. Among the many frequently faced challenges in the Indian food supply chain, the high volatility in the wholesale market ranks number one. Owing to the massive size of the supply chain, quality control is another big hurdle. Seasonality and availability are also handicaps, although relatively smaller. There are limited consolidators available who work with contractual rates; this poses another threat to the fluency of the chain. There is no differentiation between the product cost and logistics cost, which results in an increase in the total cost of the produces. There are other major issues that impact the supply chain and food quality. The fragmented nature of the food industry is a major obstacle in the entire supply chain as it consists of organised players like hotel chains and catering businesses, and unorganised players such as small food joints and restaurants. This results in an uneven volume demand and supply pattern. Also, the involvement of third-party vendors in the supply chain creates a disruption in the flow, resulting in a price increase. Sharp fluctuations in food price inflation have raised questions about the functioning of the Indian food supply chain itself. There is no standard tool or method to assess the fluctuation rate and predict future patterns. Hence the practice of forward-buying is not popular in India. The supply chain’s lead time in India is impacted to a large extent by the absence of technology. The manual labour system in the country increases the cost of importing goods, e.g., the cost of importing a container in India is $500 as opposed to the $300 in foreign ports. Only 6 per cent of the entire logistics network falls under the organised category in India. The lack of organised logistics acts as a barrier in the transportation of produce from the farms to the consumers. Though the government has introduced 100 per cent FDI in the logistics sector and many organised players like DHL and TNT, among others, are coming in the market, the reach is limited only to the commercial areas. This is due to the poor infrastructure in the remote areas of the country. In India, the cold chain has not matured enough to procure products directly from the farmers; it is instead supplied by the wholesalers. This results in many perishable products like exotic vegetables/fruits or dairy products losing their quality because of the time it takes to reach the consumers. In turn, it impacts the farmers and the pricing of the product. The absence of private players has become one of the root causes of this poor structure. One of the ways to curb the problem is to introduce supply chain partners into the system to address end-to-end delivery. The concept of having a single vendor is at a nascent stage and the government must encourage this concept and make way for the players by easing norms. In India, some compliance is lost in the traditional route of buying from traders and wholesalers. Besides, there are many big players such as Big Basket, HyperPure by Zomato etc, who are present in the retail industry and are gradually foraying into the B2B space. Here’s how they help solve some of the challenges. The sustainability of their business model is hinged on direct national sourcing capability and Farm to Fork models for fruit and vegetable chains and backward integration to mills and manufacturers for staples, therefore, eliminating middlemen and distributors. The best infrastructure for storage, sorting and grading is needed. It is important to leverage technology-enabled end-to-end supply chain capabilities to optimise logistics, track fulfilment rates and share live dashboards. The ability to forecast market fluctuations is a must. All these challenges result in higher cost and poor quality. Incorporating the aforementioned solutions can help smoothen the process and make things beneficial for both the stakeholders and the customers. (This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Availability of food remains a major concern

By Michel Pimbert and Colin Anderson

It is widely agreed that today’s global agriculture system is a social and environmental failure. Business, as usual, is no longer an option: biodiversity loss and nitrogen pollution are exceeding planetary limits, and catastrophic risks of climate change demand immediate action.

Most concede that there is an urgent need to radically transform our food systems. But the proposed innovations for more sustainable food systems are drastically different. Which we choose will have long-lasting effects on human society and the planet.

Suggested innovations in food systems can be broadly understood as either seeking to conform with – or to transform – the status quo.

A technological future

Some want to keep the agriculture industry as close to existing practices as possible. This is true of the increasing number of corporate and financial actors who seek to solve the food crisis by developing new technologies. These technologies are envisaged as being part of what is being called the “fourth industrial revolution” (4IR). The “answer” here is thought to lie in a fusion of technologies that blurs the lines between physical, digital and biological domains.

For example, the World Economic Forum is currently supporting agricultural transitions in 21 countries through its “New Vision for Agriculture” initiative. This initiative supports “innovation ecosystems” to re-engineer food systems based on “12 transforming technologies”. In this imagined future, next-generation biotechnologies will re-engineer plants and animals. Precision farming will optimise the use of water and pesticides. Global food systems will rely on smart robots, blockchain and the internet of things to manufacture synthetic foods for personalised nutrition.

Like previous green revolution technologies in agriculture, this effort is designed by and for powerful agricultural giants. These technological innovations reinforce the concentration of political and economic power in the hands of a small number of corporations. Indeed, the latter has a growing monopoly control over the “12 transforming technologies” protected by patents.

Most notably, the spread of these technologies will expand the technosphere at the expense of the biosphere. Flying robots will pollinate crops instead of living bees. Automated machines will replace farmers’ work on soil preparation, seeding, weeding, fertility, pest control and harvesting of crops.

These hi-tech innovations radically depart from most farming practices. They are moving us towards an increasingly people-less food system. Yet they show a remarkable continuity with the logic of capitalist accumulation – hence their staying power despite their significant risks.

The spread of automated, de-localised and digitalised production and commercialisation of food is part of the “financialisation” of the global food system. Financial markets play an increasing role in controlling food systems from a distance. This generates huge social and human risks. For example, the significant growth in the sale and purchase of financial products linked to food commodities was one of the determining factors in the 2008 world food crisis.

