Trafficking in African stereotypes

I generally refrain from criticizing NYTimes coverage of African news, though for some inexplicable reason I now find myself unable to resist commentary. I suppose one can only read so many stereotyped and misinformed "news" stories before it becomes too much to bear. Texas in Africa, G. Pascal Zachary and the ladies at Wronging Rights, among others, have all been quick to stress the problems with NYTimes reporting on previous occasions (see here, here and here for instance), and if I may, I'd quite like to add my voice to theirs.

The story that has finally broken my silence is one written by Jeffrey Gettleman on the drought currently plaguing Kenya. Gettleman writes:

A devastating drought is sweeping across Kenya, killing livestock, crops and children. It is stirring up tensions in the ramshackle slums where the water taps have run dry, and spawning ethnic conflict in the hinterland as pastoralist communities fight over the last remaining pieces of fertile grazing land.

The twin hearts of Kenya’s economy, agriculture and tourism, are especially imperiled. The fabled game animals that safari-goers fly thousands of miles to see are keeling over from hunger and the picturesque savannah is now littered with an unusually large number of sun-bleached bones.

I don't at all question the severity of the drought, or the fact that it is indubitably a cause of great concern for Kenyans dependent on agriculture for their livelihood. As Gettleman notes, the drought is also increasing conflict in some parts of the country, with farmers struggling for access to arable land. Such conflict, however, is not "ethnic," but rather an instance of basic survival, devoid of any ethnic undertones. Where ethnicity does factor, I would venture to guess that it is of secondary, rather than primary, concern.

Aside from this point, what I find most troublesome about Gettleman's piece is his suggestion that the Kenyan economy will somehow crumble - or is crumbling - as a consequence of the drought. While the Kenyan economy is certainly still highly dependent on its agricultural exports and land more generally, there is certainly more to it than what Gettleman seems to be suggesting. The unknowing reader comes away from Gettleman's piece with an image of a completely impoverished, desert-like country on the brink of disaster - a stereotype of a "typical" African country, if such a thing exists (it doesn't). While Kenya surely does have its problems, Gettleman's imagery is highly misguiding. Technology in Kenya is expanding at a rapid pace, heralding much opportunity for development. Emphasis is also being placed on the country's private sector as an engine for growth, as well as small-scale (often creative) manufacturing. One doesn't get any of this from Gettleman's piece; quite the opposite, really.

Perhaps I'm being too harsh. Gettleman's likely objective is to call attention to a problem which is continuing to cause serious trouble for the East African country. Doing so, however, shouldn't entail a complete distortion of the country in question. This benefits no one and is, moreover, poor journalism. Can we work on this, please?

* Image: NYTimes. Incidentally also the image accompanying Gettleman's piece.

Loan collateral - Italian style

Hang on to those bottles of wine and that prosciutto - you may soon be able to use them as collateral in Italian banks! From The Guardian:

The Italian bank Credito Emiliano has long stored hundreds of thousands of parmesan wheels*, worth about ¤300 each, in warehouses as collateral while they age.

Since the bank can sell the cheese if creditors default, it can afford to offer low interest rates to an industry which is suffering from recession and supermarket discounting.

Legs of cured ham, or prosciutto crudo, weighing about 10kg, can sell for hundreds of euros after months of curing in controlled conditions, while bottles of Brunello di Montalcino are regularly snapped up for the same amount.

"We may start off with accepting wine as collateral, but I would prefer the Italian banking association to launch an industry-wide scheme which involves a range of products," said Zonin. "This will help producers in times of crisis as well as when the economy picks up."

Talk about financial innovation! Imagine: a bank vault filled entirely with wine, cheese and ham. How lush! Similar - though not necessarily as 'high end' - initiatives are employed to provide banking to the poor across the developing world. USAID's Rural SPEED program in Uganda, for instance, enables farmers to use their crops as collateral for a loan worth 80% of its value, and sell it later when prices increase. Admittedly, a vault filled with maize isn't as exciting as one filled with wine, but both initiatives do serve to help farmers overcome both the cyclical nature of farm income as well as a general lack of access to credit. Hooray!... and yum!

*link not included in the original Guardian article, but added by Yours Truly...

