Tuesday 7 December, 2010
SUPPORTING THE PROMOTERS OF THE GREEN REVOLUTION
UPSIDE DOWN
kilimokwanza@guardian.co.tz
98% 85%
Land unsurveyed Population that directly depends on agriculture
70%
Fruit that goes to waste
60%
Rural population living in extreme poverty
A Snapshot of 50% Milk that goes to waste Agriculture in Tanzania: The Negatives 40% Grain and fish wasted Occupy the Higher Arable land under 23% inefficient Percentages cultivation of Tanzania’s Budgetary allocation to 7% agriculture Agriculture Cultivated land under cash crops
4% 1.5%
0.8%
Irrigable land under irrigation xxxxxx
Growth rate of Agriculture sector in 09/10
The Guardian KILIMO KWANZA
Tuesday 7 December, 2010
EDITORIAL
2
inside
Technology, no doubt, but regardless of costs?
T
HE centre-piece article in this supplement touches on the gains nations stand to make by introducing genetically engineered – or modified – organisms, more popularly known as GMOs. As usual, the focus is on foodstuffs. But the writer does not forget to discuss the headaches and heartaches the technology has in store not only for those nations adopting it but for humankind in general. This portion of the piece makes horrendously alarming reading. The negative side of GMOs notwithstanding, the ferocity with which technology is spreading has been assuming alarming proportions. Indeed, few countries appear to have enough stamina to stand their ground as the current sweeps across the globe. For many, it is just a matter of time before ‘necessity’ forces them to embrace the technology as well. For quite some time after some of its neighbours decided that time to give way to technology, Tanzania remained relatively stable. There is however now evidence that it too has snapped and could soon be a paradise for GMOs. The Guardian reported as long ago as mid-March 2005 that the government had been asked to reschedule the tabling of a draft policy in the National Assembly at least to give stakeholders time to study and review the document. A national network of agricultural groups and a second farmers’ association known as Participatory Ecological Land Use Management (PELUM-Tanzania) argues that the government drew up the draft policy literally unbeknownst to other most other stakeholders and therefore without caring to include their view. In the opinion of the two associations, the draft policy was in flagrant contravention to the Cartagena Agreement, which Tanzania had signed two years earlier. Now, the said agreement is essentially an international protocol on biosafety. It was negotiated under the Convention on Biological Diversity and has a raft of requirements member countries are expected to comply with in relation to GMOs. The two associations’ argument, and indeed the argument of most of the countries and agencies reluctant to embrace the controversial but aggressively touted technology, is that scientific research is yet to prove – beyond reasonable doubt – the technology’s safety on people’s lives and the environment.
Artwork
& Design: KN Mayunga
It is therefore argued that, regardless of the technology’s capacity to stave off hunger and poverty, there is still great need to take precautionary measures to protect the health of Tanzanians because adopting it wholesale without weighing the gravity of the consequences could spell a worse disaster than if it were shelved. Until just over five years ago, reports said South Africa was the only African country engaged in the commercial production of genetically modified crops, while Egypt, Burkina Faso, Kenya, Tunisia and Zimbabwe had begun GM crop production experiments. Tanzania has not been especially transparent about what is going on in its own agricultural and other laboratories with respect to similar trials, but it is reported on authority that some work has been going on. Both experts and ordinary citizens are agreed on the need for the country to develop agriculture to a level at which it can improve food security in both the short term and on a more sustainable basis. There is however as yet no consensus on whether to embrace or forget about GM technology as part of a national strategy aimed at making the country self-sufficient in its food requirements. Our view is that the issue around which the raging debate revolves is crucial to the nation’s survival and development and should continue – in the spirit of the Kilimo Kwanza initiative. The fact that the pros and cons of GM technology are now also being discussed in the context of the food and other requirements of all the five East African Community partner states adds invaluable weight to the need for Tanzanians to take a fresh, more serious look at their development strategies and priorities and which technology to adopt. Surely, it shouldn’t be all manner of technology or technology irrespective of the costs involved.
