The earthquake that struck Haiti last week has been much in the news, and while it was a humanitarian disaster, it was by no means the first – and it was exacerbated not only by a corrupt political regime, but also by previous natural disasters. The results of these disasters might have been mitigated had it not been for decades of poor land management and environmental stewardship. It’s by no means a stretch.  Haiti is the poorest country in the America’s and it is primarily an agriculture based society. 

A Once Rich and Prosperous Land

As a French colony in the eighteenth century, Haiti was a rich and productive land. Two-fifths of all coffee and two-thirds of all sugar consumed in European countries were grown on Haitian plantations. One problem - this wealth was produced on the backs of hundreds of thousands of African slaves living under brutal conditions that would have made Stalin's gulags look like Club Med. The other problem is that the colony's economy was based on those two cash crops – and not much else. Both required that thousands of acres of forest be removed.

During the bloody rebellion that resulted in Haitian independence in 1803, many of the plantations that might have sustained the people of the new nation were destroyed. Land was doled out to families who knew only of "slash-and-burn" farming techniques when it came to raising food.

Over the past eighty-five years, the population exploded while more productive land passed into the ownership of (or more often, was stolen by) the small ruling kleptocracy that has exploited its own people almost as brutally as their former French masters. Again, these commercial operations depend largely on monoculture, primarily coffee – which nonetheless accounts for only 6% of the nation's income.

At the same time, the burgeoning population has continued to cut down trees for building,  living space, subsistence farms and  fuel. Today, only 2% of Haiti's original forests remain as the country is becoming a desert.

The Dangers – And The Solution

By way of comparison, forests still cover approximately 30% of the planet at large. Unfortunately, these are being cleared at a frightening rate, not all of which is due to farming – although agriculture is the largest cause of deforestation. Haiti is a microcosm of what awaits the entire planet if such trends continue.

Agroforestry promises to play a large part in reversing these trends. Simply defined, agroforestry involves raising trees and food crops on the same land. This emerging science covers a broad range of farming activities that not only create a stronger ecosystem through biodiversity, but help to reduce the destructive effects of soil erosion and mitigate climate change (since trees absorb more CO2 than crop vegetation).

There are other problems facing Haiti that have little to do with agriculture. However, if Haiti ever comes under a government that can see beyond the immediate interests of the rulers themselves and actually commit itself to the good of its citizens, it is possible that experienced agronomists and farmers from the U.S., Canada and elsewhere could help begin the process of recovery by starting a program of reforestation, followed by the introduction of more sustainable practices that would allow the country to feed itself.

We are limited only by our own imaginations and aspirations. Haiti needs our charity right now because of the earthquake, yes – but much more than that, Haiti needs a new vision of how agriculture fits into the national economy and the lives of the people. Let’s hope they get it.

Hello Friends,

I am writing to implore you to donate to a worthy cause that can help the people of Haiti.  I don’t really care which organization you give to, as long as you know it is not a sham, and that the money will help those who need it most.

My wife works for a big German software company who shall remain nameless as I want to keep the focus of this message pure.  One of the company’s clients is a leading non-profit NGO organization that is providing tremendous help with the terrible situation in Haiti. That organization is called Direct Relief International: www.directrelief.org.

My wife’s co-worker, who she personally knows, sent out the following message endorsing the work that Direct Relief International does.  I found it compelling.  Let me reiterate, this is not some re-forwarded email.  We know the source.  Here is a portion of the email.

“If you want to donate to the Haiti relief and be confident that it’s actually going to have a direct impact, then Direct Relief is one of those organizations.  Direct Relief International is a great [software co. name here] customer based in California.

 http://www.directrelief.org/Index.aspx

 Forbes rated them 99% efficient for the past several years in their fundraising reaching the people in need.  For every dollar spent by Direct Relief, they deliver between $21 - $37 in medical material aid to in-country health professionals.  They are partnered with many of our pharma customers who funnel their medical good donations thru Direct Relief because they are so effective.

I spent two days in 2008 with the Direct Relief team at their headquarters in California, filming an [software co. name here]  video. They are the real deal. Incredibly responsible people and some the smartest logistical people I’ve ever met.”

Now you know of a responsible organization, the only thing you have to do now is act. Please give: http://www.directrelief.org/Index.aspx

Sincerely,

Alex Tiller

PS: To better understand the sheer devastation and need, click on the following link to see pictures of the suffering and destruction: http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/01/earthquake_in_haiti.html

Okay, maybe it's not actually "hitting the fan" – but increasingly, it could be powering it.

There are two things that beef and dairy ranchers have in common and in abundance: an ongoing struggle to stay in business and the fecal matter produced by their livestock. For decades, there was little to do with the latter but let it lie or use it to fertilize crops. The problem here is that there is usually far more manure that can be used for fertilization; the excess winds up in streams and rivers, fouling water resources.

The use of such manure for generating usable energy is promising to address both the cash flow problem and the issue of pollution – at least on a small, localized scale.

Take the case of Washington State. According to a Seattle Post-Intelligencer article published in 2007, two out of every five dairy operations in Washington failed over a ten-year period [1]. Much of this was due to falling prices for dairy products, but the nail in the coffin for many of these farmers was skyrocketing energy costs. Another report in the September 2009 issue of National Geographic says that fuel and petroleum-based fertilizers can eat up 12.5% of a farm's operating budget [2] – something that matches my general experience.

While the topic of biomass as an alternative source of fuel for the nation's electricity generation plants is a hot one, it is unlikely that cow pies and other forms of agricultural waste are going to provide any sort of large-scale solution to the nation's energy problem. The major fly in the ointment here is transportation costs; in many cases, the expense of transporting waste from the farm to a processing plant cancels out any net savings in terms of money and energy. To put it another way, if it costs $10 a ton to transport and process an amount of waste that will only generate $9 worth of energy, there isn't much point.

That doesn't mean that this energy can’t be tapped, though. Although the use of cow manure and agricultural waste may not be practical for large-scale energy generation, it could be very useful in making farms and their surrounding local communities more environmentally friendly and energy independent. Consider that the production of food in the U.S. accounts for up to 3% of the nation's energy consumption and 7% of its greenhouse gases [3] – and that isn't even taking into consideration the cost of processing and transportation.

By placing a biomass digester on the farm itself in order to provide its own needs, the farmer is looking not only at substantial financial savings, but significant reductions in pollution as well. If, as has been proposed by Washington State University researcher Craig Frear, surplus energy generated on a farm could be sold to local residents, it would represent an additional income stream while localizing resources – something that is increasingly seen as a key to long-term survival and sustainability.

The anaerobic digesters required for such processes are not cheap – they can cost in excess of $450,000 – but government grants are available for such purposes, and with the financial, environmental and social costs of fossil fuels, such an investment can pay for itself in less than ten years. Plus it helps farmers be more independent.

Sources

Koerth-Baker, Maggie. "Cow Manure, Other Homegrown Energy Powering U.S. Farms." National Geographic News, 4 September 2009

Stiffler, Lisa. "Ranchers Turning Cow Manure Into Kilowatt-Hours." Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 16 August 2007

Graphic  Above by AgCert: http://www.agcert.com