[00:00:00] Bridget Scanlon: Welcome to the Water Resources Podcast. I am Bridget Scanlon. In this podcast, we discuss water challenges with leading experts, including topics on extreme climate events, over exploitation, and potential solutions towards more sustainable management. I would like to welcome Claudia Ringler to the podcast.
Claudia is the Director of the Natural Resources and Resilience Unit at the International Food Policy Research Institute. And her background is in agricultural economics. She coordinates research at the intersection of nature, agriculture, and development for progress toward more equitable and resilient food systems.
She also co-leads the CGIAR--which is the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research--NEXUS Gains Initiative. I know that's a mouthful. And she focuses on the role of energy in transforming food and water systems and on climate change adaptation and mitigation. She has received numerous awards through her career and was recently awarded Honorary Life Membership at International Water Resources Association for her contributions in water resource economics and International Association of Agricultural Economics for contributions to agricultural economics. So Claudia, thank you so much for joining me today. I really appreciate it.
[00:01:29] Claudia Ringler: Yeah, thanks so much. I'm really looking very much forward to this podcast. I think it's great to elevate water as a topic, given that it affects all of us.
We can't survive very long without having access to clean and sufficient water. So yeah, looking very much forward to the conversation.
[00:01:48] Bridget Scanlon: Thank you. So, Claudia, I mentioned that you work for the International Food Policy Research Institute. Which is one of the centers at the CGIAR and I spelled that out earlier and another example of a center is the International Water Management Institute.
Maybe you can describe a little bit about how CGIAR originated and evolved over time and some of these centers and what you guys have been trying to do to adapt to the demands in recent years.
[00:02:20] Claudia Ringler: Thanks. Yes. Thanks. Yes. Very important question. We always think everyone knows who we are, but of course it is not the case.
So as you said, CGIAR, the Consultative Group of International Agriculture Research was actually started in the early seventies in response to famines that were experienced because of very low food production levels, especially in South Asia. To avert those famines or to reduce negative impact and really achieve food production growth in line with very rapid population growth during that time.
And of course, we still have substantial population growth today. Several individual centers focusing on breeding high, more higher yielding varieties of rice and wheat were started particularly the International Rice Research Institute, and CIMMYT (Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maiz y Trigo), that focuses on breeding of advanced varieties of wheat and maize.
And so in fact, one, I guess, well known researcher there is Norman Borlaug, and he won the Nobel Prize for Peace because of his contributions to world food security. And there is now a U. S. world food prize, the World Food Prize that is being given out annually as well for the advancement of food security and nutrition in the world because of the centrality of this topic to every one of us.
So today we have 13 international agricultural research centers that form part of CGIAR. And as I mentioned, we started with breeding of crops, but then over the years, International Livestock Research Institute, World Fish Institute and many other topical and also geographically specific agricultural research institutes were started.
So there is one focusing on agriculture in the tropics, we have agriculture in the semi-arid areas et cetera. And of course, the International Water Management Institute, as you mentioned, is another more topical oriented international agriculture research institute. My own institute, International Food Policy Research Institute, was started in 1975.
Because of the recognition that much can be done on breeding and agronomy. But if the policy is not conducive to food security growth, we cannot necessarily [achieve food security], we need basically policy to really achieve food security and better nutrition. And so, we were started in Washington, D. C. because the idea is, if you can influence and if you can provide evidence based studies that show how we can achieve food production growth sustainably for poor people through better policy and through better institutions, then we can dramatically advance food security; trade policy is part of that incentives, institutions, prices, et cetera.
So that's kind of the area that my own center works on. And as I said, we are headquartered in. Washington DC, but as all of our CGIAR centers, we have many, many offices in low and middle income countries. So IFPRI has at least 15 to 20 offices all over the world, mostly in Sub-Saharan Africa, where food insecurity challenges are largest, but we operate together under this CGIAR umbrella and we come together for a lot of the research that we're doing.
[00:05:41] Bridget Scanlon: And the funding for the programs, you are quasi-public organization and, and initially, I guess I was reading that it was the Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation, maybe that were there at the beginning and then expanded over time. So you work with banks and other groups and governments and all of that sort of thing.
Maybe you can describe that just a little bit.
[00:06:04] Claudia Ringler: Yeah, but it is also very important. So each center before joining CGIAR, the umbrella group, was started by different entities. So some centers were started by countries, some were started by organizations, IFPRI specifically was started by, by Rockefeller and Ford Foundation, but also IDRC (Intl. Development Research Center) in Canada and ACIAR (Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research) in Australia.
So another bunch of acronyms, but they are all organizations that are committed to supporting world food security. And so, and yes, we are an international organization. We are not part of the UN. We are really a parallel system. We are the world's largest agricultural research system to address food insecurity, hunger and sustainability in low-income countries.
