logo
Syria's wheat war: drought fuels food crisis for 16 million

Syria's wheat war: drought fuels food crisis for 16 million

News.com.au15 hours ago

Rival Syrian and Kurdish producers are scrambling for shrinking wheat harvests as the worst drought in decades follows a devastating war, pushing more than 16 million people toward food insecurity.
"The country has not seen such bad climate conditions in 60 years," said Haya Abu Assaf, assistant to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) representative in Syria.
Syria's water levels have seen "a very significant drop compared to previous years, which is very worrying", Abu Assaf told AFP, as a relatively short winter rainy season and decreased rainfall take their toll.
"A gap of between 2.5 to 2.7 million tonnes in the wheat crop is expected, meaning that the wheat quantity will not be sufficient to meet local needs," Abu Assaf said, putting "around 16.3 million people at risk of food insecurity in Syria this year".
Before the civil war erupted in 2011, Syria was self-sufficient in wheat, producing an average of 4.1 million tonnes annually.
Nearly 14 years of conflict have since crippled production and devastated the economy.
The FAO estimates that harsh weather has impacted nearly 2.5 million hectares of wheat-growing land.
"Around 75 percent of the cultivated areas" have been affected, as well as "natural pastures for livestock production", said Abu Assaf.
- Imports, competition -
To bridge the wheat gap, imports would be essential in a country where around 90 percent of the population lives in poverty.
Before his ouster in an Islamist-led offensive in December, Syria's longtime ruler Bashar al-Assad used to rely on ally Russia for wheat.
In April, new authorities reported the first wheat shipment since his removal arrived in Latakia port, with more Russian shipments following.
Iraq also donated more than 220,000 tonnes of wheat to Syria.
During the war, Damascus competed with the semi-autonomous Kurdish administration in the northeast to buy wheat from farmers across fertile lands.
Last year, Assad's government priced wheat at $350 per tonne, and the Kurds at $310.
After Assad's ouster, Damascus and the Kurds agreed in March to integrate Kurdish-led institutions into the new Syrian state, with negotiations ongoing on implementation.
Damascus set wheat prices this month at between $290 and $320 per tonne, depending on the quality, plus a $130 bonus.
The Kurdish-led administration offered $420 per tonne including a $70 bonus.
- 'Poverty and hunger' -
Damascus' agriculture ministry expects a harvest of 300,000 to 350,000 tonnes in government-controlled areas this year.
Hassan Othman, director of the Syrian Grain Establishment, acknowledged Syria was not self-sufficient, in comments on state television.
But he said authorities were working "to ensure food security by importing wheat from abroad and milling it in our mills".
In northeast Syria's Amuda, farmer Jamshid Hassu, 65, inspected the tiny wheat grains from his fields, which cover around 200 hectares (around 500 acres).
Despite heavy irrigation efforts to offset scarce rainfall, he said, production has halved.
The FAO's Abu Assaf said indicators showed that "about 95 percent of rain-fed wheat has been damaged and affected", while irrigated wheat yields were down 30 to 40 percent.
Hassu, who has been farming for four decades, said he had to pump water from depths of more than 160 metres (525 feet) to sustain his crops as groundwater levels plunge.
Agriculture remains a vital income source in rural Syria, but without urgent support, farmers face ruin.
"Without support, we will not be able to continue," Hassu warned.
"People will suffer from poverty and hunger."

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Sorting the real from the fake in a 21st century war
Sorting the real from the fake in a 21st century war

ABC News

time10 hours ago

  • ABC News

Sorting the real from the fake in a 21st century war

The fog of war is an old term but it has very modern applications. In the conflict between Israel and Iran there have been plenty of false images and videos doing the rounds and it can be tough for foreign media to know what's accurate. So how do you tell the real from the fake? Antoinette Lattouf won her employment case against the ABC on Wednesday. Daany Saeed was in court and reflects on the media trial that made ABC the headline rather than the publisher. And a war of words has erupted this week with the E-Safety Commissioner and YouTube disputing terms as the Government considers whether or not to exempt the platform from the impending Social Media Minimum Age Legislation. Guest: Maryanne Taouk, reporter for ABC Verify

What US intelligence and leaks tell us about 'Operation Midnight Hammer'
What US intelligence and leaks tell us about 'Operation Midnight Hammer'

ABC News

time10 hours ago

  • ABC News

What US intelligence and leaks tell us about 'Operation Midnight Hammer'

