Lack of Sound Governance

Poverty has a direct effect on Africa’s food and nutrition security, say IFPRI researchers. Based on studies by the World Bank, the number of Africans living below the poverty level (i.e. the number of people living on less than US$1 per day according to traditional measures of poverty) reached 315.8 million by 2001. This makes many African farmers unable to afford fertilizers, pesticides, and improved seeds necessary to reach the required productivity.

Various factors contribute to Africa’s present poverty levels. These include massive droughts and floods, chronically poor resource endowments, and systematic marginalization by colonial powers all along Africa’s history. These factors and the obvious dangers of political, ethnic, and armed conflicts sweep Africa into a cycle of chronic poverty and food instability. IFPRI researchers cite unfavorable trade policies and external debt burdens as hindering factors to development. Although this puts responsibility on international policies, local governments are not exempt. The poor investment on infrastructure, social services, and agricultural research makes it harder still for economic development to occur.

Infrastructure is important for agricultural development in several ways. Rural roads especially have a role in increasing labor opportunities in the service sector as well as facilitating access to product markets. In addition to this, bilateral trade flow is dependent on road, rail and telecommunications; all of which have been found to alleviate poverty if maintained. The unevenly distributed nature of Africa’s infrastructure is a legacy passed on from the colonial era. According to IFPRI, “in some important respects, it can even be said that colonial policy reinforced the handicaps of sub-Saharan Africa.” Concentration was given to building infrastructure to transport natural resources to export markets, thus leaving the rest of Africa ignored.

Liberalize Africa or the International Market?

When observing the current situation in Niger and other African countries, the type of help provided by the international community seems to be lacking in insight. Donations, although crucial now, do little to treat the root problems of incapacitating international market policies.

One example cited by IFPRI is the high tariffs imposed by developed countries on products from developing countries, handicapping their access to the world market. IFPRI also mentioned that a recent study by the Institute of Economic Affairs in Great Britain holds the European Union responsible for the reduced “African exports of milk products by more than 90 percent, livestock by nearly 70 percent, meat by almost 60 percent, and non-grain crops by 50 percent.” IFPRI said that without the EU policies, the annual income for each person in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) could increase by 13 percent, given that the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in SSA reaches approximately US$ 26.4 billion per year.

Subsidies and border protection of wealthy nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) reduce agricultural exports from the developing world by US$ 37.2 billion per year.

IFPRI researchers illustrate three scenarios as a part of the possible solutions to help in increasing productivity in Africa. The three proposed scenarios in the economic field are full trade liberalization, which would completely remove all trade barriers in all countries; Africa trade liberalization which would remove barriers in all African countries whereas reduced protection levels remain in other countries; and lastly, Africa protectionism scenario, which predicts an increase in subsidies for African farmers in 2005 and maintained to 2025.

Some economists are critical of full trade liberalization and the benefits they will bring to developing countries. The fears are that it may increase the inequality between developed and developing countries due to the dominance of rich countries in the international market.

Dr Mark Rosegrant told IslamOnline.net that he understood the possible negative impacts of full trade liberalization on developing countries but sees the positive aspects outweighing those fears. “We do try to estimate essentially both the negative and positive impacts and we still come up with these very large net positive impacts. It is possible that some sectors may be harmed, but in effect, some of the key traditional exports of Africa have been on a long-term declining competitive basis anyway under the current system.”

Rosegrant believes that removal of barriers can help Africa compete more effectively in some of the more dynamic new sectors, such as in fruits and vegetables and cut flower, which have been successfully tapped in Kenya and elsewhere. He said this should also allow Africa to be more competitive in such crops as cotton, where they have really been prevented from entering the market. A gradual phasing of changes over time, said Rosegrant, will allow market adaptation by farmers and governments in Africa as the process takes place.

However, Katarina Wahlberg, coordinator of social economic policy at the Global Policy Forum (an international NGO), has concerns that full trade liberalization alone may have detrimental consequences on poor countries. According to Wahlberg, “Agricultural subsidies in rich countries must be lowered if poor countries are to have a chance to compete in the global market. However, when rich countries talk of "free trade" in for example the WTO or in trade agreements like the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), they refuse to talk about their agricultural subsidies, but talk instead of lowering tariffs to trade in poor countries. As a consequence, rich countries get to keep their trade protections, while poor countries, who rarely have any governmental subsidies to start with, are forced to abolish theirs. What a lot of people are advocating is to decrease or lower the subsidies in developed countries.”

IslamOnline.net asked Wahlberg what she believed was the role of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization in alleviating poverty and food insecurity in the developing world in general. Wahlberg believes that these three organizations essentially represent rich countries interests better than poor or developing countries. Although reform happened in the 1990s to better accomodate the needs of poor countries, they are still governed by rich countries who are better represented.

Wahlberg emphasized the major developmental role these institutes play a part in, especially when the World Food Programme never has enough financial resources to help developing countries, she said. These organizations could channel the resources needed towards food programs that are lacking financially.

Rosegrant makes clear the crippling effects subsidies have in developed nations on developing country farmers, where an estimated 5 billion US dollars could be generated just by the removal of those subsidies as well as other types of quotas.

Plausible Solutions

Africa must begin to tackle the food insecurity problem from a multi-directional approach. The international community contributes to this responsibility by re-evaluating international market policies and subsidies, a significant step in reducing the stress on African farmers.

Regardless of international intervention, local governments must come to the aid of their peoples by making the food situation a priority. Investments in infrastructure will facilitate transport of produce with less cost to the farmer, while investing in agricultural research and education will promote development of this sector.

IFPRI’s report also emphasizes the importance of empowering and educating women to make use of their pivotal role in African households.

Everyone can make a difference. On an individual level, just by educating others can be a big step in the right direction. How do you see Africa in 2025?