This is what more than 250 scientists, farmers, policymakers and economists have come to discuss in Addis Ababa, to seriously consider for the first time what was once, in a time when wheat prices were low, merely a wish.

Hans-Joachim Braun, director of CIMMYT's Global Wheat program, said he had a hard time promoting the development of wheat fields in Africa when wheat prices were low. But times have changed.

International donors would say, recalled Braun, "wheat is not for Africa. You should grow tea, or rubber, or flowers."

"Five years ago, it was another story," he said.

Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500

10 Comments

1. 1. Sisko 11:29 AM 10/9/12

   Somehow 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 this

2. 2. eddiequest in reply to Sisko 12:10 PM 10/9/12

   Don't worry. I don't think Canada will continue that, once wheat growing shifts to the north.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. julia smith 01:55 PM 10/9/12

   Yes, 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 this

4. 4. Sisko in reply to julia smith 02:08 PM 10/9/12

   If 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 this

5. 5. eddiequest 02:55 PM 10/9/12

   Yeah. 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 this

6. 6. Fanandala 03:23 PM 10/9/12

   The 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.
   Of 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?

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

7. 7. Sisko in reply to eddiequest 04:22 PM 10/9/12

   eddie- Perhaps you you learn more before commenting.
   
   1. 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 this

8. 8. geojellyroll 06:29 PM 10/9/12

   
   re 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.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

9. 9. billsmith in reply to eddiequest 12:04 AM 10/10/12

   @eddiequest
   
   I 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.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

10. 10. Sisko in reply to billsmith 02:41 PM 10/10/12

    Billsmith
    
    Unfortunately 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.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this