Through the difficulties facing the land reform process in Zimbabwe, South Africa and Namibia, glimmers of hope are emerging. The challenge now is to seek lessons which enable newly settled farmers to create a livelihood.

Finding these lessons is the task of the 'Livelihoods after Land Reform' project, which focusses on the impact of land reform policies on poverty reduction and the way in which the livelihoods of resettled communities have been affected. The three-year research project is funded by the UK-based Economic and Social Research Council and the UK government's Department for International Development.

In Zimbabwe 'fast track' land reform resulted in 150,000 small scale farms and 15,000 larger, more commercial farms changing hands. It happened in a chaotic and often violent way, with the mostly white farmers being intimidated into leaving their land. In South Africa and Namibia redistribution is occurring in a more structured way - in South Africa people apply for land either through restitution (where people have a historical claim as they were removed from the land decades or centuries ago) or redistribution (where people apply for government grants to acquire land). Despite these differences, analysts agree the one common factor is that land reform policies have for the most part not been successful.

According to Ben Cousins, director of the Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS), at the University of the Western Cape, and project leader, this can be attributed to many factors including a lack of planning, a lack of capacity development (governments did not invest in skills development or financial help for procuring fertiliser, seeds and irrigation) and a lack of infrastructure to get produce to markets.

"In Zimbabwe perhaps 5 percent of the land went to those with political ties. Another 15 percent went to civil servants or others with jobs in the urban economy. Peasant farmers got about 80 percent of the land and they are doing much better (than the rest). This could be because they farm in more labour intensive ways and are less dependent on purchased inputs and fuel which have been in short supply because of wider economic problems," Cousins said.

While Zimbabwe is widely regarded as an economic failure, some researchers see a ray of light emerging in the country's agricultural sector. According to Ian Scoones, a researcher at the Institute for Development Studies at the University of Sussex, UK, many farmers are doing surprisingly well.

"Sure, there have been failures, particularly in the areas where highly capitalised farming had been taken over, or where long-nurtured market relationships have been undermined such as in the tobacco or horticulture sector. Getting these back on track will take time and resources. But in other areas, where small-scale farmers have taken on land - against all the odds, including lack of credit, poor infrastructure and recurrent drought - many farmers with newly acquired land have been doing surprisingly well. They have been investing in new homes, growing herds of cattle and reaping substantial yields of crops in good rainfall years."

However, economic instability and hyperinflation has had a devastating impact on agriculture. Rising fuel and food costs have made the costs of inputs and transport prohibitive and credit sources have dried up. "This has undermined the establishment of new farming businesses, particularly on the small-scale commercial resettlements," said Scoones. "Those with lower input requirements and hooked into more localised exchange networks in the small scale farming resettlements have fared better, but even so, recent times have been very tough for everyone."

He added: "There are many positive dimensions to the Zimbabwean land reform and important lessons for the region including the real potential of small-scale agriculture, if it is given support. There is also potential for a dynamic entrepreneurial local economy with new players emerging in the market. There are multiple examples of success in Zimbabwe alongside the better documented examples of failure. But success must be nurtured and supported and this will only come with sustained political and economic stability."

In South Africa, the failures of land reform have also been well documented. There are cases where groups of people have bought land but when they find no immediate success, members opt out leaving only a core group behind on the land; some new farmers let the land lie fallow as they became overwhelmed by the cost and unpredictable nature of farming; others lost interest due to a lack of government support.

But there have been a few success stories. One of these, said Michael Aliber, a researcher at PLAAS, was the case of 486 households who claimed restitution land of 1600 ha in the Munzhedzi area in the Limpopo Province. In the end only 170 of these claimant households moved into the area but 800 non-claimant households moved there as well. These people had no historic claim to the land, yet they set up business on plots of 50 m X 30 m.

"It seems as if the households who have a legal claim on the land accept the non-claimant families," said Aliber. "This proves that there is a strong demand for land for homestead purposes. These people are subsistence farmers who seem to be quite content. The irony is that this is not the kind of outcome envisioned by government who is more focused on establishing commercial farmers. Even though Munzhedzi is clearly working and there is a huge need for small plots, subsistence farming is not an acceptable concept to government and as yet there is no help for people who want only a small piece of land."

Namibia too has had more failures than successes. "Just after independence in 1990 a national land reform conference was held which lay the foundation for a peaceful land reform process," said land reform expert Willem Odendaal. "However, the land reform process is taking place much too slowly for most people."

Namibia is the most arid country in sub-Saharan Africa which means that there is limited agricultural potential -- most farmers opt for livestock. Subsidies to farmers have shrunk and the competition in global markets has increased. Along with rising fuel costs, there is not much incentive for established farmers to keep on farming. There is also very little government initiative to support resettlement.

Yet many resettled farmers have been successful, despite the obstacles, said Odendaal. "For them it is also extremely important that they are now independent people who work for themselves."

IPS

by Gregory Damato, Ph.D

The latest Codex Alimentarius Commission meeting held in Geneva recently concluded with some interesting outcomes.

Some long simmering acrimony has begun to surface as the U.S. continues to force the biased agendas of Big Pharma, Big Chema, Big Agra and the like forward without considering the input of many other countries. Typically if the U.S. does not want a country's input, the host country simply denies their official delegates visas to the meeting. Several countries have recently objected to this practice and stated that because of this and other reasons, decisions made by codex in their absence do not have international legitimacy.

One major point of contention has been the U.S. and Codex's staunch refusal to allow labeling of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). Norway, Switzerland, Russia, Japan and virtually all African countries and the 26 countries of the EU (European Union) have fought the U.S. for nearly 18 years to allow mandatory labeling of GMOs. The U.S. fallaciously considers GMOs equal to non-GMOs solely based on a 1992 Executive Order from then-president George H. W. Bush, therefore no pre-market safety testing occurs on any GMOs before they are released into the food chain in the U.S. The FDA refuses to review any safety data except for a single, preliminary review early in the organism's development.

Opponents of the U.S. policy prohibiting labeling of genetically modified food conclude that the U.S. does not want GMOs labeled because of the potential legal ramifications and liability to the manufacturers and to the U.S. government if these foods could be traced. If millions of people are harmed or killed due to the instability of the inserted DNA promoter viruses and marker bacteria into GMOs when interacting with the dynamic and fluid structure of the human body, then millions of lawsuits may result. But, if they are totally untraceable, then zero corporate or government liability can be assessed. FDA scientists have repeatedly warned about releasing GMOs into the general food supply because of their dangers, but have been routinely ignored or overruled.

Prior to the Geneva meeting, the Codex Committee on Food Labeling met in Canada. The meeting concluded with several pro-mandatory GMO labeling nations angry that Codex had not objectively analyzed the empirical research detailing the dangers of GMOs that South Africa prepared. This document delineated the necessity of mandatory labeling of GMOs, but was ignored and subsequently withdrawn on U.S. pressure of an independent nation (South Africa). As a result, several countries planned to scrap the requirements of Codex and adopt their own labeling system for GMOs in an effort to curtail the spread of "lethal" food. This had led to a real quandary for the WHO (World Health Organization) and FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization).