7
EAC Heads of State Lift Ban on Food Exports
Divestiture of Ranches Increases Local Investment
I
By Kilimo Kwanza Reporter
SME Surveyors Urged to Remember Farmers
7
Wallace Mauggo Editor
8 To have your organisation promoted in Kilimo Kwanza, Call: 0787 571308, 0655 571308 0754 571308
The Guardian KILIMO KWANZA
Tuesday 7 December, 2010
f American all-round artiste Diana Ross were asked to assess Tanzania’s Agriculture, she would smile with reflexive content at the way the title of her everlasting hit ‘Upside Down’ has been preserved here. For the country’s agriculture sector seems to be organised according to the famous inverted pyramid, with the negatives heavily packed at the top and the positives down in the diminishing bottom. Only last week, President Jakaya Kikwete warned of the danger we are courting continuing to rely on unreliable rainfall for food production. Well, at the bottom of the pyramid of percentages, we have irrigation, with less than one percent of the irrigable land is actually under irrigation. With such abundant surface fresh water, we have only managed over the years to cover about 250,000 hectares out of the 30 million suitable for irrigation using readily available means. This means that when the rain does not come at the expected time, as is bound to happen with the increasing climate change phenomenon, farmers will not be able to plant. And when it comes unexpectedly, the result will be floods and the accompanying soil erosion that will sweep away crops as happened earlier this year. But at the top of percentages, we have 98 percent of the land remaining unsurveyed. This means that farmers cannot easily acquire titles for the land they till. Therefore, banks will not lend them money to invest in higher and improved production. They can only rely on their savings – if they have any – to invest in better farming. Since most of them have no savings, they are stuck. A few ‘lucky’ ones are left at the mercy of loan sharks who provide them with inputs on credit at a fixed price before planting, for which they have to pay when they harvest at a time when everyone is harvesting, thereby earning very little due to low prices depressed by glut. A couple of months later, the same farmers have to buy back the foodstuffs they earlier sold for a throw away price at much higher prices from the shops. By failing to survey land and providing the farmers with titles, we deny them a registerable interest in the land, and condemn them to bondage of the ruthless moneylenders who go by decentsounding titles like ‘farm suppliers’. High up in the inverted pyramid is the number of peasants, people who depend directly on the soil for their livelihood. An unacceptable 80 to 85 percent of Tanzanians depend on tilling the soil for food. This statistic is nothing to be proud of, though it is often quoted with abandon. Some basic mechanization of the farming process would increase productivity and free the people somewhat from spending whole days bent scratching the soil with small hoes. If for example land is opened up using mechanized methods, a hectare would be made ready in say, one hour instead of one month it would take a strong man to plough it by hand. He would then have enough time to carry out other necessary functions to prepare and sow and maintain the garden. Since less people would be required to till the land anyway, many would be freed to work in other enterprises. The mechanization of agriculture now calls for creativity and seriousness
COVER STORY
Inverted Pyramid: Is Tanzania’s Agriculture Upside Down? 98% 85%
Land unsurveyed Population that directly depends on agriculture
70%
Fruit that goes to waste
60%
Rural population living in extreme poverty
50%
Milk that goes to waste
40%
Grain and fish wasted
23%
Arable land under inefficient cultivation
7%
Budgetary allocation to agriculture Cultivated land under cash crops
4% Growth rate of Agriculture sector in 09/10
1.5%
0.8% than money. For example, thousands of tractors are now being imported into the country but farmers who are being
Irrigable land under irrigation
urged to buy them simply cannot afford. In any case, given the small scale of their operations, there is no justifica-
tion for them to purchase for owning a tractor, even if they can afford. Ways need to be devised for most farmers to
3
be able to hire tractors for only the hours they need them, not to buy for owning. In addition, our farmers need to start using tractors to the full, not simply for ploughing. Using a tractor only for ploughing is like using a computer only for typing letters, leaving over 90 percent of its capacity idle. A tractor is meant to pump water for irrigation, to plant seeds, to harvest, to power initial processing, to generate electricity for some of the farm operations, all these just requiring fitting it with the relevant implements. Other worrying percentages that are high up there include the rate of post harvest losses. It stands a depressing 70 percent for fruits, 50 percent for milk and 40 percent for grain and fish. For fish matters are even worse because there is another loss of immature fish being harvest by methods as crude using mosquito nets. In other words, Tanzania can double its food supply and security by NOT producing a single extra kilo of grain or litre of