This is great news, how to use old technology when it's the best solution for the present problem. It would also have been great to have a schema of how the terraces actually work.
My girlfriend did her Msc. in agricultural economics by spending months in Ethiopia, touring villages in a Toyota SUV with a driver and two translators and evaluating the various development programs.
I joined her for the last 3 weeks, and so I got to know some of the guys that run these programs and the whole cultural UN/Worldbank etc. bubble. I came away impressed, the country itself is very under-developed, but these people (mostly) made a good impression. They try to do as much as possible on their own, and not relying too much on foreign expertise or leadership.
Its not exactly a democracy, and some programs are essentially forced labour, requiring villagers to work for free and build these terraces and irrigation etc., but it works and they have no money to do it any other way. Places where people used to starve are now food-secure.
It is also a great country to travel, violence is very rare and the food is really nice. It helped to eliminate lots of preconceptions I had.
Can confirm. Ethiopia is a wonderful country, and very definitly off the beaten path a lot. It's maintained it's own independence for a long time and is quite unique.
> Its not exactly a democracy, and some programs are essentially forced labour, requiring villagers to work for free and build these terraces and irrigation etc
Well it's not as though a democracy is absolutely the best either; there are all kinds of undesirable features like losing 49/51 and getting basically no say for the next four years. But I digress.
In the case where very little money changes hands (subsistence farming) then compulsory labor is a more effective tax than requiring cash payments. Any percentage of nothing is still nothing. And at only 20 days out of a notional 250 work day year, it's less than a 10% tax which seems incredibly reasonable compared to what people in the developed world pay, generally between 20% and 70% (or more) depending on country, state and city.
A lot of so-called "democratic" countries have forced labor as well. Working for a ridiculous wage is no better than forced labor. Anyway, yes, we're digressing.
Well contrast that with dictatorships where the side with 95% support still loses, and it feels a lot better. This to me is the main feature of democracy. The second best option will occasionally win against the best one. But at least the terrible option will lose.
I hear where you're coming from. And I generally agree. But I'm not 100% convinced that the terrible option always loses. In general it should. But it's not guaranteed by any means.
I don't mean to imply that its a bad thing. There are even some instances where a military government was behaving better in some areas than a democratically elected one.
These evil Reds... But of course US-backed emperor Selassie had nothing to do with the disastrous economy despite ruling as an absolute monarch for 60 years. And the Ogaden War where US-backed Somalia attacked Ethopia also had nothing to do. And no talk about the White Terror either. It's so easy to simplify to justify one's political positions, isn't it?
Ethiopia and Iran are both great examples of the West propping up pretty terrible dictators, who were subsequently replaced by something much worse. That foreign involvement certainly doesn't release the Derg from blame for their predilection for torture and mass-murder though...
It's important to be a bit cognizant of the political situations, though. The willful ignorance of Ethiopia's political reality when Live Aid happened led to piles of charity dollars essentially going straight to the Derg, and thus into arms deals to continue the war with Eritrea.
I'm more pointing out that there is a history of political violence that undermined the country's economic conditions. Famine doesn't come only from a drought or a land use change, but most disastrously occurs with more basic political and economic breakdown. This is something that it easy to forget or ignore from a privileged position in the US. The US has been at war in Somalia just as part of the GWOT for basically a decade, yet with so little press and attention in the US press that the cost and benefit to regional stability is never discussed, for example.
It's the article's use of the mid-1980s famines as a hook for discussing economic development as a technical land-use issue that makes the omission more glaring. And it would be a more interesting article, to consider the history of efforts to abolish feudal land tenure, for example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reform_in_Ethiopia
I'm curious about the use of compulsory collective agricultural labor that has made this possible, though ;)
This video has been posted before, and permaculture has been as well, but it's extremely relevant. Terracing takes "a lot" of work which is a downside. There are other downsides as well, but it's a formidable strategy when dealing with steep hills. The hill in the picture from the article actually looks swale-able, which would be a much better approach (more overall water saturation).
I wonder. Wouldn't it be better to move all these people to Montana or something, onto empty land that's got to be better than where they're at? Not like they're tied to the land; they are all refugees apparently. I wouldn't mind them as neighbors: "God helps those who help themselves" is pretty much how we operate around here too.
For one thing, it's much colder in Montana than in Ethiopia.
Next, what would we do with these people's agricultural output? The US government pays current farmers not to use land to keep food prices up. US have 721k farmers; Ethiopia has 86M population.
I think for the cost of moving 86m people halfway across the world you can probably develop Ethiopia instead (Israel produces 95% of its own food while being more arid than Ethiopia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_Israel)
Talking about Tigray, with a population of 4.3 millions. I wonder if the equipment to farm to feed those people would actually weigh less than the people? A few thousand boat trips would serve to move them all. In fact, once a fraction had been moved, pressure would be reduce in Tigray to house and feed the remainder.