According to Rima E. Laibow, M.D., medical director of the Natural Solutions Foundation (www.healthfreedomusa.org) , who was a public observer at the latest meeting in Geneva, the WHO and FAO have finally stepped in and decided to undertake a program designed to identify low-level contamination of GMOs in food. The definition of low-level contamination will still depend on each individual country's standards. For example, the U.S. currently allows for up to 10% (the highest of any country in the world) of GMO contamination of organic foods and amazingly still allows them to be considered USDA certified organic. Governments that actually care about the health of their people, like the EU, allow only 0.9% contamination, while other countries permit merely 0.1%.

The WHO and FAO used the term contamination and simply did not describe the GMOs as being mixed in with normal food. This term is also very noteworthy as most research on the dangers of GMOs can no longer be denied. The U.S. of course, vehemently objected to such a designation, but this time to no avail. Although not going as far as to require mandatory labeling of GMOs, this recognition by WHO and FAO (the parent bodies of Codex) that GMOs can contaminate food is a huge win for health freedom. Expanding that requirement to mandatory labeling is the next logical step, but is still a work in progress. The Natural Solutions Foundations in-country work with African and other pro-health nations can be expected to markedly strengthen this trend as unease and distrust of GMOs escalates internationally.

Natural News

Ethiopia's Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development is undertaking integrated migratory pest control, Animal and Plant Health Regulatory Department disclosed.

The Department in collaboration with regional governments and other organizations managed to control huge outbreaks of desert locusts, army worm, African migratory locust and grain eating birds over the past few months, said Department Deputy Coordinator, Fikre Markos.Concerted and coordinated efforts made it possible to control the outbreak of these deadly pests before they could cause huge damage, Markos.

Some 20,551 litres of pesticide over 26,130 hectares of land were sprayed in an attempt to control the outbreak of desert and African migratory locusts, according to the Deputy Coordinator.

Similarly, the recent outbreak of army worm was brought under control by spraying 121,457 litters of pesticides over 185,757 hectares of land. Besides, traditional and mechanical methods of prevention were extensively used, according to the Deputy Coordinator.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development has supplied pesticides, sprayers with accessories, protective clothing, budget and technical support to combating the outbreak of .

Walta Information

Ugandan MPs have rejected the government's proposal to give a 50 billion shilling (US$31 million) agriculture loan guarantee to the Uganda Development and East African Development banks.

The MPs on the parliamentary committee on finance, planning and economic development said there were no clear regulations on how it would be managed and how it would benefit all the farmers.

In this year's budget proposal, finance minister Dr. Ezra Suruma said the guarantee would encourage commercial banks to lend to farmers. Under the plan, the government would deposit the money in the two banks to mitigate against non-payment of loans given to farmers.

"We shall not approve this money till government puts in place regulations on how the bond would be used and managed. It must also show the committee how it will benefit the majority of farmers," the committee chairperson, Gaudioso Kabondo, said. "Suruma's proposal has a lot of gaps and would promote corruption through connivance between the banks and customers, "Kabondo explained. He said if the Government wanted to transform agriculture it should help the small farmers and establish good infrastructure.

Henry Banyenzaki said, "There is no clear regulatory system to show how the money shall be used or monitored. Besides, it is not going to benefit the small farmers who should be the main target for such huge sums of money, but will just be kept in banks waiting for people to claim it."
He said this would provide an avenue for embezzling the funds.

Matthias Nsubuga asked, "How can the Government guarantee money which will be used by a few individuals?"

Grace Kyomugisha said the proposal did not show how it would improve agricultural production. The fund will only benefit a select elite group of farmers who can fund their projects, she added.

New Vision

Double-speak on bio-safety issues by some developed nations is blurring the vision for Kenya and other regional states in tackling escalating hunger and poverty levels.

Agriculture minister William Ruto said on August 13 that though African economies were mainly agro-based, their respective leadership had shied away from adopting new technologies such the genetically modified foods (GMOs) to uplift struggling production systems, because of misinformation.

“We see some people coming to our continent to an preach anti-biotechnology message while back at home their food is produced through the technology. This leaves many in a dilemma while suffering continues,” he told participants at a regional workshop in Nairobi, on development of a bio-safety communication strategy for the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA).

He claimed that most of the issues fronted by anti-biosafety crusaders lacked merit and urged African nations to consider biotechnology as a possible strategy of tackling low productivity.

“I believe the best way to remove poverty and food insecurity is to adopt the adequate technology. If there is no proof of harm from GMOs we should adopt them because they have a scientific backing,” said the minister.

Ruto said Kenya was already making strides towards embracing biotechnology in food production with the proposed legislation to handle bio-safety issues set to be re-introduced in Parliament in two months time.

“I’m confident that the legislation will deliver its goals because there is the necessary backing of science...we need to make farming profitable and food sufficient,” he said.

The Bio-safety Bill 2008 seeks to bring Kenya’s regulatory framework in line with the Caetagena Protocol on Bio-safety which has both signed and ratified. Its main objective is to ensure protection in safe transfer, handling and use of GMOs that may have adverse effects on the environment and establish a transparent review process.

The minister argued that such double-speak was also affecting African agriculture in the market front with developed nations issuing conflicting signals on key areas such as subsidies.

“We had the WTO talks collapse recently on grounds of double-speak on issues of subsidies. The developed nations preach against the subsidies but hand their producers such preferential treatment leaving our markets and products hard hit by competition,” he said.

The latest attempts to find a mid point for global trade under the WTO framework collapsed in Geneva late July amidst a fall out between the US and emerging Asian economies such as Indonesia, China and India over farming pacts. Among the key issues fronted at the talks by the African group was the removal of subsidies to cotton growers in the United States among other agricultural commodities.

The African bloc also demanded for redress on market access for non-agricultural products (Nama) arguing that there was need to resolve non-reciprocal preferences both in terms of product coverage and the implementation period. They also requested that products identified as vulnerable to preference erosion be excluded from sectorial initiatives.

Ruto however said they would not be cowed into rejecting new technology such as GMOs as long as there was scientific evidence against them.

“You cannot have a population in need of food yet choose to ignore biotechnology that would guarantee high productivity. The cost of GMO maize is about one-and-a half times cheaper than convectional maize,” he said.

Agriculture secretary Wilson Songa said lack of a proper communication strategies on bio-safety was largely to blame for the huge resistance among sections of the public. “What has lacked is the right information. We must involve all groups, we made mistakes in the past and we must not repeat them,” he told participants at the forum.

He said most nations including Uganda had already put in place legislation on bio-safety, hence the need to a regional approach to avoid disjointed trade arrangements. “The argument here is that once GMOs are produced in one unit it would spread to other markets and we must move with time so that there is uniformity,” he said.

In a new strategy, nations under the Comesa bloc envisage to have a unified approach on the dissemination of information on biotechnology to boost its uptake in the region.

Business Daily Africa

Overall yield prospects for sorghum and millet are good in Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Guinea, Mali and Nigeria, where outputs of +2% to +7% above the 5 yr average are anticipated.

However there are local differences within these countries. In Chad, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Ivory Coast and Togo, the overall yield prospects are also positive with an estimated surplus of about +4% relative to the 5 yr mean. In Sierra Leone and Liberia, crop yield prospects are close to average (0%-1%), but somewhat less (-1 and -3%) than 2007 yields

In Burkina Faso, water availability for the crops was very good in north-eastern provinces like Ganzourgou and Gnagna, parts of Sourou, Yatenga, Soum and Oudalan at the border with Mali have a drier than normal season. Also Poni, and some parts of Comoe have a drier than normal growing season.