Another option

But there is an alternative to this future. Agroecology involves the application of ecological principles for the design and management of sustainable agroecosystems. Our research on agroecology focuses on how it can contribute to food sovereignty, which emphasises the democratisation of food systems. Agroecology’s contribution to the Sustainable Development Goals is now recognised.

In contrast to the technological vision described above, agroecological innovations promote circular systems that involve recycling, reuse and combining resources to reduce dependency on external inputs, in particular, fossil fuels. They mimic natural cycles and the functional diversity of natural ecosystems.

Farming systems are designed in a way that is based on beneficial interactions between plants, animals and environments. Trees and shrubs might be planted amongst or around crops, say. Or two or more crops might be grown in proximity. Agroecology reduces the dependence of food producers on expensive external inputs, distant commodity markets and patented technologies. This is achieved by relying on appropriate biodiversity to ward off pests and increase farm yields.

At broader scales, agroecology involves circular systems that combine food and energy production with water and waste management. Pollution is minimised and synergies achieved by carefully clustering industries into functional wholes. The re-localisation of production and consumption within territories enhances local economic regeneration and sustainability.

Agroecological innovations in transitions to sustainable food systems are being driven largely from the bottom up by civil society, social movements and allied researchers. In this context, priorities for innovations are ones that increase citizen control for food sovereignty and decentralise power. This is in direct contrast to the monopoly control enabled by 4IR technologies.

A democratic debate

Government, civil society and private sector representatives will soon meet in Rome at the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation to discuss the future of farming. Who controls the global governance of innovation will be a hotly debated topic.

But given these highly contested views on innovations for food and agriculture, it is vital that everyone is able to exercise their right to have a say on the future of their food supply. Deliberative and inclusive processes such as citizens’ juries, peoples’ assemblies and community-led participatory processes are urgently needed to decide priorities for food and agricultural innovations. This is all the more important in today’s context of rapid global change and uncertainty.

So. Do you want to live in a world in which artificial food is produced by intelligent robots and corporations that put profits before people? Or one where agroecological innovations ensure we can nourish ourselves and our communities in a fair, ecologically regenerative, and culturally rich way?

 
(Michel Pimbert Professor and Director, Centre for Agroecology, Water and Resilience, Coventry University; &nbsp;Colin Anderson&nbsp;Senior Research Fellow, Coventry University)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-battle-for-the-future-of-farming-what-you-need-to-know-106805">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) 
&nbsp;

By Michel Pimbert and Colin Anderson It is widely agreed that today’s global agriculture system is a social and environmental failure. Business, as usual, is no longer an option: biodiversity loss and nitrogen pollution are exceeding planetary limits, and catastrophic risks of climate change demand immediate action.