So that is who we are. And it sounds very big. And it sounds like that should mean that there is a lot of funding and a lot of support. There is clearly a lot of support because of our mandate. Our mandate is huge, but given the size of the mandate, our actual support is actually very small. So the annual funding to CGIAR is around 800 to 900 million US dollars.
And if you just compare it to the, let's say the advertising budget of some private sector beverage industries. I think both PepsiCo and Coca Cola, for example, have annual marketing budgets alone of about four billion U. S. dollar. And then you compare our mandate supporting food security in the majority of countries and for the majority of the global population. So yeah, we are actually, I think, trying our best and we are working very hard, but our overall funding level is unfortunately not yet commensurate to the task. And so how does the funding come? We have a core group of donors that directly support the mandate and the mission and, and the research activities of CGIAR and USAID and Gates Foundation are, are certainly, very strong supporters.
The World Bank is also providing some funds and, and many governments, British. Dutch, German, et cetera. So there is a lot of support. It is just that all in all it amounts to 800 to 900 million. And most of these funds are actually provided through us writing proposals to those funders.
So that is about 60 to 70 percent of our budgets. We actually write our own proposals and then this donor group also provides some what they call pooled funding. And for this pooled funding, we also write proposals, but those proposals are somewhat longer term, covering many centers. Yeah. And these are trying to address some grand challenges.
And so this NEXUS Gains initiative that I am co leading is basically a proposal or a research program that has received pooled funding; from a series of EU and other donors that are part of our donor group. So, yes, we, CGIAR unfortunately do not have completely unrestricted funding that is not already earmarked to a specific research program.
So that means we must address these very rapidly challenging food system challenges that I think we all have seen, the war in Ukraine, the COVID 19 crisis other energy and food price crises, that affect global food security. We have to try to maneuver within this somewhat constrained funding situation.
[00:09:50] Bridget Scanlon: Well, I mean, I am impressed with what you guys can accomplish considering the funding constraints. And it's really nice that you have a global base with offices in different regions and stuff. I visited the International Water Management Institute’s main office in Sri Lanka many years ago was really interesting.
And when things are tight, it just means that you guys have to be flexible and light on your feet and adaptable. But some funding requires long term. And so that can be challenging, I would guess. And in the podcast, the title of the podcast is Water Resources Podcast, but from many of the previous episodes, it has become obvious, of course, that food production and irrigated agriculture is the elephant in the room.
And you recently visited Uzbekistan, where you were looking at irrigation and water security issues there. Maybe you can describe what that amounted to. Were you working with governments and NGOs or what were you doing there and what were you finding from that visit?
[00:10:58] Claudia Ringler: Yeah, it was a great visit. Uzbekistan is part of Central Asia and Central Asia is a region with substantial food production potential, but also highly water constrained. So I think that's what we encounter pretty much everywhere in low- and middle-income countries. And the country is a partner country in this CGIAR initiative on Nexus Gains, because it’s a country in a region where water, energy, food and ecosystem health challenges are operating closely together. And we should not implement an irrigation activity or a food security strategy or an energy intervention without also considering the implications for all of the other pieces of the puzzle.
Of course, Uzbekistan and Central Asia is I think are very well known in the water world because of the so-called Aral Sea crisis. And that's exactly where the elephant in the room, I guess, drank all the water of the Aral Sea. So during the former Soviet time, there was a very clear mandate for this region to produce cotton and wheat, regardless of environmental consequences.
And so this Aral Sea, once the fourth largest freshwater lake in the world, as a result was highly degraded, desiccated. Almost all the water is basically, has been absorbed into these crops. And also obviously because of poor management practices. There is a bunch of salt lakes out there now with very limited ecosystem functions.
And so, yeah, the government of Uzbekistan, I mean, since, sorry, since the former Soviet Union has dissolved, now we have five countries in that region that now pursue independent goals before they were pursuing a joint goal. And that has not necessarily made the situation easier because now each one, each of those countries wants to pursue its own food security objectives, food self-sufficiency, exporting agricultural products, et cetera.
So some of those conflicts across water, energy, food, and ecosystem health challenges have intensified. And Uzbekistan has not benefited from this situation either. But just what is going on right now is several things. Climate change impacts on Uzbekistan agriculture have dramatically increased, requiring yet more irrigation and water security at the same time as water resources are basically declining due to climate change impacts.
And so the government has put out a request for all farmers or put out a promise, whichever you call it, for all farmers to adopt advanced irrigation technologies across Uzbekistan, 4.5 million hectares of irrigated areas. So that is a very big, a very big program. As we know these things don't happen very fast.
And they have done that just because they are worried that the water resources will not be sufficient to produce enough food for their own growing population and also to retain their exports of cotton. At the same time, more recently, as I said, it has become an international river basin, the Aral Sea basin, with two main rivers, Amu Darya and Syr Darya.