In the neighboring Upper West province of Ghana, yield prospects are good in the northern part but low in the southern part. In Northern province, prospects are generally good, except for the southeastern part where lower than normal yields are expected.

In Guinea, overall production will be very good in Labe. In Kankan, the output is beneficial in a large part in the west but decreased output is seen in small areas in the north, southeast and the centre. In Kindia province, the water availability is good in the north but below average in the south.

In Ivory Coast, prospects are above average at provincial level in Katiola, Korhogo and Mankono, other parts of the country show minor (-0.5%) yield decreases. In the main growing areas of Bouna increases of 4.5% are expected.

In Mali, very good yields are expected at the northern border of the growing areas in Kayes, \ with surpluses of 15% in some parts while in the south prospects are less favourable. Especially the north-west of Koulikoro is dryer than before, while in the south and central part the water availability is better than the 5 years average and better than the previous year. In Kayes, the northeastern part experiences dryer conditions than normal but the situation is better than in 2007.

In Nigeria, well above average yields (10%) are expected in northern parts of the country, in Taraba, Kebbi and the south of Adamwara province. The centre of Niger province shows minor yield decreases while in other parts above average yields are expected. Reduced crop yields are seen in the east of Kano, the south of Yobe, the west of Benue and the north of Adamware. Declined production is also noted in the Delta province, Anambra and Rivers.

EARS

A new R700-million (US$90 million) private equity fund has been launched with the aim of investing in the buoyant agribusiness sector across sub-Saharan Africa. The Agri-Vie Fund, formed by Sanlam Private Equity and the investment group Strategy Partners, will focus on entrepreneurs involved in the agribusiness value chain, rather than directly in the farming industry.

It offers an opportunity for potential investors to tap into this growing African market and gives strategic assistance to the owners of agri businesses. The fund recently had its first close at R330-million, with initial investments from the insurance industry and development finance institutions such as the Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA), Industrial Development Corporation (IDC) through the Risk Capital Facility - a fund established by the European Community and the government of South Africa and managed by the IDC - and the US-based Kellogg Foundation. The fund is open to other investors until May 2009.

Pieter Kriel, chief executive of Sanlam Private Equity, said that agribusiness is the mainstay of the economy in most sub-Saharan countries. “On average the gross domestic products in sub-Saharan Africa have grown between six and seven percent in the past three years and the number of democracies has more than doubled since 1999." "The resultant effect is that these countries offer exceptional opportunities for investors.”

The fund will look at businesses which offer value-added components along the agri-business value chain. “We will not invest in farms, but rather in the processing and marketing of farming outputs such as food, certain beverages and fibre products." "By following the route of expanding the industry, it will ultimately create new growth opportunities for existing and emerging farmers.

In addition, Agri-Vie's mandate includes investment into ecotourism in the context of integrated rural development,” said Kriel. Emile du Toit, the divisional executive for private equity at DBSA said, “Agribusiness is an important contributor to economic growth in the region and is poised for significant expansion." "Given the significant lack of equity risk capital to finance agribusiness transactions, the DBSA’s participation in this fund allows it to play a catalytic role in developing financial infrastructure to provide access to much needed long-term risk capital in this critical sector.”

Du Toit added that sustainable investment in agriculture can make a significant contribution to socio-economic development, in keeping with DBSA’s development mandate. “I believe that several countries on the continent have comparative advantages in agriculture, which provide a logical base for economic growth.” Agri-Vie investors have appointed an active management structure, led by Herman Marais of Strategy Partners, which comprises members from Sanlam Private Equity and a women-led agricultural investment group, Makotulo Agricultural Company, among others.

Marais said that Agri-Vie is a true business partner for agribusiness entrepreneurs. “The fund contributes risk capital and management know-how to fully unlock the potential of businesses.” He said, “Over and above the opportunities associated with the prevailing global food and commodities cycle, there is growing demand globally for various African exports such as organically grown vegetables, fruit and flowers, processed natural fibre for industrial applications as well as natural supplements and health products. "

However, there are numerous existing agri-enterprises across the African continent which are not performing to their potential - mainly as a result of lack of access to capital, limited market knowledge and infrastructure limitations. “Agri-Vie aims to be a catalyst to unlock this potential to the advantage of the enterprises concerned, their host communities and the fund’s investors. "Agri-Vie believes that sustainable development is best brought about by the disciplines of investment rather than aid grants.”

Kriel said that the fund had a strong empowerment focus. “Our involvement was partly spurred by the Financial Sector Charter which designates agri as an area of ‘targeted investment’." "Both Sanlam Private Equity and Strategy Partners truly believe in the business and investment potential of agribusiness in South Africa and on the continent and are delighted to be playing a role in realising it. "The South African portion of the fund was started with the express purpose of empowering agri-businesses and playing a key catalyst role for BEE in the agribusiness sector.”

Agribusiness women such as Ntombi Msimang and Jean Davidson are among the directors of the Makotulo Consortium. Kate Moloto, a shareholder in Agri-Vie’s investment management structure, says “Women are far behind with regard to participation as owners and managers in agribusiness. "Through Agri-Vie, we intend to make a meaningful contribution to empowering women in this sector.” Marais said the fund had found a niche in Africa and was already experiencing healthy transaction flow.

“We have had significant interest from international investors and have formed a parallel structure to the South African portion of the fund – a separate entity domiciled in Mauritius which is focused on investment in sub-Saharan countries outside of South Africa." "We are already evaluating more than 20 possible investments in South Africa and the Mauritius structure of the fund is looking at a similar number in countries such as Botswana, Tanzania, Uganda and Kenya.”

Comment from other involved parties:

Industrial Development Corporation (IDC): The IDC decided to invest in Agri-Vie because the fund is able to support black economic empowerment in agribusiness and because the fund’s mandate makes a specific commitment towards supporting job creating SMEs in agribusiness.

Kellogg Foundation: The international Kellogg Foundation, headquartered in the USA, threw its weight behind Agri-Vie at an early stage of the fund’s development. Kellogg’s manager in South Africa, Fadel Ndiame says that the foundation had supported rural development in South Africa and its neighbouring states for a long period with donor funds and project management. “We decided to adopt a new direction by channeling a part of our grant programme towards an investment model such as Agri-Vie. We believe that this will result in a more focused, sustainable result from our involvement in rural development.”

Director of Agri-Vie management company: Mohammad Karaan, prominent agricultural economist and recently appointed Agriculture Dean at Stellenbosch University is a director of the Agri-Vie management company. He believes that there is a scarcity of financially viable approaches to black economic empowerment in agribusiness. “Agri-Vie, with its emphasis on competent management and financial discipline, can make a difference. "Current trends in world commodity markets also point to the future role that Africa can fulfill with regard to food supply to the continent’s markets and the rest of the world. "Agribusiness forms such a big part of the private economies of most countries in African that it makes strategic sense to stimulate socio-economic development through investment in this sector. "In order to capitalise on this potential in favour of both global markets as well as communities and agri-entrepreneurs from Africa, more successful agribusiness entrepreneurs are required in Africa. Agri-Vie’s international portfolio can help with this.”