milk, but by simply ensuring what is produced is all protected. Some basic processing would cut the damage, make all produce sellable, and bring millions of more Tanzanians into the daily cash economy. While half of the milk produced is wasted before it gets to any consumer or cooling centre, more than half of the milk consumed in urban centres is imported and very expensive. The local demand for milk alone is enough to put an extra Sh 2 billion daily in the pockets of Tanzania’s cattle keepers, if what they produce daily can reach the consumers. Even the two million litres being wasted daily is far below the potential of the country’s 19 million heads of cattle to produce. If they can be allowed to access the domestic market alone, Tanzania’s cattle keepers would have the motivation to improve their stock and methods for higher output. Of course the ideal way to deal with post harvest losses of grains is to encourage the warehouse receipt system and improve it. This would elevate warehousing to the higher specialized level where it belongs, and remove the burden of keeping grain from the farners who are not equipped to do it. Better still, warehouse receipts would upgrade the peasants to keeping their wealth in records rather than physical, bulky and perishable form. With the advent of the mobile phone, the peasants, most of whom already have phones anyway, would start transacting their grain stock by sms, clicking the order to sell how much at the day’s price which they will have established by sms, and having their money automatically remitted into their bank accounts. The technology to allow the Tanzanian farmers finally enter into the twenty first century markets already exists in the country with the several mobile networks. Towards the narrow bottom of the inverted pyramid, we find the ‘achievements’ of our agriculture sector. The se include the 7 (seven) percent government budgetary allocation to Agriculture, only 4 (four) percent of cultivated land being under the so-called cash crops, the 1.5% growth of the Agricultural sector in the just ended financial year and the less than one percent of readily irrigable land being under actual irrigation. If Tanzania is to effectively tackle the widespread mass poverty, the agriculture pyramid must be made to stand upright!
The Guardian KILIMO KWANZA
4
POLICY
Tuesday 7 December, 2010
Tuesday 7 December, 2010
The Guardian KILIMO KWANZA
POLICY
5
Time Is Ripe to Focus on Enforcing Biotechnology and Bio-safety Laws • Focusing on pillar number four P EOPLE have known for centuries that children resemble their parents. Gregor Mendel, an 18th century Czech monk is the one who discovered how to mathematically predict which traits parents would hand down to their offspring. This discovery revolutionized agriculture and marked the beginning of modern genetic science. It also shed light on the process of evolution. The microscope that Mendel used still exists. He used it to observe singlegrain pollination with the pollen magnified 179 times which disproved theories by Charles Darwin and others that one grain of pollen was not enough to fertilize a plant. Armed with this knowledge, genetic scientists across the globe are finding new ways to produce animals and plants that have “desirable” properties like drought and pest resistance and high yields. In a presentation made to the just ended East Africa Community Heads of State meeting that discussed among other things, the EAC Food Security Protocol, Harvard University Professor Calestous Juma, asserts that Africa could feed itself within a generation, and become a major agricultural exporter. Based on his new book, “The New Harvest”, he calls on African leaders to make agricultural expansion central to all decision-making and to seriously invest in infrastructure, irrigation, access to credit and bio-technology. He also mentions that selective use of genetically modified (GM) crops in some areas is a solution to the crippling food shortages experienced in the African continent where an estimated one in three persons faces chronic hunger. One of the core activities in the Fourth Pillar of Kilimo Kwanza is the identification of priority areas for the strategic food commodities for the country’s food self-sufficiency. A key task under this pillar for the Ministry of Agriculture, Food Security and Cooperatives (MAFC) is to put in place arrangements for the production of strategic commodities of grains such as maize, rice, wheat, sorghum and millet, tubers like cassava and potatoes and animal products like meat, dairy and fish. The ministry is also supposed to identify priority areas and modalities for the production of crops that can quickly transform agriculture with minimal financial and technological requirements. The government is supposed to put in place arrangements to finance the production of cotton, sunflower, sesame and palm oil. Alarming reports from Tanzania’s EAC partner states of Kenya and Uganda indicate that controlled GM maize tests are slotted to start at the end of this year (2010). Kenya, Uganda and other partner states of the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), Africa’s largest market bloc could have uniform bio-safety laws and regulations by 2011, helping countries with a food
