This paper sheds light on the agricultural policies adopted in Africa, analyzing the methods followed and the reasons behind the failure to achieve the desired self-sufficiency. The study will present selected examples of specific agricultural policies, along with a critical analysis of the mistakes made in their implementation.
African Agricultural Policies
Agricultural policy is defined as a set of laws and regulations that govern local agriculture and agricultural imports. Governments implement these policies to achieve multiple objectives, such as ensuring a continuous supply of agricultural products, stabilizing prices, improving product quality, and efficiently using land.
At the dawn of the 21st century, Africa witnessed a significant expansion in agricultural land, reaching 2.38 billion hectares, a 52% increase over the past two decades, particularly in countries such as Angola, Ivory Coast, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mozambique, and Zambia. However, this expansion came at the expense of forests and ecosystems.
Despite this expansion—and the fact that agricultural activity remains the main source of livelihood, especially in rural areas where agriculture forms a fundamental part of the local economy—Africa faces significant challenges in food security. Approximately 20.4% of its population suffers from hunger, meaning that one in five individuals is malnourished. This regression in combating hunger indicates the ineffectiveness of current agricultural policies, highlighting the need for new policies that consider sustainability and address structural issues.
In the post-independence era, African agricultural policies focused on three main aspects that somewhat contributed to food security and economic development before external forces intervened to shift the African model of solidarity toward the European model. These African policies were then divided into three main categories: income-supporting policies through price support, agricultural income-supporting policies through aid, and agricultural policies related to improving agricultural infrastructure in its six forms. Below is a brief explanation of these policies:
First: Income-Supporting Policies through Price Support
Through these policies, governments ensure fair prices for farmers by setting price policies and purchasing crops at subsidized prices. For example, Kenya and Zambia adopted strategies in the 1970s and 1980s to boost the prices of key crops like maize, aiming to encourage local production and increase farmers’ incomes. Through the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP), launched in 2003 under the supervision of the African Union, these policies were strengthened with support from institutions such as the African Development Bank and the World Food Programme. In a socialist context, Tanzania implemented policies to purchase crops at subsidized prices under Julius Nyerere’s leadership, while in a capitalist context, Kenya bought coffee and tea at subsidized prices to stabilize markets and protect farmers. These policies aimed to achieve direct goals such as ensuring a stable income for farmers and strategic goals related to boosting local agricultural production and reducing reliance on imports.
Second: Agricultural Income-Supporting Policies through Aid
These were applied to address challenges such as natural disasters and economic crises. For instance, governments in countries like Malawi and Mozambique provided compensation to farmers affected by floods in the first decade of the millennium, while Zambia and Ghana compensated cocoa and cotton farmers after the 2008 global financial crisis. This support also included providing agricultural inputs such as seeds, fertilizers, and training on best agricultural practices, supported by organizations like the African Development Bank and the World Food Programme. These policies aimed to achieve direct goals such as providing essential inputs to farmers and strategic goals related to improving long-term agricultural productivity and promoting sustainability in the agricultural sector.
Third: Agricultural Policies Related to Improving Agricultural Infrastructure
These policies are divided into six main points:
Policies Affecting Farm Size: Since the 1980s, countries like Zimbabwe and South Africa have implemented land reforms aimed at redistributing land from white minorities to black majorities. For example, Zimbabwe’s land reform program began in 1980. Despite the goals of these policies, their impact was mixed, as they sometimes led to reduced agricultural productivity due to the refusal of external supporters to provide resources to new African farmers.
Policies Related to Demographics and Their Impact on Agricultural Production: In Sudan, for example, policies were implemented to encourage youth to enter the agricultural sector through training programs and financing for small agricultural projects in the new millennium. These policies aimed to address demographic challenges and improve production through youth participation, given their observed reluctance to engage in agriculture.
Policies for Improving Infrastructure Supporting Agricultural Activities: With support from the World Bank and the African Development Bank, projects to improve irrigation and roads were funded in countries like Mali and Ghana in the 1990s, contributing to improved market access for farmers and increased productivity.
Policies for Agricultural Research and Development and Agricultural Extension Financing: Institutions like the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) worked on developing drought-resistant and disease-resistant crop varieties in Nigeria and Uganda, enhancing food security and sustainability.
Agricultural Financing Policies: As a result of financial reforms imposed by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank in the 1980s and 1990s, agricultural financing was restructured in several African countries. These reforms reduced government support for agriculture, which increased difficulties for small farmers and negatively impacted agricultural production.
Policies Encouraging the Establishment of Agricultural Cooperatives: In Kenya and Rwanda, agricultural cooperatives were promoted as part of rural development policies in the late 1990s. These cooperatives helped improve agricultural production and protect the environment by adopting sustainable agricultural practices, although they faced challenges such as lack of funding and poor planning and implementation.
