Women in Kenya drag jerry cans of water 4 kilometers through a parched landscape. Photo by Erin Gray/Mercy Corps.

How bad is the drought and famine in East Africa? Climate scientist Simon Mason elaborates in this video interview. Comparing East Africa’s situation to other drought situations, Mason highlights the dramatic impacts in a region receiving 5 to 25% of its usual expected rainfall.

With the world facing more and more severe climate-related disruptions, Mason explains some ways in which weather forecasting is being used to help humanitarian aid organizations prepare responses in the short and long term. Check out his interview here.

Download the full size image. Courtesy Mercy Corps.

During the lifecycle of a Haitian mango, a lot can go wrong.

By the time it reaches the U.S., it's a lucky little mango if it hasn't been packaged poorly, bruised and squished, harvested at the wrong time, ravaged by insects and decimated by poor weather. In all likelihood, it's probably been thrown out along the way, never to make it.

For the large international supermarkets and businesses that buy mangoes (think Whole Foods and Coca-Cola's Odwalla brand), this is just the cost of doing business. It happens to some degree with every perishable product—particularly fruit—and it's no cause to shed tears.

But for Haitian farmers, that cost of doing business may actually cost them their business.

Nonprofit development organizations are in tune to the plight of the small-scale farmer and have identified a few key moments in the mango lifecycle where value can be added (see Mercy Corps' "Farm to Market" infographic above). On the other side of the coin, companies like Coca-Cola want to ensure the mango supply chain is intact, because it's difficult to make Mango Lime-Aid juice without mangoes. Both have poured money and expertise into helping mango farmers succeed.

It's not too far of a stretch to say that improving the incomes of small-scale farmers can improve the long-term prospects of a country like Haiti, devastated and slow to recover.
The spotlight on Haiti may dim over time, but the mango is definitely finding a juicy role for itself in the story.

Reliance on quality produce from Africa prompted Albert Heijn to undertake aid projects. Photo: Erik Mandell for MercyCorps

A Dutch company looks to combine international aid with corporate profit, according to allAfrica.com.

The supermarket chain Albert Heijn is funding and conducting development projects in Africa, including constructing water systems in Ghana, farmer training programs in South Africa, and expanded schooling in Kenya. But the company doesn’t claim that its efforts are based in charity. "It's very much business-driven. It bears almost no resemblance to charity or good causes," says Henri Zondag, chair of the Albert Heijn foundation.

Albert Heijn supermarkets rely heavily on quality produce from Africa, and the idea is that healthier, happier and better-educated suppliers make trade relationships more productive. The Dutch government is a player in this arrangement too, encouraging business-sector participation in cooperative development relationships and economic benefits for the Netherlands. The government hopes that “making a profit can be a great incentive for [development] projects.” The company envisions projects that forge partnerships that lead to greater profit. If both are correct, in the long term all parties involved could win.

Erik Mandell is a graduate of Middlebury College in Vermont. He is currently pursuing a master's degree in public administration and global leadership at Portland State. Read his other contributions to Global Envision.

Women farmers in Africa produce over 60 percent of all food crops. CIMMYT (flickr)

Women comprise 43 percent of the world’s farmers. In Africa, it’s 80 percent. Women plant, harvest, process and sell their crops, but men continue to dominate agricultural science and research. This may be about to change.

African Women in Agricultural Research and Development (AWARD) is trying to close the R&D gender gap. Their program fast-tracks female science careers in agriculture, empowering them to contribute more effectively to hunger and poverty alleviation in their own communities - a model that could be replicated internationally.

Although African women produce 60 to 80 percent of food crops, they receive significantly less (5% as of 2008) of the agricultural training and tools available to men, says the United Nations. A 2010-2011 research report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization shows that women could produce 20-30 percent more if they had equal access. This creates a subsequent increase in household income, health, and community food supply. The East Africa Report emphasizes that research is also pivotal in fostering innovation. Without a seat at the table, women cannot influence practices. Who better to innovate than the farmers themselves?