ITI News

Angola, with plentiful water and fertile soils, can re-establish itself as one of the world's richest farming nations as it recovers from a civil war that devastated the sector, the country's prime minister said.

"We have the potential to become one of the world's richest agricultural countries," said Prime Minister Fernando Dias dos Santos on August 14.

Angola was the world's fourth biggest coffee producer and a top exporter of sugarcane, bananas, sisal and cotton before a 27-year civil war on independence from Portugal in 1975 led to a mass exodus of farmers to the cities and halted production.

Dias dos Santos said Angola, which now imports over half of its food, has invested billions of dollars to rebuild roads, energy and water supply networks to revive the industry and link the capital Luanda to the countryside.

"We have been creating infrastructures that are necessary to increase internal production. We are completing roads for the transportation of goods and people and building energy and water supply networks that are also important," he said.

He said growing state and private investment in the sector will make Angola less dependent on oil, which accounts for almost 90 percent of the country's exports.

"We are creating areas of investment in several provinces in the rural areas. Some projects will be financed by the state but there has to be more private investment. I think that in the next two to three years there will be visible changes in production."

Angola is also trying to revive its once prosperous coffee and banana industry, Dias dos Santos said.

"There are old coffee plantations being revived in the centre and south of the country and rising investments in banana plantations like in Benguela, Luanda and Luanda Sul," he said. "Our goal today is not the same as in the 1970s, we have to surpass those goals. The situation is different and the population has increased."

Angola recently surpassed Nigeria as Africa's biggest oil producer and has experienced double-digit growth in both the oil and non-oil sectors. But ordinary Angolans have so far failed to tap into such growth -- almost two-thirds live on less than $2 a day and unemployment hovers around 40 percent. Some see agriculture as the only way to improve the lives of the people amid rising food prices and inflation.

The World Bank recently urged the Angolan government to bolster investment in agriculture and offered $30 million to fund an agricultural project geared toward market production. But in the traditional farming provinces of Benguela, Bie, Huambo and Malange, local farmers still work on small plots of land to grow just enough to feed their families.

Dias dos Santos said efforts were underway to allow big companies to develop Angola's vast agricultural resources.

"We are pushing for more companies to invest in the sector. We will protect the self-sufficient agriculture but we are also going to bet on big companies that introduce new technology," he said.

Angolan farmers cultivate less than 10 percent of an estimated 35 million hectares of arable land due to lack of technology and financing, making Angola one of the most promising agricultural nations.

"With these investments we will surely do better than before," he said.

Reuters

A Zambian farmers group said on August 12 it plans to raise white maize output to 5 million tonnes in three years from 1.2 million tonnes if the government provided more subsidised seed and fertiliser. At the same time, Zambia's government said it had increased the country's fertiliser subsidy fund to 492 billion Zambian kwacha ($145.5 million) in 2008 from 185 billion kwacha.

"With good government support for small-scale farmers, we can easily reach 3.0 million to 5.0 million tonnes within two to three seasons," said Zambia National Farmers Union (ZNFU) president Guy Robinson. "As farmers we are ready to achieve this, but the government needs to support our efforts."

Robinson said farmers planned to raise white maize output to around 1.6 million-1.8 million tonnes from 1.2 million tonnes produced in the 2007/08 season in the immediate term before increasing production to about 3-5 million tonnes. He said several small-scale farmers had started to produce three tonnes of white maize per hectare through conservation farming but that most of the over 800,000 small scale farmers still required fertiliser to improve yields.

The government has been criticised for failing to manage its fertiliser support programme over the last few years as fertilisers ended up with non-productive small-scale farmers.

Finance Minister Ng'andu Magande separately told state media in eastern Zambia that the government would provide subsidised seed and pesticides to 200,000 small-scale farmers in 2008 compared with 125,000 farmers last year. He said the fertiliser subsidy was raised to enable farmers to grow more maize for local consumption and exports. "In order to make the fertiliser available, the government has decided to increase the level of subsidy ... for a 50 kilogramme bag of fertiliser costing 220,000 kwacha, farmers will only pay 55,000 kwacha," Magande said.

Industry experts say Zambia uses only 10 percent of more than 45 million hectares of arable farm land. The country also accounts for nearly half of total southern Africa's water mass. Most farmers were still stuck with this year's white maize as the state-run Food Reserve Agency (FRA) had not purchased the maize due to insufficient funds, he added. Robinson warned that this could discourage farmers from increasing the area on which they grow maize, and urged the private sector to offer farmers good prices. The government set a maize floor price of 45,000 kwacha in July.

Reuters

by Dan Charles

As governments search for solutions to the global food crisis, some are taking a second look at a controversial technology: genetic engineering. Many Third World countries have banned genetically modified crops. But Honduras now is encouraging farmers to plant them.

Rodolfo Rubio, who grows corn and vegetables on about 50 acres near the city of Comayagua, needs no convincing. He's an evangelist for the virtues of genetically altered corn.

He pulls the husk from one ear and shows off the gleaming rows of white kernels. There are no worms in this corn, which is remarkable, because such worms are everywhere in this part of Honduras and Rubio hasn't sprayed any insecticides. "No, the only thing we need here is the seed, the fertilizer and the herbicide," he says.

The secret is in the corn itself. Years ago, scientists at the company Monsanto took a gene from a kind of worm-killing bacteria and inserted it into an ancestor of these corn plants. So if worms start munching on the corn, they die.

Rubio lifts up a leaf on another corn plant and points to another kind of insect hiding underneath. "This is a beneficial insect that eats the worms," he explains. "They're safer on this land, because there aren't any insecticide residues here."

Rubio started growing Monsanto's genetically modified corn four years ago. He pays about $1,000 extra for enough corn seed for 30 acres. But this technology saves him so much time and money, he says, he can't imagine not using it. "If someone tells me that the government wants to limit my access to technology, that's like telling me that I don't have the right to a better life, or more profits, and that it wants to see me sink into poverty," he says.

But in the rest of Central America, growing this corn is against the law. Corn is more than a crop here; it's history and culture. Central America is where farmers first grew corn, thousands of years ago, and in some places you can still find an almost infinite variety of corn plants.

Jacqueline Chenier, director of a Honduran organization that promotes small-scale organic agriculture, says bringing in unnatural genes threatens the integrity of this natural biodiversity.

"When you come with a genetically modified variety, genes cross with other varieties, and what you have is contamination," she says. "You have a strange gene in those varieties. They are not what they were before."

Last year, Chenier thought that the Honduran government was beginning to take these concerns seriously. The country's new minister of agriculture, Hector Hernandez, announced that the country might stop growing or importing crops linked to genetically modified organisms - often called GMOs.

Then came the food crisis. Corn doubled in price. And earlier this summer, Hernandez said that he now wants farmers to plant more corn, including genetically modified corn.

Robert Paarlberg, a professor at Wellesley College and author of Starved for Science: How Biotechnology Is Being Kept Out of Africa, says concern over food shortages may be shifting government policies in other countries, too.