The immediate goals of these policies were related to building and modernizing agricultural infrastructure, such as roads, irrigation systems, and storage facilities, to provide the necessary logistical support and improve the efficiency of agricultural operations. The strategic goals aimed to enable farmers to increase their productivity and improve their access to markets, thereby enhancing rural economic growth and increasing the income of agricultural communities. However, these policies faced challenges, such as the conditions of international loans that did not align with the local context, leading to debt accumulation without achieving the expected benefits. Additionally, the lack of consideration for the local social and economic context hindered the achievement of self-sufficiency and the sustainable and effective development of the agricultural sector.
Subsequent issues with all of the aforementioned policies were that African agricultural policies were all imported from abroad, leading to their disastrous failure, which will be discussed in the next part of the study.
Part Two: The Gap Between Agricultural Policies in Theory and Their Application on the Ground
In recent decades, Africa has seen a shift toward regional integration, adopting agricultural policy models inspired by the European experience. While these efforts have led to relative transformations, they have also faced ongoing challenges due to the unsuitability of some of these models to the African context:
The Imported European Model and Structural Challenges in Africa:
The roots of these policies trace back to the post-World War II era, when the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) of the European Economic Community was established under the Treaty of Rome in 1957. This policy aimed to achieve food self-sufficiency by modernizing the agricultural sector through farm expansion and the intensification of technology. Operationally, responsibilities were distributed at the European level, with agricultural unions supporting and participating in the formation and implementation of this framework. This expanded the “joint management” model of French agricultural policy to the European level by establishing the Committee of Professional Agricultural Organizations (COPA) within the European Economic Community. This led to Europe’s success in eliminating famine.
The influence of exporting the European model was evident in projects like common agricultural policies and shared markets for agricultural products, which were implemented in various regional blocs such as the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA). However, despite external support, these projects revealed structural challenges in Africa, where the application of the European model was not fully compatible with local conditions.
In the late 1980s, with the rise of neoliberalism under the guidance of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, a gap began to emerge between African agricultural models and those imported from Europe. Structural adjustment policies led to reduced agricultural sector budgets and the dismantling of public structures, resulting in the removal of price support policies that benefited small farmers. Although export prices increased due to these policies, they became more susceptible to global market fluctuations.
In the African context, integration processes differed significantly from their European counterparts due to political instability, regional armed conflicts, and ethnic tensions. African regimes were often authoritarian or practiced pseudo-democracy, leading to elite corruption and a lack of strategic vision in national agricultural policies. This absence made regional initiatives seem haphazard and inconsistent, especially with the lack of coordination between national and regional policies, leading to overlapping and often unfeasible competing projects.
Moreover, the membership of African countries in multiple regional blocs with conflicting objectives further complicated efforts to achieve effective integration and cooperation. In the end, attempts to apply the European model in Africa did not align with local conditions, as many countries lacked the necessary capabilities to implement integrated and effective agricultural policies that could replicate the success of the European experience.
The Rise of Public-Private Partnerships in Line with Liberal Policies:
Amid the adoption of liberal policies, Africa witnessed the rise of public-private partnerships to compensate for the lack of government funding for agricultural sector development. These partnerships, strongly supported by the World Bank, IMF, and the Group of Eight, aimed to achieve public service goals such as providing essential services like electricity and water. They later expanded to include financing agricultural infrastructure and vital services such as agricultural research, training, irrigation, and the supply of inputs.
These partnerships became an essential part of agricultural development programs in Africa, particularly within the framework of the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP). These programs relied on agricultural investment plans that were partially funded from abroad and by the private sector. Key players in these partnerships included Olam International and Louis Dreyfus Company, both of which play significant roles in financing and developing agricultural activities and marketing products. For example, Louis Dreyfus processed over 70 million tons of agricultural products in 2012, and Olam operated in 65 countries, processing 10.7 million tons of agricultural products worth $17 billion.
A negative consequence of this – in a continent that should have adopted protectionist economic policies before opening up to the market – was the private sector’s takeover of agriculture, turning it into the backbone of agricultural policies. This resulted in the state’s diminished role in directly addressing hunger, which was a strategic error.