PepsiCo and Cambridge University recently unveiled the i-crop, a web-based system that could reduce agricultural water waste by 50 percent. Photo:zekasaur (flickr)

This article was republished in The Christian Science Monitor.

"More Bounce to the Ounce.” In the 1950’s, it was a cola slogan; thanks to a new partnership with Cambridge University, it could become the catch phrase of PepsiCo’s i-crop, a web based program that helps farmers reduce water waste.

Here’s how it works: data systems collect information on local weather conditions, farming activity, and soil moisture from underground probes and compiles them online. With a few keystrokes, farmers can eliminate the guessing games about water consumption, resulting in more precise and environmentally-friendly farming. In October, PepsiCo publicly announced its goal of reducing carbon emissions and water usage from their largest UK farms by 50 percent in five years. So far i-crop is testing well: preliminary reports from 22 farms in the UK show farmers have achieved 90 percent efficiency in water usage.

"Farming is in the DNA of our business - we rely on fresh produce everyday," said Richard Evans, President of PepsiCo UK and Ireland, according to PR Newswire. "Finding ways to produce more food with less environmental impact is essential to our future." He added, "i-crop has the potential to revolutionize the way we farm, enabling our farmers to save costs and [reduce] water and carbon consumption, while at the same time improving their yields.”

PepsiCo’s potential to revolutionize water efficiencies in farming is sizable. Netting approximately $43.3 billion annually and employing more than a quarter million people, PepsiCo is the second largest food and beverage business in the world.

Ever enjoyed Pepsi-Cola, Mountain Dew, Lay's, Gatorade, Tropicana, 7Up, Doritos, Lipton Teas, Quaker Oats, Cheetos, Ruffles, Aquafina, Tostitos, Sierra Mist, or Fritos? If the i-crop can deliver as hoped, those products will soon be made with less water waste than most competitive grocery items (and who doesn’t want something positive to hold onto after downing a bag of Cheetos?).

Although the i-crop is only accessible to UK farmers, PepsiCo hopes to introduce its technology to farms in India, China, Mexico, and Australia by 2012. However, speculation about i-crop’s availability has raised some eyebrows and provoked the question: Will the i-crop technology, owned privately by PepsiCo, be withheld from those who most need it?

Brain Pickings editor Maria Popova argues that owning such coveted technological rights will put PepsiCo in the middle of an often tense relationship between profiteering and humanitarianism. “The technology is currently only available to PepsiCo-affiliated growers, which raises interesting questions about the relationship between corporate interests and social good in innovation, as well as bespeaking the disconnect between the value of open-source software and the fact that the best-funded research initiatives, most competent scientists and highest-grade technology tend to be subsidized by private corporations.”

If, how, and with whom PepsiCo shares i-crop technology has yet to be determined. In any case, PepsiCo has taken corporate social responsibility by the horns, hopefully luring other influential corporations to recognize that being green is achievable. "Every Generation Refreshes the World," Pespi ads claim. Let’s keep our fingers crossed that PepsiCo can do so for the next generation’s water supply.

On Monday, the world welcomed its 7 billionth person. The implications of population growth are similarly staggering in number, but here are five of the more important things to know about the growing world community.

There might not be 7 billion of us. Yet.

The October 31st date was chosen by the United Nations Population Fund, and it’s somewhat symbolic. "There is a window of uncertainty of at least six months before and six months after the 31 October date for the world population to reach seven billion," UN population estimates chief Gerhard Heilig told the BBC. However, the crux of the matter—the ever-increasing world population and the problems that come with it—stands.

Human being No. 7,000,000,000 is probably poor—and it's likely the parents didn't plan the pregnancy.

The developing world acted as the engine for most of the last decade's population growth. It’s home to the world’s seven fastest-growing cities, according to Foreign Policy. As such, it’s attracting the attention of policymakers and crystal-ball-gazers alike. Many, like the Worldwatch Institute’s Robert Engelman, propose extending access to contraceptives and encouraging smaller family size to curb population-related problems, though a recent Economist article says that this would only have a modest effect in the face of scarce world resources.