"Egypt has gone ahead and approved GMO corn; China has just announced a large increase in its research budget for GMO foods," Paarlberg says. But according to Paarlberg, these are only small, isolated shifts. Genetic engineering still isn't welcome across much of Latin America, Asia and especially Africa. It's been criminalized," he says. Paarlberg wants that to change, because he believes genetic engineering can help even poor farmers in developing countries.

Monsanto agrees, and it has big plans in Honduras. Rita Perdomo, a marketing manager for the company based in St. Louis, Mo., says the amount of genetically modified corn in Honduras increased by 50 percent this year. She admits that this is still only 15 percent of the country's corn crop, but she expects that percentage to grow substantially. By 2012, she predicts, almost half of all the corn planted in Honduras will be genetically engineered. She believes Honduras' production of corn, per acre, will double or even triple - and will allow the country to become self-sufficient in corn for its tortillas and animal feed.

Others scoff at this prediction. Most farmers in Honduras, they point out, are too poor to spend much money on expensive corn seed or anything else that would boost their production, including fertilizer or irrigation. Even the skeptics, though, are watching events in Honduras carefully, looking for evidence that First World biotechnology can make a difference in the lives of Third World farmers.

Truth about Trade

A global fertilizer crisis caused by high oil prices and the US rush to biofuel crops is reducing the harvests of the world's poorest farmers and could lead to millions more people going hungry, according to the UN and global food analysts.

Optimism that soaring food commodity prices could lift millions of developing country farmers out of poverty and lead to more food being grown have been dashed, says the UN. This is because small farmers either consume their own crop or have no access to global markets to take advantage of the higher food prices.

There is little prospect of relief. A world fertilizer forecast report due to be published by the UN this week states that prices will remain high for at least three years and possibly longer.

Fertilizer prices have mostly doubled and in some cases risen by 500% in 15 months as US farmers have rushed to plant more biofuel crops and countries such as India and China have bought fertilizer stocks in large quantities to guarantee their food stocks.

But while the unprecedented price explosion has barely affected large commercial farmers, it is leading directly to civil unrest among small farmers in developing countries. There have been fertilizer riots or demonstrations in Vietnam, India, Kenya, Nepal, Nigeria, Egypt, Pakistan and Taiwan in the last few months. Last week one man was killed in a stampede at a government handout of fertilizer in Hyderabad, India.

Senior UN Food and Agriculture organization analyst Dr Jan Poulisse warned the poor were being hurt the most by the crisis. "High commodity prices allow commercial farmers in developed countries to cope with high fertilizer prices. But rising food prices hurt subsistence farmers, particularly in Africa," Poulisse said. "People just cannot afford fertilizer. They were in dire straits before, but now the situation is worse."

Farmers in sub-Saharan Africa have been hardest hit because they have the least chance to benefit from soaring food prices on the world market, but desperately need fertilizers to replenish nutrient-depleted soils.

World fertilizer prices have risen more than oil or any other commodities in the last 18 months. Of the three main types, diammonium phosphate (Dap) sold for US $250 per tonne in January 2007 but has risen to $1,230 per tonne. Potash-based fertilizers have risen from $172 to over $500 a tonne, and nitrogen based fertilizers have risen from $277 to over $450 per tonne.Much of the price rise is attributed to first world farmers who have applied high levels of fertilizers to maximize harvests of grain to take advantage of record grain prices, said Dr Balu Bumb, policy leader at the International centre for Soil Fertility and Agricultural Development (IFDC) in the US.

The UN fertilizer forecast blames capacity constraints for the price rises. "Strong global demand for fertilizers is stretching current production capacity to its technical limits. This situation will persist until new capacity comes on line", it states.

"It can take 5-7 years to open a phosphate mine, 10 years for a potash mine and three years for a major nitrogen plant", said Dr Poulisse, one of the report's authors. At least 50 new plants to make nitrogen fertilizer are believed to be under construction, and phosphorous and potassium mines are being expanded.

Fertilizer prices have in the past been largely controlled by governments because they are so politically sensitive. But keeping prices down in the current crisis is now impacting heavily on other areas, such as education and health.

India is expecting to have to spend $24bn supporting fertilizer prices this year compared to only $4bn three years ago and countries such as Malawi have had to borrow millions to introduce a fertilizer subsidy program. However, the president of Malawi admitted last week that the subsidy program was failing the poor. "Sadly, it is the rich who are benefiting a great deal. They are selling maize to the poor at exorbitant prices," he said.

Agriculture and development experts say the world has few alternatives to its growing dependence on fertilizer. As population increases and a rising global middle class demands more food, fertilizer has become the preferred route to higher yields.

"Rises in basic commodity prices should be good for small growers but we are seeing that agri-business is reaping all the benefits. It needs a fundamental reform of the way agriculture is managed as well as more sustainable farming", said Amy Barry, an Oxfam spokeswoman.

Guardian

Even as it receives a billion pounds of free food from international donors, Sudan is growing and selling vast quantities of its own crops to other countries, capitalizing on high global food prices at a time when millions of people in its war-stricken region of Darfur barely have enough to eat.

In the bone-dry desert, where desiccated donkey carcasses line the road, huge green fields suddenly materialize: beans, wheat, sorghum, melons, peanuts, pumpkins, eggplant. It is all grown here, part of an ambitious government plan for Sudanese self-sufficiency, creating giant mechanized farms that rise out of the sand like mirages.

But how much of this bonanza is getting back to the hungry Sudanese, like the 2.5 million people driven into camps in Darfur? And why is a country that exports so many of its own crops receiving more free food than anywhere else in the world, especially when the Sudanese government is blamed for creating the crisis in the first place?

African countries that rely on donated food usually cannot produce enough on their own. Somalia, Ethiopia, Niger and Zimbabwe are all recent examples of how war, natural disasters or gross mismanagement can cut deep into food production, pushing millions of people to the brink of starvation.

But here in Sudan, there seem to be plenty of calories to go around. The country is already growing wheat for Saudi Arabia, sorghum for camels in the United Arab Emirates and vine-ripened tomatoes for the Jordanian army. Now the government is plowing $5 billion into new agribusiness projects, many of them to produce food for export.

Take sorghum, a staple of the Sudanese diet, typically eaten in flat, spongy bread. Last year, the U.S. government, as part of its response to the emergency in Darfur, shipped in 283,000 tons of sorghum, at high cost, from as far away as Houston. Oddly enough, that is about the same amount that Sudan exported, according to UN officials. This year, Sudanese companies, including many that are linked to the government in Khartoum, are on track to ship out twice that amount, even as the United Nations is being forced to cut rations to Darfur.

Eric Reeves, a professor at Smith College in the United States and an outspoken activist who has written frequently on the Darfur crisis, called this anomaly "one of the least reported and most scandalous features of the Khartoum regime's domestic policies." It was emblematic, he said, of the Sudanese government's strategy to manipulate "national wealth and power to further enrich itself and its cronies, while the marginalized regions of the country suffer from terrible poverty."
Aid groups gave up long ago on the Sudanese government helping the people of Darfur. After all, the nation's president, Omar Hassan al-Bashir, has been accused of masterminding genocide there. UN officials have said that if they do not bring food into the region, the government surely will not.

That leaves the United Nations and Western aid groups feeding more than 3 million residents of Darfur. But the lifeline is fraying. Security is deteriorating. Aid trucks are getting hijacked nearly every day and deliveries are being made less and less frequently. The result: less food and soaring malnutrition rates, particularly among children.