deficit to import cheaper commodities generated through GM technology. Having pulled out of COMESA, Tanzania is a member of the Southern Africa Development Cooperation (SADC). While a number of key SADC countries like South Africa are already carrying GM tests, others like Tanzania are still striving to establish regulatory frameworks, legislation, biosafety policy and internal infrastructure and capacity to fully enforce it. The existing structure of Tanzania’s biosafety regulatory system is described in its National Biosafety Framework (NBF). In that system, the National Biosafety Focal Point (NBFP), who is responsible for review and approving applications and overseeing the implementation of bio-safety issues, is the Ministry for the Environment under the VicePresident’s Office. The regulations that will establish Tanzania’s biosafety system will be promulgated under authority recently established in the Tanzanian Environmental Management Act of 2004 (EMA). That law provides the legal authority for the Ministry of Environment to regulate GE organisms. The NBFP is now working on the regulations to implement the biosafety provisions of the Act and to establish the procedures identified in the NBFP. Tanzania also has established an interim bio-safety regulatory process for permitting small-scale confined field trials of plant and plant products. The Plant Protection Act puts in place a review and approval process for all small-scale confined field trials involving genetically engineered plants. It requires the completion of an application which is reviewed by the Agricultural Biosafety Advisory Committee (ABSAC), a technical advisory committee under the Ministry of Agriculture, Food Security and Cooperatives (MAFC). However the duality of Tanzania’s interests in the different trade blocs still poses credible threats to the country’s bio-safety and agriculture and as such should be urgently evaluated, especially through the EAC and SADC. This will help ensure that the same things are viewed in the same scientific way across the board. GM crops are often touted as a “solution” to the food security crises in Africa and the world at large. The technology has its proponents and opponents with the proponents arguing that high yielding GM’s crops offer a quick fix solution to growing food needs while opponents point to the negative environmental and social impacts. The negative effects of GM foods have been well documented. There are yet unknown risks to human, plant and animal life, risks that could include genetic deformations and mutations, cancers and the rise of super virus strains and super diseases that are super-resistant to current drugs. In countries producing GM foods like the USA and Brazil, stringent care has been taken to ensure that the GM produce is used solely for non-human consumption like the production of bio fuel. But a recent bio-scare in the US in which GM food was discovered in su-
permarket shelves revealed, even stringent laws and regulations don’t always work. GM foods require specialized handling, transport and storage facilities that are entirely lacking in the region. For example they require safe transportation facilities in scientifically designed facilities to ensure that the GM do not contaminate indigenous plants in the areas or communities through which they are being moved. Our transport and storage systems cannot meet this requirement. Furthermore porous borders allow unregulated movement of people, animals, plants and goods, placing the whole region at risk. Proponents of GM technology know this all very well It is impossible to protect indigenous crops from being contaminated by GM’s. Plant fertilization is through pollen that is easily carried by wind, birds, insects and animals and this makes it impossible to prevent cross pollination of GM and non-GM plants. In countries like Brazil, the US and South Africa, GM foods are only grown in areas where the entire peasant population has been driven off the land. This leads to land alienation and landlessness. GM crops are inferior in the long run because they often require large inputs of imported fertilizers and pesticides and as such are also poorly suited to peasant production methods. GM technology relies on the use of so called “terminator” seeds that can only be used once. Seeds harvested from “terminator” crops do not germinate and this forces farmers to buy new seed stock in every growing season, creating dependency. Armed with these facts, should our countries even be toying with the idea of adopting GM foods? In Uganda for example the biosafety (GM) law was allegedly rejected by cabinet several times and even after being presented to parliament the bill has remained pending for ten years. Reports have it that illegal GM trials are set to start in Uganda and even Kenya where vocal parliamentarians opposed the GM’s but are now silently passing laws that support it. Kenya is among EAC and COMESA countries that have in the recent past found themselves in deep controversy over the importation of genetically modified foods to help cover for local production shortfalls. At the peak of the famine last year, the then Agriculture Minister William Ruto went public in support of GM saying the global dominance by GM maize was frustrating efforts to import the grain from key international markets to cover for local production deficit. Furthermore, emerging reports by the Canadian based Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Cooperation (ETC) reveals a dramatic upsurge in the number of patent claims on ‘climate-ready’ genes, plants and technologies that will supposedly allow biotech crops to tolerate drought and other environmental stresses associated with climate change. Large multinational companies with alleged to connection to so called
