iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Climate Change Hits Zimbabwe's Farmers

Zimbabwe Climate Change

By GILLIAN GOTORA   11/26/11 11:38 AM ET   AP

HARARE, Zimbabwe -- As she surveys her small, bare plot in Zimbabwe's capital, farmer Janet Vambe knows something serious is happening, even if she has never heard of climate change.

"Long ago, I could set my calendar with the date the rains started," the 72-year-old said. Nowadays, "we have to gamble with the rains. If you plant early you might lose and if you plant late you might win. We are at a loss of what to do."

Paramu Mafongoya, a University of Zimbabwe agronomist, says Vambe's worries and those of millions of other poor farmers – most of them women – across Africa are a clear sign of the impact of climate change on a continent already struggling to feed itself. Changes have been noted in the timing and the distribution of rainfall on the continent. Zimbabweans say the rainy season has become shorter and more unpredictable, Mafongoya said.

Climate change "is a serious threat to human life," Mafongoya said. "It affects agriculture and food security everywhere."

International climate change negotiators meet in the South African coastal city of Durban starting Monday. Their agenda includes how to get African and other developing countries the technology and knowledge to ensure that people like Vambe can keep feeding their families without looking for emergency food aid.

A Green Climate Fund that would give $100 billion a year by 2020 to developing countries to help them fight climate change and its effects was agreed on at last year's climate talks in Cancun, Mexico. Durban negotiators hope to make progress on addressing questions such as where the money will come from and how will it be managed.

Climate change specialist Rashmi Mistry said her anti-hunger group Oxfam will be in Durban lobbying to ensure that women have a voice in managing the Green Fund, and that their needs are addressed when its money is spent. Most small-scale farmers in Africa are women, and they also are the ones shopping for the family's food. But tradition often keeps them out of policymaking roles.

Mistry said when yields are low and market prices are high, women are the first to suffer.

"She's the one usually who will feed her husband first and feed her children first, and she will go hungry," Mistry said.

Across Africa, said Andrew Steer, the World Bank's special envoy on climate change, farmers need to triple production by 2050 to meet growing needs.

"At the same time, you've got climate change lowering average yields by what's expected to be 28 percent," Steer said. He called for more investment in such areas as agricultural research and water management.

Experts already are working on solutions. For example, Africa Harvest, a think tank that uses science and technology to address poverty and improve livelihoods among some of the poorest people in Africa, is working with farmers in an arid stretch in eastern Kenya who were finding it harder and harder to grow their usual crops of corn and beans. Africa Harvest got farmers to switch to sorghum. They have seen bumper harvests as a result because they are focusing on the right crop and the right practices for the climate, said Moctar Toure, chairman of Africa Harvest, who will be in Durban for the talks.

"The way we do agricultural development has to change," Toure told The Associated Press. "We need to balance the need to increase farm productivity with environmental conservation. We will also work towards broad policy changes in our target countries in order to address endemic problems (affecting women) such as land right security, access to credit and knowledge."

Experts worry that one consequence of resources becoming scarcer will be more frequent conflict. Already, Zimbabwe has seen aid used as a political weapon. Those who can prove their loyalty to longtime President Robert Mugabe's party have been seen to be favored when it comes time to hand out seeds or food.

Modern techniques of growing drought-resistant crops like sorghum and millet, staggering planting programs, irrigation and harvesting rain and river water in dams help minimize the risk to farmers. But Zimbabwe's modern agricultural infrastructure has been disrupted by a decade of political and economic turmoil.

Acute food shortages eased after Zimbabwe adopted the U.S. dollar to end world-record inflation in 2009, but local farm production continues to decline. This month, the U.N. food agency said more than 1 million Zimbabweans needed food aid and poor families, especially households with orphans and vulnerable children, can't afford much of the food that is available. Most of that food is imported.

Climate change, like the political problems linked to poverty in Zimbabwe, is manmade, though over a longer term.

Scientists say the accumulation of carbon dioxide traps the Earth's heat, and is causing dramatic changes in weather patterns, agricultural conditions and heightened risks of devastating sea-level rise. Industrialized nations bear the bulk of the blame, since they have been pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere for 200 years.