The Imported European Model and Economic Challenges in Africa:
Due to insufficient study of the feasibility of foreign agricultural policies’ success, Africa faced additional economic and food challenges. While Europe succeeded in addressing hunger issues after World War II, Sub-Saharan Africa saw a decline. As a result, food conditions deteriorated, with the number of people suffering from chronic malnutrition rising from 173 million in the 1990s to 206 million in the early 2000s. This is a clear indication of the failure of imported agricultural policies. Furthermore, traditional agriculture in Africa suffered from a significant decline in productivity. The effectiveness of the export-oriented agricultural economy, which was considered a driver of development in the 1970s, declined, and it could no longer meet economic ambitions. This situation created a vicious cycle of poverty, weakened demand for local and international products, while African agricultural products like coffee and cocoa faced intense competition and sharp fluctuations in global markets.
Additionally, poverty and food insecurity in rural areas led to mass migration to cities, which lacked a strong industrial sector capable of absorbing this surplus labor, exacerbating urban poverty problems and further complicating the continent’s economic situation.
Additional Impacts on African Agricultural Systems and Institutions:
The repercussions of liberal policies and Western-imported models have extended beyond affecting individuals and communities, also influencing agricultural systems and institutions. This has led to a historical weakening of national agricultural policies and increased dependency on the West, evident in several key areas.
Firstly: Weakening of Historical Agricultural Policies:
In the 1960s and 1970s, external actors heavily intervened in the African agricultural sector, investing significant resources to develop it according to Western models. However, this approach favored urban populations over rural ones, leading to rural-to-urban migration. This neglect of rural areas, which are the main food production base in Africa, resulted in the weakening of agricultural policies that previously supported the continent’s needs.
Secondly: Weakening of National Institutions:
External interventions, particularly through liberal policies, have undermined national agricultural institutions. By the late 1990s, structural adjustment programs opened the door to new policies, but these policies eroded the ability of national governments to exercise agricultural sovereignty. This created a gap between the state and local farmers, who became increasingly dependent on foreign donors.
Thirdly: States’ Reluctance to Invest in Agriculture:
Despite agriculture being a cornerstone of the African economy, providing about 70% of employment in some countries and being the main source of income and foreign exchange, agricultural policies have suffered from neglect by the ruling elite. For long periods, many African states imposed high taxes on agriculture to fund industrial development, leading to a decline in investment in the agricultural sector. Although countries committed to allocating larger budgets for agriculture, such as the African Union’s 2003 Maputo Declaration to allocate 10% of national investment budgets to the agricultural sector, implementation has been weak. Between 1997 and 2001, only 5% of budgets were allocated to agriculture, compared to 6% between 1990 and 1997, reflecting the continued neglect of this sector.
These combined factors have led to African agricultural policies being heavily reliant on external models and standards, making the continent more dependent on the West. This dependency is reinforced by mechanisms such as the World Trade Organization, which disproportionately favors developed countries and reduces the independence of African agricultural policies. This presents significant challenges to achieving sustainable agricultural development that meets the needs and aspirations of African peoples.
What Methods Can Be Adopted to Improve Coordination Among African Agricultural Bodies?
After the continent’s reliance on European agricultural models, traditional agriculture, which was the cornerstone of food security, declined. This shift led farmers to focus on export crops that are of interest to international donors, resulting in internal food crises. Meanwhile, farmers could not fully benefit financially from exports due to a lack of advanced production means and the necessary funding for non-export crops. As a result, Africa faced a dual crisis: an inability to produce enough basic crops for the population and difficulty achieving economic returns from export crops due to a lack of technology, funding, and agricultural guidance.
To address this disparity, several continental initiatives were launched, including the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), established in 2001 to promote sustainable economic growth, eliminate poverty, and improve Africa’s position in the global economy. NEPAD identified six strategic areas: infrastructure development, education enhancement, support for sustainable agriculture, environmental protection, cultural promotion, and progress in science and technology. The initiative was formulated and developed by prominent African leaders such as Thabo Mbeki of South Africa, Abdelaziz Bouteflika of Algeria, Abdoulaye Wade of Senegal, Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria, and Hosni Mubarak of Egypt.
In 2014, the Malabo Declaration was adopted as a strategic framework for agricultural development in Africa, focusing on accelerating agricultural growth and eliminating hunger by 2025. The importance of periodic reviews to assess progress was emphasized, with the 2018 report showing that 20 African countries were making significant progress toward achieving these goals.
However, despite these ambitious initiatives, current data indicates that the goals of eliminating hunger by 2025 and 2030 will not be met. According to reports from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), approximately 868 million people in Africa experienced varying degrees of food insecurity in 2022, highlighting the need for fundamental changes in African agricultural policies to increase the chances of success for these initiatives.
What Fundamental Changes Are Necessary to Improve Agricultural Guidance?
To answer this question, it is essential to review the early strategic errors made in African agriculture and the reasons why, without addressing and correcting these errors, the adopted agricultural policies are always at risk of failure, hindering the continent’s ability to achieve its goal of eliminating hunger.