Sure, resource scarcity is a problem, but maybe it doesn’t have to be.

Not all commentators are equally pessimistic about continuing population growth. Some of the most basic problems, like access to food and water, might really be problems of efficiency rather than scarcity. Global Envision contributor Ben Osborn recently wrote about a study by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research that showed that given proper integration and storage of water resources, no one would have to go thirsty. On the food front, a scientific study published in Nature showed that proper agricultural reforms “could increase global food availability by 100–180%,” more than enough to meet the needs of our growing population.

The antidote to population could be migration.

Ensuring good quality of life for the earth’s inhabitants goes beyond just food and water. The UN’s State of the World Population 2011 report identifies migration as a trend that can be used to help aid in economic development. Wealthy countries with declining fertility rates could provide job opportunities for workers disenfranchised in their overpopulated home countries. At the same time, migration is a hot-button issue for developed nations that may not be so keen to open their borders. The report also cites increased access to education as a key factor in reducing population growth and providing better opportunities for youth in developing nations.

Maybe we should all just learn to stop worrying and love the population bomb.

Many fear rapid population growth in a world with limited resources, but given the proper policies it might not have to be so scary. Since there’s no “undo” button for world population, perhaps the best question to ask in light of the 7 billion marker is “How can we make the best of it?”

Want to know where you fit into the 7 billion? Check out The BBC’s “What’s Your Number” tool.

Margo Conner is a senior at Lewis & Clark College in Portland, Oregon, majoring in international affairs. Read her other contributions to Global Envision.

Women tending sweet potato crops in Tanzania. Photo: The Gates Foundation (Flickr)

Sometimes one class is all it takes. One Maasai woman, recently selected for a course on potato seed farming, is now shipping seed by the ton.

Christine Nashuru lives in the southwestern region of the Rift Valley Province in Kenya in a traditional Maasai community. Cultural barriers and poverty blocked her access to formal education. Like other women in her community, she tried her hand at farming, but the results were less than spectacular. Until recently.

The International Potato Center (CIP) selected Nashuru to take part in a course that taught more efficient potato-farming practices. Traditionally, potato seeds require about seven generations to maximize yields. CIP taught Nashuru and others how to maximize in just three generations. In 2010, she sold 10.3 tons of potato seeds, and this year she hopes to top 80 tons.

Reducing the amount of time it takes to maximize yields means lower production costs and more flexibility to experiment with different varieties and tactics. CIP’s campaign has increased the yields of 15,000 farmers in East Africa by 20 percent. These farmers’ incomes are increasing, and so are the food stocks of their communities.

This campaign is targeted towards those with little education. The less-educated are prevented from reaching their full potential to help themselves and their communities. CIP is looking to change that by showing that one way to fill stomachs is to fill minds.

Ben Osborn is a 2011 graduate of Lewis & Clark College in Portland, Oregon. Read his other contributions to Global Envision.

Anger over food prices helped lead to Muammar el-Gadhafi's assassination Thursday. Photo: Thierry Ehrmann (flickr)

Muammar el-Gadhafi gave Libya's people plenty of reasons to hate him. But it may have taken climate change to do him in.

That's the interesting perspective of CSR Talkwire's Francesca Rheannon, who explained last March how, across the Arab world, climate change begat draught begat famine begat unrest:

The recent sharp rise in food prices was the spark to the flame fanned by decades of tyranny, beginning in Tunisia, spreading to Egypt and now roiling Bahrain, Algeria, Oman, Yemen and Libya. Libya imports fully 80 percent of its food; the other countries are also heavy food importers. … While other factors play a role, climate change has been the major driver behind higher food prices.

In May, a study in the journal Science estimated that climate change was responsible for a 3 percent drop in global wheat and corn output, enough to drive commodity prices up 20 percent from where they would otherwise have been, Reuters reported.