Very recently, in addition, Uzbekistan has learned that upstream Afghanistan, which supplies a lot of the tributary water resources into the Amu Darya has decided that they need to produce more food as well. And so they plan to divert water upstream. They're building a big canal right now and they plan to divert up to 25 to maybe even 30 percent of the entire water resource of the Amu Darya River that is essential for irrigation in Uzbekistan to their, to other areas inside Afghanistan to produce crops there.
If that were to happen, I mean, the agriculture economy and the overall economy of Uzbekistan would be severely affected. And right now there are no agreements, no transboundary agreements between Afghanistan and Uzbekistan that would allow for an easy or at least for a consultative solution to this big challenge.
So that's what Uzbekistan is dealing with. So we are working with the government, with the Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Water Resources, collecting data on what motivates farmers to adopt advanced irrigation technologies and what demotivates farmers from doing so. There are, of course, there are also salinity constraints.
There are very high energy potential implications, implications for potential energy savings as well. So it is a quite heterogeneous situation in Uzbekistan, but very little data to work with to support analyses. The government is developing solutions to their very rapidly worsening water situation.
[00:16:08] Bridget Scanlon: So it's, it's really quite challenging and I guess trying to improve irrigation technology over such a large area. It is about maybe 10 percent of the land area of Uzbekistan. That's by 2030, I think that is, and when you mentioned advanced technologies there, you think, is it like solar systems with drip irrigation and things like that, and I'm sure it's quite pricey then, and so they have incentives for the farmers, but still it's difficult for the farmers to, the subsidies may not be sufficient for the farmers to take it on.
So, yeah. Currently, I guess they pay the irrigation department for the electricity cost, but that's much smaller than what we're talking about now with this advanced technology and adopting that. So there are lots of different issues that have to be addressed. And so when you work in these types of countries, I mean, I think you mentioned that you do intra-household surveys and stuff like that, and you get a feel then from boots on the ground, then for what they're thinking and what's potentially feasible.
I mean, we can all say it is great to do something or another, but then the reality may be quite different. So. It seemed like it is going to be very difficult and then there is still a lot of cotton production and that helps with foreign exchange in Uzbekistan.
[00:17:39] Claudia Ringler: So exactly that, so I think that is part of what I would like to focus this podcast on, that maybe from a security perspective, cotton might not be the most desirable irrigated crop, also from a pesticide perspective and a water pollution perspective. But then there are many other considerations that governments have in mind when they support some crop production over other crop production.
And of course, farmers are looking for the most profitable crops. So yes, so we can make suggestions from a water security perspective, but if the government was biggest on, and if the ministry of finances says we first need to generate some more foreign exchange to import, let's say machinery to accelerate our industrialization or for the service sector or whatever it is; and then cotton is the crop that generates considerable foreign exchange, we really have to work with cotton. So what can we do on the cotton side? So we have to be very much aware exactly of non water actors and non water decisions that might easily override water concerns. And then we have to work with solutions that can operate in a very constrained operation space.
And as you said, for farmers, it's the same thing. So farmers who still have sufficient water supplies, they're not interested in adopting this advanced irrigation technology, even though it's subsidized. So subsidized at 40%, that means farmers still would have to pay 60%. Why would they do that if they do not see any water scarcity as of now?
Farmers who already have faced substantial water scarcity, they are also farmers who are generally most in debt, and then they can't afford to pay those 60 percent of such a system. And plus, I think as you try to allude to as well, you put in an advanced irrigation system. If your crop water requirements prior to the system were only met to, let's say, 80 percent because you already face water scarcity, you put in this nicely efficient system and you can suddenly meet 100 percent of your crop water requirements. And that actually means that overall, no water savings are generated at the system level, even at the larger level. So, I mean, savings at the system level with more production, but no, no real water savings. So those are all challenges associated with advanced irrigation technologies that the government wants to support.
And those are all things we need to look into here. Right.
[00:20:12] Bridget Scanlon: So, I mean, we've been talking, for the International Food Policy Research Institute, food security and considering climate extremes, climate change and other constraints is extremely important. And then, Stefan Siebert's work indicating that irrigation accounts for 70 percent of global water withdrawal and 90 percent of water consumption. So you mentioned earlier that the CGIAR initially, and still, I guess, maybe I'm not that familiar with it, but crop breeding and varieties and crop selection can play a huge role in controlling the water aspects of food production. And maybe I think when we talked before, you posited that maybe we can control it with irrigation technology. You just mentioned you install an advanced irrigation system and then you can irrigate more. You expand your irrigated area, the irrigation paradox that people have seen in different regions. So maybe we need to get at it from crop selection and crop breeding and maybe you can describe that aspect of CGIAR and your research IFPRI and other groups in that area.