Chinese agricultural techniques and African development: a hope for better things to come

China has been having a bit of a rough go here on China in Africa this week. First it's found to be de-industrializing other developing nations, then peddling fake drugs in Africa, its media outlets producing questionable maps, and today victimizing African labourers. Not at all a very rosy picture! There is good news, however: a report commissioned by the African Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF) and prepared by my colleagues at the Centre for Chinese Studies at the University of Stellenbosch, finds that the very technologies employed in China's agricultural boom might be appropriate - and indeed highly beneficial - in the African context.

The report - "The Relevance of Chinese Agricultural Technologies for African Smallholder Farmers: Agricultural Technology Research in China" - finds that of particular benefit are water-saving technologies and soil-related techniques such as tilage and planting methods. Evidently, small-scale African farmers face similar challenges as do their Chinese counterparts, and there is much in the way of technology and knowledge exchange that might benefit the former. According to the report, Chinese experts are especially focused on seed and rice technologies, particularly in Benin, Cameroon, Congo, Ethiopia, Liberia, Mozambique, Rwanda, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Rapid advances in seed technology and new plant varieties have been a major factor in China's crop production increases, and it is believed that similar advancements may facilitate an agricultural boom across Africa.

In Mozambique, a 52 hectare agricultural demonstration centre is planned west of Maputo, at Boane. According to the report, crops will be planted this year to test whether the Mozambican climate is suited for various varieties of seeds, including maize, rice, vegetables and fruit. In Kampala, Uganda, Chinese contractors are building an aquaculture demonstration centre. The centre is envisaged to generate knowledge for fish farmers, fishers and researchers in the country.

The agricultural sector employs approximately 65% of Africa's population, and is the largest private sector on the continent. Poor agricultural planning, weak land tenure policies, and a low capacity to adapt to changing circumstances and markets have, however, generally hindered the sector from becoming a productive, profitable business. While the Chinese are incapable of ameliorating all these troubles, they may do well to provide the relevant technologies to farmers and place Africa's agricultural sector back on track to success. Fingers crossed.

More on international land purchases (and what to do about them)

Further to last week's post on international land purchases in developing countries (mainly in Africa, really), an interesting piece in today's VoxEU suggests that such purchases could be good news "if the objectives of the land purchasers are reconciled with the investment needs of developing countries." Quite an obvious statement, really, but how does one go about ensuring that this is the case?

According to authors Denis Drechsler and David Hallam:

Apart from improving the conditions of land deals, several looser contractual arrangements should also be considered. In fact, the purchase and direct use of land resources is only one strategic response to the food security problems of countries with limited land and water. A variety of other mechanisms can offer just as much – or even higher – security of supply, such as contract farming and out-grower schemes, bilateral agreements including counter-trade, and improvement of international food market information systems.

Investment could be in much-needed infrastructure and institutions that currently constrain agriculture in developing countries, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa. This, together with efforts to improve the efficiency and reliability of world markets as sources of food could raise food security for all concerned through an expansion of production and trade possibilities.

What Drechsler and Hallam are effectively proposing is a "binding code of conduct" which would govern land purchases, as well as a thorough search for alternatives, as noted above. What neither they nor anyone else have been able to tease out, however, is what a regulatory framework will look like, should there be one. Will each recipient state have the authority to establish its own guidelines, or will they be enforced through an agency like the UN FAO, for instance?

While many questions abound, it's heartening to see that the debate on land purchases and food security is finally being brought to the forefront, where it arguably should have been several years ago.

A regulatory framework for international farmland deals in Africa

It would seem that I have inadvertently been placed on Columbia University's Vale Center mailing list. Yet unlike other mailing lists from which I generally unsubscribe as quickly as is humanly possible, I think I'll stick around on this one. The Center's most recent publication is both quite interesting and timely, speaking as it does to the issue of international farmland deals in Africa. An excerpt:

Trends in foreign direct investment in land for agriculture reflect deep global economic and social transformations, with potentially profound implications for the future of world agriculture. The role of food in human consumption makes it fundamentally different from other commodities. In many parts of the world, land is central to identity, livelihoods and food security, and decisions taken today will have major repercussions for many, for decades to come. While bilateral negotiations are unfolding fast, there is a need for vigorous public debate in recipient countries, so as to base decisions on strategic thinking about the future of agriculture, the place of large and small-scale farming within it, and the role and nature of outside investment.

This couldn't be more on the mark. As I've noted in earlier posts (see here and here), 'land grabs' by foreign entities are becoming a growing threat to the (often customary) land rights of citizens, and in many cases fail to provide any benefit to the host communities - economic or otherwise. In light of this, it behooves recipient governments to establish regulatory frameworks governing such transactions. The costs of not doing so are too high.