The cost of food was just one of many factors in Gadhafi's bloody assassination Thursday. But if the world's fossil fuel dependence continues to drive up global temperatures and food prices, the world's poorest won't be content to be the only victims of climate change. Starving people take governments and leaders down with them—sometimes through violence.

Gadhafi's many sins made his government especially vulnerable. But history may remember him as the canary in the climate-change coal mine.

Aid can restore dignity by providing choices. Photo: Miguel Samper for Mercy Corps

Food aid can fill bellies, but countries hit by famine need choices, not handouts. Two new alternatives can solve longer-term problems by letting victims choose how aid gets used.

First, cash voucher programs give people choice.

UNICEF and two of its non-governmental partners implemented cash voucher fairs in 2010 that provided crucial supplies to 65,000 people displaced by violence in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo. Each family received 13 coupons totaling $40, which they used to purchase supplies from participating vendors.

Cash vouchers let people decide what they need, as opposed to receiving standard packages with items they might not. Having the power of choice also restores dignity and a sense of worth in a time of struggle. “Furaha!" a mother of two, Kavira Matita, exclaimed to UNICEF during a cash voucher fair, expressing joy in the Kiswahili language. "I am able to choose what is close to my heart. I am very happy to use the coupons for what I know my family needs and not be given things I won’t have much use for.” That's not all: Economically speaking, the vouchers tend to support local business rather than international ones, which can inject much-needed capital back into a struggling community and increase the impact of aid dollars.

Cash-for-work programs are another option. They hire people to participate in their own rebuilding process.

In landlocked Chad, which borders Sudan, World Concern’s cash-for-work program is already putting communities to work. One of the first projects was to dig large ponds for catching water for irrigation and animals. Other projects built low rock walls to reduce erosion on hillsides.

As in cash voucher programs, cash-for-work participants receive vouchers as payment so they can buy what their family needs. However, injecting new money into a weak economy can cause inflation. To prevent this, World Concern sets price ceilings beforehand to ensure economies aren't further destabilized.

In previous posts, Global Envision dug into cash-for-work and cash voucher programs, highlighting responses to the Haiti earthquake -- a Mercy Corps cash-for-work project, and a World Food Program cash voucher system.

Worldwide, 40 countries face food shortages, and aid delivery to these regions in crises is vital. Each country has unique needs, and they should be evaluated accordingly. As a result of the famine in the Horn of Africa, three million people in Somalia need emergency aid and more than 10 million are at risk of severe prolonged hunger or even starvation, according to The New York Times.

As the world looks for ways to deliver this aid, it should consider cash vouchers and cash-for-work programs. Both make recovery after crises and conflicts more sustainable by directly involving those affected in rebuilding their communities.

The Ganges River Delta, in Pakistan, could be feeding a lot more people. Photo: Lunar Planetary Institute (Flickr)

This article was republished by The Christian Science Monitor.

The next century is going to leave the planet parched for drinking water. But a new study asserts that the problem isn't water scarcity -- it's water efficiency.

The global population is expected to reach 9 billion by 2050, and the UN Food and Agriculture Organization says we need to increase food and water production by 70% if we are to feed that population. Can we do that with the resources we have?

Yes, says the study, published by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Researchers looked at 10 major river basins to assess how the world uses its water, and concluded that with refined practices, we can sustainably exceed the needs of current and future generations.

It is not how much water we have, but how we use that water, that will drive resource politics. According to CGIAR, most of the world considers different uses of water in isolation from one another. A more integrated approach to the water needs of food, industry, and energy would lead to more efficient allocation.

Dr. Simon Cook, of the International Center for Tropical Agriculture described the current practice as one of “complete fragmentation of how river basins are managed amongst different actors and even countries where the water needs of different sectors – agriculture, industry, environment and mining – are considered separately rather than as interrelated and interdependent.”

