By
CHRISTINE MUNGAI The EastAfrican
Malawi
was touted as a success story in Africa’s agriculture narrative.
An
intensive farm subsidy starting in 2004 made fertiliser and seed available to
farmers at a third of the normal cost, and the results were nearly
instantaneous.
In
2005, Malawi harvested a maize surplus of 500,000 tonnes, and soon began
exporting food to other countries in the region.
It
seemed a “green revolution” was in the making.
But
the scheme was opposed by donors who argued that a subsidy programme was
against the principles of free markets and was unsustainable; they also
criticised the increasing corruption associated with the scheme. Donors
withdrew their funding, and by 2011, a sustained forex shortage led to street
protests and political instability.
What
went wrong?
Today,
Malawi has gone from being a food-surplus country to a food-deficit one. What
went wrong? Masimba Tarifenyika, editor-in-chief at Africa Renewal, a UN online
magazine focusing on Africa, writes that autocracy and dependency on aid killed
the scheme, and that “while foreign aid is critical in feeding the hungry and
reviving agriculture in Africa, food security is too important to be left to
the generosity of external partners.”
Ephraim
Mukisira, director of the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, argues that
Malawi’s problem was “piecemeal” solutions to the agriculture sector. “If we
can have a well-integrated and holistic approach to the challenges facing
Kenya’s agriculture sector, then we can avoid going the Malawi way.”
No comments:
Post a Comment