The First Strategic Error: Neglecting the State’s Responsibilities in Eliminating Hunger
It is a well-established fact that the task of feeding the people cannot be left to foreign-owned companies or the private sector. A significant strategic error in African agricultural policies is the delegation of responsibility for food security to the private sector and foreign-owned agricultural companies. This leaves African populations at the mercy of external investments and funding, leading governments to overlook their primary role in eliminating hunger. Successful countries in combating hunger historically take the initiative directly in developing and implementing their agricultural policies. China is a notable example of this.
In 1994, Lester Brown, one of the leading environmental experts and founder of the Worldwatch Institute and Earth Policy Institute in Washington, posed a provocative question: “Who will feed China?” in the coming years. Brown predicted that by 2030, China would need to import between 207 and 369 million tons of grain, exceeding the total global grain exports at the time. Brown’s predictions were based on China’s limited natural resources compared to its population size and the rapid shift toward industrialization, which could reduce available agricultural land, leading to increased reliance on food imports. He also warned that this growing demand from China could drive up global grain prices, putting poor countries in a difficult position, as they might be unable to afford these price increases, potentially leading to a global food crisis.
Contrary to Brown’s predictions, China, through well-planned government policies and strategic investments in agriculture, achieved food self-sufficiency and increased productivity, significantly reducing poverty rates. Since 1979, China has achieved a 5% annual growth in agricultural production for thirty years, helping to boost the national economy and reduce extreme poverty. Agriculture has been the foundation of China’s economic growth, contributing to job creation and stimulating the local economy. Additionally, government policies reduced poverty rates from 63% in 1978 to less than 3% today.
China, which has historically faced significant challenges in feeding its large population despite limited arable land, not only achieved self-sufficiency but now feeds 20% of the world’s population using just 10% of the world’s arable land and 6% of global water reserves. This success came as a result of gradual liberalization of the agricultural sector and improvements in productivity and efficiency through state interventions. This is a lesson African countries must understand and apply. The experiences of countries like Russia and Brazil also underscore the importance of governments taking responsibility for feeding their populations without relying on the private sector or foreign donors.
It is a valuable lesson in economic intelligence in agriculture! Governments that cannot secure the necessary food for their populations at affordable prices inadvertently pave the way for their imminent demise. Many African leaders view leaving the issue of food security to foreign traders and speculators as normal.
Thus, it becomes clear that China serves as the best model for Africa, having managed to feed its 1.4 billion people using an area of only 9.5 million square kilometers, equivalent to one-third of Africa’s size, which is home to one billion people and spans 30 million square kilometers. The aim is not to replicate China’s models but to learn from them that the project to eliminate hunger is directly undertaken by governments and not left to the private sector or foreign-owned companies. The Chinese model demonstrates the importance of well-planned government intervention in achieving food security and economic stability, which is the first challenge for agricultural policies, according to many experts.
The Second Strategic Error: Aligning with International Organizations’ Recommendations to Trade Land for Money
One of the significant strategic errors in African agricultural policies lies in adopting agricultural policies recommended by international organizations without considering local specificities, particularly regarding land tenure. During the implementation of restructuring policies by the World Bank, the idea of leasing agricultural land to foreign countries and companies became prevalent, which raises serious problems unless sufficient agricultural land and holdings are provided for local farmers to ensure local production and export. In Zambia, for instance, World Bank policies encourage land exploitation to borrow money and establish commercial projects, glorifying the idea of using money as a means to escape poverty without considering the use of land for agriculture to provide food and shelter. This approach has led to African populations being affected by the neoliberal war that has enabled Western monopolies to penetrate the continent and destroy the agricultural sector.
As a result, the current African food system relies on export-oriented monoculture, reinforcing land grabbing and food speculation. This approach is a continuation of colonialism that began in the 19th century and makes it difficult to achieve self-sufficiency as long as agricultural holdings are not in the hands of farmers or the state. Over the years, with such recommendations, the continent’s economies have followed a weak approach in the global market, responding to the International Monetary Fund and World Bank’s directives by having governments withdraw from supporting agriculture and reducing the role of relevant ministries to promoting illusory developmental projects.
In Egypt, for example, wheat production reaches about 10 million tons annually, but farmers supply only a third of this amount to the government for use in producing subsidized bread, with the rest going to the private sector. This is a result of successive governments in Egypt after the Nasser era abandoning centrally directed economic policies, leading to the concentration of wealth among a small elite of businessmen, who are the main supporters of the ruling regimes. To bolster this dominance, Egypt has allied with the West, particularly the United States, since 1974
, which has greatly contributed to the country’s erosion of self-sufficiency. The Egyptian political elite has allowed the private sector to monopolize essential crops and has expanded the area of international market-oriented crops, leading to a halt in reclaiming desert lands for the cultivation of wheat or basic crops.