Remember America took in 65 Million people over its history. Most of those came by steam ship. Today it would be faster and cheaper by far.
I wonder if the equipment to farm to feed those people
would actually weigh less than the people
I would certainly think so, considering how advanced modern farming tech is (or even 50 years old farming tech). 4.3m people plus food/water/other stuff they need to survive a couple weeks on a ship (plus then transporting them overland to wherever) weighs A LOT, fuel & vessels to transport them are also not trivial.
The farm equipment also doesn't have to come from America, there are far closer manufacturers (Israel is ~3000km by ship from Eilat, Europe or India ~1000-2000 more).
Anyway hauling millions of people over to America sounds like a pretty ridiculous solution to me. You think the US government would accept millions of refugees with open arms? Why did the majority of Iraqi war refugees had to come to Europe instead?
Remember the farm equipment needs support too. Like that food and water, you need fuel, tires, parts, lubricants, expert mechanics...so from a sustainability viewpoint, its likely easier to move people where the technology is, than to try to transplant the technology to where the people are.
And the idea is more a speculative engineering question. What kind of solutions would be more efficient, IF ONLY politics didn't get in the way?
I don't know, but I would be really surprised if moving millions of people is more efficient than moving sufficient amount of agricultural equipment & some farmers to get them started on using them correctly (remember that a lot of these people are already farmers, just not using modern tools/fertilizers).
Not to mention it's at least slightly offensive & like treating people like cattle to move them around wholesale like that. Ultimately the problem is not the climate or soil it's the (mis)allocations of resources.
Ethiopia has periodic crippling drought. So it is the climate. Water is very precious there. That's the impetus behind the question which can be stated as "Move the people to water, or scavenge water where the people are".
Again, the 'offensive' argument is political. Trying to just compare outcomes, to know what to shoot for in the political realm. Remember, these are already refugees, there against their will.
And yet Israel has less hospitable climate and it's doing just fine, due to resources invested in water reclamation/desalination and high(er) tech agriculture[1].
I think you really overestimate how harsh the climate in Ethiopia is - it's not like trying to colonize Mars or Arrakis. It's hardly the Sahara either. The climate is in fact less harsh than fairly extensive parts of the US (particularly the West).
[1] Israel was also doing quite well even when it was a fairly poor country in the 50s/60s (although it was never as dirt poor as Ethiopia).
Tigray is classed as 'hot, semi-arid'. So only semi-desert I guess. Israel is pretty much the poster child for western technological development of arid land, with high education and no cap on the budget. Not fair.
To look at it another way, consider a village of 200 refugees. Instead of importing a tractor, mechanic, fuel supply route, parts, seed, education, engineering know-how etc.
Consider moving those 200 people to where the parts store is not 10,000 miles away. Arguably cheaper.
Most of America is uninhabited for instance. I heard once that everybody in China could fit in Montana easily. There're 100M acres in Montana, so maybe that's a stretch - 20 people supported by 1 acres is unlikely.
Yes, moving 200 people (and probably also 2,000 or even 20,000) is easier than building the required infrastructure to grow food for them. But after a certain point moving more people grows costs approximately linearly where as growing food via modern farming does not.
That's how modern rich countries like the USA can be net food exporters while employing less than 2% of the population (you will find similar figures in other developed countries). A village of 200 people in the middle of nowhere probably can't be fed by 4 farmers regardless of how much equipment they have.
Yet those people in Ethiopia were using hand labor and baskets to build dams. That doesn't look like scalable western farming. It looks a lot harder. So the argument "Move them to the West where modern farming techniques are available" now becomes very, very much more efficient that leaving them where they are.
So the argument "Move them to the West where modern
farming techniques are available" now becomes very,
very much more efficient that leaving them where they
are.
But the argument wasn't for "just leaving them where they are" - it was for bringing them modern farming techniques.
The reason that wasn't done has more to do with politics and economics (in the sense that there isn't as much money to be made by doing so - same reason why nobody is going to spend billions/trillions bringing them to Montana).
Right, to be honest, nobody is going to bring them modern farm techniques either. It costs too much. They're going to remain in extreme poverty, building a few mud dams and raising corn with their muscles, for as long as they live.
But if you Were to spend money on improving their lot, then I'd much rather transport a culturally significant number of them to a convenient location where their efforts could leverage modern resources.
Sure; but its not actually what WE think that matters. Ask them if they would LIKE to emigrate to America. What do you think? Would they want to stay in their semi-arid dust bowl? Or move to Northeast Iowa and farm with regular rain, fabulous soil and ready markets?
It's quite fascinating how they didn't have terraces until now. It really is an ancient technique, its around 7,000 years old. That's older than the plow.