By Michel Pimbert and Colin Anderson It is widely agreed that today’s global agriculture system is a social and environmental failure. Business, as usual, is no longer an option: biodiversity loss and nitrogen pollution are exceeding planetary limits, and catastrophic risks of climate change demand immediate action. Most concede that there is an urgent need to radically transform our food systems. But the proposed innovations for more sustainable food systems are drastically different. Which we choose will have long-lasting effects on human society and the planet. Suggested innovations in food systems can be broadly understood as either seeking to conform with – or to transform – the status quo. A technological future Some want to keep the agriculture industry as close to existing practices as possible. This is true of the increasing number of corporate and financial actors who seek to solve the food crisis by developing new technologies. These technologies are envisaged as being part of what is being called the “fourth industrial revolution” (4IR). The “answer” here is thought to lie in a fusion of technologies that blurs the lines between physical, digital and biological domains. For example, the World Economic Forum is currently supporting agricultural transitions in 21 countries through its “New Vision for Agriculture” initiative. This initiative supports “innovation ecosystems” to re-engineer food systems based on “12 transforming technologies”. In this imagined future, next-generation biotechnologies will re-engineer plants and animals. Precision farming will optimise the use of water and pesticides. Global food systems will rely on smart robots, blockchain and the internet of things to manufacture synthetic foods for personalised nutrition. Like previous green revolution technologies in agriculture, this effort is designed by and for powerful agricultural giants. These technological innovations reinforce the concentration of political and economic power in the hands of a small number of corporations. Indeed, the latter has a growing monopoly control over the “12 transforming technologies” protected by patents. Most notably, the spread of these technologies will expand the technosphere at the expense of the biosphere. Flying robots will pollinate crops instead of living bees. Automated machines will replace farmers’ work on soil preparation, seeding, weeding, fertility, pest control and harvesting of crops. These hi-tech innovations radically depart from most farming practices. They are moving us towards an increasingly people-less food system. Yet they show a remarkable continuity with the logic of capitalist accumulation – hence their staying power despite their significant risks. The spread of automated, de-localised and digitalised production and commercialisation of food is part of the “financialisation” of the global food system. Financial markets play an increasing role in controlling food systems from a distance. This generates huge social and human risks. For example, the significant growth in the sale and purchase of financial products linked to food commodities was one of the determining factors in the 2008 world food crisis. Another option But there is an alternative to this future. Agroecology involves the application of ecological principles for the design and management of sustainable agroecosystems. Our research on agroecology focuses on how it can contribute to food sovereignty, which emphasises the democratisation of food systems. Agroecology’s contribution to the Sustainable Development Goals is now recognised. In contrast to the technological vision described above, agroecological innovations promote circular systems that involve recycling, reuse and combining resources to reduce dependency on external inputs, in particular, fossil fuels. They mimic natural cycles and the functional diversity of natural ecosystems. Farming systems are designed in a way that is based on beneficial interactions between plants, animals and environments. Trees and shrubs might be planted amongst or around crops, say. Or two or more crops might be grown in proximity. Agroecology reduces the dependence of food producers on expensive external inputs, distant commodity markets and patented technologies. This is achieved by relying on appropriate biodiversity to ward off pests and increase farm yields. At broader scales, agroecology involves circular systems that combine food and energy production with water and waste management. Pollution is minimised and synergies achieved by carefully clustering industries into functional wholes. The re-localisation of production and consumption within territories enhances local economic regeneration and sustainability. Agroecological innovations in transitions to sustainable food systems are being driven largely from the bottom up by civil society, social movements and allied researchers. In this context, priorities for innovations are ones that increase citizen control for food sovereignty and decentralise power. This is in direct contrast to the monopoly control enabled by 4IR technologies. A democratic debate Government, civil society and private sector representatives will soon meet in Rome at the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation to discuss the future of farming. Who controls the global governance of innovation will be a hotly debated topic. But given these highly contested views on innovations for food and agriculture, it is vital that everyone is able to exercise their right to have a say on the future of their food supply. Deliberative and inclusive processes such as citizens’ juries, peoples’ assemblies and community-led participatory processes are urgently needed to decide priorities for food and agricultural innovations. This is all the more important in today’s context of rapid global change and uncertainty. So. Do you want to live in a world in which artificial food is produced by intelligent robots and corporations that put profits before people? Or one where agroecological innovations ensure we can nourish ourselves and our communities in a fair, ecologically regenerative, and culturally rich way? (Michel Pimbert Professor and Director, Centre for Agroecology, Water and Resilience, Coventry University; Colin Anderson Senior Research Fellow, Coventry University) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

The battle for the future of farming: What you need to know

By Hugo Norton

As the world reels from a series of freakish weather phenomena, a new report from the UN suggests climate change will carve the global agricultural community into two camps: winners and losers. What’s particularly troubling is that the “winners” are already thriving, while the losers are clustered in the developing world. If these forecasts come to pass, the world will be more unequal than ever — and billions of people will face potential starvation.

But there’s a ray of hope, and it comes from the myriad new technologies that are transforming the way we farm. These agricultural technologies could help to obviate the effects of climate change and ensure the planet’s population growth doesn’t lead to a global hunger epidemic.

Of course, there are still those who say we’ve nothing to fear, and that climate change is a myth. But those deniers, led by Donald Trump, are being confronted with an ever-growing mountain of evidence in the form of extreme weather patterns, like Hurricane Florence that hit the United States in September. From droughts in Australia to floods in Japan and southern India, the world is witnessing the catastrophic effects of global warming on practically a daily basis.

But beyond these headlines, scientists predict that rising temperatures will have disastrous consequences for the world’s farmers, particularly those in the “global south.” The new report from the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization finds that climate change will enhance the agricultural potential of countries in more temperate areas, but frazzle growing zones in more tropical climes. The biggest winners will be Russia and Canada, while Europe, the US and Australia will all see an upturn. West Africa, India and their surrounding regions will see their harvests slashed.

This echoes another recent UN report, which concluded that climate change is already driving up hunger levels by triggering droughts and flooding. In fact, scientists have found that of the 51 countries that suffered food emergencies in 2017, 34 experienced climatic shocks. Many of these countries are also battling political and economic crises, making them doubly vulnerable.

Global Economic Gap 
 
The inescapable conclusion is that climate change will make the global economic gap even wider. Despite concerted efforts to reduce this divide, income inequality has fallen only slightly, and some research even indicates that the gap is widening. Billions of dollars in aid have been channelled to Africa — an additional $45 billion will be sent by 2020 — but the US still produces five times the continent’s entire GDP, and that gap will only widen if UN forecasts are realized. Moreover, the developing world is facing a demographic crisis: Over the next 30 years, analysts expect the populations of Africa and Asia to grow 11 times faster than the rest of the world. These regions cannot afford to lose their most fertile land.

The international community certainly talks a good game on climate change. Practically the entire world has ratified the 2015 Paris Agreement, which pledges to keep global warming within 2 degrees of pre-industrial levels. Yet many countries are failing to match their words with actions, as demonstrated most recently by a survey that ranked more than three-quarters of EU member-states as “poor” for their post-Paris progress.