Well done, Vale Center. I look forward to receiving more updates.

PS. Further to the issue of 'land grabs,' it would appear that Tsvangirai's niece is trying to pull off one of her own ...

More on contemporary land grabs: the case of the DRC

A brief follow-up on my previous post, if I may.

While it is true that the vast majority of farmland investments in Africa are those of foreign entities, this is not always the case as an interesting piece in the WSJ makes clear:

[South African farmers] are scrambling to get on board an ambitious venture to reclaim farmland in Congo's interior and help relieve that country of a reliance on food imports. Already some 70 farmers have booked a Congo tour and more than 3,000 have expressed interest, said Agri-SA, the South African farming group organizing the venture.

... According to a draft memorandum of understanding, Congo is willing to sign long-term leases and provide tax breaks and waivers on duties of imported supplies for approved projects. The South Africans in turn would build infrastructure, employ locals and instruct them in modern farming techniques. People familiar with the matter say the initial focus will be on restarting state-owned farms abandoned in 1992.

... South African commercial farmers, mostly the descendants of Dutch and French pioneers who began settling the continent's southern tip centuries ago, are renowned for their ability to coax food out of African soil. Eager for their expertise and capital, African countries from Ghana to Nigeria have offered them incentives to set up shop. South African farmers have turned Mozambique into a banana powerhouse. Zambia became self-sufficient in maize after welcoming farmers from Zimbabwe and from South Africa.

As with foreign (i.e. non African) land investments/grabs, such programs are equally controversial, as they raise the very same issues of land tenure, colonialism, and eviction as do those by China, the United States, Saudi Arabia or any other countries. According to the contract governing the investment, South African farmers will enjoy a five-year holiday on corporate tax and the dismantling of taxes on the import of agricultural inputs such as seeds, fertilizer and machines. The farmers will be allowed to take all their profits out of the country and are under no obligation to sell their output on the domestic market. Oh dear.

[HT: The Meaningfulness of Little Things]

Land grabs in poor countries: blessing or curse?

Apologies for my recent absence: I dashed off to Nantucket for the Memorial Day weekend and - to be perfectly frank - postponed my return to the 'real world' (for me part of which entails blogging) for as long as humanly possible thereafter. It was such a lovely time! Alas, one can only put off the inevitable for so long, so here I am: back at long last.

While doing a bit of sunbathing on the beach over the weekend, I happened to stumble across an excellent overview of the issues surrounding present-day land grabs (or "outsourcing's third wave") in last week's Economist. I wrote about this matter earlier this month when a similar story appeared in Canada's Globe & Mail, though I feel the Economist does a much better job of teasing out the issues at stake.

As the Economist piece aptly observes, land grabs are particularly common among countries that export capital but import food (think the U.S. and China, for instance). Countries such as these outsource their farm production to countries that need capital but have land to spare; the vast majority of which are found in Africa (see map). And while investments in foreign farms are not a new phenomenon, there are several factors that differentiate today's 'land grabs' from those of the past, foremost among which is the scale (in Sudan, for instance, South Korea has signed deals for 690, 000 hectares! Before, a 'big' land deal use to be around 100,000 hectares) and the fact that the investors are no longer private entities alone: governments (and their state-run enterprises) have now likewise taken to investing in global farmland. China, for instance, has set up 11 research stations in Africa to boost yields of staple crops, and has secured several large deals across the African continent.

Duncan Green writes: 

The obvious motives for the deals are the spike in food prices and the subsequent decision of governments in several key producer countries to restrict their exports, threatening the food security of food importing countries such as the Gulf states, China and South Korea (the main participants in the deals). However, water shortages are another, hidden driver. Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, the chairman of Nestlé, claims: “The purchases weren’t about land, but water. For with the land comes the right to withdraw the water linked to it, in most countries essentially a freebie that increasingly could be the most valuable part of the deal.” He calls it “the great water grab”.

According to a newly released report by the International Fund for Agricultural Development and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN, farmland investments in the past five years total approximately 2.5m hectares - equal to about half the arable land of the UK. Other estimates posit the total farmland investments in Africa, Latin America and Asia at over 15m hectares, about half the size of Italy. While supporters of such deals argue that they are a tool for development, providing new seeds, techniques and money for agriculture, mounting evidence suggests they produce quite the opposite effect, driving out local farmers and in many cases depriving poor people of access to land, water and other resources.

