One cultural norm that has been pegged as a potential line of transmission for the current Ebola outbreak is the consumption of wild game, colloquially known as “bushmeat.” Bushmeat is a term that covers everything from caterpillars to elephant meat, and is a traditional and relatively abundant source of low-cost protein in many parts of Central and West Africa. Ebola is thought to originate with fruit bats, and can be spread to other animals via direct contact, including humans. The hunting, butchering, or eating of infected animals can result in infection.

 

Despite its cultural prominence, a number of countries have banned bushmeat in response to the most recent Ebola epidemic. While the consumption of bushmeat no doubt raises Ebola risk, attempting to prevent the spread of any disease through prohibition rather than increased and efficient regulation will be a temporary fix, at best. In rural parts of the Congo Basin, bushmeat can account for 30 to 80 percent of the population’s total protein intake, and this percentage rises with food security concerns.

 

Extreme food scarcity has been part of the fallout from the current Ebola crisis, and has pushed affected populations back to the bushmeat market even as health experts warn against it. Given a choice between starvation and the continuation of a normalized cultural practice like consuming bushmeat, most Africans find the choice clear. Anti-bushmeat education attempts to alter a longstanding element of African food culture, and has been broadly ineffective. In the absence of alternative sources of protein, a ban on bushmeat is unrealistic. Establishing bushmeat regulations and local poultry farming that are aligned with culturally appropriate and relevant traditions will not only help support reconstruction and stability in affected communities, but also fundamentally prevent future disease outbreak.

 

The spread of Ebola, and its entanglement with cultural practice, is not a unique case. Disease prevention professionals have long struggled to overcome cultural practices that increase health risk. Educational programs in prevention of HIV/AIDS continue to involve several cultural issues.

 

It can be a challenge to address these cultural barriers in an effective way, particularly in the midst of an urgent health crisis. The reality, however, is that health issues are closely tied to the socio-economic circumstance and cultural traditions of a given country. To address the threat of Ebola there must be recognition of the conditions which led to outbreak. As international experts and aid pour into West Africa, cultural sensitivity and perspective will be essential in constructing a strategy to control the spread of the epidemic virus.

Photo courtesy of P. Casier (CGIAR).

The Millennium Challenge Corporation’s 5-year compact with the Government of Burkina Faso concluded in July and has set the stage for the next chapter in Burkinabè agricultural development. The compact focused on the reduction of poverty and the stimulation of economic growth through strategic investment, with one of four projects focusing on improving rural productivity through land tenure security and environmentally-sound land management. However, some issues related to land rights and tenure remain.

Burkina Faso’s economy is mainly agrarian, with 85 percent of Burkinabè carving out livelihoods in agriculture, livestock rearing, or forestry. Traditional Burkinabè methods of land tenure place great authority in the hands of a chef de terre, who allocates community-accepted land and establishes a colloquial model of plot ownership. However, the efficacy of such a system has been challenged by Burkinabè officials, who have repeatedly facilitated international industrial agricultural investment to attempt to improve livelihoods and spur economic growth. These actions have had the unforeseen consequence of further marginalizing smallholders as well as jeopardizing the long-term health of land, soil, and water resources.

The Guardian writes that traditional and/or informal methods of land tenure are becoming less and less effective worldwide as local rights to land are being transferred by state agencies to outside investors, in large allowances of land colloquially known as “ land grabs.” Small farmers with no legal documentation of ownership see their family plots sold to other, more aggregated farmer groups or to large multinational agri-businesses looking to utilize land over the short term. Finding common ground between traditional land tenure models and formal ownership certification has great potential to reform land tenure as well as improve food security and long-term environmental sustainability across sub-Saharan Africa and the world, as illustrated by the success of the MCC Compact in Burkina Faso.

Beginning in 2008, the MCC’s Rural Land Governance Project focused specifically on formalizing traditional land tenure methods in innovative ways. Using technology like theGlobal Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) and Continuously Operating Reference Stations (CORS), the Burkina Faso Compact has successfully established a geodetic network that enables faster, high-quality survey work that delivers more accurate information on existing land titles as well as expedites the process of formally registering pieces of land. A 2009 overhaul of rural land legislation established rural land commissions to solve disputes as well as process land claims, and provided the Government of Burkina Faso with an effective framework for large land purchases orchestrated at the federal level to best protect rural farmers.

Technology like GNSS and CORS that support inclusive land tenure models pave the way for improved environmental stewardship practices on-farm as well as greater overall agricultural investment. Farmers are more likely to invest their own time and finances to buy expensive seed, maintain soil quality, invest in quality fertilizers, and utilize “climate-smart” agricultural practices like crop rotation, land terracing, and cover crops if they understand the stability of their land tenure.

The Burkina Faso Compact has found relative success in catalyzing the formal acceptance and registration of customary land tenure rights throughout the small African nation, including those of women. Traditionally, rural Burkinabè women have a right to use communal lands but do not legally qualify to hold land titles. The 2009 set of laws dictating land governance and administration provided needed recognition of the rights of women to own land. Women can now pass land on to their children, helpful especially in situations where women outlive their husbands and are responsible for providing for the present and future prosperity of their families. According to Devex, women account for nearly half of the world’s smallholder farmers in developing countries, and they make up the majority of farmers in places where men have moved to cities in search of work. One research study showed that low-income female-headed households have better nutrition than higher-income male-headed households, as women farmers tend to focus on family gardens while men are more likely to cultivate commodity crops.