On top of this is the broader problem of trying to find affordable grains on the world market when prices are higher than they have been in decades. UN officials in Sudan say that the fact that they have to import some of the same commodities that Sudan not only produces but exports is a source of constant frustration.

"Sudan could be self-sufficient," said Kenro Oshidari, the director of the UN World Food Program in Sudan. "It does have the potential to be the breadbasket of Africa."

Sudanese officials say that is precisely their goal, and they deny that Sudanese agribusiness is being built at the expense of their own people. They reject accusations that they are neglecting far-flung areas like Darfur, much less waging a war of hunger and deprivation against them.
Instead, Sudanese officials say they are simply trying to build up their economy. They say they know what it is like to be vilified, having been squeezed by U.S. sanctions for more than a decade. And it could get worse, with Bashir facing genocide charges at the International Criminal Court in connection with the massacres in Darfur.

"Sanctions are never far from our mind," said Al-Amin Dafa Allah, chairman of the National Assembly's agricultural committee. "We're trying to minimize our reliance on the outside."

In fact, part of the reason relief agencies bring their own food into Sudan stems from the U.S. policy of giving crops, not money, as foreign aid. Many European countries, by contrast, just give the World Food Program cash, which can be used to buy food locally. Last year, the program bought 117,000 tons of Sudanese sorghum. UN officials said they would like to buy more, but Sudanese suppliers could make more money with exports. "We don't get discounts," said Emilia Casella, a spokeswoman for the World Food Program.

Sudanese officials say they want to sell more crops to the United Nations, but lost in this discussion about buying and selling food is whether the Sudanese government should be donating food to its own needy people.

For now, Sudanese officials seem more interested in doing business with their new partners in the Middle East. Sudan is the largest country in Africa, nearly 2.5 million square kilometers, or a million square miles. It has 84 million hectares, about 210 million acres, of arable land, with less than a quarter being cultivated. The Sudanese government is striking deals left and right with Arab countries just across the Red Sea: the Arab countries bring the money, the soil scientists and the $200,000 tractors. Sudan supplies the land.

"Our country is small and dry and mountainous," said Man Shuqwara, the Jordanian director of a Jordanian-run farm in northern Sudan that grows wheat, beans, potatoes, onions, tomatoes, oranges and bananas. "By logic we would come to Sudan."

That same logic is attracting big money from Saudi Arabia. About an hour's drive north of the Jordanian farm, near the town of Ed Damer, is a huge new $200 million project to grow wheat in what now looks like a 15-kilometer-wide sandbox. Some of the wheat will stay in Sudan; some will be shipped to Saudi Arabia. A fleet of new John Deere tractors is already lined up for harvest time. A worker on the farm whispered that the tractors had been sneaked into Sudan through Saudi Arabia because of the American trade sanctions.

Sudan's overall economic strategy is to diversify from oil, which it began exporting in 1999, and to focus more closely on the traditional engine of the country's economy - agriculture. More than 80 percent of the work force is engaged in raising animals or farming of one sort or another.
"Our sesame oil is the best in the world," said Al-Amin, the agriculture committee chairman. "And it's organic!"

The dark side to all this development is displacement. The conflict in Darfur is largely about grazing rights and watering holes - and the government's brutal counterinsurgency policies in response to an armed rebellion.

And development in Sudan often means uprooting other rural subsistence farmers for large-scale commercial projects, said Alex de Waal, a Sudan scholar at the Social Science Research Council in New York. "Smallholder food production goes down, commercial food production goes up, and food relief serves as a subsidy to this transformation, keeping the displaced alive," he said.

The Sudanese government is blamed for running many of the displaced people in Darfur off their farms, making them reliant on handouts. Still, the government has been slow to feed them.
The last time the government gave the World Food Program any food for Darfur was in 2006. It was 22,000 tons of Sudanese-grown sorghum, a fraction of what the people needed, UN officials said, and some of the grain was rancid and infested with weevils.

Bor Globe

Safeguards to protect small farmers’ livelihoods in African and other developing states, as opposed to subsidies for commercial agricultural interests in rich countries, remained an insurmountable obstacle in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) talks, leading the Doha Round to collapse last week.

The Doha Round crumpled unceremoniously on July 29, the ninth day of the mini-ministerial meeting. The straw that broke the camel’s back -- the special safeguard mechanism (SSM) – has to do with small farmers’ livelihoods in the developing world.

However, it should be noted that there were gaping differences on a whole host of other issues that were yet to be discussed in detail, such as the U.S.’s subsidies for its cotton farmers, as well as several issues in the industrial tariffs negotiations.

The difference in views on the SSM was not only between the U.S., on the one hand, and India and China, on the other. In fact, a hundred developing countries did not accept the figures which WTO Director General Pascal Lamy had produced on July 25 (the fifth day of the negotiations).

These countries -- the Group of 33 (which includes 46 countries); the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) group; the Africa Group; and small and vulnerable economies (SVEs) -- produced an alternative set of numbers on Sunday July 27.

The wrangle between the U.S. and India and China was highlighted simply because the negotiations were taking place mainly among seven players: the U.S., the European Union (EU), Japan, Australia, India, Brazil and China (also known as the Group of Seven or G7).

The other selected ministers who had been invited to Geneva were excluded from those negotiations and were waiting in the corridors. Hence, it appeared that India and China were alone in disagreeing with the U.S..

The SSM is meant to address import surges in farm products. In order to protect its domestic agricultural sector from injury, the SSM would allow a country to implement an additional tariff to stem the import surge.

Among several problematic constraints in the Lamy figures that the hundred developing countries identified was the suggested trigger of 140 percent. This means a country should have a 40 percent increase in imports compared to a preceding three-year period before the SSM can be invoked.

Developing countries, in contrast, were asking for a five or, at most, 10 percent import increase. A 40 percent import increase before action can be taken is likely to be too late as the import surge could already have wiped out the country’s producers. However, the U.S. and a few other countries with agricultural exporting interests were immovable on this issue.

On the last two days of the talks, other possible options were proposed in the G7 which India accepted but the U.S. not. The U.S. wanted a weak SSM to ensure that the Doha Round would provide them access to developing countries’ agricultural markets.

The battle was thus between commercial interests in agricultural exporting countries, and the livelihoods of subsistence farmers in Africa, Asia and elsewhere.

What happened in the area of the SSM, however, was echoed in several other areas. Commercial interests were seen as more pressing than the measures developing countries wanted in order to minimise the threats of unemployment and de-industrialisation.

If talks had not collapsed over the SSM, there was a real chance they would have done so in the area of the non-agricultural market access (NAMA) negotiations, or the area of cotton, where consensus was not even on the horizon.

There was also the issue of preference erosion, which was not yet resolved. If markets all around were to be liberalised further, many African countries stood to lose, rather than gain, because of the carving away of existing trade preferences.

In sum, when African countries asked for their development concerns to be taken on board, their requests were frustrated at every turn. Conversely, the package on the table would have given the U.S. and EU special treatment.

The U.S. and EU would have been able to retain all of their agricultural subsidies, only shifting them to different subsidy categories. They would also have cut industrial tariffs by a smaller percentage -- about 30 percent -- while developing countries were expected to cut tariffs by about 58 percent.

