Transforming the Sahara
From Arid to Vibrantly Fertile
Nearly all of Northern Africa is covered by the Sahara, the largest desert in the world. Three thousand miles are covered. The Sahara is bounded by the Atlantic Ocean on its western side, the Atlas Mountains in the Mediterranean Sea on its northern side, the Red Sea on its eastern side, and the Sahel on its southern side. The Sahel is a region of semi-arid land that lies between the Sahara to the north and the belt of humid savannas to the south. Land management practices like overgrazing and localized droughts continue to pose a threat to the advancement of the Sahara desert.
It is quickly losing all certification.
However, the African Sahara nation of Niger has made some astounding agricultural advancements, converting sizable areas suffering from desertification into agricultural fields. This land loss is a driver of many other issues, including hunger, poverty, unemployment, forced migration conflict, as well as an increased risk of extreme weather events. Over 200 million trees have been planted on 5 million hectares of land in Niger, and this improved use of the land has benefited 215 million people. Any country that only receives an average of 6.5 inches of rain per year can consider this transformation to be a major accomplishment.
Niger is a landlocked nation in west Africa that is officially a republic and named after the Niger river. Saharan desert covers more than 80% of its surface area. Poor soil, unpredictable rainfall, and protracted droughts are common obstacles for those trying to grow crops in the Sahel region. Due to drought, cropland expansion, and human pressure, farmers experienced significant tree losses in the 1970s and 1980s because there were few trees still present on the fields. The wind erosion frequently caused newly planted crops to be destroyed by farmers. This results in Africa losing 4 million hectares of forest annually, despite having more than 700 million hectares of degraded land that could be restored.
Farmers can meet the continent's expanding food needs without having to clear more forest by restoring degraded land.
This will help feed Africa's expanding population.
A huge opportunity exists for Africa in restoring degraded land to productive health. As well as helping to combat climate change and bringing technology to enhance traditional knowledge, it has significant social and economic benefits for rural farming communities.
Farm Managed Natural Regeneration (FMNR), is one of the main initiatives for regeneration. By boosting food and timber production as well as climate resilience, FMNR is a low-cost land restoration technique used to fight poverty and hunger among subsistence farmers. In the difficult growing conditions of Africa's Sahara, FMNR boosts the productivity and toughness of crop fields and pasture lands. It is a technology that has emerged as one of the most revolutionary in agriculture. Tony Ronaldo, an Australian agronomist widely regarded as the "forest maker" for having lived and worked in African countries for many years, founded FMNR in Niger in 1983. He has discovered and put into action a remedy for the severe deforestation and desertification of the Sahara region. FMNR is a form of coppicing and pollarding drawing on traditional practices and sensitive to local variations. Farmers can encourage plants to develop into trees by selecting the right plants, pruning them appropriately, and protecting them in specific ways. Growing trees and forests sustainably can restore degraded lands, increase resilience, and aid individuals and societies in adapting to climate change. Farmers can regenerate and protect existing local vegetation, improving the livelihoods of millions. A crucial component of the fight against climate change is preserving and improving forests. About 2 billion tons of carbon dioxide can be absorbed annually per forest. Compared to tree planting programs, which are notoriously ineffective, FMNR is a huge success. Scarcely 10 of the seedlings survive the heat and dust storms of Niger and the surviving ones would be eaten by goats or cut down by people for firewood. Success came when Tony Ronaldo noticed that the millions of small bushes in the savannah were actually stumps of trees growing back the shoots from the new stumps just needed to be managed, pruned, and cared for in order to grow into a tree. At that time, Tony Ronaldo created the idea of Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration (FMNR), a very straightforward set of actions that farmers can use to regreen their land.
First, farmers survey the land and choose among the existing local species, the right ones to regenerate. Second, farmers select the few stems that they want to grow while cutting the rest to be used as fodder, mulch, or similar. Then, the selected stems are pruned to halfway of the trunk. Finally, the farmer marks the regrowing trees and protects them. The procedure is repeated every two to six months, and due to its ease of use, FMNR has been a huge success in Niger.
In Niger, 5 million hectares of land with over 200 million trees have been restored this way with 2.5 million people benefiting from the improved use of land, and at least 25 countries mainly in Africa, are already using this method. FMNR is so important due to the fact that it's using these natural techniques to solve agricultural issues instead of favoring more quick alternatives that use harmful chemicals.
The results of FMNR have been astounding. Fertile land has almost doubled since the 1980s, creating improved food security and better nutrition for millions of people, increasing household gross incomes by an average of 18 to 24. Environmental degradation and desertification have also been reversed across some 5 million hectares of land. Tree density has improved 10x since its all-time low in the 1980s. Around 200 million new trees have grown with a production value of over 260 million and it's no surprise that this innovative, yet simple technique is spreading all over Africa and making positive changes to the environment and the people who live there. Local adaptability, low cost (about 20 usd) per hectare, easy combination with agricultural methods, and quick results. The methods spread through peer-to-peer learning among farmers with limited need for outside intervention.
Credit to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXQrvT23rPw&ab_channel=LeafofLife
About the Creator
Keep reading
More stories from Nicoleen McKenzie and writers in Earth and other communities.
The World Changing Slime
One of the most peculiar plants you'll ever see grows all over these Mexican mountains. It is a peculiar kind of 20-foot-tall giant maize. Its roots, which resemble unsettling fingers and are a few meters above the ground, ooze with a mysterious mucus that has the potential to feed the world and eliminate the use of harmful chemical fertilizers in agriculture. As long as researchers can decipher its code, this is the Holy Grail. South of Mexico, there is a town called Tatanta Peck. The local farmers have meticulously maintained this maize for hundreds, possibly even thousands of years.