[00:21:28] Claudia Ringler: Happy to do that. So I fully agree with you. So again, improving irrigation technologies institutions can get us only so far. And so it's very important to get many other actors that affect irrigation water use and global water scarcity into the picture and, and really apply systems thinking and the crop breeders or CGIAR and of course also at universities and especially also National Agricultural Research Systems have been very important in reducing the overall crop water use through developing advanced seed technologies.
And some examples of the key innovations in breeding are for so called semi-dwarf or dwarf varieties. And so it sounds funny. But basically, traditionally, some of those basic staple cereals that use most of the water that we withdraw globally, such as rice and, and wheat and, and maize; they were very tall. And then that meant if there was a windstorm or something, they broke and were not usable, but taller plants also use a lot of water. If you have a very tall crop, and you don't need that crop to be tall to produce a grain. And so they, they started to breed. short varieties. And short varieties, there's less, there's less [not utilized] biomass in this plant.
And so you need less water and the same for short duration varieties. So that was and is the other big breeding strategy. So traditionally some of those cereals took five, six months to be ready for harvest. And now those same, those same crops are ready in three months. And so you reduce your growing season from six to three months and then obviously that can save quite a bit of water, but also you can avoid a lot of potential challenges in terms of droughts, floods, adverse weather events that can affect your plant.
And not only these so called abiotic stresses, you, If you reduce your growing window, you also avoid a lot of biotic stresses such as pests and disease that can also come at the wrong time. So yeah, so that, that's really breeding I think has done an excellent job in, in reducing overall water use of crops.
And there is still a lot of potential, but in addition to those breeding strategies that were mostly focusing on yield improvements. There are also some strategies that are directly trying to improve the crop transpiration efficiency, and that has to be done genetically, and it also has to be done considering climate change, where we see more, more heat stress and also more drought stress. So there's breeding for stress tolerance. there's also even submergence tolerance so that crops can survive after being, what, two weeks flooded, for example. So those are all breeding technologies and breeding strategies that that get us a lot more food or a lot more grain, a lot more crop without putting in more water.
So any way we can retain crops under adverse climate events and adverse water related events such as flooding, if you can retain those crops, we don't have to put water on any other crops. So those are all breeding strategies that are important. Some of them are easier to do and some are more challenging to do.
So overall, Improving water use efficiency of crops and transpiration efficiency, it's continuous, it needs to be ongoing, but it hasn't been as successful as some of the other breeding strategies, but that's why we need more investment in that area.
[00:25:11] Bridget Scanlon: So I guess, did some of those strategies originate during the green revolution, then this dwarfism and, and so those shorter crops then could hold more grain and stuff like that without being vulnerable to be blown over or destroyed or whatever.
And so more robust and then required less water and nutrients. And some people would traditionally think you need to increase productivity. You need to increase water use. But if you do it with a breeding technology, then that increases the edible part of the crop or the harvest.
[00:25:46] Claudia Ringler: Exactly. See, that's another idea. Exactly. That you increase the share of the crop you can use, for example, as grain, and you reduce the share of the crop that are just, like leaves. Or the stem that, that might not be usable. And of course, for some crops, you can actually use all parts. You just use them for different things. But if you want to maximize the edible part or the easily edible part of crops, exactly.
So those are specific breeding strategies that have been employed. Now for decades, they have generated substantial annual yield growth across the world. This being said, this yield growth has been slowing because we have seen declines in investment in agriculture research. Public investment, so CGIAR is part of the public agricultural resource system where we have experienced those declines, but I mean, it's both some declines, but also obviously the stresses, the climate change and other stresses have intensified, so we have a combination of both situations.
[00:26:48] Bridget Scanlon: Yeah. So it's interesting to hear you talk about you're developing varieties that can deal with both the drought and also submersion and stuff. So you're looking at these climate extremes that could be flooding and drought. And so trying to address those is very important. And then I know very little about this area, but what I was reading, there's always a course, tradeoffs.
And so if you breed for a certain trait, then you need to consider the trade offs then. So if you breed for drought tolerance, maybe you reduce yield during normal periods or, or whatever. So, and then these breeding programs, they take a long time. It seemed like 10 to 20 years before you get to finally, you've got all these field tests and all sorts of things, but CGIAR has a good germplasm bank or something. And and then do they, I mean, it seemed like it would be difficult for farmers in places in many developing countries to afford good seeds. And then you've got the commercial seed. So is, is that along with fertilizer and water and all these other things, is that a challenge for farmers to buy good seed?
And didn't you have to do it every year?
[00:28:00] Claudia Ringler: Yes, those are, I mean, you've basically pinpointed all of the research questions that CGIAR is confronted with every day. Exactly. So for farmers, using traditional varieties that are not yielding as much, but you can basically reproduce [them] on your own farm. That is still often the way that they're proceeding.