But as governments flounder, a raft of new technologies is enabling farmers to take matters into their own hands. These technologies allow growers to adapt to climatic conditions, target their use of pesticides more efficiently and improve their output with precision techniques. Most significantly, they facilitate information-sharing across borders, encouraging the spread of best practices and expertise. A prime example is an app built by the University of Queensland in Australia that enables beef farmers on the island of Vanuatu to see the performance of their cattle in real time. Such innovation can only lead to efficiency gains, which will be crucial to the developing world as climate change erodes its farmlands.

There are myriad examples of technologies that could have an equally positive impact, from the predictive seed placement tool developed by The Climate Corporation, which uses big data to recommend optimal seeding rates for a particular growing area, to the drones that cover a rice field with pesticide and fertilizer in just 15 minutes. Then there’s vertical farming, which promises to take agriculture away from the fields altogether. The practice involves growing crops in warehouses and shipping containers, turning every terrain on earth into a potential farm. Dubai, unsurprisingly, is an enthusiastic early adopter, and with analysts predicting the market will be worth around $10 billion by 2025, it’s clear this zeal is more than matched elsewhere.

Agtech

Indeed, many countries across Africa and Asia are passionately embracing agricultural technology to obviate the ever-increasing threat of floods and droughts. India’s burgeoning space agency is providing satellite images to map the production capacity of its fields; Japan is leading the way in drone research as it attempts to ease the burden on its ageing farming population. In Africa, a raft of start-ups is shooting up, from the Nigerian company that arms farmers with data to help them negotiate prices with unscrupulous merchants to the Kenyan enterprise that channels solar energy into irrigation kits.

Now it seems the world’s opinion leaders are taking notice. Billionaire philanthropist Bill Gates is talking up the potential of new technologies to offset climate change in the developing world, while the UK government, the world’s second-biggest aid donor, is ploughing money into partnerships that it says will revolutionize agriculture in Africa. Yet the ominous question remains: Have we found the answer just in time, or too late?

The UN says we have only a few years to avoid catastrophic problems, which may not be enough to create a global AgTech revolution. But in a period that has seen more rapid technological change than any other in history, we mustn’t let our optimism be washed away. 
 
(Hugo Norton is an Africa Policy Analyst and Advisor)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://www.fairobserver.com/more/environment/climate-change-news/agriculture-climate-change-global-inequality-tech-news-01921/">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

By Hugo Norton As the world reels from a series of freakish weather phenomena, a new report from the UN suggests climate change will carve the global agricultural community into two camps: winners and losers.

By Hugo Norton As the world reels from a series of freakish weather phenomena, a new report from the UN suggests climate change will carve the global agricultural community into two camps: winners and losers. What’s particularly troubling is that the “winners” are already thriving, while the losers are clustered in the developing world. If these forecasts come to pass, the world will be more unequal than ever — and billions of people will face potential starvation. But there’s a ray of hope, and it comes from the myriad new technologies that are transforming the way we farm. These agricultural technologies could help to obviate the effects of climate change and ensure the planet’s population growth doesn’t lead to a global hunger epidemic. Of course, there are still those who say we’ve nothing to fear, and that climate change is a myth. But those deniers, led by Donald Trump, are being confronted with an ever-growing mountain of evidence in the form of extreme weather patterns, like Hurricane Florence that hit the United States in September. From droughts in Australia to floods in Japan and southern India, the world is witnessing the catastrophic effects of global warming on practically a daily basis. But beyond these headlines, scientists predict that rising temperatures will have disastrous consequences for the world’s farmers, particularly those in the “global south.” The new report from the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization finds that climate change will enhance the agricultural potential of countries in more temperate areas, but frazzle growing zones in more tropical climes. The biggest winners will be Russia and Canada, while Europe, the US and Australia will all see an upturn. West Africa, India and their surrounding regions will see their harvests slashed. This echoes another recent UN report, which concluded that climate change is already driving up hunger levels by triggering droughts and flooding. In fact, scientists have found that of the 51 countries that suffered food emergencies in 2017, 34 experienced climatic shocks. Many of these countries are also battling political and economic crises, making them doubly vulnerable. Global Economic Gap The inescapable conclusion is that climate change will make the global economic gap even wider. Despite concerted efforts to reduce this divide, income inequality has fallen only slightly, and some research even indicates that the gap is widening. Billions of dollars in aid have been channelled to Africa — an additional $45 billion will be sent by 2020 — but the US still produces five times the continent’s entire GDP, and that gap will only widen if UN forecasts are realized. Moreover, the developing world is facing a demographic crisis: Over the next 30 years, analysts expect the populations of Africa and Asia to grow 11 times faster than the rest of the world. These regions cannot afford to lose their most fertile land. The international community certainly talks a good game on climate change. Practically the entire world has ratified the 2015 Paris Agreement, which pledges to keep global warming within 2 degrees of pre-industrial levels. Yet many countries are failing to match their words with actions, as demonstrated most recently by a survey that ranked more than three-quarters of EU member-states as “poor” for their post-Paris progress. But as governments flounder, a raft of new technologies is enabling farmers to take matters into their own hands. These technologies allow growers to adapt to climatic conditions, target their use of pesticides more efficiently and improve their output with precision techniques. Most significantly, they facilitate information-sharing across borders, encouraging the spread of best practices and expertise. A prime example is an app built by the University of Queensland in Australia that enables beef farmers on the island of Vanuatu to see the performance of their cattle in real time. Such innovation can only lead to efficiency gains, which will be crucial to the developing world as climate change erodes its farmlands. There are myriad examples of technologies that could have an equally positive impact, from the predictive seed placement tool developed by The Climate Corporation, which uses big data to recommend optimal seeding rates for a particular growing area, to the drones that cover a rice field with pesticide and fertilizer in just 15 minutes. Then there’s vertical farming, which promises to take agriculture away from the fields altogether. The practice involves growing crops in warehouses and shipping containers, turning every terrain on earth into a potential farm. Dubai, unsurprisingly, is an enthusiastic early adopter, and with analysts predicting the market will be worth around $10 billion by 2025, it’s clear this zeal is more than matched elsewhere. Agtech Indeed, many countries across Africa and Asia are passionately embracing agricultural technology to obviate the ever-increasing threat of floods and droughts. India’s burgeoning space agency is providing satellite images to map the production capacity of its fields; Japan is leading the way in drone research as it attempts to ease the burden on its ageing farming population. In Africa, a raft of start-ups is shooting up, from the Nigerian company that arms farmers with data to help them negotiate prices with unscrupulous merchants to the Kenyan enterprise that channels solar energy into irrigation kits. Now it seems the world’s opinion leaders are taking notice. Billionaire philanthropist Bill Gates is talking up the potential of new technologies to offset climate change in the developing world, while the UK government, the world’s second-biggest aid donor, is ploughing money into partnerships that it says will revolutionize agriculture in Africa. Yet the ominous question remains: Have we found the answer just in time, or too late? The UN says we have only a few years to avoid catastrophic problems, which may not be enough to create a global AgTech revolution. But in a period that has seen more rapid technological change than any other in history, we mustn’t let our optimism be washed away. (Hugo Norton is an Africa Policy Analyst and Advisor) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

