HRH Prince
Charles thinks that it is climate change in the shape of drought that is the
root of the problems with Syria. Many
will agree with him in that it seems so obvious.
But what if
there wasn't a drought? If so, what are
the problems and how did they arise?
This long and detailed article in "Energy Matters" by Roger
Andrews takes a close look at the situation in the last few years in Syria in
relation to agriculture and its production.
This extract
is from half way:
And if drought wasn’t the cause what was? There have been two
historic contributors. First was Syria’s skyrocketing population, which more
than quadrupled from 4.7 million to 22.1 million between 1961 and 2012.
Second was Syria’s government, which in an attempt to keep up
with population growth encouraged rapid development of irrigated croplands
beginning in the 1980s (according to FAO data Syria’s irrigated cropland
increased by 70%, from 693,000 to 1,180,000 hectares, between 1990 and 1995
alone, which explains the large increase in wheat production over this period
seen in Figure 7).
Unquote.
It is argued that the upsurge of oil prices a few years ago
hit the farmers hard both in pumping the water they needed and getting the
crops to market. In short many went
broke at a time when other pressures were increasing.
So in the last fifty years there has been a huge increase in
population. The Government attempted to
increase the primary resource of food to keep up with it but were unable to
increase the secondary and tertiary sectors enough to provide for employment
and wealth for the growing population.
Events beyond their control meant that food became short as
well. Then the complex situation led to
a collapse in which the latent bodies of extremists took advantage with outside
support.
The population increase seem to be a major and obvious factor. Something we should take note of in the UK, even if conditions here are nowhere near as finely balanced.
ReplyDeletePrince Charles should read Roger Andrews.