Africa emits only about 3 percent of the total greenhouse gases per year, but its fragile systems and impoverished people are hardest hit by the consequences.

Weather experts say Zimbabwe's average rainfall has decreased over the decade and October temperatures this year soared to above 40 Celsius (104 Fahrenheit), the highest since 1962.

Harare meteorologist Jephias Mugumbate said rains in January and February – crucial for the ripening of crops – can no longer be relied on.

It was often said drought in southern Africa recurred every 10 years.

"But now it has become more frequent and intensified. Temperatures show an upward trend and instead of being cooler our nights are becoming hotter," Mugumbate said

Like Vambe, tens of millions of Africans rely on rain-fed agriculture.

Vambe's corn crop has supported her family for more than five decades. But her yields have been steadily falling.

She walks at daybreak to her nearly bare field 10 miles (15 kilometers) from her home in the impoverished western Harare township of Highfield. She has finished planting her seed with the help of her two grandchildren. The dusty brown soil beckons for rain.

Maize, the nation's staple food, needs 60 days of moisture to reach maturity.

"The rains have become erratic. We can no longer rely on the seasons," Vambe said.

She has had to replant on several occasions because of a "false start" to the rainy season.

"This is what has been affecting our yields since 2000. We are no longer getting good yields because the rain comes and goes away," she said.

In the past, the growing season ended in March and harvests were gathered through April.

"Today, nothing is definite. You get rain in April then our maize rots in the fields," Vambe said. "If we are not respecting our spirits and if they are angry, there will be no rain."

____

Associated Press Writer Donna Bryson in Johannesburg contributed to this report.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

HARARE, Zimbabwe -- As she surveys her small, bare plot in Zimbabwe's capital, farmer Janet Vambe knows something serious is happening, even if she has never heard of climate change. "Long ago, I cou...
HARARE, Zimbabwe -- As she surveys her small, bare plot in Zimbabwe's capital, farmer Janet Vambe knows something serious is happening, even if she has never heard of climate change. "Long ago, I cou...
Filed by Joanna Zelman  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 235
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
07:04 PM on 03/16/2012
people thrive more in a warmer clime, longer growing seasons, more moisture going furthur north, and the starvation and poverty of africa is political. it has nothing to do with the climate. everything to do with government imposed policies that prevent poverty reducing infrastructure and proxy wars and a host of other problems. thrid world nations are colonized by first world corporations and they bring their own people, push out the africans, arm them so they kill one another to get them out of the way and fund their governments so they will oppress and control the population so they won't interfere with corporations stealing their resources.

forced indebtedness is a big factor as well. farmers are actually taxed. here in the usa they are subsidized. excess food is dumped on the thrid world nations to under cut the farmers who ca'nt compete with this dumping and it destroys their ability to stay in business. people with little money will buy the cheaper foods imported. hence they go deeper into poverty. not forgetting the land is stolen from them by corporations who did the dumping to put them out of use. scarcity creates value.

rose
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Llib Noswad
aka: Bill, Conservative
12:10 PM on 11/28/2011
"Experts worry that one consequence of resources becoming scarcer will be more frequent conflict. Already, Zimbabwe has seen aid used as a political weapon. Those who can prove their loyalty to longtime President Robert Mugabe's party have been seen to be favored when it comes time to hand out seeds or food."

Interesting perspective, could just as well be the U.S.

Experts worry that one consequence of resources becoming scarcer will be more frequent conflict. Already,the U.S.has seen aid used as a political weapon. Those who can prove their loyalty to obama's party have been seen to be favored when it comes time to hand out favors or money.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:40 AM on 11/28/2011
Watch out for the scientist. They have pretty much killed God for a lot of you on here and are sliding right in to fill the void. Don't worry if you really don't understand all their data and theories. Even if you think you do they will insist you can't because you don't have smarts or the training or the background to understand all the data that's available. Science is in a battle to win your hearts and minds. Once they have that they will start to dictate policies on how we should live our lives.
03:08 AM on 11/28/2011
What are you saying? LOL
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:13 PM on 11/28/2011
Power corrupts and these guys are no different than religious bubbameisters and politicians.
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
07:46 AM on 11/28/2011
Attacking science are we? Idgit.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:19 PM on 11/28/2011
Oh my gosh! Arent they sacred or something like that?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:42 PM on 11/27/2011
This is a country which was once one of Africa's largest agricultural exporters. Looks like they need more of Mugabe's "wisdom".
10:43 PM on 11/27/2011
So let me get this straight, the IPCC is working to support "...A Green Climate Fund that would give $100 billion a year by 2020 to developing countries...".