“agricultural development associations” are allegedly trying to sell crops with “added features” to countries like Tanzania. The punch line is that plants that are engineered to grow on poor soils, with less rain and less fertiliser will mean the difference between starvation and survival for the poorest farmers. The patent grab on ‘climate-ready’ crops is a bid to control not only the world’s food security but also the world’s yet-to-be commodified biomass. The term biomass refers to material derived from living or recently-living biological organisms: including all plants and trees, microbes, as well as by-products such as organic waste from livestock, food processing and garbage. “It’s a fresh twist on a stale theme: Crops engineered with ‘climate-ready’ genes will increase production and feed the world,” the ETC group claims. In many cases, a single patent or patent application claims ownership of engi-
“
The downside is that African governments must ‘ease the regulatory burden’ that might hinder the commercial release of transgenic crops and embrace biotech-friendly intellectual property laws
“
By Makuna Chirimi
neered gene sequences that could be deployed in virtually all major crops – as well as the processed food and feed products derived from them. These emerging reports that those implicated have so far denied, also claim that in order to gain moral legitimacy, the GM companies are teaming up with high-profile philanthropists, big governments and associations to donate free genes and technologies to resource-poor farmers – especially in sub Saharan Africa. Some of the organisations mentioned in the damning report are already operating in Tanzania and the larger EAC region. The downside is that African governments must ‘ease the regulatory burden’ that might hinder the commercial release of transgenic crops and embrace biotech-friendly intellectual property laws. In the fog of climate chaos, the GM
manufacturers, some of whom also manufacturer the world’s leading pesticides and fertilisers allegedly hope to ease public acceptance of genetically engineered crops and make the patent grab more feasible. The global market for drought tolerance in just one crop – maize – is an estimated US$2.7 billion, but the US Department of Agriculture predicts that the global bio-based market for chemicals and plastics alone will top US$500 billion per year by 2025. Agriculture is big business and our countries should take earnest care to protect their people. Tanzania is a signatory to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (2003) and as such is committed to building functional national bio-safety frameworks for managing GM’s. We cannot rely on technological fixes to solve systemic problems of poverty, hunger and climate crisis. Climate resilience ultimately depends on agricultural biodiversity, local seed systems and agro-ecological processes in the hands of farming communities. Support is needed for breeding work with under-utilised crops and with plant diversity that offers natural tolerance to harsh conditions. Indigenous and local farming communities have developed and managed that diversity and their role in developing strategies for climate change adaptation must be recognized, strengthened and protected. Conventional breeding alone has produced a vast number of varieties and hybrids that have contributed to higher grain yield, stability of harvests and farm income. Better storage and harvesting techniques alone can double Tanzania’s agricultural output. Irrigation will have a similar effect. Investing in infrastructure too will also increase production whilst also opening up remote areas for investment in other fields. The concerns of GM’s effect to biological diversity and human and animal health are now widely acknowledged. These concerns and opportunities surrounding modern biotechnology dictate the need to develop and enforce policy and legal interventions to guide the safe use of biotechnology to prevent and effectively reduce its risks to human and animal health and the environment. There is an urgent need not only to institute but more importantly to enforce elaborate legal, administrative and policy instruments to minimize risks of modern biotechnology to human and animal health and the environment. Bio-safety encompasses all sectors - wildlife, beekeeping, fisheries, forests, shipping and aviation, industry, food, drugs, cosmetics, fertilizers, pesticides, foodstuffs, animals and environmental management. Policy makers and enforcers should always remember that it only takes a single grain of pollen from a GM plsnt to fertilize and forever change a nonGM plant. Let us not wait for a GM catastrophe to open our eyes to this fact. The time to carefully think and act is now, before Tanzania finds herself neck high in deep, unfamiliar waters.