This dependency on the international market for food production has led to the increase of foreign debt, negatively affecting the national economy. Despite Egypt having better conditions than other countries, the country imports more than 60% of its food needs and heavily relies on Russian wheat, importing more than 50% of its wheat from Russia and Ukraine. This model is applicable to many African countries that have embraced neoliberal policies in food production, contributing to the gradual erosion of food sovereignty. It also highlights the significant danger of trading land for money without considering local needs and the strategic importance of agricultural land for food security.
The Third Strategic Error: Prioritizing Neoliberal Interests Over Local Needs
The third strategic error in African agricultural policies lies in prioritizing neoliberal interests over local needs, which has led to the continent becoming a net importer of food despite its vast agricultural potential. This error is closely linked to the previous two: neglecting state responsibility in ensuring food security and trading land for money without considering local agricultural needs. The reliance on international markets for food production and the prioritization of cash crops over staple food crops have led to food insecurity, as local production cannot meet the growing population’s needs.
Additionally, the prioritization of neoliberal interests has resulted in the erosion of traditional agricultural knowledge and practices, which are often more sustainable and better suited to local conditions than imported Western models. The focus on cash crops for export has also led to environmental degradation, as monoculture farming depletes the soil and reduces biodiversity, making the land less productive over time.
To address these strategic errors and improve agricultural policies in Africa, it is essential to prioritize local needs over neoliberal interests, promote sustainable agricultural practices, and support small-scale farmers who are more likely to produce food for local consumption. African governments must take a more active role in ensuring food security, investing in agriculture, and implementing policies that support the continent’s long-term agricultural development.
The Necessary Fundamental Changes
1. Reaffirming Government Responsibility in Agriculture:
Governments must take full responsibility for feeding their populations and not rely on the private sector or foreign donors. This includes investing in agricultural research, infrastructure, and education to improve productivity and ensure food security.
2. Reevaluating Land Policies:
African countries should reconsider their land policies to prioritize food production for local consumption rather than exporting cash crops. This includes providing secure land tenure for small-scale farmers and preventing land grabs by foreign investors.
3. Prioritizing Local Needs Over Neoliberal Interests:
Agricultural policies should focus on meeting the needs of the local population rather than prioritizing the interests of international markets. This includes supporting traditional agricultural practices, promoting sustainable farming methods, and reducing dependency on imported food.
4. Implementing Comprehensive Agricultural Strategies:
African governments must develop and implement comprehensive agricultural strategies that address the continent’s unique challenges, such as climate change, population growth, and limited access to resources. These strategies should be based on local knowledge and practices and should involve all stakeholders, including small-scale farmers, local communities, and civil society organizations.
5. Enhancing Regional Cooperation:
Regional cooperation among African countries is essential for addressing common agricultural challenges and sharing best practices. This includes strengthening regional organizations like the African Union and promoting initiatives like the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) to coordinate efforts and resources.
6. Investing in Agricultural Infrastructure:
Investment in agricultural infrastructure, such as irrigation systems, storage facilities, and transportation networks, is crucial for improving productivity and reducing post-harvest losses. Governments should prioritize these investments to support small-scale farmers and enhance food security.
7. Supporting Agricultural Research and Innovation:
Research and innovation are key to developing new technologies and practices that can improve agricultural productivity and sustainability. African governments should invest in agricultural research institutions and support collaborations with international research organizations to address the continent’s specific challenges.
8. Promoting Sustainable Agricultural Practices:
Sustainable agricultural practices, such as agroecology, organic farming, and conservation agriculture, should be promoted to protect the environment and ensure long-term food security. Governments should provide incentives and support for farmers adopting these practices.
9. Improving Access to Credit and Financial Services:
Access to credit and financial services is essential for small-scale farmers to invest in their farms and improve productivity. Governments should work to improve access to affordable credit and financial services for farmers, particularly women and youth, who often face barriers to accessing these resources.
10. Strengthening Agricultural Education and Training:
Agricultural education and training are critical for building the capacity of farmers and agricultural professionals. Governments should invest in agricultural education at all levels, from primary schools to universities, and provide training programs for farmers to improve their skills and knowledge.
By implementing these fundamental changes, African countries can develop more effective agricultural policies that address the continent’s unique challenges and promote sustainable development. These changes will help to ensure that Africa can feed its growing population, reduce poverty, and achieve long-term food security.