Plus some of those, or many of the higher yielding varieties only really yield a lot if you also add some fertilizer. So for farmers who cannot afford fertilizer or cannot access fertilizer, some of those high yielding varieties might not be the best solution. And then, while these high yielding varieties have saved a lot of irrigation water, they do better if there is irrigation water, right?
I mean, we are talking about, we want to increase the yield from zero to 0. 5 tons per hectare to let's say four tons per hectare. This is a dramatic increase you can achieve with a high yielding variety. So for farmers to go down that route, they not only need that seed, they also need adequate other agriculture inputs, particularly fertilizer, but sometimes you also need some crop protection investments. And then if you want to achieve it, right, so different yield increments, you also want water control. You want to make sure that that seed that can get you from 0.5 to 4 tons per hectare. That seed has the water to achieve its potential. So yeah, so that's why we still see challenges with farmers, especially the poorer farmers accessing these seed technologies. And then there's of course, counterfeiting going on as everywhere. Like you, in fact, there's tests where you ask farmers, what seed do you think you purchased?
And the agri dealers, they think that's the seed I'm selling. So there are all kinds of interesting things that are going on. I mean, like everywhere else, right? So, and seed technologies and sometimes even fertilizer. Unfortunately, what you buy is not necessarily always what you get, but you think you buy is not necessarily what you actually have in the field, later on.
Because there are challenges with governance and institutions and oversight in many low income countries. So those are all things that we're dealing with, but all in all farmers are interested in these higher yielding varieties, because I think, I'm not sure if you already mentioned that a lot of those farmers, they're not that well off.
So it's hard to be well off if you produce 0. 5 tons of maize on your field and you have a neighbor with access to fertilizer, irrigation and a high yielding variety and then they get four tons per hectare or six tons per hectare. In the U. S. they get, what, 12 tons per hectare. So how can you compete if you stay with your traditional variety?
So it's real challenge. So that's why I guess CGIAR is there. I mean, that's our job to make sure that the poorer farmers can access these, the same inputs that richer farmers already are entitled to, so to say.
[00:31:08] Bridget Scanlon: And if the farmer does this, purchases seeds and stuff like that, is that a one way street?
Once they do it once, then they have to do it all of the time. Can you go back?
[00:31:20] Claudia Ringler: No. Yeah, I mean, sure. And you can diversify. I think we don't want a farmer to put all their eggs in a single basket, so to say, and no one should do that. No, farmers usually don't do that. Also, we see, of course, specialization as soon as they can commercialize some of their output. Why not? Farmers are actually some of the best breeders themselves, right? They try different things and, why don't grow various varieties and then you find out what is most profitable for you. And again we know weather and climate is often a big, a big factor that makes one, one type of production strategy less profitable than another one.
[00:32:02] Bridget Scanlon: And I think I've seen, and I haven't kept up with this literature, but you often hear about these global yield gaps between the potential yield and Sub-Saharan Africa, that can be huge and suggest that then with the investment in some irrigation, some fertilizers and good seeds and all of that, that they could really increase the yield.
Maybe sometimes they see this in agricultural research centers. That's what gives them an idea of what the potential yield could be. And, and then trying to expand that then into general production.
[00:32:39] Claudia Ringler: Yeah, but again, yes, we see a lot of those yield gap studies. We have to be very careful because most of the yield gap studies then think you bring in a technology and it resolves everything.
And many times it's institutions, it could be labor shortages. There could be market access challenges. There could be other inputs that are not available. So there's, yeah, we just have to be very careful. There are yield gaps. They're quite dramatic. They're still significant. But usually it's never a technology solution alone that will address a yield gap.
Because if it's so easy, it would already have been done.
[00:33:18] Bridget Scanlon: And I guess what you were referring to there was if they invest in good seed and stuff, they don't want environmental constraints then to negatively impact them. So then maybe they will invest in some irrigation and fertilizer. Exactly. It's a whole package.
[00:33:31] Claudia Ringler: Exactly. Irrigation alone, for example, if you start to irrigate and you don't have adequate fertilization or you don't apply any fertilizer, you're trying to get by with some manure, your yield might actually go down. because you're washing away those last soil nutrients that you might have had.
So yeah, no, no, it's definitely always a package.
[00:33:53] Bridget Scanlon: And I know we haven't mentioned genetically modified, but you also look at that for some countries that are interested. Is that correct?
[00:34:02] Claudia Ringler: Yes. So, So our own institute, International Food Policy Research Institute, what we are trying to do is have countries decide what crops and what crop technologies they want to adapt and to adopt.
And so we have a so called biosafety program that works with countries to establish legislation and regulation that manages, that basically helps them to decide what crop technologies they want to acquire over time, if they're GMO technologies, open pollinated varieties, whatever, so that the countries are ready to test whatever varieties that they feel they need to adopt for their own food security and development strategies.