6
M
Tuesday 7 December, 2010
INTERVIEW
Vast Opportunities for Cotton and Mango Farmers in Turkey
By Angel Navuri
ANGO and cotton farmers in the country can now benefit from huge market opportunities available in Turkey. There is a ready market for Tanzanian cotton in the country. Mangoes and passion fruits which Tanzania has in plentiful supply also do not grow in Turkey and this pro-
vides a unique export opportunity. Turkey also wants to cultivate cotton in Tanzania for export to feed its ever expanding textile industry. According to the Turkish Ambassador Dr Sander Gurbuz, Turkish cotton production is currently unable to satisfy the needs of its growing textile industry. The country is now importing cotton from Tanzania. Still the industry demands remain higher than current supply, and so Turkey wants to invest in cotton farm-
ing in Tanzania to boost exports. Plans are currently underway to find suitable land for the project. Every week the Turkish embassy receives upwards of 20 Turkish businessmen looking for areas to invest in agriculture and other sectors of the Tanzanian economy. Some of the businessmen are in contact with the Tanzania Investment Centre (TIC) for investment assistance while others are already looking for suitable land for cotton farming in Shinyanga Region.
NOBLE MOTORS LTD
Ready market “This initiative could help both countries to strengthen the business links and revamp the economies of the two countries,” the Ambassador said. He added that investing cotton would help Tanzania farmers to learn from their Turkish counterparts on how to cultivate high quality cotton that meets international market standards. As many as 500,000 Tanzanian farmers cultivate about 485,000 hectares (1.2 million acres) of cotton in the northern, coastal and western regions. Turkey is projected to produce about 500,000 tons of cotton this year. Only 10 percent of Turkish cotton is exported in raw form, while the rest feeds the domestic textile industry. Tanzania will this year produce only about 90,000 tons of cotton, with 80% of this slotted for export. Global cotton production forecasts stand at 23.6 million tons this year. There are still significant opportunities for purchasing Tanzanian grown cotton and transforming it into yarns and fabrics locally. Commenting on this on a recent visit to cotton producing areas, Tanzania’s President Jakaya Kikwete noted that while a kilo of cotton costs only 460 shillings, it produces two shirts that fetch a much higher price at the market. The history of textile production in Turkey dates back to the Ottoman period in the 16th and 17th century where textile production was already at an advanced level. There are nearly 7500 textile manufacturers producing for the export market alone in Turkey. The total export earnings from textiles ($ 5.4bn) has increased five fold in the last 20 years. Tanzania’s garment manufacturing industry is relatively small. Developed in the 1970s as part of a state drive to industrialise the country, out of the 30 textile mills in existence about 80% were state-owned. In the 1980s these mills consumed about a third of Tanzania produced lint. However after the privatisation programme of the late 1990s many of these mills closed altogether. Tanzania is Africa's fifth-largest lint-cotton producer, after Egypt, Nigeria, Burkina Faso and Benin, and the world’s 20th largest producer.
Loans Available from following Financial Institutions FBME, SCCULT, CRDB, NBC, NMB and AGITF*
Noble Motors Limited
Agriculture Machinery Division P.O. Box 20066, Dar es Salaam Tel: +255 22 2864731/2862304, Fax: +255 22 2862304 Cell: + 255 767 937884, + 255 767 391310 E-mail: noblemotors@noble-tz.com Website: www.noble-tz.com
xxxxxx
Fruit Because of its different climatic zones, Turkey is one of the seven countries in the world that is self sufficient on basic foods. Out of the 140 perishables grown in the world, the country produces 80 varieties of fresh fruits and vegetables and exports 30 kinds of vegetable and 20 kinds of fruit. These exports are worth over US$1 billion annually to Turkey. However a ready market exists for fresh mangoes and passion fruit from Tanzania and the Ambassador urged local farmers and business men to exploit this opportunity. Agriculture with Industrial development Agriculture may be the backbone of the economy in many developing countries, but this alone is not enough. It has to be backed by value addition and the production of industrial goods. It is in cognizance of this that the
Turkish economy tries to balance agriculture with industrial growth. Historically, the agriculture sector has been Turkey's largest employer and a major contributor to the country's GDP. Fifty percent of the country’s manufactured exports originate from the agricultural sector (primarily textiles and clothing). Of Turkey's agricultural sector, crops account for 55 percent of the gross value, livestock represents 34 percent, and forestry and fishing make up the rest. Just as in Tanzania, many Turkish farmers have been slow to adopt modern techniques and much of the potential land and water resources are still managed inefficiently. However the country's fertile soil, access to sufficient water, a suitable climate, and hard-working farmers all make for a successful agricultural sector. A broad range of crops can be grown because of the variety of different climates throughout the country. This has allowed Turkey to become the largest producer and exporter of agricultural products in the Near East and North African regions. Exports Giving an overview of his country’s achievements, the Ambassador said that Turkey is one of the top 10 producers of fruit, wheat, and cotton in the world. More impressively it ranks among the top 5 producers of vegetables, tea, tobacco and raw wool. The country's main export markets are the EU and the United States, to which Turkey exports dried fruit and nuts, cotton, and tobacco. Another major export market is the Middle East which buys fresh fruit, vegetables and meats from Turkey.