*Analyst Aileen Kwa is the coordinator of the trade for development programme at the inter-governmental South Centre.

IPS

Up to 2.1 million Senegalese are facing food insecurity linked to high food prices and a poor 2007 harvest, according to an inter-ministerial government assessment.

Over one million face “severe” food insecurity, according to the report’s definitions, and the situation could deteriorate. Senegal has a total population of 11 million.

"The food security and nutrition situation could further deteriorate in the upcoming months if the price rise dynamic does not change,” the report stated. Because of this, “emergency operations must be continued and long-term support to the vulnerable stepped up.”

The study, which was undertaken jointly by the Departments of Agriculture and of Livestock, the Food Security Commission, the National Agency for Statistics, and the government’s early warning centre, covered 485 villages across the country.

Nine out of ten households in the most-affected regions of Sédhiou, Bignona, Oussouye, have difficulty in covering their food needs over the hungry season, while eight out of ten households face the same problem in Tivaouane and seven out of ten in the regions of Rufisque, Tambacounda and Linguère, according to the report.

The majority of interviewees said while enough food was available in the markets, it was increasingly difficult for them to afford the rising prices.

Indeed, agricultural production levels have been dropping over the past few years according to the report, making it “more and more difficult for the population… to satisfy their food needs through their own production.”

The government puts the particularly high number of those in need this year down to a poor 2007 harvest – down by 26 percent on 2006 – because of sporadic, short rains in many parts of the country, as well as floods in the regions of Matam, Kolda and Louaga.

Up to 60 percent of Senegal’s population is rural and depends on subsistence agriculture and livestock-rearing, both of which are highly dependent on good rainfall.

Thierno Ndiaye, livelihoods adviser with non-governmental organisation Oxfam, says the hungry season came early this year, as grain bank stocks started to become depleted as early as February rather than in July which is the usual start to the annual ‘hungry’ season. “Even by March things were starting to get difficult, and people were already starting to lower the number of meals they ate,” he said. Two out of five households interviewed said they now eat just two meals a day, according to the report.

The government has reserved US$23.5 million to support rural communities suffering from food deficits and plans to distribute 50,000 metric tonnes of agricultural committees in rural zones over three months, aiming to give 3kg of rice per person.

But, despite publishing its findings, the government has fallen short of declaring an emergency. Three out of ten village chiefs questioned, said they had received food aid from NGOs to help them face their problems. “If they are reporting severe food insecurity, they have crossed a red line,” said Oxfam’s Ndiaye, “but the government does not want to declare an emergency, and this has stopped NGOs from being able to launch a widespread response.”

Despite this the World Food Programme is working with NGOs to provide food for 30,000 malnourished children under five by September. It aims to reach up to 540,000 people with food aid between September and the end of the year.

Aliou Dia, president of an association of rural agriculturalists says the current government rations are not enough. "They are inadequate. This could relieve hunger for a few days but we need bigger stocks to get through the lean season.” And, he adds, the government needs to get moving if it is to complete distributions by the 20 August as projected.

The ministries involved are calling for increased assistance to be given to the most vulnerable households in the form of food distributions, replenishing village cereal banks, better agricultural training, and where appropriate, school-feeding programmes. They also recommend the situation be regularly monitored through the government’s early warning system.

The government has already significantly increased its agricultural investments, according to Dia, setting aside US$106 million to the sector in 2008 up from US$58.8 million the year before. So far, this money has been spent on buying and distributing seeds, subsidising fertilisers and pesticides and strengthening rural credit schemes to try to boost production across the country.

This is part of a bigger government-wide push, dubbed the “grand agricultural offensive for food security or ‘GOANA’ to boost Senegal’s self-sufficiency in food production – Senegal currently imports that vast majority of the rice it consumes.

But while some are gung-ho about GOANA, others are more skeptical. An agricultural expert told IRIN when it was launched, “Theoretically it is possible to meet these [rice] targets… but jumping from 20 percent [sufficiency] to 100 percent, given the trend of the past 20 years where yields have been stagnant or even decreased, will certainly be a challenge.”

However, some say the cash injection is already paying off. “The government subsidised seeds by 70 percent this year and they were delivered on time. We hope that if the rains, which started early this year, maintain at this pace, we could even beat past production records,” Dia told IRIN.

And in the meantime, he calls for immediate emergency assistance to be stepped up. IRIN

Ethiopia, Africa's largest coffee producer, earned $525.2 million in coffee exports in 2007/08, less than an expected $540.2 million, a ministry of trade official said on August 11.

"Ethiopia exported 170,888 tonnes of coffee and earned $525.2 million during June/July 2007/08 period compared with 176,390 tonnes that fetched $424.2 million in 2006/07," said Girma Gelelcha, an export officia.

"The volume exported is about 97 percent of the planned export target. Ethiopia had planned to export 227,040 tonnes of coffee and earn $540.2 million during the period."

Leading buyers of Ethiopian coffee are Germany followed by Saudi Arabia, Japan, the United States and the Netherlands, said Girma, who works for the Export Promotion Department at the Ministry of Trade and Industry. He said prices of Ethiopia's coffee have shown marked improvement after the country trademarked three of its finest coffees; Sidamo, Harar and Yigraceheffe, which are now only sold by licensed distributors.

The three trademarks have been registered in 28 countries and are sold by 20 companies, 18 of them in the United States and the other two in Europe, according to government officials.
Ethiopia is the largest coffee producer in Africa with an annual production of around 330,000 tonnes, most of which is consumed locally.

The Horn of Africa country prides itself as the origin of coffee. Its beans are grown in the misty forested highlands of south western Ethiopia in a region known as Kaffa, which is said to have given its name to the plant.

EthioBlog

The United Nations (UN) Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has completed one of its largest-ever seed distribution operations in the Central African Republic, (CAR), a UN news release said August 7.

The seed scheme was designed to tackle three issues: food insecurity, hunger and chronic poverty, which are problems across the CAR, according to the FAO.

The UN food agency distributed seeds to more than 12,500 farmers in Nana-Mambere prefecture in the west of the CAR, next to the border with Cameroon.

Each seed kit given to a farmer consisted of 4 kg of peanut seeds and 10 kg of corn seeds. The non-governmental organization Mercy Corps trained local communities in farming techniques so they can boost their yields and expand beyond subsistence farming.

Xinhua

Malawi has finally opened its doors to genetically modified crops (GMOs) despite fears still lingering among consumer rights groups.

"Yes, cabinet has approved the National Bio-technology and Bio-safety bill," said Alec Manda, the acting Director of the National Research Council of Malawi.

Manda said with the policy now in place Malawi can now start using products that are genetically modified. He said what remains now was for scientists to start field trial of genetically modified crops developed outside the country.

"What that means is that we have completed the regulatory process which started with the Bio-safety Act, the enactment of the Bio-Safety Act in the year 2002; the formulation of regulations in the year 2007; and just today cabinet has approved the National Bio-technology Policy," he said.

But the Consumers Association of Malawi (CAMA) has since warned government to tread carefully when introducing the GMOs into the market.CAMA's acting Executive Director Andrew Ussi said the consumer rights watchdog would closely monitor events as the country prepares to introduce genetically modified crops.

