The Incomplete Picture

Agricultural Season for two sub-climate zones in West Africa

 

Downloaded from: http://www.fews.net/Pages/timelineview.aspx?gb=r1&tln=en&l=en

FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization, a branch of the United Nations) came out recently with a report called “Why Has Africa Become a Net Food Importer?” (Accessible at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/015/i2497e/i2497e00.pdf). This report looks at how Africa went from being once a net food exporter (before 1970) to a net food importer (starting in the 1970s). This has great consequence on food security for the continent and thus an investigation into the reasons for this shift is important to both policymakers and the general population of Africa as a whole.

The report indicates that population growth, low to stagnating agricultural productivity, policy distortions, weak institutions, and poor infrastructure as the main causes for the shift from food exporter to food importer. It also explains that countries that are faring better economically (Nigeria, Gabon and Angola for example) are capable of importing foods as they have revenue from other primary resources (i.e. minerals and petrol) to pay for food imports. Most African countries, however, despite what primary resources they possess are not faring as well (Mali, Niger and Zambia to name a few). As a consequence these countries have lived with chronic food insecurity for decades.

The picture is incomplete. No mention is made of the role external actors had and have in contributing to making Africa a net food importer and the tragic consequence of generating greater food insecurity among the poorest of African nations. First off London, Paris and Lisbon have kept strong trade relations with their former colonies, perpetuating the retardation of trade between neighboring African countries. Tokyo, Washington and Beijing have only exacerbated this in pursing their self-interests in exploiting African natural resources. All this competition between stronger economies to capture Africa’s natural resources makes intra-trade in Africa abysmal. Since intra-trade is poor, the infrastructure and markets are not there for food producers. Milk and cheese from Mauritanian herds is not found in Guinea-Bissau and rice and fruits from Guinea-Bissauan mangroves and orchards are not found in Mauritania.  

Second, international lending institutions like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund impose policies that retard (if not block altogether) the efforts African governments make in promoting local food production. Tariffs on food imports are contradictory to the lending institutes’ aim at liberalizing African economies and subsidies to local African producers are viewed as wasteful and often scrapped in order for African nations to receive loans.     

Third, since there are no subsidies to promote local food production and tariffs are not imposed on imports, North America and Western Europe dumps their cheap, subsidized food products on African markets (showing the hypocrisy of world economy … free markets in Africa but protectionism for North American and European farmers). Food products such as meat and milk products, cooking oils and cereals flood into African markets and as a consequence retard local food production. NGOs and their media sources do a decent job in reporting on this (see: http://www.irinnews.org/Report/96427/MAURITANIA-Foreign-subsidies-sour-domestic-milk-industry ), but overall the reporting of external forces contributing to Africa’s food insecurity are downplayed for local, national and regional factors.

The FAO report suggests two directions that Africa could pursue to alleviate food insecurity and develop a better standard of living. One is to reduce the trade deficit regarding food by finding ways to reduce agricultural imports and boost local agricultural production and exports. For most countries in Africa, the author of this blog sides with this policy. How to do this in an economic environment where external forces both explicitly and subtlety promote their own imports to Africa is difficult. The other is to ignore the agricultural trade imbalance and find ways to increase African exports of non-food or non-agricultural sectors (like services, tourism, oil and mining, etc.). This external forces promoted for years and what has created greater vulnerability to food insecurity for the poorer nations of Africa.

In fairness, the second option (which this author opposes in general) might be the only path to take for some African countries, particularly when dramatic changes in climate are affecting food production. The first option, however, should not be seen as an unrealistic goal. It is possible and should be promoted in as many communities, countries and regions as possible. Self-reliance, not greater vulnerability and dependability on the global economy, is a direction Africa needs to take for greater food security.