Grain and vegetables Vegetable production in Turkey is primarily made up of cereals, pulses (edible seeds of various pod-bearing plants such as peas, beans, or lentils), industrial crops, and perishables. Of these, cereal crops occupy more than half of the cultivated land. “Of all these wheat has a special place in the Turkish economy. Turkey is both a top 10 producer and a top 10 consumer of wheat in the world. It is the essential food element in the Turkish diet, generally eaten in the form of bread,” Ambassador Gurbuz explained. Turkey is also the main pulse producer in the Middle East and one of the leading producers in the world. Since the mid-1990s, over 60 countries import Turkish pulses, primarily chickpeas and lentils.
FACT BOX Turkey is situated in Anatolia and the Balkans, bordering the Black Sea, between Bulgaria and Georgia, and bordering the Aegean Sea and the Mediterranean Sea, between Greece and Syria. Total land area is about 783,562 square kilometres of which 756,816 sq km are in Asia and 23,764 sq km are in Europe. Tanzania is 945,087 square kilometres. The Anatolian part of Turkey (large, semi arid plateau) accounts for 97% of the country's area. It is also known as Asia Minor, Asiatic Turkey or the Anatolian Plateau.
The Guardian KILIMO KWANZA
Tuesday 7 December, 2010
S
URVEYORS of Small and Medium Enterprises (SME) have been reminded to include farmers in their surveys. “When people talk about SMEs they think of citizens involved in small industries and trade but do not consider farmers as part and parcel of SMEs,” the Head of the Tanzania Investment Centre (TIC) Emmanuel Ole Naiko (pictured), said. “Let us use these SMEs as a vehicle to develop commercial agriculture in Tanzania,” he added. He was speaking at the launch of the Tanzania Top 100 Mid-sized Company Survey in Dar es Salaam.
By Angel Navuri, Arusha
The East African Community (EAC) Heads of State have lifted a ban on food exports to enable farmers to enjoy the fruits of their labour. The EAC leaders made the decision at the recently ended East African Heads of State Retreat on Food Security and Climate change summit held in Arusha. They said banning food exports contributed to reduction of quality, quantity and value of the agricultural produce and therefore agreed that farmers be allowed to export. However, Tanzania’s Minister for Agriculture and Food Security, Jumanne Maghembe said in an interview that Tanzanian farmers can only export food when there is enough to cater for all regions. Maghembe said Tanzania cannot export food while it is facing shortages in some parts of the country. “Although the ban on food exports has been removed, we cannot export food while Tanzania is facing shortages in some of the regions,” the minister explained. According to media reports, some parts in the country are facing food shortages and the government has been urging the areas that have enough food to sell to such regions. However, this has been difficult in some areas given poor infrastructure. During the summit, President Mwai Kibaki of Kenya said the region is endowed with a huge potential and capacity to produce adequate food for local consumption and export. He said this being the case there was a need to make concerted efforts to facilitate the movement of food from surplus areas to deficit regions. Kibaki added that the free flow of agricultural produce across member states “will have immense benefits to us all, producers will stand to benefit from enlarged market and consumers will have adequate supply of commodities.” “l therefore appeal for faster harmonization of the East African staple foods standards to facilitate trade as
POLICY
SME Surveyors Urged to Remember Farmers
Korea which by investing in education, has managed to raise the per capita income of its citizens from USD80 to USD25,000 in just fifty years, the TIC head urged the SMEs to invest in educating their labour force for effective production. This is the only way that the private sector can be the engine of economic growth as the country still faces a shortage of skilled labour. In the last two years the TIC has also conducted entrepreneurship training in marketing, financing, preparation of books of accounts, legislation and regulation and business
The survey targets businesses that earn between TSH 1 – 20 billion per year. According to the TIC head, contract farmers who have established linkages with large farmers in Tanzania are extremely successful. For example about 55% of the production at Kilombero Sugar Company comes from out growers. He said that a “health check” performed on SMEs by the TIC had revealed vast improvements in attitude, performance and service delivery of the companies. Giving an example of South