Fourth: Major Challenges Facing African Agriculture
Since this paper does not address agricultural methods and techniques or the reasons for their failure, but rather discusses agricultural policies and the mistakes committed within this framework, the mention of challenges will be incidental at most. To answer the question of which methods can be adopted to improve agricultural infrastructure and the possible models for agricultural institutions in Africa, several strategies can be followed to overcome these challenges.
Adapting Models to Local Realities: Instead of directly copying European models, new policies that align with the unique African conditions should be adopted. This requires examining successful local experiences and drawing lessons from them, such as enhancing local agricultural innovations and traditional agricultural techniques that have proven effective in specific contexts, as in the cases of Morocco and Rwanda, for example.
Enhancing Basic Infrastructure: To ensure the effectiveness of agricultural policies, it is necessary to improve the essential infrastructure, such as roads, irrigation systems, and storage facilities, to facilitate farmers’ access to markets and increase productivity. Supporting these efforts with sufficient funding from governments and proper planning is vital.
Coordinating Regional and National Policies: Greater coordination between national and regional agricultural policies is needed to prevent duplication of efforts and conflicts of interest. Establishing common platforms for cooperation among member states in regional and purely African blocs can help promote integration and reduce unnecessary competition between regional organizations.
Strengthening Political Stability: Political stability is a fundamental condition for effectively implementing agricultural policies. African countries should work on promoting good governance, reducing corruption, and creating a stable and secure environment that allows for the uninterrupted implementation of agricultural policies.
Engaging Local Communities: To ensure the success of agricultural policies, local communities and farmers must be involved in the decision-making process and policy implementation. This includes providing technical and financial support to small farmers and encouraging agricultural cooperatives.
Enhancing Research and Development: Investing in agricultural research and development to boost crop productivity and improve crop resistance to drought and diseases can play a significant role in bridging the gap between theory and practice. African countries should cooperate with international and local research institutions to achieve this goal. This issue is particularly critical in Africa, as countries with high agricultural performance invest heavily in research and development, which enables them to find innovative solutions to fight hunger and improve food security. This was the case with the United States, followed by the European Union, and currently China, Russia, and Brazil. In the United States, private spending in this field ranged between $15 and $20 billion by 2020, but public sector spending has declined compared to a significant increase in private sector investments. On the other hand, China has become the leading country in funding government agricultural research, surpassing the United States by a large margin since 2009, with its support doubling that of the United States in 2013. Similarly, India and Brazil have made significant investments.
As for Russia, its annual spending on agricultural research and development is rising, and it ranks among the major agricultural producers with a long history of supporting research, especially in areas such as improving crop varieties, food technology, and producing nitrogenous mineral fertilizers using Russian natural gas.
Achieving tangible progress in agriculture requires substantial investments in agricultural research and development, in addition to collaborating with suitable allies to secure the necessary technology for groundwater extraction, energy production, and advancements in fertilizers and seeds to achieve highly profitable agricultural production. For example, Burkina Faso signed an agreement with Russia to build a small nuclear reactor for power generation, which will allow it to surpass its neighbors in energy and agriculture in the next decade. This strategy demonstrates the importance of forming alliances with serious partners to achieve sustainable agricultural and economic goals, a model that many other African countries should follow.
Improving Management and Planning: Implementing agricultural policies requires effective management and long-term planning. This demands strengthening institutional capacities and providing the necessary resources to ensure the systematic and sustainable implementation of agricultural policies.
Reevaluating International Conditions and Even Alliances in Agricultural Affairs: African countries should negotiate the terms of transferring agricultural technology and adopting it within Africa, rather than allowing foreign companies to take on these tasks. They should also negotiate international aid so that it aligns with their local needs and economic and social conditions. These terms must be flexible enough to allow for the development of sustainable and effective agricultural policies.
By following these strategies, African countries can reduce the gap between theoretical agricultural policies and their practical application, thereby enhancing their ability to achieve food security and improve the livelihoods of farmers on the continent.
Conclusion
Pierre Rabhi (1938-2021), the inventor, agricultural scientist, and French philosopher of Algerian origin, once wrote: “Cultivating your land, no matter how small, is an act of political resistance.”
Colonialism, in the European concept, is defined as the process of preparing African wilderness for agriculture, converting unowned virgin lands into agricultural use, ignoring the original rights of the inhabitants. The wars of independence in Africa were a direct challenge to this policy.
After independence, many African politicians fell into the trap of negligence, proud of Africa’s beauty, sovereignty, and recent independence, without realizing that the first step towards true independence must be the promotion of land development. The independent acquisition and development of land is a fundamental step towards liberation from colonialism. This justifies Pierre Rabhi’s vision that agriculture is not just an economic and nutritional activity but a true act of political resistance.