 How new technologies can avert agricultural devastation

Zimbabwe&rsquo;s financial system increasingly resembles a house of cards. Were one card to give way &ndash; for instance, if South Africa&rsquo;s power utility, Eskom, were to have the temerity to suggest that Zimbabwe actually pays for the electricity that it&rsquo;s supplying the country &ndash; the entire edifice would collapse.

To put it another way, the government is a bust. It is again printing money to cover its spiralling costs, and inflation is rising. And given that there&rsquo;s an election looming in 2018, Zimbabwe&rsquo;s ruling party, ZANU-PF doesn&rsquo;t want to cut-back. Far from it, it wants to carry on spending, as fast as it can.

The rot goes back to the early 2000&rsquo;s. ZANU-PF profligacy had been fuelled by a&nbsp;continuous cycle of simply printing more money and resultant runaway inflation. Mega-inflation meant that ordinary people lost their pensions and whatever savings they had, as the Zimbabwe dollar lost its value and people resorted to barter or the use of other currencies.

Ultimately, the government faced no choice but to accept reality. In 2008 it scrapped the Zimbabwe dollar in favour of a basket of other currencies, although within a short time, this meant in effect the reign of the US dollar.

&ldquo;Dollarisation&rdquo; allowed for the pursuit of more rational policies by the coalition Government of National Unity which followed the disputed 2008 election. However, its control of the electoral machinery ensured that ZANU-PF won a resounding victory in the 2013 election. Within a short space of time, it returned to its familiar policy mix of profligacy, corruption and populist economics.

Yet ZANU-PF faced major problems. Above all, &ldquo;dollarisation&rdquo; meant that the cost of Zimbabwe&rsquo;s exports on international markets was high. Worse, the dramatic collapse in agricultural production since the early 2000s (following the appropriation of white farms) alongside the decimation of the country&rsquo;s manufacturing industries meant that there was relatively little to export anyway. Tobacco production has recovered a little, but the quality is less than it used to be, so returns are relatively less.

Meanwhile, government insistence that mines should be 51 per cent&nbsp;Zimbabwean owned has done nothing to entice inward investment or boost exports.

In short, the capacity of the economy to earn US dollars by selling goods externally has fallen dramatically, and the supply of money circulating within the country has dried up. Unemployment stands at around 90 per cent.

President Robert Mugabe&rsquo;s latest response has been to replace finance minister Patrick Chinamasa, who had been warning of the structure&rsquo;s fragility in ever more urgent tones. The new finance minister is Ignatius Chombo, a party loyalist, who will brook no talk of any need for structural reform.

The bond notes

Faced with a looming crisis, the ZANU-PF government has resorted to three key strategies.

One has been the issue of &ldquo;bond notes&rdquo; (of different denominations) by the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe. Officially, they&rsquo;re designed to swell the amount of money in circulation within the country. The problem is that apart from having no value outside the country, nobody trusts them as they have been issued by a ZANU-PF government, and it was this government that presided over the hyperinflation.

ZANU-PF&rsquo;s announcement that it was issuing bond notes was met with a run on the banks as depositors sought to withdraw dollars as fast as they could. Their assumption was that this was a government ploy to reintroduce the Zimbabwean dollar. The Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe responded by limiting the number of dollars individuals could withdraw.