The stealthy B2 planes, decoy flights, operational security, Pentagon deceptions, shrouded details on a new bomb never before used in combat, the secret facility they were dropped into in Iran — almost everything about the American strikes on Fordow works against a complete public accounting of what "Operation Midnight Hammer" achieved. No wonder there's a yawning gap between Donald Trump's version about "total obliteration" of Iran's nuclear programme and the more nuanced, if not contradictory, language adopted by others in US military and intelligence communities. It's not semantic hair-splitting either. Between Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's description of nuclear assets being "decimated", the CIA's "severely damaged" and Israel's conclusion that Iran's nuclear facilities are "inoperable" sit serious considerations about what happens next in this most unstable region as well as the veracity of Trump's suggestion that "American strength has paved the way for peace". Almost a week on from the US intervention, the truth about what happened in Fordow stays in Fordow. Hegseth's dismissive quip that "if you want to know what's going on at Fordow, you'd better go there and take a big shovel" is probably closer to the mark than US intelligence agencies would care to admit. The point is; "battle damage assessments" — as the military calls the evaluation process — are, by necessity, being done remotely via satellite and other imagery, none of which is capable of gaining pictures where it matters most; beneath the surface. Apart from US aircrew accounts of what they saw from the cockpit, any on-the-ground intelligence drawn from human sources will take much longer to obtain or assess. So for now, we're left to rely on a portion of a preliminary top secret classified report on all the sites bombed during "Midnight Hammer", prepared by the Pentagon's Defence Intelligence Agency. CNN and the New York Times were among the first to quote people familiar with the DIA's report saying centrifuges were largely "intact" and another unnamed person who conveyed that "the assessment is that the US set them (Iranians) back maybe a few months, tops". Although CNN's reporting came with plenty of caveats about it being "early for the US to have a comprehensive picture", the obvious divergence from the White House line quickly unleashed the Trump administration's full fury. "Flat-out wrong," seethed White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, "biased" vented Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, taking aim at the leakers and publishers alike. Hegseth's condemnation is no doubt infused with a fair amount of mock indignation, safe in the knowledge that attacking the media in hyperbolic ways will never get any member of the Trump cabinet fired — the boss created that genre after all. But just as George W Bush would learn the hard way with a premature "mission accomplished" banner in the Iraq war, a president's credibility and authority is diminished if unfounded assertions are made about the success of military operations. Two things need to happen for Trump's claims about "Operation Midnight Hammer" to withstand scrutiny over time. The first is that no enriched uranium cannisters previously stored at Fordow or elsewhere were removed and are later discovered in a revamped Iranian program. The second is that the broader US intelligence community, from Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence to the CIA's John Ratcliffe, need to firm in their conclusions that the strikes were every bit as devastating as Trump and Hegseth have declared. On this, Gabbard and Ratcliffe have converged in recent days, with the CIA director stating "a body of credible intelligence indicates Iran's Nuclear Program has been severely damaged" and DNI Gabbard posting "new intelligence confirms what @POTUS has stated numerous times: Iran's nuclear facilities have been destroyed". But on the mission-critical question of whether any near-weapons-grade uranium was removed from Iranian facilities, the administration is far more circumspect with its language. We know the Iranians must have had ample suspicion Fordow was about to be bombed because, according to the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dan Caine, they had time to plug two ventilation shafts with loads of concrete. Would that time also have allowed for trucks to shift material out? "I am not aware of any intelligence that I've reviewed that says things were not where they were supposed to be, moved or otherwise," Secretary Hegseth told reporters at his Pentagon briefing. You could drive a truck through that answer, which is far from a denial that the Iranians hadn't used dozens of them to move stockpiles days before the B2s flew overhead. Underscoring Pete Hegseth's confidence that the "obliteration" narrative will eventually stand as the story of record from "Midnight Hammer" is the 'fog of war' truism. It holds that the first accounts of combat operations nearly always turn out to be substantially wrong, confused by scattered individual recollections of events rather than being tested for common threads over time. That's why the administration is imploring the media to wait for a refined intelligence picture to emerge. For additional context, Hegseth has argued that the initial top secret Defence Intelligence Agency report covered by CNN, the New York Times and other media outlets was prepared as a "re-strike report" giving information to commanders "to see whether a target would need to be re-struck". If Washington's broader intelligence community ever settled on a final view that's in line with the leaked partial quotes we've seen from the DIA, for any consistency in the objective of destroying Iran's nuclear weapons capacity, another round of strikes would presumably have to come into consideration. Then again, due to the embarrassment it'd cause for so many from the president down, we might never know — neither Hegseth nor Caine has committed to any complete intelligence assessment of the bombing operation being publicly released.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store