But we do see, for example, in response to those most recent food price crisis and food challenges, we do see an increased number of countries being interested in an increased access to GMO varieties simply because they can't afford, they can't afford to, to import food at very high prices and they need to achieve food security if a country, and then achieve food security is even a bad term because we have, 900 million people that are food insecure.
So that, yeah, we don't have food security, but they're trying to advance or progress on making food available to the populations at affordable prices. And so GMO varieties are one of many, many options that the countries do consider and, and we're trying to support them if that is what they want. Yes, absolutely.
[00:35:45] Bridget Scanlon: Right. And I think it's great, Claudia, that your work extends across Asia and Africa, because on the one hand, we've seen Asia. We've seen World Bank reports in China, 800 million people coming out of poverty. And that's related to many different factors, but irrigation and food production and food security in South Asia, but Sub-Saharan Africa is still very problematic.
And so maybe you can talk about that because you work across both of those regions, maybe you can describe as some of the issues or the reasons why Sub Saharan Africa is such a difficult time or, or how Asia was able to get to a certain level. I would love to hear your thoughts on that.
[00:36:31] Claudia Ringler: Yeah, so there's obviously many theories, many reasons, and, and irrigation obviously has played a substantial role there.
So traditionally, so Asia was much more rice-based society and, and still is, so rice consumption is definitely a key crop there, but of course also wheat. Asia has more water resources, so for hundreds of years, they have invested in irrigation systems to harness water that they had because they're overall much more water rich than, for example, Africa and then including Sub Saharan Africa.
So they have invested very large sums of money, in fact, two thirds of the budget expenditures of the Ministries of Agriculture or Irrigation, whatever they're called, depends on the country. Two thirds of those budgets were invested for easily four or five decades just on irrigation. So they have, they have basically made a stance that we do, that they wanted to be able to grow mostly rice and, and to have this substantial production level that support rice food security, at least in those countries.
So then we compared it with Africa where obviously other crops that were not as dependent on rice were more dominant, such as roots and tubers, millet, sorghum. So having water control was not the main factor that supports food security. We have there are governments that have not traditionally invested large sums of monetary expenditure to agriculture.
In fact, there's a lot of drive and there's a lot of commitment to support countries in Africa to actually invest into their agricultural systems. So, that premise just wasn't there for many decades, for many reasons. And so at the same time, we also have other supporting factors in Asia where the share of the population that depends on agriculture is lower.
Electrification is much higher. That supports mechanization, supports agriculture becoming much more productive, more rural infrastructure. And we don't see that in sub–Saharan Africa. So all of those factors have contributed to the much lower agricultural productivity there.
[00:38:53] Bridget Scanlon: Right. So water and energy access and all of these things contribute to food insecurity and then climate extremes.
[00:39:03] Bridget Scanlon: And you mentioned earlier on famines, exposure to famines and stuff. So it will take, decades that it takes of investment of government. Exactly. Good governance and, and government involvement and all of those things. And it seems like I see things like International Water Management Institute did studies on solar pumping in Ethiopia and stuff like that.
So those sorts of things, if farmers invest in that sort of thing, which can be quite expensive, then they're more likely to grow horticultural crops, higher value with the market and more profitable. But maybe the government might want them to grow more of the staples and so may not promote that sort of thing.
So there's a lot of different issues at hand that have to be considered.
[00:39:52] Claudia Ringler: Exactly. So, I mean, that's how irrigation developed is directly linked to the crops and also to the just investment behavior of those countries. So, in Asia, we see traditionally those very large-scale surface systems, but then over the las [decades] t, since the late 70s, 80s, so we've, we started to see cheaper individual pump sets that became available.
And so, farmers that didn't get enough water in those surface systems just put in a well and now they put in their individual pump set and they just pump the surface system that's nicely being recharged, pump out of that system to grow whatever crops. Yeah. And sub-Saharan Africa, because we don't have that history of large-scale systems with the exception of very few countries like the Sudan or in the Egypt, the Nile irrigation system. So, therefore, pumping out of wells is to some extent the fastest way forward, the most democratic way, because we have limited rural electrification in Sub Saharan Africa. So, if you get access to a diesel pump and now more, more, recently, if you get access to a solar pump, where you don't even have to be able to afford the diesel, you just have to be able to overcome that initial capital investment hump for solar, which is very expensive.
If you get your hands on that, you dig a well somewhere, you can become quite profitable and a quite productive farmer. And as you mentioned, for an individual farmer with, let's say, one or two acres in Africa, you probably don't want to grow rice or maize, irrigate that, you, you should go for horticultural crops.
And that's what we see happening. And that is certainly a success story. Success story, again, nothing is success on its own because with these pumping of groundwater systems that are not monitored, we generally don't know how much water they yield, there is of course a risk that all neighboring farmers like the idea as well, and that we do see drawdown of some of those aquifer systems.
