Until the Soviet invasion in 1979, agriculture was Afghanistan’s backbone, as it is here in Pakistan, too. However, over 30 years of war and civil strife — caused largely by the scorched earth policy widely employed by the Soviets — has brought the important agriculture sector to its knees and resulted in a terrible five-year drought. This began at the same time as the Taliban rule and was viewed as holy vengeance by some. It exacerbated the situation to a critical point and the country had no option but to resort to importing the agricultural produce it so desperately needed.
Enter America, which bombed its way onto the scene back in 2001 and remains, despite highly publicised reports of withdrawal next year, as firmly entrenched as ever. Promising eternal salvation on almost all fronts, American interests of varying descriptions undertook — and continue to implement — agricultural programmes, which claim to aim at improving the lot of farmers all over the country as well as boosting much-needed agricultural production. It is true that as a direct result of American assistance, agricultural production has, in some areas of the country, increased by leaps and bounds but in the process, traditional, sustainable agricultural practices have been completely wiped out and farmers are now worse off than ever.
As a huge percentage of indigenous varieties of fruits and vegetables were totally wiped out during the years of the ongoing war due to non-collection or non-availability of locally produced seed, American companies operated directly, via NGOs and even through the Afghan government’s own department of agriculture, which leaves much to be desired at present. They have been quick to introduce hybrid varieties for which new seeds must be purchased each year if crop levels are to be maintained. These seeds are not bred for the Afghan climatic and soil conditions and require lethal — in terms of both health and finance — amounts of chemical fertilisers, pesticides, weedicides, herbicides, etc. in order for them to produce crops. Unfortunately, this has become the trend now and farmers eager to sell their produce quite naturally expected the occupying forces, especially the sizeable American contingent, to be their best customers but their optimism was quickly proved wrong.
Not so much as an Afghan onion is purchased by the American forces as they solely depend on imported — wait for it — purely organic fresh fruits and vegetables of the type Afghan farmers traditionally grew until the US decided to make a profit by forcing chemical intervention on them in the supposed form of aid. Farmers were also enticed away from multi-culture to monoculture. As a result, a farmer with, for example, a fantastic crop of cauliflowers cannot, due to a localised glut, even get his original investment back and so is far worse off than he ever was before.
Unless the tables are turned immediately, this thoughtless destruction of Afghan agriculture will have long-lasting effects all around and is something that farmers here in Pakistan need to be wary of, too.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 4th, 2013.
COMMENTS (8)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
Is this woman an embedded journalist in Afghanistan or does she Google stuff and write inane articles. She must either enjoy patronizing Afghans and the US or she is just envious of the progress Afghanistan has made in the last ten years with the help of the US.
I think John B has given good info to writer. I think she should stick with her field than master of all.
@John B and Sabi, The memory of the many suicides of small farmers in Andhra Pradesh who found themselves under immense debt burden is still fresh. How does one square the fact of so many farmers voting with a noose around their necks with the assertion that there is nothing wrong with the GM crop/profit/annual seed purchase cycle (as sold/pracised - not just its chemical or economic or biological aspects in isolation)?
@Chei: If proponents of GM/ hybrid crop owners are land owners looking to make profit and if you consider their views as myopic, can you care to explain which farmer ( landholder or sharecropper ) is not interested in making profit of his labor in the field?
The problem in resistance to GM/ hybrid crops is refusal to pay for the seed for the second time around as farmers falsely made to believe that they have the right to do so for the seed crop from the first harvest.
If the farmer can pay for the seed and make profit during the first time, what is restricting him to pay again for the second time? After all, one cannot expect a company to give away their labor in seed production research free of cost.
The issues are mostly political rather than economical and it makes no difference in sustenance farm laborer's life.
The choice is simple in this debate: a farmer is free to choose between low yielding traditional variety and make a marginal profit or pay for the high yielding variety and make a large profit with same or even less man hours of labor. At a national level, high yielding variety is good as it improves the livelihood of the farmer and his excess production earns export earning and his profit stimulates the economy in many ways.
If the farmer does not make profit with GM crops, no one benefits including the seed research company. If anti- American enterprise is the primary view of resisting GM crops, PAK agricultural universities are free to do their research and come up with an alternative competing GM crops and distribute them "freely" to farmers at tax layers expense.
But that does not negate the fact that hybrid/ GM crops are better yielding crops, American or PAK.
In an economy like Afg and PAK where the majority of the populace is involved in agriculture, adopting high yielding modern crops and methods are essential. How to implement this system varies from country to country and this is where the politics come in and spoil the party.
Proponents of GM and hybrids are mainly landholders looking to make fast money. Their views are myopic.
I dont know about the author but all the opponents of modern agricultural practices such as GM or Hybrids seem to be people who've never even seen a field up close.
@John B: Absolutly agree with you and dissagree with author.I wonder how someone dare to write on important subject as agriculture without any field experience.Growers are neither stupid nor are, forced to grow by external forces.If hybrid seeds are prfitable and productive they will make their way otherwise not.A relative of mine grew hybrid cotton and made profit by many folds compare to conventional cotton.Next years he grewed hybrid cotton on a much larger scale but enemy of this crop.i.e.rain,destroyed it completly.Whom is to blame hybrid seed company or rain?.
I am tired of these ill informed unscientific arguments. What the author forgot to mention to the readers is that it was USAID that built the irrigation canals of Afghanistan before the era of soviets, including the now become drainage canal that runs through the center of the city.
The destruction of Afghanistan culture, civilization, and their own prosperity is afghans own making, and if the author wants to blame the US she should also equally blame the PAK, after all where they not in bed together ?
A farmer (or land lord) who produces harvest twice a year is not stupid enough to redo the same crop second time when he sees no profit in the first harvest. Let us be very clear on this, whether it is traditional farming or modern farming practices.
In a country (Afg and pak ) where the large tracts of agricultural lands are owned by land lords, the decision of crop is not made by the tiller of the soil. It makes no difference in the life of sustenance farmer who rents or owns a small piece of land from the wealthy land lord irrespective of his farming techniques.
The author paints a picture as if the US came to destroy the agriculture of Afg by introducing crops that are unsuitable for Afg. On the contrary, there is a concentrated effort to introduce modern agricultural practices to traditional crops, including the long forgotten and abandoned Saffron plant culture.
The arable land tillers are in debt to the land lords, and here is the problem. No country can develop an agricultural economy based on onions, especially by supplying to Americans who do not consume more than two onions in a week.
Again, whether it is the decision of selection of crops or usage of fertilizer or pesticides it is the land lord who makes the decision in this part of this world and not the tiller of the soil whose life depends on it. And no land lord is going to plant the same crop twice, if he does not see a profit in his first harvest. Why is this too hard to understand?