 

Regional Ties

                 Downloaded from http://whydtinogo.blogspot.com on 5 September 2011

The two African countries receiving press these days are Libya and Somalia. The standoff between Muammar Gadhafi and his opposition that began in Benghazi and spread westward in Libya receives a good amount of attention from the press and Western policy makers. Somalia, too, has its share of political turmoil as a central authority has been absent for the past twenty years and the only groups able to make headway in the fighting are pan-Islamist fundamentalists like Harakat al-Shabaab al-Mujahideen (often shortened to Al Shabaab). Somalia also experienced a drought this year. This, in combination with its on-going civil strife, is exacerbating conditions of famine, Diaspora, and the spread of disease.

Problems such as these, however, do not remain separate from each other or uniform over space. Libya is certainly in a state of disrepair but so are its neighbours: Algeria, Mali, Niger and Chad. Algeria is silently supporting Gadhafi and suppressing any forms of dissidence as the Bouteflika administration is fearful that the ‘Arab Spring’ will reach its territory. Mali, Niger and Chad are witnessing large crowds of people coming from Libya who left because of the turmoil or because their previous relationship with the Gadhafi regime will foster acts of revenge if the rebels should succeed in ousting Gadhafi. These groups place strains on the limited infrastructure, food resources, and health services that are in place. Chad is right now trying to contain cholera and measles outbreaks in addition to their grain reserves quickly depleting.

The events in Somalia also influence the stability of Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania. Somali groups live in the first three of these countries. While the drought was most severe in the southern central region of Somalia, kinship ties allow large movements of people around East Africa where water resources were sufficient for local populations before, but now are strained through the arrival of more consumers. Such depletion leads to the use of contaminated water and poor sanitation. Kenya and Ethiopia are fighting outbreaks of cholera and malaria at the moment.  Tanzania is an interesting case as certain regions in its territory were affected by poor rains this year but the country still produced enough food for its population. The concern, however, is in Tanzanian grain being smuggled north to Kenya and Somalia where returns will be higher. Regional ties exist, they are strong, and a crisis in one country is influential on many neighbouring countries.

This said, it should be noted there are countries, and regions, experiencing the same turmoil as Libya and Somalia at the moment that receive little or no attention from the press and Western policy makers. The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Zimbabwe are obvious examples that experience crises affecting the food security, health, and human rights of populations in these countries as well as those in Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi in the case of the DRC and Zambia, Malawi and Mozambique when talking of Zimbabwe. People, commodities and ideas move easily over all parts of Africa. So too, do crises and the escalation of problems when focus is placed on only one or two states.

                                                                     Photo by James Natchwey, 2011



Cures Instead of Prevention

Policy makers are frustrated with the lackadaisical to non-existent relationship they share with pastoralists in Sub-Saharan Africa when it comes to many issues but especially with veterinary care. In general, pastoralists only come to veterinarians and immunize their flocks as a secondary or last  resort. They evade these government agents and programs because of the cost, the mixed in results in disease prevention, and because the veterinarians and medicines are viewed with suspicion. Pastoralists instead prefer customary African practices that aid in prevention because they cost little to no money, are learned over time from contact with their parents and other relatives, and the results are often acceptable and factored into the maintenance of their flocks. Western science and pharmaceutical cures fall short of such expectations.

To bring pastoralists into the fold, policy makers are now lowering the prices of drugs, vaccinations and making access easier to diagnostics and other forms of veterinary care. As benign as this may seem, it is not given the history. Veterinary care in Sub-Saharan Africa is rooted in colonialism where such practices cloaked efforts to control and bring pastoral groups into submission. Campaigns to eradicate trypanosomosis (sleeping sickness), rinderpest (steppe murrain), foot and mouth disease, and other infectious diseases are often short-lived as newer strains that are resistant to such medications and immunizations take their toll on flocks. If policy makers are sincere in their efforts to integrate pastoralists into their respective states, a suggestion is made to integrate pastoral customary practices into veterinary care and veterinary research. Otherwise pastoralists will continue their aversion to veterinary care, in addition to other dimensions of society that they have no stake in.