A successful 5-year partnership has established a framework for Burkina Faso to continue supporting rural agricultural development and inclusive economic growth for its smallholder farmers and rural populations. The New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition has outlined a cooperation framework for supporting further development in Burkina Faso, with the Government of Burkina Faso having pledged roughly 14 percent of the overall national budget to rural development activities. Burkina Faso’s Rural Sector National Program (PNSR) aims to promote wider access to agricultural inputs, create sustainable marketing and processing channels for agricultural commodities, promote resilience and proper water resource management, and create a secure investment climate for private investors.

The next step in Burkina Faso’s commitment to food and nutrition security as well as sustainable agricultural development is an exciting one; the new applications for innovative technological systems established through the MCC Compact as well as secure land tenure rights have set the stage well, and have given Burkina Faso and the Burkinabè an invaluable toolbox with which to cement their own sustainable, food-secure future.

Caitlin Allmaier is a researcher for the Global Food Security Project at CSIS.

This post was originally featured on CSIS's development blog Prosper. Read it here.
 

An Accumulation of Environmental Consequences

Photo by the_tahoe_guy. Blog by Mark Rasmussen, the director of the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture at Iowa State University.

On this 100^th anniversary of the extinction of the passenger pigeon and Elizabeth Kolbert’s recent book ( The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History), I have been thinking a lot about what causes the loss of a species. We also have heard news about the honey-bee Colony Collapse Disorder and the Monarch butterfly migration failure. Most explanations try to deflect direct blame and credit a complicated list of factors such as disease, parasites, reproduction, habitat, critical co-species, over-harvesting and social inertia.

One thing is clear however, humans are playing the dominant role in biodiversity loss. Worn-out explanations that “extinction happens and has always happened” just don’t cut it anymore given the accelerating rate that life is being extirpated from the planet. A few celebrity species in the “going, going, gone” book of life get attention while many other species don’t as they quietly fade away.

I recognize that many factors have an impact on biodiversity, extinction or survival, but one particular area does not get adequate consideration. This involves toxicology, multi-chemical interactions, sub lethal dosages, non-target species and environmental consequences. It is important because the products we use, the medicines we take, the chemicals we apply ultimately end up in our soil, water, and air. A complicated mix applied, excreted or discarded into the environment. It constitutes an extensive array of drugs, hormones, cleaners, pesticides and personal care products.

Things get complicated quickly when chemical mixtures are involved. Often we are faced with a complex mixture of active ingredients many possessing residual biological activity that lingers after use.

However we do get some help from nature. In my work on the metabolism of toxins by microbes, I have learned never to underestimate the power of microbes to degrade and detoxify. We depend on this mighty multitude in more ways than we can appreciate. However I also know from my research that life (even microbes) has its limits and that numbers matter which is why these are difficult issues to understand.

For example, consider antibiotics. Depending upon the class of compound, 20-80 percent of the drug is excreted by humans and animals through urine and feces into the environment. We assume that most is subsequently degraded in waste treatment plants or manure lagoons but while still active these compounds exert biological effects. Consider too that dilution is not always an adequate treatment measure for we now know that chronic sub-lethal concentrations can still have strong effects upon microbes and other forms of life.

Crop protection chemicals applied to cropland also are relevant to this discussion given the quantity used in open field environments. Most undergo regulatory approval and some information is available on their larger environmental impacts but often this information is limited and filed away in restricted regulatory application files.

I frequently get frustrated when I read in a scientific paper: “There is limited published literature on the degradation of compound X.” This tells me that little may be known about compound X and its possible interactions with other chemicals or its impact on non-target forms of life. We are too often surprised when we discover unanticipated consequences from the use of a compound X. The chemistry of life is vastly complicated.

So there it is, in all of its complexity. I share your frustration. For some, this complicated research dilemma may be cause for despair and surrender to the idea that we can never figure this out, so why try. For others it means; “Forge ahead. We need this product now and nature will take care of it.” Others react with a resolute: “Stop now! Ban them all”.

None of these positions are helpful. We need to be thorough and deliberative in our decisions and we need to double down on research and knowledge formation. We need more scientists and more open research on the environmental aspects of these multi-chemical interactions. We also need less suspicion and more encouragement for scientists doing this work.

We need broad life cycle analyses of these active ingredients and an emphasis on green chemistry. We also need the relevant industrial partner to provide metabolic, toxicological and degradation data before a product is released into the environment. And finally, we need a regulatory system that is not harassed or pressured into premature decisions.

Finally for those who are quick to criticize our regulators and scientists for being too slow with review and approval or for doing just one more experiment, here’s my question: What are you doing to help find the answers? Life on earth and our own well-being depends on getting good answers to these complicated questions. Unfortunately for many species, time is running out.
 

"Explaining Agricultural Biotechnology" Interactive Presentation