36 comments
[ 4.7 ms ] story [ 77.0 ms ] threadIf you're curious like me, here are some pictures of the actual terraces: https://www.google.com/search?q=Tigray+terracing
I joined her for the last 3 weeks, and so I got to know some of the guys that run these programs and the whole cultural UN/Worldbank etc. bubble. I came away impressed, the country itself is very under-developed, but these people (mostly) made a good impression. They try to do as much as possible on their own, and not relying too much on foreign expertise or leadership.
Its not exactly a democracy, and some programs are essentially forced labour, requiring villagers to work for free and build these terraces and irrigation etc., but it works and they have no money to do it any other way. Places where people used to starve are now food-secure.
It is also a great country to travel, violence is very rare and the food is really nice. It helped to eliminate lots of preconceptions I had.
http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e483a16.html
See UNHCR 2015 Projection Figures for Kenya
Well it's not as though a democracy is absolutely the best either; there are all kinds of undesirable features like losing 49/51 and getting basically no say for the next four years. But I digress.
In the case where very little money changes hands (subsistence farming) then compulsory labor is a more effective tax than requiring cash payments. Any percentage of nothing is still nothing. And at only 20 days out of a notional 250 work day year, it's less than a 10% tax which seems incredibly reasonable compared to what people in the developed world pay, generally between 20% and 70% (or more) depending on country, state and city.
Well contrast that with dictatorships where the side with 95% support still loses, and it feels a lot better. This to me is the main feature of democracy. The second best option will occasionally win against the best one. But at least the terrible option will lose.
It's important to be a bit cognizant of the political situations, though. The willful ignorance of Ethiopia's political reality when Live Aid happened led to piles of charity dollars essentially going straight to the Derg, and thus into arms deals to continue the war with Eritrea.
It's the article's use of the mid-1980s famines as a hook for discussing economic development as a technical land-use issue that makes the omission more glaring. And it would be a more interesting article, to consider the history of efforts to abolish feudal land tenure, for example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reform_in_Ethiopia
I'm curious about the use of compulsory collective agricultural labor that has made this possible, though ;)
This video has been posted before, and permaculture has been as well, but it's extremely relevant. Terracing takes "a lot" of work which is a downside. There are other downsides as well, but it's a formidable strategy when dealing with steep hills. The hill in the picture from the article actually looks swale-able, which would be a much better approach (more overall water saturation).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBLZmwlPa8A
Next, what would we do with these people's agricultural output? The US government pays current farmers not to use land to keep food prices up. US have 721k farmers; Ethiopia has 86M population.
Talking about Tigray, with a population of 4.3 millions. I wonder if the equipment to farm to feed those people would actually weigh less than the people? A few thousand boat trips would serve to move them all. In fact, once a fraction had been moved, pressure would be reduce in Tigray to house and feed the remainder.
Remember America took in 65 Million people over its history. Most of those came by steam ship. Today it would be faster and cheaper by far.
The farm equipment also doesn't have to come from America, there are far closer manufacturers (Israel is ~3000km by ship from Eilat, Europe or India ~1000-2000 more).
Anyway hauling millions of people over to America sounds like a pretty ridiculous solution to me. You think the US government would accept millions of refugees with open arms? Why did the majority of Iraqi war refugees had to come to Europe instead?
And the idea is more a speculative engineering question. What kind of solutions would be more efficient, IF ONLY politics didn't get in the way?
Not to mention it's at least slightly offensive & like treating people like cattle to move them around wholesale like that. Ultimately the problem is not the climate or soil it's the (mis)allocations of resources.
Again, the 'offensive' argument is political. Trying to just compare outcomes, to know what to shoot for in the political realm. Remember, these are already refugees, there against their will.
I think you really overestimate how harsh the climate in Ethiopia is - it's not like trying to colonize Mars or Arrakis. It's hardly the Sahara either. The climate is in fact less harsh than fairly extensive parts of the US (particularly the West).
[1] Israel was also doing quite well even when it was a fairly poor country in the 50s/60s (although it was never as dirt poor as Ethiopia).
To look at it another way, consider a village of 200 refugees. Instead of importing a tractor, mechanic, fuel supply route, parts, seed, education, engineering know-how etc.
Consider moving those 200 people to where the parts store is not 10,000 miles away. Arguably cheaper.
Most of America is uninhabited for instance. I heard once that everybody in China could fit in Montana easily. There're 100M acres in Montana, so maybe that's a stretch - 20 people supported by 1 acres is unlikely.
That's how modern rich countries like the USA can be net food exporters while employing less than 2% of the population (you will find similar figures in other developed countries). A village of 200 people in the middle of nowhere probably can't be fed by 4 farmers regardless of how much equipment they have.
The reason that wasn't done has more to do with politics and economics (in the sense that there isn't as much money to be made by doing so - same reason why nobody is going to spend billions/trillions bringing them to Montana).
But if you Were to spend money on improving their lot, then I'd much rather transport a culturally significant number of them to a convenient location where their efforts could leverage modern resources.