Today, for example, water rights are allocated to hydroelectricity in the Mekong, leaving farmers and fishermen up and down the river bereft of water. There's no shortage of Mekong water. It's just being unevenly distributed. CGIAR recommend water institutions take a more integrated approach, one the total needs of water within a region, rather than having compartmentalized institutions working independent from one another.

In sub-Saharan Africa, where the land is regularly parched and massive droughts like the current one in East Africa may become more commonplace, improving methods to save and store rain for agriculture use would also boost food production.

So the problem may not be an issue of resource scarcity or carrying capacity. But with this news comes responsibility: if the problems lie with us, then so must the solution.

Over one billion people live on less than one dollar a day, according to the U.N. But what can you actually buy with a dollar?

It seems like something that would vary across countries. Luckily, the World Food Programme recently released a series of videos in which it seeks to answer that question. Country specialists in Nepal, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Haiti, Guatemala, Somalia, Kenya, and the Philippines each went to their local markets with the equivalent of about one U.S. dollar and attempted to put together a meal. Watch as Reem Nada visits a market in Alexandria, Egypt.

The shorts are entertaining, but present a rather bleak reality. Almost all of the investigators come up short nutritionally. In Nepal, Deepesh Das Shresta leaves the market holding a few small bananas and a loaf of white bread. Meat is categorically too expensive, and staying within budget means many investigators can’t purchase all of the components necessary to create the meals that are considered cultural staples. It appears that those living on less than a dollar a day are also living far below their daily caloric and nutrient requirements.

Feeding oneself on less than a dollar is tricky business under the best of circumstances. Even worse, the recent volatility of the price of staple foods such as rice has jumped three times since 2008, says the New York Times — meaning that dollar must now be stretched even further.

The rest of the videos can be found on the World Food Programme website. The videos for Ethiopia, Kenya, and the Philippines are listed separately.

Margo Conner is a senior at Lewis & Clark College in Portland, Oregon, majoring in international affairs. Read her other contributions to Global Envision.

Could the meat you eat one day be born in this? Photo:chesbayprogram (flickr)

Historically, meat has been for the world’s rich. Lab-grown meat could change that forever—while helping solve the environmental and resource dilemmas of the future.

Amid widespread speculation that the current market for food production won’t be able to provide for the world’s population by 2050, a recent innovation cooked up in a Dutch lab has been getting attention for its in vitro meat – also known as cultured or fake meat. A concept which is "becoming a holy grail for anyone concerned about the environmental and ethical impacts of rearing millions of animals around the world each year for human consumption," says The Guardian.

In another article from The Guardian, a group of Oxford researchers said that lab-grown meat could help feed the growing world population while reducing the impact on the environment.

The product may seem distasteful, but the statistics are compelling. This more sustainable method of producing protein promises to increase the chances of food security for the world’s poor while simultaneously protecting the environment. The projected resource savings from artificial meat are remarkable–an Oxford study estimated it could be engineered to use only 1 percent of the land and 4 percent of the water required for conventional meat.

For decades, environmentalists have been lamenting meat production, acccording to The Guardian:

Links between meat consumption and climate change have been widely known for many years, partly due to deforestation in the Amazon rainforest to make room for the livestock. Clearing these forests is estimated to produce a staggering 17% of global greenhouse gas emissions, more than the entire transport sector.

Many scientists are adamant that changes will have to be made. But will it be possible to strike a balance between preserving the environment and providing for the world’s rapidly increasing population? As it is, the statistics on global hunger are alarming. According to the UN’s World Food Programme, there are 925 million chronically hungry people, 98 percent of whom live in the developing world. More than one in seven people do not have enough protein and energy in their diet.

The UN estimates that to feed a global population of 9 billion by 2050, food production will have to increase by 70 percent. Table: Farming First

Increased meat-eating usually correlates with a country’s rising affluence, but this could soon change. Many scientists insist that with further research, man-made meat will someday be on the menu of solutions to the global resource dilemmas of the future.