In my second year in the Department of Political Science at Kuwait University, we enrolled in a course titled “Political and Economic Theories of Agricultural Development,” which raised many questions in my mind about the relevance of agriculture to political science. I was convinced that this field should be limited to agricultural engineers. However, as the lectures progressed, I began to understand that agriculture is not exclusive to agricultural engineers; economists and politicians also play a significant role in shaping its policies. An agricultural engineer may know the best way to grow corn and potatoes, but economic and political experts in the state must determine crop cultivation priorities based on economic and social considerations. It is the policy—the Minister of Agriculture—that poses the question: Is it better to plant cocoa or cassava? Rubber trees or bananas? These are choices that politicians must make, based on limited resources and the need to make the most of them to eliminate hunger crises.
Not only that, but the course was also a great source of inspiration, starting from the first lesson, where the lecturer explained that throughout history, famines have been the primary cause of the downfall of many governments.
During the lectures, the professor reviewed the political stability of Roman governments and how the Romans used economic theories and agricultural policies to strengthen their stability through a system known as “Frumentationes,” established by Gaius Sempronius Gracchus in 123 BC. This system mandated that the Roman state provide food at a fixed and specified price to prevent speculation and ensure food availability for the population.
The law stipulated that the state provide each family with 45.3 kg of bread monthly, and this tradition continued under Emperor Augustus. When Cicero became the official spokesman of the Senate, he found that the costs of this program burdened the Roman treasury, but he decided not to cancel it due to the risk of social unrest.
However, in 58 BC, Publius Clodius Pulcher expanded the program, making the state provide free bread to all families in the Roman Republic. After Julius Caesar took power, he faced challenges due to exploitation by the wealthy and the unwillingness of farmers to work, which led him to limit the program’s beneficiaries to poor families only, reducing the number of beneficiaries from 320,000 to 150,000. These policies are among the earliest examples of Keynesian economic policy in history. These are policies that conscious states still practice even in the present day.
In light of these historical experiences, it becomes evident how economic policies aimed at providing food security can enhance government stability and prevent social unrest. Governments that cannot secure the necessary food for their populations at reasonable prices are unknowingly paving the way for their imminent demise. Many African leaders see leaving the issue of food security for citizens in the hands of traders and speculators as natural.
Contemporary realities should provide essential lessons in self-awareness and national sovereignty. For instance, countries like Cameroon continue to focus on supporting cocoa cultivation, utilizing the best lands in the country, while relying on aid from the World Food Programme to feed their people, importing rice, wheat, potatoes, tomatoes, and beans, while their agricultural policies fail to achieve measurable goals to reduce hunger or decrease dependence on imports. This leads us to ask: Are current Ministers of Agriculture truly Ministers of Agriculture, or are they assuming responsibilities akin to Ministers of Gardens?
European geostrategic policies in agriculture have never allowed African products to enter Europe unless it was impossible to replace them with similar European products. Europe welcomes cotton, cocoa, coffee, and other “colonial” crops because they do not compete with European production.
However, the biggest obstacle facing Africa is not the European Union itself but the inherent mediocrity and dependence mentality that prevails on the continent, where acting on behalf of others and relying on foreigners to manage affairs that should have been managed locally, such as training national football teams or managing the largest public companies or agricultural policies, is preferred.
The continued reliance on limited agriculture for crops like cocoa, which are grown for very minimal profit compared to the potential of other crops such as bananas, which can achieve much higher profits, reflects this lack of self-awareness and ongoing foreign exploitation. This preference for European advice and its reverence indicates a lack of self-confidence and dependency, where the West is always seen as superior in its choices and guidance, even in vital matters like cultivating essential crops or determining agricultural policy directions.
It is essential for politicians to reassess their reality, armed with awareness of their national and personal interests, to build a future based on self-reliance and activating local capacities rather than waiting for external guidance that may ultimately only serve its interests.
An honest agricultural policy requires placing the Minister of Agriculture in the shoes of the poorest citizen to understand their daily challenges in obtaining food and to provide the most effective solutions to these challenges.
References
Ngounou, Boris. “AFRICA: Arable land increased by 52% in 20 years”, published on August 2022, modified on August 1, 2022. Available at: https://www.afrik21.africa/en/africa-arable-land-increased-by-52-in-20-… (visited on August 5, 2024)
– World Health Organization. “The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2024: Financing to End Hunger, Food Insecurity and Malnutrition in All Its Forms”, July 24, 2024. Available at: https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/the-state-of-food-security-and-nutrition-in-the-world-2024. (visited on August 10, 2024)
– FAO. “African Economic Integration and Food Security”, 2008, Rome.