People are reluctant to use the bond notes. But they&rsquo;re still sometimes forced to accept them because of the sheer shortage of &ldquo;real&rdquo; money. As a result, when they can, they rush off to the local bus station where they can sell them for dollars to currency traders &ndash; albeit illegally.

The second strategy has been the rapid expansion of country&rsquo;s ability to manage electronic transactions. Its aim has been to expand the amount of money in circulation without using up &ldquo;real&rdquo; dollars.

Accordingly, government employees are now largely paid electronically. Similarly, government employees (and everyone else) now pay nearly all their bills within the country electronically.

And Zimbabweans are rarely able to convert the notional sums of dollars they hold in the bank into real cash &ndash; unless they make use of the currency traders in illegal transactions.

Meanwhile, with the rate of inflation continuing to rise combined with the widespread lack of faith in the banks, many Zimbabweans spend their bank balances on consumer goods as quickly as possible rather than attempting to &ldquo;save&rdquo;. After all, if times get hard, you won&rsquo;t be able to get rid of your bond notes, but you may be able to sell your fridge.

Fanciful financial system

But it&rsquo;s the third strategy which the government has pursued which is really fuelling a fanciful financial system.

Since 2013, government expenditure has steadily increased year by year, despite the country earning very little internationally. The ZANU-PF government may have hoped to fund this by its old trick of literally printing money, that is, by expanding the supply of bond notes.

But such was the negative popular sentiment that the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe seems to have restricted their issue. Supposedly the issue of bond notes is backed by a USD$200 loan by the Afreximbank, but no-one really knows how many have been issued because the central bank provides no information.

What the government has done instead is to fund its rising costs by issuing treasury bills (whereby the government touts for loans on the capital market against promises of later redemption). No-one in their right mind would want to buy them, but Zimbabwe&rsquo;s banks today have little option. As inward investment into the country has dried up to a trickle, there is little else for them to spend their money on, and the interest rates that the government promises to pay are, at face value, attractively high.

The coalition government of national unity recorded budget surpluses for three of the four full years in which the opposition controlled the Treasury. For its part, the ZANU-PF government recorded deficits of USD$186 million and USD$125 million in 2014 and 2015. Recently, the then finance minister Chinamasa projected a deficit of USD$1.41 billion for 2017. As of June 30, 2017, there were USD$2.5 billion worth of Treasury bills on the issue.

In other words, the spending will continue. Zimbabwe&rsquo;s financial system is living on borrowed time and borrowed money. It will again end in financial ruin, as it did in 2008. But all ZANU-PF cares about is ensuring that it wins the next election and allowing its political elite to &ldquo;eat&rdquo;.

This article was originally published in <a href="http://theconversation.com" rel="nofollow" target="blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/zimbabwes-financial-system-is-living-on-borrowed-time-and-borrowed-money-86159" rel="nofollow" target="blank">original article</a>.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/grace-mugabe-flees-zimbabwe-after-army-takes-over-reports-24301">Also read:&nbsp;Grace Mugabe flees Zimbabwe after army takes over: Reports</a>

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/zimbabwes-robert-mugabe-liberation-hero-turned-despot-24292">Also </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/zimbabwes-robert-mugabe-liberation-hero-turned-despot-24292">read:</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/zimbabwes-robert-mugabe-liberation-hero-turned-despot-24292">&nbsp;Zimbabwe&#39;s Robert Mugabe: Liberation hero turned despot</a>

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/main-zimbabwe-newspaper-completely-misses-news-of-coup-24321">Also read:&nbsp;Main Zimbabwe newspaper completely misses news of coup</a>

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/targeting-criminals-not-a-military-takeover-of-government-zimbabwe-military-24236">Also read:&nbsp;Targeting criminals, not a military takeover of government: Zimbabwe military</a>

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/army-takes-control-in-zimbabwe-president-mugabe-detained-report-24283">Also </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/army-takes-control-in-zimbabwe-president-mugabe-detained-report-24283">read:</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/army-takes-control-in-zimbabwe-president-mugabe-detained-report-24283"> Zimbabwe: President Mugabe under house arrest, army denies coup</a> 
&nbsp;

Years of political instability and economic mismanagement under the rule of ZANU-PF have left Zimbabwe?s financial system in chaos. The country is living on borrowed time and borrowed money.

