STAPLE CROP: Food security in Africa could be boosted by growing more wheat, according to agricultural experts.
Image:
ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia -- In the Amharic language, Addis Ababa, named when the Ethiopian capital moved to the highland city at the end of the 19th century, means "new flower."
It is a fitting name for the host city of a conference whose aim is to encourage the new blossoming of another plant. The first Wheat for Food Security in Africa conference has gathered here to address a growing issue in the continent: Too many Africans are eating products made from wheat, and not enough are growing it.
Sudan, for example, produces roughly 1 ton of wheat at home for every 4 tons of wheat it imports from abroad.
"This is about 1.7 million tons covered by importing," said Abdelraheem Hussein, national coordinator for the wheat research program of Sudan's Agricultural Research Corp., to cover the country's bread, pasta and flour needs.
The environmental constraints are predictable, said Hussein: water scarcity, high heat, poor soil fertility and diseases like the Ug99 strain of stem rust that was first discovered in neighboring Uganda. The government must also provide a clear strategy and policy to wean itself, at least partially, off imports.
Tackling both social and biological problems together could generate life-changing results for the Sudanese.
"If they are put together, we can realize self-sustainability and actually have a surplus," Hussein said.
Overall, North Africa imports about half of the global wheat trade, according to Abdelkader Benbelkcem, a researcher with the National Institute for Agricultural Research (INRA) in Tunisia.
As populations both grow and move in droves to the cities, the popular diets of Africans have shifted increasingly to wheat products. This year, African countries will spend $12 billion on wheat imports, according to a study released on the opening day of the conference yesterday by the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Research Center (CIMMYT).
Living at the mercy of world markets
As a result, every time there is a price spike in the global commodities marketplace, Africans suffer disproportionately compared to citizens on other continents. When Russia -- which produces about 15 percent of the global supply of wheat -- created a worldwide shortage two years ago by banning exports as a result of a heat wave and fires, wheat prices shot up between 60 and 80 percent.
But independence, or at least near-independence, from exports is possible, says the CIMMYT study. Across the continent, farmers are growing between 10 and 25 percent of what is possible and profitable.
In an analysis of climatic, soil and economic data from 12 sub-Saharan African countries, the researchers found potential yields to be highest in Rwanda, Burundi, Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Tanzania and Uganda. The best soils are in Rwanda, Burundi and Uganda. In southern Africa -- Mozambique, Angola and Zimbabwe, specifically -- irrigation would be required for a profitable crop to grow in the winter. Currently, Zimbabwe generates very productive wheat yields, but relies on irrigation.
In addition, another world region's climate loss could be Africa's gain. South Asia, one of the top wheat-producing areas in the world, could lose its advantage as climate change makes conditions more difficult, said Thomas Lumpkin, director-general of CIMMYT.
Nigeria is one nation that has addressed the issue head-on. Authorities announced this year it would seek to become fully self-sufficient in growing its 3.7-billion-ton annual consumption -- essentially banning imports from bread baskets around the world -- by 2016.
But there is a lot to overcome before then, said Augustine Langyintuo, senior policy officer at the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa. The lack of advanced breeding and biotechnology tools; no accessible existing high-yielding, heat-resistant varieties; poor practices in water and fertilizer use; and scant lending venues leave consumers at the mercy of markets.
See what we're tweeting about
10 Comments
Add CommentSomehow the west has come to believe that this is an issue that they need to get involved in to resolve as opposed to letting the local governments be responsible for their own destiny.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't worry. I don't think Canada will continue that, once wheat growing shifts to the north.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, the West has know how that local African governmentts are missing, so it can help (it cannot be said that African governments are doing a super job and need no help). The ideology of post-colonialism is making it difficult for the West to help. Meanwhile the Chinese, that have not such complex, are revolutionizing African economies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the Chinese want to go to Africa and help, great. It is not a problem the US taxpayer should be responsible to fix. If private people in the US want to help that is also great, but it not the role for the US government to take
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYeah. You tell 'er Sisko. We'd rather continue subsidizing Exxon to the tune of 4 Billion dollars a year. Glad to know my taxes are helping the poor and destitute oil kids.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe incompetence and greed of African governments is really to blame for low production of food. Many, maybe most countries were much better of during colonialism. Just in recent years Zimbabwe destroyed its farming base by dispossessing commercial farmers and while Zimbabwe previously exported food, it's people now have to be saved from starvation with food aid. South Africa is in the process of a similar folly, the land is redistributed to people who don't know, and probably don't want to learn, how to farm.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course food aid is a major curse on farming in Africa, how can a farmer, no matter how hard he works or how ambitious he is compete with free food?
eddie- Perhaps you you learn more before commenting.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Oil subsidies have nothing to do with the article in question.
2. The subsides in question in the US do not go to Exxon, but to a large number of small drilling companies.
3. Personally, I would have no issue with eliminating the subsidity to drillers in the US. We are spending over 1 trillion more each year than we are generating in revenue, but it has nothing to do with the countries in Africa being self sufficient.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisre a comment on colonialism.
Hint...Canada, Australia and New Zealand are former colonies and don't have these issues.
Most African nations have been independent for two generations.
@eddiequest
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't agree with Sisko's assertion that the US government has no role in helping to make other countries more productive and their inhabitants less poor.
I do, however, agree with the principle of debate that Sisko was trying to make. Whether it's right to spend more money on project A has nothing to do with whether it's right to spend more money on project B. It's not like a family that has to decide between buying a bigger house or a new car- one or the other.
The US has massive resources, a fiat currency, and a decent credit rating. We can (within limits) make the slices as big or small as we feel is just, because the pie is exactly as big as we say it is.
Billsmith
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately what you have written is untrue. The US is spending 1 trillion more year year than we are generating in revenue. This trend can not be sustained for more than a handful of years without there being a fundamental financial collapse in the value of US currency. What this means is that there will be some combination of revenue increases and spending cuts for the US economy. That is simply unavoidable. That means that ultimately very difficult choices will have to be made about what money is spent on, and many popular programs will have their spending cut.