Mariama Zachary and Akua Azaiz tend to cocoa beans on a drying table in Ghana. Photo: Gates Foundation (flickr)

Food prices are exceeding record highs—prompting policymakers worldwide to take action. A recent meeting of the G-20 agriculture ministers has given reason for hope, but many obstacles to less expensive food remain.

According to the BBC, 44 million people were driven into poverty last year by food price volatility — increasing the risk of conflict and adding to human suffering. Rising food prices also threaten to derail the fragile global economy, acting like an extra tax on consumers, says World Bank head, Robert Zoellick.

"We have been in a period of extraordinary volatility in food prices, which poses a real danger of irreparable harm to the most vulnerable nations and people. High, uncertain and volatile food prices are the single gravest threat facing the most vulnerable in the developing world."

The severity of the crisis has prompted the G-20 and the World Bank to push forward a number of non-contentious initiatives, three of the most important being:

• To reduce the impact of food price variability through loans . Called Agriculture Price Risk Management, the idea is to reduce farmer risk and thereby increase production of staple crops like wheat, rice, corn, and soybeans.
• To reduce food price volatility via information sharing. Known as the Agricultural Market Information System, according to The Wall Street Journal, this initiative encourages collaboration among nations to mitigate the affects of panic buying and export bans (among others), which often exacerbate a food crisis. Click here to observe food price fluctuations around the world.
• Eliminating export restrictions for food aid programs. The G-20 agricultural ministers agreed to abandon export restrictions on food aid bought by the World Food Program, states The Wall Street Journal.

Despite these promising developments, the most contentious issues will be left to future meetings. Of these, three of the most important are:

• The restriction of bio-fuel production. Food production advocates want subsidies eliminated for grains grown for fuel, says the Christian Science Monitor. However, the delegates were unable to reach consensus on reducing farm subsidies for biofuel production.
• Increased regulation of commodity speculators. Derivatives markets played a major role in causing the recent recession, and policymakers around the developed world are passing legislation to mitigate their harmful impact (including on food prices). Policymakers are stepping lightly, afraid over-regulation could stifle production.
• Creation of an African food bank. According to The Christian Science Monitor, member African nations (and international backers) would build up a continental food reserve which could be tapped into when a supply shortage occurs. The risk of underfunding and the politics behind "who pays for what" could prove fatal to this proposal.

Of course, imbalances in population growth and food supply is a major problem too, but that's another story. In general, the G-20 and World Bank's increased focus on food prices has been well-received. "People are hungry for food and for action on a global level," says Robert Zoellick, according to the BBC.

Rural residents who stay in the countryside must stand center stage in the next phase of Indian development. Photo: mckaysavage (flickr)

At long last, the rural poor are stepping into the spotlight of Indian economic development.

There is increasing consensus that rural participation will be central to the continuation of the country’s prodigious growth, says Time Magazine. This dawning realization is inspiring a rush of schemes to boost incomes in the countryside — producing a new base of rural consumers.

Traditional development schemes often focus on urbanization, industrialization and increasing standards of living for wealthier city-dwellers. Government subsidies are frequently viewed as the only option for stimulating rural economies. But in India, the paradigm is shifting. What if farmers were to stay put? What if infrastructure that would allow them to turn a profit without leaving the countryside were established and accessible to them? A burgeoning community of development experts, public officials, and business owners are asking these questions.

Samriddhi, a three-year-old start-up in Bihar, India, exemplifies the kind of project produced by this innovative thinking. The company sells produce from more than 5,000 farmers in some of the state’s more lucrative urban markets. Samriddhi focuses on higher wages, trainings for better productivity, fewer middlemen, and more efficient, direct and just supply chains. One of its suppliers, Gulabchand Singh, has seen his income jump by almost 50 percent since he began working with Samriddhi.

Walmart is also tapping into the countryside’s human and natural resources. They’re recruiting more farmers, discounting agricultural products, and bringing in simple but effective techniques and technologies to increase yields and reduce operating costs. Walmart’s goal is to raise farmers’ incomes by 20 percent in five years. "If incomes rise, farmers will sell their produce to Walmart first; if incomes rise enough, they will also become its customers," says Time.