– FAO. “Agriculture: Towards 2015/30, Technical Interim Report”, 2000b, Rome.
– FAO. “Agriculture, Trade and Food Security: Issues and Options in the WTO Negotiations from the Perspective of Developing Countries”, Report and papers of an FAO Symposium held in Geneva on 23-24 September 1999, 2000a, Rome.
– Ribier, Vincent; Baris, Pierre. “VERS UN RENOUVEAU DE POLITIQUES AGRICOLES EN AFRIQUE?”, économiste, chercheur, UMR – ART-Dév, Centre de coopération internationale en recherche agronomique pour le développement (CIRAD), 2013. Disponible sur: https://agritrop.cirad.fr/570488/1/document_570488.pdf. (visited on August 15, 2024)
– Dieye, Papa Nouhine, Dr. “Les politiques agricoles en Afrique subsaharienne : une symphonie inachevée.” In “41-42 : L’agriculture en quête de politiques,” published July 7, 2008. Available at: https://www.inter-reseaux.org/publication/41-42-lagriculture-en-quete-de-politiques/les-politiques-agricoles-en-afrique-subsaharienne-une-symphonie-inachevee/. (visited on August 5, 2024)
– He, Yong; Simon, Jean-Christophe. “La dynamique agricole chinoise face au commerce mondial : un nouveau big bang ?”, in Revue Tiers Monde, 2005/3 (no 183), pp. 517-537. Available at: https://www.cairn.info/revue-tiers-monde-2005-3-page-517.htm. (visited on August 12, 2024)
– Wetzels, Hans. “Les agriculteurs africains pourraient bénéficier de politiques agricoles plus favorables de l’UE”, Afrique Renouveau, 4 Juin 2021. Available at: https://www.un.org/africarenewal/fr/magazine/juin-2021/les-agriculteurs-africains-pourraient-b%C3%A9n%C3%A9ficier-de-politiques-agricoles-plus. (visited on August 5, 2024)
– African Union. “Malabo Declaration on Accelerated Agricultural Growth and Transformation for Shared Prosperity and Improved Livelihoods”, 2014. Available at: https://www.resakss.org/sites/default/files/Malabo%20Declaration%20on%20Agriculture_2014_11%2026-.pdf. (visited on August 5, 2024)
– Herault, Bruno. “L’agriculture, clé du devenir économique et social chinois”, Centre d’études et de prospective, No. 24, October 2010. Available at: https://agreste.agriculture.gouv.fr/agreste-web/download/publication/publie/Ana24/Ana24.pdf. (visited on August 9, 2024)
– Essolomwa, Laurent. “Chine-Afrique : le ‘miracle agricole chinois’ n’a pris que 30 ans”, ADIAC, August 20, 2020. Available at: https://www.hubrural.org/Chine-Afrique-le-miracle-agricole.html?lang=fr. (visited on August 12, 2024)
– Pougala, Jean-Paul. “The coming water war between Africa and Europe”, English translation by Eyembe Elango, Atlanta (USA), September 4th, 2013, Douala, September 3rd, 2013, pp. 126-136.
– Sano, Hans-Otto. “The IMF and Zambia: The Contradictions of Exchange Rate Auctioning and De-Subsidization of Agriculture”, African Affairs, Vol. 87, No. 349 (October 1988), pp. 563-577. Published by: Oxford University Press.
– Richards, Alan. “Egypt’s Agriculture in Trouble”, Middle East Research and Information Project: Critical Coverage of the Middle East Since 1971, 84 (January 1980). Available at: https://merip.org/1980/01/egypts-agriculture-in-trouble/. (visited on August 5, 2024)
– United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). “Egypt scales up climate adaptation actions of its agriculture, water and agrifood sectors”, 5 September 2022. Available at: https://www.preventionweb.net/news/egypt-scales-climate-adaptation-actions-its-agriculture-water-and-agrifood-sectors. (visited on August 14, 2024)
– Pougala, Jean-Paul. “50 ans d’erreurs géostratégiques des dirigeants africains : l’exemple de la banane”, dans le livre Geostrategie Africaine, 5 mai 2012, pp. 470-475.
– Pougala, Jean-Paul. “Les plus gros mensonges sur la coopération entre la Chine et l’Afrique”, dans le livre Geostrategie Africaine, Tome 1, Douala, le 26 juillet 2013, pp. 240-256.
– Plastina, Alejandro; Townsend, Terry. “World Spending on Agricultural Research and Development”, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University, 2023. Available at: https://agpolicyreview.card.iastate.edu/winter-2023/world-spending-agricultural-research-and-development. (visited on August 15, 2024)