Among the many underlying problems is that of the conflict between customary and statutory laws in the countries where the investments are transpiring. Writes the Economist:

Host governments usually claim that the land they are offering for sale or lease is vacant or owned by the state. That is not always true. “Empty” land often supports herders who graze animals on it. Land may be formally owned by the state but contain people who have farmed it for generations. Their customary rights are recognised locally, but often not accepted in law, or in the terms of a foreign-investment deal.

So the deals frequently set one group against another in host countries and the question is how those conflicts get resolved. “If you want people to invest in your country, you have to make concessions,” says the spokesman for Kenya’s president. (He was referring to a deal in which Qatar offered to build a new port in exchange for growing crops in the Tana river delta, something opposed by local farmers and conservationists.) The trouble is that the concessions are frequently one-sided. Customary owners are thrown off land they think of as theirs. Smallholders have their arms twisted to sign away their rights for a pittance.

The mechanisms for averting such losses would entail measures such as respect for customary laws, stable property rights, and increased transparency surrounding the land deals (among countless others, to be sure!). The trouble is that the majority of the countries which are party to today's land investments lack these very mechanisms and have been struggling with them for quite some time; in many cases decades. A potential solution might be the formulation of some international code, though I'm not quite sure as to what that would look like or what, exactly, it would entail. It would appear that our best option presently remains one of 'wait and see.'

P.S.  I doubt that this falls into the category of 'land grabs,' but the story does speak to the increased prevalence of the phenomenon of giving away land: touched by Biden's speech to the Bosnian parliament last week, a local farmer and war veteran offered Biden a piece of his land as a gift. Go figure.

A 21st century scramble for African land

A reader from the University of Toronto alerted me to the following article in Tuesday's Globe and Mail on the issue of land acquisition in Africa:

Wealthy foreign investors have acquired, or begun negotiating for, an estimated 15 to 20 million hectares of farmland in the developing world – equal to roughly half the size of Newfoundland and Labrador – since 2006. Most of this is in Africa, where the soil is fertile, costs are low and the owners are weak.

Critics are calling it a “global land grab” with neocolonial overtones. The African Union has warned that Africans could be exploited by the massive farmland deals because of their weak bargaining position. Overwhelmed by the rapidly developing trend, they are failing to get sufficient benefits in return, the AU says.

The buyers and leasers of African farmland are the rich and powerful (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, South Korea and the United Arab Emirates) or the hugely populous and land-hungry (China and India). For all of them, Africa is the jackpot, a region where vast tracts of land are cheap and underutilized.

Madagascar, one of the poorest countries in the world, is a prime target of those hungry for land. But there are plenty of other African targets, too. China is seeking 2 million hectares in Zambia to grow crops for biofuels. Saudi Arabian investors are spending $100-million to acquire land in Ethiopia, $45-million for land in Sudan, and millions more for 500,000 hectares in Tanzania. Libya has secured 100,000 hectares in Mali to grow rice. Qatar has obtained 40,000 hectares in Kenya.

The land deals are a sign of a shift in the world's priorities. Farmland is becoming as much of a strategic resource as oil fields.

The issue is admittedly one about which I am not too well educated, though now realize I ought to be: implicit in the notion of 'China in Africa' (i.e. the arrival of Chinese in Africa) is the question of how they are acquiring land! Obviously! While the article tends to focus on larger-scale investors, I'd venture to guess that the matter is even more pronounced on the micro scale, with entrepreneurs scrambling for spaces from which to run their shops, restaurants, etc. Chinese in Africa tend not to be particularly active in any farmland activities at present, so my guess is that much of their 'land grabs' center around urban areas. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if they began to diversify their interests in the not too distant future. This may well be worth looking into in greater detail.

Organic in China

Earlier this week I posted on a fantastic story in the WSJ's China Journal about organic pig farming in China (I know: it sounds ridiculous, but work with me on this one). While I may have chuckled slightly at the venture, it appears that it's actually part and parcel of a blossoming organic food industry that's taking off across the country. 

Jordan Calinoff in GlobalPost writes: 

Without much fanfare, China has in recent years revolutionized organic farming. Between 2000 and 2006, China jumped from 45th position to second worldwide in the amount of land under organic management. In 2006 alone, China added a staggering 12 percent to the world’s organically farmed land.