So again, CGIAR, if there are other partners, we are there to support this generally positive development because there is a lot of potential for developing groundwater systems in those countries where government investment simply has been not at the level that that would support larger surface systems.
And their groundwater development is a very, it certainly has the potential to dramatically reduce the food import dependency that, that we see in the region and, and to try and will reduce, it can reduce the very low agricultural productivity that we still see in large parts of the continent.
[00:42:43] Bridget Scanlon: And I think if IFPRI works with the World Bank on their farmer led irrigation development, is that FLID and encouraging smallholder farmers and promoting that sort of thing.
[00:42:54] Claudia Ringler: Right. That's, that's the idea. So yeah, this small-scale irrigation development was actually, I think, later adopted by, by World Bank because they'd all the calculations suggest that from a per hectare investment cost, you fare much better with this very, very small-scale farmer managed and farmer owned systems.
But as so, and the World Bank basically now is also trying to see how they can integrate that into their own investment portfolio that otherwise continues to focus on large scale systems. They're basically better equipped for supporting. government demands for larger systems. And as you said yourself, there are some people who say, oh, do we still need investment in larger systems, which now farmers will just take care of it themselves.
And of course the answer is yes. You can't just hope that those small systems that were farmers might or not, might not be able to access a pump, might not, or not be able to, to drill a well. still quite expensive for them, that that will take care of the extremely high food insecurity challenges that the continent faces.
So these traditional systems don't pay for themselves for, for basic staple crops like rice, for example, in Africa are also needed. But of course, in ways that are sustainable and do not significantly adversely affect the ecosystem health, which is a challenge can be done, but they need very careful investment and good analysis.
[00:44:26] Bridget Scanlon: Right. And so we've covered a lot of different things and I know you work with your colleague Hua Xie and we've worked with, collaborated with Hua in the past. And I really liked the paper titled “Can Sub Saharan Africa Feed Itself”? And maybe you could just describe a little bit about the findings from that analysis.
[00:44:45] Claudia Ringler: Yeah. So we basically did look at these scenarios of what advanced progression or expansion of, of irrigation area could do to, to the continent in terms of affecting food insecurity and food import dependency. There has been a previous paper that had the premise, can, Can Africa feed itself? But it focused mostly on fertilizer.
And yes, we know fertilizer is nutrient inputs are really missing in, in, in sub–Saharan Africa. And we do need more fertilizer for food security on, on that continent, and especially in sub–Saharan Africa, the subcontinent. But our people basically made the case, your fertilizer on its own, especially with climate extremes, but also with, population growth, et cetera, is likely insufficient.
And we also do need actually to work on the irrigation. And we were able to show that with an expansion of irrigation, I think around 10, 20, 25 million hectares at certain cost levels, we can reduce the net import dependency on food, that has been increasing over the years in sub Saharan Africa and is projected to continue to increase because we just can't get agricultural productivity up fast enough as compared to population growth and climate extremes.
But we could drastically reduce food import dependency on the continent to I think 14 to 40 percent or so just based on alternatives in the cost scenarios of irrigation technology and a few other scenarios. And that would be various crops. You wouldn't just grow horticulture crops. So you definitely need different types of irrigation systems.
Also increased production of cereals with irrigation systems, but clearly irrigation development is a key part of the productivity puzzle of the productivity challenge that the region faces. And we simply do need consistent and large investment in Sub Saharan Africa if, if we want to address growing food insecurity.
[00:46:53] Bridget Scanlon: Right. Right. Especially considering the huge population growth and all of that sort of thing. So I know you've worked in many different areas of food security and maybe you can describe a little bit the linkages to nutrition and health and some of those aspects that I have missed so far and what you think is important in those realms.
[00:47:16] Claudia Ringler: So because I'm based at a food policy research institute and not at an irrigation policy research institute or water policy research institute. So we're, for us, water is always linked with other development objectives and outcomes. And so what I've seen over the years is that us, I'm also still consider myself a water expert and someone concerned with water scarcity and conservation, but I work in the food systems environment, with food policy experts. And if you want to make a difference on water, water conservation, water security, we simply have to work across the entire food system. And that includes, let's say, many different ministries beyond the ministries of water that are not always powerful enough to actually drive how water is used in the country.
And that is also because water is not just, it's used for drinking, it's used for food, it's used for energy, it's used in manufacturing. So we need to understand what are the overall government goals and where does the water go and why does it go where it goes? And simple, and that's at the national level.
I think it's very important just as an example, countries where that are very serious about addressing the global health crisis that's also going on in terms of high levels of diabetes, obesity, consumption of unhealthy foods. So what are the sources of those unhealthy foods? And they're often sugars.
Sugar is one of the most irrigated crops globally. So if, if we want to address the global water crisis, we should support the public health officials that are making the case for our sugars, for sugar taxes that have been quite successful. And at least at the margin, reducing the consumption of sugary beverages as an example.