Now, it it a fact that 75% of the IPCC "scientists" are appointed by the dictators that run those developing countries. And those dictators are in line to take a piece of a $100Billion pie if 'man made global warming is at fault'.

So does anyone believe that the 75% of the IPCC "scientists" who are appointed by a dictator will have the ability to say anything other than "it's man man made global warming causing all this...they owe is billions of $".

Didn't think so.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Daniel Hicks
Science > Your opinion
10:50 PM on 11/27/2011
Instead of, you know, just taking your word for it, do you have a list of scientists with, of course, some clear way to determine which ones, specifically, were appointed by dictators? All I'm saying is, your number is a lie, you know it and I know it, and everyone else should know it, too.

Going by the data, anthropogenic global warming is an incredibly well supported theory, so the only way you think you can attack it is by deligitmizing the findings. In this case, you propose that the vast majority of IPCC members come from African kleptocracies: this is not true, and you can have no data to support it.
10:54 PM on 11/27/2011
You have no data to support your position either.

Except my data is CORRECT.

75% of the IPCC clowns have no ability to actually do any science. They are simply mouthpieces for the dictators who appointed them.
03:11 AM on 11/28/2011
Wow, a bunch of "home-schooled" people are posting on this thread. ;)
photo
julieintx
The Typo Queen.
08:14 PM on 11/27/2011
Robert Mugabe destroyed Zimbabwe's agriculture. The country used to export food. Mugabe seized the farms and destroyed them.
03:19 PM on 11/27/2011
Climate change has occurred throughout the earth's history. Now all of a sudden you have people that think one component ( CO2 ) can be manipulated by man to stop climate change and make the world a perfect place. These same people then get upset when the rational people in the world tell them they are clueless for believing in Global Warming.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jeremyewilliams
Reality is not the GOPs cup of tea!
04:20 PM on 11/27/2011
Yeah, science and reality are dumb!
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
07:32 PM on 11/27/2011
Heres the problem with your amateur science. It is not in any way all of a sudden. The scientists have been working on the foundation science for over 200 years. The concept of an atmospheric greenhouse dates back to 1824.

It is not that you are trolling. You are. But your message is so completely and utterly devoid of any true information.

There is only one group of people who are qualified to figure out what causes global warming. That group is the atmospheric scientists. To them the science is very clear, CO2 is the problem.

Funny thing though. This doesn't stop the completely oblivious deniers from chirping up and declaring it all a hoax. Photofarm you have been fed a lie. Feel stupid?
08:28 PM on 11/27/2011
The only problem is you are not looking at the whole picture, just the limited part that supports your view. We have had glaciers as far south as Kansas, and they melted and moved back north into northern Canada. Even now they are finding villages and tools from man from many centuries ago, proving that the earth was warmer a long time ago. What if the factors that made the earth warmer then are at work now? What if those factors are stronger than CO2 component? What if man accepts the reality that he can't change global climate, but can only adapt to its changes.
12:12 PM on 11/27/2011
Liar, liar:

... The emails – part of a trove of more than 5,200 messages that appear to have been stolen from computers at the University of East Anglia – shed light for the first time on an incestuous web of interlocking relationships between BBC journalists and the university’s scientists, which goes back more than a decade.

They show that University staff vetted BBC scripts, used their contacts at the Corporation to stop sceptics being interviewed and were consulted about how the broadcaster should alter its programme output.

... BBC insiders say the close links between the Corporation and the UEA’s two climate science departments, the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and the Tyndall Centre for Climate Research, have had a significant impact on its coverage.