Zimbabwe’s financial system increasingly resembles a house of cards. Were one card to give way – for instance, if South Africa’s power utility, Eskom, were to have the temerity to suggest that Zimbabwe actually pays for the electricity that it’s supplying the country – the entire edifice would collapse. To put it another way, the government is a bust. It is again printing money to cover its spiralling costs, and inflation is rising. And given that there’s an election looming in 2018, Zimbabwe’s ruling party, ZANU-PF doesn’t want to cut-back. Far from it, it wants to carry on spending, as fast as it can. The rot goes back to the early 2000’s. ZANU-PF profligacy had been fuelled by a continuous cycle of simply printing more money and resultant runaway inflation. Mega-inflation meant that ordinary people lost their pensions and whatever savings they had, as the Zimbabwe dollar lost its value and people resorted to barter or the use of other currencies. Ultimately, the government faced no choice but to accept reality. In 2008 it scrapped the Zimbabwe dollar in favour of a basket of other currencies, although within a short time, this meant in effect the reign of the US dollar. “Dollarisation” allowed for the pursuit of more rational policies by the coalition Government of National Unity which followed the disputed 2008 election. However, its control of the electoral machinery ensured that ZANU-PF won a resounding victory in the 2013 election. Within a short space of time, it returned to its familiar policy mix of profligacy, corruption and populist economics. Yet ZANU-PF faced major problems. Above all, “dollarisation” meant that the cost of Zimbabwe’s exports on international markets was high. Worse, the dramatic collapse in agricultural production since the early 2000s (following the appropriation of white farms) alongside the decimation of the country’s manufacturing industries meant that there was relatively little to export anyway. Tobacco production has recovered a little, but the quality is less than it used to be, so returns are relatively less. Meanwhile, government insistence that mines should be 51 per cent Zimbabwean owned has done nothing to entice inward investment or boost exports. In short, the capacity of the economy to earn US dollars by selling goods externally has fallen dramatically, and the supply of money circulating within the country has dried up. Unemployment stands at around 90 per cent. President Robert Mugabe’s latest response has been to replace finance minister Patrick Chinamasa, who had been warning of the structure’s fragility in ever more urgent tones. The new finance minister is Ignatius Chombo, a party loyalist, who will brook no talk of any need for structural reform. The bond notes Faced with a looming crisis, the ZANU-PF government has resorted to three key strategies. One has been the issue of “bond notes” (of different denominations) by the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe. Officially, they’re designed to swell the amount of money in circulation within the country. The problem is that apart from having no value outside the country, nobody trusts them as they have been issued by a ZANU-PF government, and it was this government that presided over the hyperinflation. ZANU-PF’s announcement that it was issuing bond notes was met with a run on the banks as depositors sought to withdraw dollars as fast as they could. Their assumption was that this was a government ploy to reintroduce the Zimbabwean dollar. The Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe responded by limiting the number of dollars individuals could withdraw. People are reluctant to use the bond notes. But they’re still sometimes forced to accept them because of the sheer shortage of “real” money. As a result, when they can, they rush off to the local bus station where they can sell them for dollars to currency traders – albeit illegally. The second strategy has been the rapid expansion of country’s ability to manage electronic transactions. Its aim has been to expand the amount of money in circulation without using up “real” dollars. Accordingly, government employees are now largely paid electronically. Similarly, government employees (and everyone else) now pay nearly all their bills within the country electronically. And Zimbabweans are rarely able to convert the notional sums of dollars they hold in the bank into real cash – unless they make use of the currency traders in illegal transactions. Meanwhile, with the rate of inflation continuing to rise combined with the widespread lack of faith in the banks, many Zimbabweans spend their bank balances on consumer goods as quickly as possible rather than attempting to “save”. After all, if times get hard, you won’t be able to get rid of your bond notes, but you may be able to sell your fridge. Fanciful financial system But it’s the third strategy which the government has pursued which is really fuelling a fanciful financial system. Since 2013, government expenditure has steadily increased year by year, despite the country earning very little internationally. The ZANU-PF government may have hoped to fund this by its old trick of literally printing money, that is, by expanding the supply of bond notes. But such was the negative popular sentiment that the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe seems to have restricted their issue. Supposedly the issue of bond notes is backed by a USD$200 loan by the Afreximbank, but no-one really knows how many have been issued because the central bank provides no information. What the government has done instead is to fund its rising costs by issuing treasury bills (whereby the government touts for loans on the capital market against promises of later redemption). No-one in their right mind would want to buy them, but Zimbabwe’s banks today have little option. As inward investment into the country has dried up to a trickle, there is little else for them to spend their money on, and the interest rates that the government promises to pay are, at face value, attractively high. The coalition government of national unity recorded budget surpluses for three of the four full years in which the opposition controlled the Treasury. For its part, the ZANU-PF government recorded deficits of USD$186 million and USD$125 million in 2014 and 2015. Recently, the then finance minister Chinamasa projected a deficit of USD$1.41 billion for 2017. As of June 30, 2017, there were USD$2.5 billion worth of Treasury bills on the issue. In other words, the spending will continue. Zimbabwe’s financial system is living on borrowed time and borrowed money. It will again end in financial ruin, as it did in 2008. But all ZANU-PF cares about is ensuring that it wins the next election and allowing its political elite to “eat”. This article was originally published in The Conversation. Read the original article. Also read: Grace Mugabe flees Zimbabwe after army takes over: Reports Also read: Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe: Liberation hero turned despot Also read: Main Zimbabwe newspaper completely misses news of coup Also read: Targeting criminals, not a military takeover of government: Zimbabwe military Also read: Zimbabwe: President Mugabe under house arrest, army denies coup

Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe is in deep mess

Pumpkin sales are peaking&nbsp;ahead&nbsp;of&nbsp;Halloween&nbsp;festivities, and&nbsp;farmers&nbsp;are expecting to do a brisk trade in the upcoming weeks.

