>Thanks for the thoughtful contribution. The important issue boild down
>to this. The World Bank is getting ready for another major round of
>lending to central African nations where population, land degradation and
>low farm productivity have large regions on clearly an unsustainable path.
> Does the money go into infrastructure (roads, ports, trucks) and
>fertilizer plants, or into diversified cropping systems that rely
>predominantly on locally available inputs and which can work toward
>higher levels of production and lower dependence on capital, energy and
>chemicals? This is the issue.
Farmers in Central and West Africa need access to markets, access to new
information, access to inputs. By information, I include more sustainable
methods of production using low input techniques, such as agroforestry. The
question is how to deliver these. The answer will depend upon the
individual countries, which differ greatly in existing infrastructure, but
solution would probably comprise some mix of both infrastructure development
(roads, maybe ports), input supply (fertilizer or fertilizer plants,
depending upon the country; seed, etc.), and extension linked to good
research.
> I say let foreign corporations put up the money for capital
>intensive, export oriented farming systems, which will almost always be
>on the best lands. I frankly wish even that such lands could be farmed
>by people to meet regional needs, but that seems hopelessly unrealistic
>in most countries where consolidation and control has already been lost.
Isn't that a cop-out? Export oriented, capital intensive agriculture does
not address the problems of sustainable agriculture or domestic food
production. On a macro level, it might increase foreign exchange, which
could be used to purchase cheap food for urban consumers. However, unless
this is done in a way that benefits small-scale producers, the effects could
be ecologically and socially detrimental. Food production would presumably
decline through reallocation of land. By diverting the best land to export
crops, use of unsustainable cropping methods would be expanded on soils less
tolerant to poor management, thus exacerbating soil fertility problems.
Crop yields and total production would decline further, impoverishing the
rural population. Food would become more costly unless food imports are
increased, but the latter would further decrease farm income. This in turn
would lead to increased urban migration, unemployment and crime. It sounds
like a recipe for trouble and I don't think that outcome would be in their
or our national interests. Chances are, such commercial ventures would go
broke in five years, but by then the damage would be done.
The reality is that these lands can be farmed to meet regional needs. I
believe that it is quite possible for African nations to again become
self-sufficient in food production and that it does not have to be through
large-scale capital intensive farming. It can be accomplished through a
combination of improved, sustainable soil management using appropriate
technologies like agroforestry, moderate use of fertilizers and some
pesticides, and access to improved crop varieties. It will require working
with farmers at the village level, but it can be done. What is often
lacking is the delivery system.
For those who want to farm on a large scale, it is still possible and there
are a few entrepreneurs who are trying it. But there needs to be research
on how to manage the often fragile soils sustainably with large-scale
mechanized farming. At this point, I don't think we have sufficient good
data on how to sustain production nor a sufficiently large clientele
interested and able to farm in this manner to justify massive investments.
Besides, those who have the capital certainly don't need the international
community to subsidize their endeavors.
> The record shows -- and correct me if I am wrong -- that where ag
>development projects go into an area focusing on dams, fertilizer and
>pesticides and high yield varieities the results have proven
>disappointing for a complex mix of social and biological reasons.
>
We are talking apples and oranges. True, some irrigation schemes I know
about have been white elephants and caused serious social problems. I have
usually found farmers eager for fertilizers and high yielding varieties,
provided that they are appropriate to the environment, cropping system and
do not have crop quality problems. Where the World Bank has assisted
farmers through Agricultural Development Projects (ADPs), it seems to have
been successful in increasing farm production and probably income. I have
seen maize on farms in Northern Nigeria worthy of any mid-Western farm,
thanks to fertilizers and improved varieties supplied by World Bank ADPs.
These are areas where 30 or 40 years ago, one would have seen only sorghum
and millets. The fertilizers distributed by the ADPs were appropriate to
the particular soils of the region (eg. boronated single superphosphate),
whereas had the fertilizers been attained through the private sector, I am
quite sure that such would not have been the case. In part of Zaire where I
once worked, farmers would not have had access to fertilizer and only
limited access to improved crop varieties had it not been for the World
Bank. When you visit rural areas, even within World Bank project areas,
farmers constantly complain about not being able to get fertilizer, or not
being able to get enough seed. Supply does not keep up with demand. If
there is a disappointment, it is not that the wrong thing is being done, but
that the job is not being done as well as it should be.