This is the gist of the emerging Indian perspective on development. Samriddhi and Walmart are just two of many companies that have caught on.

In the countryside, “the income gap between Rising India and the Other India is most pronounced.” And it’s there that “hyperlocal, market-based solutions” have the most power to break and reshape corrupt, exploitative, inefficient supply chains; to burst open monopolies; and to rearrange “old power structures and traditions,” says Time. Such changes could place India’s 840 million ruralites at the forefront of the effort to elevate the Other India into Rising India’s ranks.

“India's economic epic has reached the end of Act I," according to Time. Integrating and empowering the country’s rural poor within the larger economy will be key to opening the curtain for Indian Development: Act II.

While corn is not native to Malawi, it has become the country's staple crop. Photo: Nathan Laurell (flickr)

Teach a man to fish and you feed him for life; if you give a family seeds, do you feed them forever?

For decades, the people of Malawi have lived with chronic food shortages, prompting massive food aid interventions. But these unending handouts of foreign-grown food are unsustainable, so how can one of the poorest countries in the world enable its population to produce the food they require? One answer is to give the Malawian people the tools to grow it themselves.

A scorching drought ruined the 2005 Malawi growing season. Compounded with an economy that didn’t allow many to plant in the first place, this left the people hungry, reported the New York Times. Five million Malawians, almost 40 percent of the population, required emergency food aid -- the proverbial fish handout. At the time, World Bank policy was to promote cash crops and exports. This incentivized farmers to grow crops for use outside of the country, that would in turn allow they to buy food. But after more than a decade of implementation the strategy had yet to pay off, the Times notes.

After the food crisis in 2005, something changed. Newly elected President Bingu wa Mutharika defied the decades-old advice from the World Bank. Instead of encouraging cash crops, the government started subsidizing fertilizer and maize seeds for the poorest of the poor. At the time, the national poverty rate was at 53 percent, so this was a huge undertaking. This move defied the conventional wisdom of the West and the World Bank and carried a sizable risk of alienation and failure, reports the Times.

Despite these challenges, the government of Malawi distributed millions of coupons for two 50-kilogram bags of fertilizer -- enough to treat an acre -- and seeds to fill half that space. These coupons allowed the holders to purchase fertilizer and seed at a fraction of the retail cost. With such small allowances the program was targeting subsistence or small-scale farmer, who likely only owned a few acres, this giving the common people of Malawi the tools to support themselves.

The crops and fertilizer, when combined with the abundant rainfall of 2006, completely transformed the barren landscape. Maize production more than doubled that year, from 1.2 million metric tons to 2.7. By 2007, production was up to 3.4 million and instead of importing food aid, Malawi became the largest exporter of corn in Southern Africa to the World Food Program.

However this success has come at a cost. Between 2008 and 2009, the government of Malawi dedicated a full 16 percent of the national budget for seed and fertilizer subsidies. This strain prevented other projects, such as irrigation systems, from getting off the ground. And some question the sustainability of the subsidies. Elizabeth Sibale, a consultant at the UN Food and Agriculture Organization in Malawi, commented that “[Malawi is] forgetting all the other problems that affect farmers and putting a Band-Aid on them."

It has been a full six years since the initiation of the subsidy program and it's harvest time again in Malawi. But even as the corn is harvested and processed, the Malawian government is debating the future of the subsidies. The program officially ends in June and while the program has been successful at raising corn production and lowering poverty levels, the true cost of the subsidies has been steep.

So the question remains: Are fertilizer subsidies teaching families to fish, or are they just handouts wrapped in a new package? The answer seems to be somewhere in between. Ensuring access to seeds and fertilizer is an important step in reducing poverty, but it is only one step. In 2004, about 60 percent of Malawi's population was impoverished. Today the poverty rate has fallen to 40 percent. These numbers seem to suggest that the idea is working, but the remaining poverty level demonstrates that it’s not enough.