‘Following their lead has meant the whole thrust and tone of BBC reporting has been that the science is settled, and that there is no need for debate,’ one journalist said. ‘If you disagree, you’re branded a loony.’
12:24 PM on 11/27/2011
Essentially all of this is false or misleading. The 'damaging' quotes were cherry-picked out of context from 225,000 stolen emails. All of these 'smoking guns' prove to be innocent in context.

And in any case, the emails are a distraction. IF there were any serious grounds for disputing the consensus, THEN at least one of the MANY groups studying the problem around the globe would be pushing a dissenting view. While there are a few cranks, has-beens, and sellouts claiming otherwise, NOT ONE competent, credible climate-study group claims otherwise.

You don't get this kind of agreement until there's very little doubt remaining.
12:31 PM on 11/27/2011
palindrom, there is a pattern of deception here. It is large in proportion and it's most likely the tip of the iceberg so to speak. These are the deceptions we've been able to find. There are surely more. I've been around enough years to remember when the liberals warned the earth was cooling and we would go into an ice age, then it was global warming. Now that either scenario is working they way they said it would, they are calling it climate change so that every time it rains or snows they can blame mankind. All I can say is BS. Mankind cannot change the Earth's natual cycle and even if we try we do not have the money, brains or resources to do so. have a nice day and don't get stressed over this as it's a none issue.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
CanadaStan
Cogito ergo spud, I think, therefore I yam
12:59 PM on 11/27/2011
Really?
Out of context?
Give me an example.

I've read hundreds of the emails, and they are simply damning.

Show us how they are taken out of context.


waiting.....
ThinkCreeps
Seriously, it's time.
01:37 PM on 11/27/2011
What a news story you've found:

BBC runs and checks facts shock.
11:47 AM on 11/27/2011
Every problem is made harder to solve with the worlds never ending population growth.

We have a climate change crisis, a water crisis, an oil crisis, an energy crisis, a food crisis, a financial crisis, a jobs crisis and an overpopulation crisis.
11:17 AM on 11/27/2011
This article as hundreds another in the HP and thousands in the world newspaper do not explain, that real problems for Zimbabwe started by cutting trees, that real problems in Aral sea, started, because of irrigation.
These authors will always forget about soot, which cover white snow, and reduce reflection back to space of direct sun radiation.
They always blame wrong enemy-carbon dioxide, which easy to put in any climate models.

We must stop this unstoppable propaganda machine, created mostly for political, not scientifical reasons.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Just4theHalibut
11:34 AM on 11/27/2011
As far as I can tell, these problems are global AND local. And I think
you underestimate the smarts of the climate scientists and their models.
12:06 PM on 11/27/2011
Millions of local problems in deforestation, tilling the land and harvesting, roads, houses, small and big cities, which in result change as evaporation, as reflection of direct sun radiation, create in the same result huge convection forces, between continents and oceans.
All of these problems are in reality UNDERESTIMATE BY COMPUTER MODELS, THEY ALSO UNDERESTIMATE PROPERTIES OF WATER, which actually cool, the air.
12:25 PM on 11/27/2011
"And I think you underestim­ate the smarts of the climate scientists and their models."

That's Mr. m's stock in trade, pretty much.
10:35 AM on 11/27/2011
If more Americans were like this woman in the picture (actually working the land for crops) we would no longer have this nay-saying about climate change and we would no longer have big ag? It is Americans distance from the land that leads to all the denial. Farming is hard, food growing is highly uncertain and precarious. If folks really knew and understood, there would be change.
photo
BluePhantom2
The Blacksmith & the Artist reflected in their art
10:29 AM on 11/27/2011
More proof that AGW is more religion than science! If every change to the weather is a sign as the AGW crowd insists it can't be science. Waiting to Al Gore to sacrifice a chicken or start giving dates for the end!
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
10:47 AM on 11/27/2011
Nonsense.