So if we, if we improve our food based dietary guidelines. to take the environmental consequences of the food we eat more seriously. And that could be livestock from a climate change perspective. It could be sugar from a straight public health perspective. We should support those as, as water experts and as people interested in water security, we should be into, we should be actively supporting those policies that are actually being implemented and have been shown to be quite successful in reducing consumption of, for example, sugary drinks. But there's also certainly we see a reduction, at least in high-income countries, of consumption of livestock products, let's say hamburgers. So that directly supports our water security and that, that will reduce water needs and, and, and irrigation, at least of some highly water intensive commodities. So that's areas where we should work with other ministers. Ministries of agriculture often subsidize agriculture inputs that are also detrimental to water, for example, fertilizer subsidies. So we should, we should work with ministries of agriculture as water experts to explain to them what you're doing is one way to support farmers, but there are many other ways that do not damage the water environment as much as fertilizer subsidies do, because those subsidies generally don't reach poor farmers. They generally lead to unbalanced use of fertilizer. So they're not even that great for agriculture, but they're certainly very bad for, for the water environment and for aquatic life.
That, again, other people, and then obviously we all want to see, we all want to see water-based ecosystem health. So we should work with Ministries of Agriculture to say, why don't you do other direct income transfer that is not tied to farmers purchasing, purchasing a certain agriculture input that they might not even be interested in.
Give them the money directly because we know farmers are often poor. Farmers don't generate enough profit to make a living. We all need food. So there's ways to support farmers without negatively affecting, affecting water security or, or the water environment. Then another, we have to work with ministries of trade and ministries of commerce I mean, as you might know, with the war in Ukraine, for example, has led to dramatic shifts in, in global wheat prices and several other prices because Ukraine and, and neighboring countries that had actually produced a large share of wheat that had been imported by some other countries.
So in response to that, some other countries started to protect, to reduce exports of grains, put in new tariffs and trade tariffs. So all of those tariffs and all of those distortions of trade are very bad for water security because it leads to countries that are highly water insecure to start wanting to grow basic staples with irrigation, even though that water doesn't really exist.
For example, Egypt in response to the war in Ukraine and response to the loss of their wheat imports, put out a statement that they will try to increase irrigation of wheat, I think 200, 000 acres. That's a dramatic amount of water resources that they don't actually have or they would have to obtain from non-renewable groundwater resources.
And that's, so those, those are challenging decisions that governments have to make linked to, to trade distortions, obviously also conflict and wars. And we have to try to find other ways for countries to, to meet water dependent food security goals. And virtual water trade is a concept that basically has been trying to show how much water, especially waters across countries, already import and, and can avoid using from national resources through when, when trade regimes are open and, and when, when food trade is supported.
So, I think as water experts that are concerned with, with healthy aquatic ecosystems and then healthy watery ecosystems, we have to support free trade policies that allow countries that have more water resources to grow food and to export the food to countries that do not have those water resources.
Yeah. So those are at least some of the ministries we have to talk to. And maybe very last one, of course, is Ministries of Energy. As you're all aware, biofuels from sugarcane or maize, they do use water resources. Is it, could be rainfall, could be irrigated water resources, but they do use water resources and they do, they do take land away from food production.
Those Biofuel policies were, again, started without talking to anyone working on water, and unfortunately also without people working on food or, or concerned with food security; they come generally from the Ministries of Energy, Departments of Energy. Again, we need to talk to, to those agents as well and try to understand to help them find solutions that are less dependent on our very, very precious water resources, so I think that's another job that water experts have to take on more seriously.
[00:54:49] Bridget Scanlon: Yeah, that's, that's quite a lot of groups and I guess what you're emphasizing then is sort of the systems approach and and be much more comprehensive because of the tradeoffs among different sectors and stuff and, I saw an article in the New York Times this past recent while back on sustainable aviation fuel and the aviation industry wants to promote greenness and everything, but then at the expense of food and water issues.
So everything is a tradeoff and understanding those tradeoffs I think is so important. I really appreciate your time today, Claudia, and all of the work that you do. And I think it's great to have an economics teacher background, because, I mean, at the end of the day, economics plays a huge role in many of these issues also.
And we've covered a lot of different topics. I think, what's unusual about this podcast is the emphasis on crop selection, crop breeding, and that role in reducing water use intensity. And, then. covering irrigation, why Africa is still lagging behind Asia and what it will have to do to try to catch up and improve food security.
And then you mentioned health issues and, and linkages between diets and health. And we didn't get a chance to talk about micronutrients and things like that, but, and then trade then to improve food security. So thank you so much for taking the time. And really appreciate your insightful work.
[00:56:22] Claudia Ringler: Yeah. No, thanks so much for the opportunity.
I think it was really fun to discuss all of that. And as you said, there's lots more to discuss, so I'm looking forward to your next podcast. Thank you. Thank you.