Halloween&nbsp;is the second largest retail festival in the UK after Christmas.

Fox&#39;s Farm Produce grow and sell between 50,000-100,000&nbsp;pumpkins&nbsp;a year - all in the lead up to&nbsp;Halloween, and sell both directly to consumers and shops.

&quot;We love&nbsp;Halloween. It has always been in the family, my dad used to grow them and we just capitalised on this as well. It is very Americanised, a growing market and we just love&nbsp;pumpkins,&quot; says Guy French, who grew up on a potato and vegetable farm and has run Foxes Farm Produce since 2003.

Millions of&nbsp;pumpkins&nbsp;are grown in the UK each year, and up to 90% of orange ones are sold in the lead up to&nbsp;Halloween.

Fox's Farm Produce grow and sell between 50,000-100,000?pumpkins?a year - all in the lead up to?Halloween, and sell both directly to consumers and shops

Pumpkin sales are peaking ahead of Halloween festivities, and farmers are expecting to do a brisk trade in the upcoming weeks. Halloween is the second largest retail festival in the UK after Christmas. Fox's Farm Produce grow and sell between 50,000-100,000 pumpkins a year - all in the lead up to Halloween, and sell both directly to consumers and shops. "We love Halloween. It has always been in the family, my dad used to grow them and we just capitalised on this as well. It is very Americanised, a growing market and we just love pumpkins," says Guy French, who grew up on a potato and vegetable farm and has run Foxes Farm Produce since 2003. Millions of pumpkins are grown in the UK each year, and up to 90% of orange ones are sold in the lead up to Halloween.

British farmers prepare pumpkins ahead of busy Halloween period

Demonetisation of high denomination currency notes has badly hit agricultural and construction activities across Odisha, as cash-starved farmers are finding it hard to pay agricultural labourers, who are demanding wages in advance, that too in Rs 100 denomination.

People in Ganjam district said that they do not have enough cash to give to daily wage labourers.

Sudhir Rout, a farmer from Baiganabadi on the outskirts of Berhampur city in Ganjam district, said that he failed to pay the wages to labourers engaged in cutting crops.

Rout is in a fix as labourers are refusing to accept old Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 notes and he does not have enough Rs 100 notes to distribute among them.

Rout is not the only farmer facing such a problem. Several of them across the state are struggling to purchase ration, pay dues to agriculture labourers and manage various other expenses.

Another farmer from the district is facing a tough time in convincing labourers to work in his field. Due to this problem, he could not even complete harvesting. He had gone to a nearby market to withdraw money from the ATM, but it was not functioning.

The farmer tried to exchange money from the bank, but it handed him a Rs 2,000 note.

&quot;What will I do with the new note? I struggled to change even Rs 1,000 note,&quot; he said.

&quot;Now the paddy crop is in harvesting stage but no one is ready to come and work unless I pay the wages in advance and in Rs 100 denomination,&quot; said Rout.

The demonetisation crisis also affected construction activities in different areas. With labourers reluctant to accept Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 notes, people are seen struggling to secure Rs 100 notes to continue the construction work. Several house owners have been forced to stop such activities.

&quot;I have stopped construction work for the last three days as I do not have notes of smaller denominations to pay daily wage labourers,&quot; Manoj Padhy, an advocate from Brajanagara in Berhampur, said.

(PTI)

People in Ganjam district said that they do not have enough cash to give to daily wage labourers

Demonetisation of high denomination currency notes has badly hit agricultural and construction activities across Odisha, as cash-starved farmers are finding it hard to pay agricultural labourers, who are demanding wages in advance, that too in Rs 100 denomination. People in Ganjam district said that they do not have enough cash to give to daily wage labourers. Sudhir Rout, a farmer from Baiganabadi on the outskirts of Berhampur city in Ganjam district, said that he failed to pay the wages to labourers engaged in cutting crops. Rout is in a fix as labourers are refusing to accept old Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 notes and he does not have enough Rs 100 notes to distribute among them. Rout is not the only farmer facing such a problem. Several of them across the state are struggling to purchase ration, pay dues to agriculture labourers and manage various other expenses. Another farmer from the district is facing a tough time in convincing labourers to work in his field. Due to this problem, he could not even complete harvesting. He had gone to a nearby market to withdraw money from the ATM, but it was not functioning. The farmer tried to exchange money from the bank, but it handed him a Rs 2,000 note. "What will I do with the new note? I struggled to change even Rs 1,000 note," he said. "Now the paddy crop is in harvesting stage but no one is ready to come and work unless I pay the wages in advance and in Rs 100 denomination," said Rout. The demonetisation crisis also affected construction activities in different areas. With labourers reluctant to accept Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 notes, people are seen struggling to secure Rs 100 notes to continue the construction work. Several house owners have been forced to stop such activities. "I have stopped construction work for the last three days as I do not have notes of smaller denominations to pay daily wage labourers," Manoj Padhy, an advocate from Brajanagara in Berhampur, said. (PTI)

Demonetisation affects farming, construction activities in India's Odisha

farming

Farming, News on Farming, stories on Farming, articles on Farming, Farming stories at Wion, Farming news, Farming latest news