I am not for no inputs and I completely agree that productivity
>has got to be increased. I simply think it is foolish to think the
>developed world has the commitment and money needed to turn Nigeria into
>Iowa.
I agree, it is foolish to reproduce American agriculture in developing
countries. The American economy is typified by high labor costs, hence the
need to maximize returns to labor. Such is not the case in much of the
developing world. But I don't think anyone, including the World Bank, is
trying to do that in Central or West Africa. However, high yields are scale
neutral. The only advantage of a tractor over a hand held hoe or an ox plow
with respect to yield is the ability to plow deeper, where a pan or
compaction may be a problem. Fertilizer response is the same, regardless of
scale. A low resource farmer can benefit from a disease resistant crop
variety as much as does a commercial farmer. The question is whether
Nigerian and Zairean farmers will have access to the inputs (material and
intellectual) to enable them compete within their own economies and to
achieve an increased standard of living and to be able to invest in a
sustainable agriculture. When that is achieved, we will see food production
catch up with population growth.
> One of the problems many developing countries face is paying off
>the debt from the last 20 years of loans in the name of high yield
>agriculture -- loans which have made some people rich but left countries
>much worse off. So the solution is more of the same? I hope not.
Perhaps loans to governments are not the answer. Debt repayment is outside
of my area. I take it as a given that there is a crisis in food production
in sub-Saharan Africa and that its solution requires participation from the
wealthier nations of the World. From that standpoint, we can discuss how
that assistance can be effective.
One issue is how our assistance should be channelled. The question I have
with World Bank Projects is how much of the investment actually reaches
farmers? I am not an expert on the World Bank, but I have seen enough to
have the impression that World Bank projects have serious problems of misuse
of resources. In the project nearest to me, accountability certainly did
not appear to be adequate. The people implementing World Bank projects are
political appointees, with probably doubtful qualifications, while the
resources at their disposal are immense. They control people, vehicles and
accounts. In Zaire, technical oversight by the Bank consisted of rare
whirlwind visits by an "expert" (a different one every time). Rumors of
fraud and abuse were rampant. I don't believe there is enough
accountability built into the system. This problem is not unique to the
Bank, but the nature and amount of assistance would seem to leave these
projects especially vulnerable to abuse.
Except for large-scale infrastructure projects, I don't see where the World
Bank has a comparative advantage over smaller implementing agencies. Why
not channel more of this money through smaller-scale bilateral assistance
programs and non-governmental agencies. I would guess that USAID provides
better value for money. Its projects tend to be smaller and therefore
easier to oversee, and American contractors are usually employed on the
ground, who are directly accountable to the funding agency. Even there,
politics seem to get in the way of accountability and good sense at times.
I would really like to see agricultural development projects under an agency
independent of the State Department, which would be accountable based upon
technical, rather than political considerations. There is a growing cadre
of unemployed or underutilized African agricultural scientists and Americans
knowledgeable about Africa, who could probably do a much better job of
agricultural development then the agencies presently involved in
agricultural development.
I think donor countries share some of the responsibility for lending (or
giving) money without adequately engaging the recipients in its use. It has
not been "politically correct" to involve ourselves in the internal
management of these projects. In the language of the 60's, it was
"paternalistic and neo-colonialist" to demand accountability. That was a
mistake. So long as donor countries are not willing to demand and obtain
accountability at the implementation level, the best of intentions will not
result in funds being used for their intended purposes. Unfortunately, my
sense is that the donor community is moving in the direction of further
disengagement, when just the opposite is needed.
Dennis A. Shannon
Department of Agronomy and Soils
202 Funchess Hall
Auburn University, Alabama 36849-5412
Telephone: 334-844-3963
Facsimile: 334-844-3945
E-mail: dshannon@ag.auburn.edu