"Our current position is that before any food is being introduced on the market the consumer has to be informed as to the benefits of that GMO food to his body, to the environment and, for posterity's sake, as well as the other plants that will be grown surrounding that crop," he said.

Ussi said the consumer rights group would ensure that there was proper trial bef ore the GMOs are introduced. "Our mission is to promote and protect consumer rights in Malawi," he said, adding that such rights included the right to information.

"The consumer has to be informed on each and every product that comes onto the market in terms of the manufacturer, ingredients and everything," Ussi added.

But Manda of the National research council of Malawi said there was no cause for worry, adding that a special Bio-technology and Bio-Safety Committee, comprising scientists and other experts, had been set up to oversee the trial.

"We have to test these GMOs or GMO crops which have been developed outside the country; to test them under Malawian conditions; how do they perform," he said. "We are not going to start by developing our own GMOs."

Manda said the research and evaluation could take as long as three years.

"We have to see how they peform under Malawian conditions; It is only after the researchers have established that those perform well will there be another process to see if they can be commercialised," he said.

The issue of genetically modified foods became a sensitive issue between the years 2002 and 2003 when Malawi was hit with a severe food crisis which forced the government of former President Bakili Muluzi to accept genetically modified food from the West, especially the US.

checkbiotech

Sudan is seeking to attract at least $1bn of capital for its agricultural sector from Arab and Asian investment groups, which are turning to Africa in search of new food supplies as their governments try to manage the impact of commodity price inflation.

The investment ministry is marketing a portfolio of 17 large-scale projects that would cover an area of 880,000 hectares, one of its officials said. Abdalla Elhag Mohamed, director of external relations at the ministry, said: "Everyone coming to Sudan is asking about agriculture, to the extent that we are struggling to cope."

The country sees agricultural development as a vital means of reducing its dependence on oil revenues. The greatest interest has come from governments in the Middle East, where overseas agricultural projects are being seen as tools for ensuring food security following big increases in the prices of rice and wheat, staple foods for the region.

Abu Dhabi is preparing to launch a project to develop more than 28,000 hectares of Sudanese land and Egypt has said it is considering a venture in the giant Gezira scheme, one of Sudan's few irrigation projects. Saudi Arabia, which plans to set up large-scale agricultural projects in a number of countries, has also held talks with Khartoum.

Sudan has been described as a possible bread basket for the Middle East and has great productive potential in land close to the Blue and White Nile rivers and the River Nile proper. But the farming sector is underdeveloped and in need of capital, irrigation systems, roads, machinery and technology. Sudan has been blighted by decades of conflict and, in spite of oil wealth that began to flow nine years ago, its ability to invest in agriculture has been limited by vast spending on the military in Darfur and other parts of the country where it faces armed opposition.

"In this difficult situation, when we are fighting, it is difficult to say, 'Let them die and we will invest in agriculture'," said Mr Mohamed. The government wants to secure investments totalling $1.04bn for 17 lead projects, which are all in northern Sudan and include wheat, maize, fruit and vegetable production. But besides those, Mr Moh-amed said, there were "hundreds of projects" and "millions of hectares" available.

Sudan's previous efforts to attract agricultural investment had little success partly because they were government-to-government initiatives that hit bureaucratic and diplomatic barriers. This time it has vowed to give the private sector a much bigger role.

Mr Mohamed said "very many" investors from China, India and Malaysia were examining opportunities in the country and he added that Khartoum was also trying to drum up interest in South Africa, Brazil and Argentina. He declined to name specific institutions.

Khartoum is insisting that investors agree to terms that will yield clear benefits for Sudan. "It's not only to take back to their country. Local people will not accept that," Mr Mohamed said. "It should be very clear in the agreements what proportion of food will remain in Sudan, what other social services they will provide, what new technology they will introduce, the employment they will create and the training for local people."

Foreign direct investment in agriculture rose to $279m in 2007, from $188m in 2006, but it was dwarfed by FDI of $3.1bn in the industrial sector and $1.6bn in the service sector, according to the investment ministry.
Much of the capital has flowed to the oil sector from China and Malaysia. But the regime is aware that its oil reserves are finite and it may lose a large portion if semi-autonomous southern Sudan votes for independence in a referendum scheduled for 2011.

Zawya

 A new strain of avian flu never before reported in Africa has been identified in Nigeria, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) announced on August 11.

Tests conducted by Nigeria and by the FAO show that the new virus strain – which is similar to strains identified last year in Italy, Afghanistan and Iran – is genetically distinct from other forms detected in Nigerian outbreaks in 2006 and 2007.

“It seems unlikely that wild birds have carried the strain to Africa, since the last migration of wild birds from Europe and Central Asia to Africa occurred in September 2007 and this year’s southerly migration into Africa has not really started yet,” said Scott Newman, International Wildlife Coordinator of FAO’s Animal Health Service. He pointed to other avenues the virus could have taken to Nigeria, such as international trade or illegal and unreported movement of poultry. “This increases the risk of an avian influenza spread to other countries in Western Africa.”

The FAO called for stepped up surveillance to monitor the virus and keep track of its spread. “Many countries have succeeded in getting the virus under control; but as long as avian influenza remains endemic in some countries, the international community needs to be on alert,” said Joseph Domenech, FAO’s Chief Veterinary Officer.

The avian flu, or H5N1, has impacted more than 60 countries since the epidemic began five years ago in Asia and most nations have eliminated it from poultry.

In Nigeria, bird flu was contained after being found in 25 states. FAO has a team of animal health experts and veterinary epidemiologists working with the West African nation’s Government.

UN

Small-scale farmers with limited knowledge of their rights stand to lose most as countries such as China and Saudi Arabia expand their quest for African farmland, analysts have warned. High commodity prices and surging demand at home have seen countries in the Middle East and Asia seek to tap into Africa to feed their domestic markets.

But the scramble for land is often taking place in weak legal environments in which most farmers lack formal tenure rights or access to compensation mechanisms.

Camilla Toulmin, director of the International Institute for Environment and Development and author of a new report on the impact of land transfers in Africa, said there is a false perception that there are vast, empty tracts of land in Africa that can be hived off with little consequence. “The problem is that local communities have a genuine stake in land which is unrecognised in law. Giving away land without consulting these communities will lead to gross disparities,” she said.

The United Arab Emirates has also expressed interest in securing leases and the Egyptian government has held talks with Sudan. Other investors are looking to countries such as Mozambique, Tanzania, Senegal and Nigeria for farmland.

Tanzanian lawyer Ednah Mndeme, who works for the Lawyers Environmental Action Group, which campaigns for land rights, said legal reforms should precede large-scale deals offering land to investors.
Local communities, she said, have claims to land dating back centuries and view it not only for agriculture but as a part of their social and political systems. But in many African countries they have only user rights rather than formal tenure.

“It is important that governments set down an acceptable procedure for transfer of land that involves negotiation with local communities and allows them to assert their rights,” she said.

Calestous Juma, a Harvard University professor who heads the Victoria Institute of Science and Technology, which is working to boost productivity in western Kenya, said land reform should make Africa a more attractive destination for foreign investors, while also enabling local farmers to access capital and improve their own agricultural productivity.

Financial Times