You know you are a denier when you best argument is to bash Al Gore, who has nothing whatsoever to do with the story. But, Rush and that lot bash Al Gore, so a good denier emulates that behavior. Trained like rats, the deniers are.
12:15 PM on 11/27/2011
gallon, read the following then you know why many of us are skeptics:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2011/11/27/latest-climategate-emails-bbc-cahoots-climategate-scientists
photo
BluePhantom2
The Blacksmith & the Artist reflected in their art
12:27 PM on 11/27/2011
Nonsense! Yes the entire AGW arguement in nonsense. As for Al Gore or Rush I really don't care what the extremeists like them or you think.
12:30 PM on 11/27/2011
palindrom's second law postulates an inverse relationship between mentions of Al Gore and expertise in climate science.
10:06 AM on 11/27/2011
No matter how proficient farmers are, weather can humble them. See West Texas.
photo
TexasTreader
Fluffy, the yard dog
09:27 AM on 11/27/2011
Isn't there any OTHER way to ask for handouts, anymore?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Roshi98
Dum spiro, spero
09:40 AM on 11/27/2011
I hear Dick Armey and the Koch brothers are fairly generous.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Roadrun
In Financial Theocracy we Trust
11:11 AM on 11/27/2011
Sure! I can tell you how to get billions but it's better to get it straight from the horses mouth. Talk to BP, EXXON, GE, Bear Sterns, Citibank - oh the list is pretty long.
09:10 AM on 11/27/2011
"Formerly one of the four largest lakes in the world with an area of 68,000 square kilometres (26,300 sq mi), the Aral Sea has been steadily shrinking since the 1960s after the rivers that fed it were diverted by Soviet Union irrigation projects."
In this article, we see the same in Zimbabwe. Government cut the forest for crop.
In both cases were used cars, tractors, etc. Will they increase carbon dioxide. Yes, of course!

Please ask yourself: "Is it increase of carbon dioxide on 1 ppm create problems in these two area with local climate?"

After you will answer on this question, please imagine millions of places around the world, were we cut forests, put rivers underground, made dams. In all these cases we increase amount of GHG in atmosphere.
How smart the scientists, which blame GHG as main player in nature.

If we put our energy to recreate all sources of evaporation, which were before 1850, all forests, all lakes, etc, we will also increase amount of GHG in air, but we will return climate to the same level as it was in 1850.
Additional rain will bring to land the same GHG not only reducing amount of them in air but also will feed the forests.
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
10:49 AM on 11/27/2011
Needs a reality check.
11:01 AM on 11/27/2011
Are you do not read about deforestation all around the world, dear realist?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Daniel Hicks
Science > Your opinion
11:12 PM on 11/27/2011
...Doesn't realize that local concentrations of gases diffuse. There is no such thing as a local increase in environmental greenhouse gas concentrations.

"recreate all sources of evaporatio­n"
"return climate to the same level"
"feed the forests"

These aren't things scientists would say because they aren't at all clearly defined. What "level" is the climate at now? Evaporation cools a surface, so wouldn't it heat the air instead of cooling it? Where does the heat go, if it doesn't? I think your idea of thermodynamics is as muddled as your English.
09:54 AM on 11/28/2011
"...Doesn't realize that local concentrat­ions of gases diffuse. There is no such thing as a local increase in environmen­tal greenhouse gas concentrat­ions."
If local gases will not diffuse, it will be 350 or maybe more ppm in increasing of GHG at these areas.

"recreate all sources of evaporatio­­n"-forest create more evaporation, than grass, grass more, than tilling land, which more than sand...

" What "level" is the climate at now?"
From computer models we knew exactly average increase of temperature.

"Evaporatio­n cools a surface, so wouldn't it heat the air instead of cooling it?"
As lighter than most gases in air water vapor help convection forces to bring "parcel of air up", because of PdV work convection forces stopped at height around 300 m,
Condensation of part of water vapor, release heat, which RECREATE CONVECTION FORCES, by heating "parcel" of air, which is going up on next level. Step by step, these dynamic processes bring not only water vapor, but all gases in these "parcels" to upper troposphere, where all energy-kinetic energy of molecules of all gases, latent heat of condensation, and infrared in GHG will go to space more easy, than from ground (ocean) level.
It is, "Where does the heat go", and only property of water mostly create these possibilities.

"I think your idea of thermodyna­mics is as muddled as your English."
Are you still think so? If yes, sorry for your time.