Who would have thought? If the trend continues, it may potentially lead to cheaper organic produce worldwide (hooray!), and may likewise have far-reaching social consequences inside China. Most obviously, it may be the first among many steps in the improvement of food safety (and goodness knows how badly that is needed), and may also go some way in alleviating the burden of unemployment faced by the country's migrant workers:

As millions of unemployed migrant factory workers stream back to the countryside in search of work, the increased revenue from organic food — it sells at twice the price of conventional produce — could help ease that labor transition.

The industry does, of course, have some hurdles to overcome (think: government regulation, authenticity of allegedly 'organic' produce, farming woes more generally), but appears to be the next 'it' thing among the country's younger generation. 

(On the topic of organic goodness, do you know who owns Trader Joe's? You really do learn something new everyday!)

Pig farming in China (aka. offbeat post of the week...)

The WSJ's China Journal has a rather hilarious (though entirely serious) piece about a company in China - Netease.com Inc - whose latest business venture is pig farming. Yes, pig farming. And as though that wasn't enough, the company will focus on raising livestock with strictly organic diets. And the pigs will be toilet trained (not sure how that works, exactly. Are there any farmers reading who might be willing to share some insights?). This is oh so very progressive, I can't hardly stand it.

Speaking to the motivation behind this venture, Ding Lei, founder and CEO of the company cites food safety:

The company hopes to draw greater attention to agricultural development in a country that has had several recent food scares. More specifics of the plan will be disclosed in April.

In all seriousness, this may well prove to be a most worthwhile health venture, especially in light of the most recent baby milk scandal (among countless other similar cases), with wide-ranging implications.

What I can't quite wrap my head around, though, is the proposed online social network for farmers (think Facebook for pig farmers), through which farmers will be able to exchange breeding techniques and other information pertinent to the appropriate raising of pigs (whatever that may entail). While no doubt useful in theory, I doubt that many pig farmers frequent such sites  - or use the internet at all, for that matter. But then again, what do I know about pig farmers in China? Right. Nothing.

A billion hungry people

Before the global economic meltdown, soaring food prices and rising hunger dominated development debates. The economic crisis rages on, but so does the food crisis. Although food prices fell in the final months of 2008, they remain well above the long-term trend and will likely continue to do so for the foreseeable future:

What does this mean in practice? A near 1 billion people - 1 in 6 of the world's population - goes hungry.

An Oxfam paper released today -  "A Billion Hungry People" - considers some of the ways in which governments and aid agencies can address this growing problem. Read the paper for more detailed recommendations, but in a nutshell: improving hunger early warning systems; more and better development assistance; food reserves; an enabling environment for private businesses and citizens (e.g. access to credit, technical assistance); social protection programs; and counterproductive rich country programs such as biofuel subsidies.

Exciting advances in African agriculture (and more maps!)

My fetish with maps continues. And this one is especially useful, too!

The project is called the African Soil Information Service (AfSIS), and is the first stage of a project to build a global digital map - called GlobalSoilMap.net - covering 80% of the world's soils. Bluntly stated, the project's objective is to increase the agricultural yields of Africa's farmers:

The aim is to build an interactive online tool, which will give extension workers and policymakers the information they need to determine how best to restore their "sleeping soils".

Meanwhile, an "aggressive" program of dissemination will ensure that AfSIS is readily available to African farmer associations and extension services, said a spokesman.

The plan is to continually monitor and update the map, with an ongoing soil surveillance service.

"If we are to reduce poverty, feed growing populations and cope with the impact of climate change on agriculture, we require accurate, up-to-date information on the state of Africa's soils," said Nteranya Sanginga, director of CIAT's Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility Institute.

"With accurate soil maps, we find farmers can increase their yields by around 60%, and sometimes double.

Given that agriculture remains the primary contributor to national GDP in the vast majority of African states, and is the sole provider of income for millions of the continent's citizens, (according to the World Bank it accounts for 30% of the continent's GDP and employs 75% of the population), AfSIS has the potential to contribute enormously to poverty reduction, and even the region's economic growth. Among my concerns, however, is that such advances in the agricultural sector will limit the continent's exports primarily to agricultural goods, in turn hindering export diversification and subsequently significant economic growth.

Regardless, the project is indeed a giant leap forward (and the maps quite wonderful and color-coded!) and boasts great potential. I would rest a bit easier, though, if someone devised a map of entrepreneurship opportunities, or hot spots for skills acquisition, for instance.... anyone?