By Nicoleen McKenzie3 years ago in Earth
Inside Trump's $11 Billion Health Plan to Replace “Neo-Colonial” USAID
In the landscape of global health aid, few proposals have stirred as much debate as former President Donald Trump’s ambitious plan to restructure American assistance abroad. Dubbed an $11 billion health initiative aimed at replacing USAID’s current framework, the plan seeks to pivot away from what Trump and his allies have criticized as the “neo-colonial” approach of U.S. foreign aid. While the plan promises greater efficiency and impact, experts are split on whether it is a practical solution or a politically driven gamble. Trump’s Critique of USAID The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has long been a central pillar of American foreign assistance, distributing billions in aid annually to address health crises, food insecurity, and development challenges worldwide. However, Trump’s administration and its supporters have often described USAID’s approach as bureaucratic, inefficient, and reflective of a “neo-colonial” mindset. In public statements, Trump argued that the U.S. was spending taxpayer dollars on programs that benefited foreign governments or contractors more than the intended local communities. Critics of the plan say that while USAID has flaws—as any large bureaucracy does—its extensive networks and decades of experience provide an unmatched capacity to deliver aid efficiently and safely. The Core of the $11 Billion Proposal At the heart of Trump’s proposal is an $11 billion fund designed to consolidate, modernize, and streamline U.S. health aid. Unlike the traditional USAID model, which relies heavily on long-term partnerships with governments and NGOs, the new plan emphasizes: Direct Impact Funding: Allocating resources to frontline health workers and local initiatives rather than intermediaries. Data-Driven Investments: Using real-time health data to target outbreaks and crises more efficiently. Private Sector Partnerships: Leveraging U.S. pharmaceutical companies, tech firms, and healthcare startups to deliver vaccines, treatments, and medical infrastructure. Shorter Program Cycles: Moving away from multi-year funding commitments in favor of more flexible, results-oriented programs. Proponents argue that this approach could reduce bureaucratic overhead and ensure U.S. aid reaches communities faster. By “cutting out the middlemen,” Trump supporters claim, America can avoid the pitfalls of slow-moving aid programs that sometimes fail to adapt to crises. Reactions from the Global Health Community Global health experts, however, have expressed concern about both the logistics and philosophy of the plan. Dr. Melissa Ortega, a senior researcher at the Global Health Policy Institute, explained, “The idea of bypassing established structures like USAID may sound appealing on paper, but in practice, it risks undermining decades of institutional knowledge. Health systems are complex, and short-term projects cannot replace long-term capacity building.” Some critics have also questioned the characterization of USAID as “neo-colonial.” While U.S. foreign aid has historically been tied to geopolitical interests, many programs today are designed collaboratively with recipient countries and local organizations. Reducing oversight could unintentionally increase the risk of misuse, corruption, or health inequities. On the other hand, supporters of Trump’s plan point to examples of inefficiency in USAID programs, citing cases where aid was delayed or mismanaged. By introducing more direct funding models, they argue, U.S. taxpayer dollars could achieve a higher “return on health outcomes.” Political Implications Trump’s health aid overhaul proposal is not just about international development—it is also deeply political. Framing USAID as a “neo-colonial” institution resonates with a populist narrative that America should prioritize its own citizens and assert greater control over how taxpayer money is spent abroad. Domestically, the $11 billion plan faces scrutiny from Congress. Lawmakers from both parties have questioned whether dismantling USAID’s systems could destabilize ongoing health programs in countries where the U.S. has long-term commitments. The potential impact on global health security—including the fight against pandemics like COVID-19—adds another layer of concern. Internationally, U.S. allies and partner nations are watching closely. Sudden shifts in aid delivery could disrupt health programs in low- and middle-income countries, many of which rely on predictable funding cycles to maintain vaccination campaigns, maternal health services, and disease surveillance. Possible Benefits and Risks If executed carefully, the Trump-backed model could bring several benefits: Faster Response Times: Direct funding could accelerate delivery of vaccines, treatments, and emergency support. Innovation Boost: By partnering with private sector companies, the plan could accelerate development of new health technologies. Accountability: With performance-based metrics, the plan may better measure the impact of U.S. aid. However, the risks are equally significant: Disruption of Existing Programs: Abrupt changes could destabilize ongoing health projects. Loss of Expertise: USAID’s decades of experience in navigating local governance, supply chains, and community engagement may be hard to replace. Geopolitical Fallout: Allies accustomed to collaborating with USAID might see the move as destabilizing, reducing cooperation on global health initiatives. Looking Ahead As Trump and his allies continue to advocate for this $11 billion overhaul, the debate over the future of U.S. health aid is intensifying. Proponents view it as a necessary modernization of an outdated system, while critics fear it could undercut decades of carefully built infrastructure and global partnerships. Ultimately, the success of this plan will hinge on its ability to balance efficiency with stability, innovation with oversight, and political objectives with humanitarian needs. For now, the proposal remains controversial, representing a dramatic departure from traditional approaches to U.S. foreign aid. Whether it will reshape global health for the better—or simply create more uncertainty—remains to be seen. In the end, the Trump health plan is as much about ideology as it is about dollars. It challenges the conventional wisdom of international development and asks whether a more streamlined, results-focused approach can truly replace a system built over decades. As the world watches, the stakes could not be higher: the future of U.S. global health aid—and the lives it touches—hangs in the balance.
By Muhammad Hassan3 days ago in Earth
Nitrogen is necessary for young tropical rain forests to combat climate change.
By absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and storing it in wood, tropical rainforests contribute to the slowing of climate change. Forests that develop quickly are even more important because they absorb carbon more quickly.
By Francis Dami2 days ago in Earth
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.