EAC Heads of State Lift Ban on Food Exports
we encourage the free trading for agricultural commodities. We must however guard against speculators who may seek to manipulate our markets for their own individual benefit,” said Kibaki. The EAC food security Action Plan indicates that arbitrary bans on selling of cereals leads to reduction in quality, quantity and value, causing losses to the economy as a whole and the export bans and other trade reactions scare away private sector development and investments in food sub-sector, leading to sluggish growth in the sub-sector and lost opportunities to farmers and
consumers. On food security and cooperatives it indicates that, food production is normally satisfactory at the national level, but it fluctuates between years of surplus in good seasons and years of deficit in poor rainfall seasons. Some regions and districts have food surpluses of varying magnitude on an annual basis. However, there are regions and districts with pockets of persistent food shortage annually. Moreover, at the lower levels, such as the household, efforts by government and others to support increased agricultural productivity and production
not withstanding, food insecurity continues to be a challenge to some section of the population in both rural and urban areas. Even in times when food availability is deemed satisfactory, food access is still a challenge to rural households that produce less than 30 percent of their annual requirements due to among other things rudimentary production tools and agricultural technologies and climate change. In Tanzania, the agricultural sector, which offers livelihoods to more than 80 percent of the population and is the mainstay of the economy is highly vulnerable to weather sensitivity and environmental changes and ranks top in the list of sectors vulnerable to climate change. The sector’s structure of production is highly dominated by subsistence producers who have limited entitlements and limited resources to develop mitigation strategies. As such, production (crops, livestock, fisheries) failure due to the impacts of climate change among other factors contribute to food insecurity. Heads of State Retreat on Food Security and Climate change on the
“
We cannot export food while Tanzania is facing shortages in some of the regions
– Minister Maghembe
7
management for 716 entrepreneurs across the country. He revealed that the TIC is working closely with UNCTAD (United Nations Council for Trade and Industrial Development) to create business linkage between local SMEs and transnational or large businesses operating in the country. Ole Naiko reiterated the TIC and government’s commitment to remove unjustifiable risks, costs and barriers that hinder SMEs from thriving in business. The unreliability and high cost of electricity and poor infrastructure are some of the major barriers to investment and trade in the country.
“
The Guardian KILIMO KWANZA
EAC food security action plan has cited the East African Common market protocol as an important instrument of ensuring food security in the region. The EAC Action plan estimated that between 70 percent to 80 percent of the labour force of the EAC is involved in the food sector in one way or another, and that between 24 percent and 48 percent of the GDP of the number of countries is contributed by the agriculture sector. According to the action plan the figures may be under estimated because they often do not take into account livestock, fisheries and other food supply systems. The plan also highlighted the need for regional policy and standards for food security as the regional perspective required to accelerate food security in East Africa is currently seriously hampered by the frequent imposition of export bans even between districts within one country. This practice results in the separation of the surplus food production zones from the deficit markets they would normally serve in both large cities and rural areas. A recent assessment report by the World Bank of maize marketing in East Africa shows that protecting measures through export bans leads to lost opportunities for farmers and traders, who then reduce their investment in production in subsequent seasons leading to overall reduction in food production. The EAC is in the process of development, adoption and implementation of the regional legal, regulatory and institutional framework for EAC SPS Protocol. The draft protocol was adopted by the last Sectoral Council on Agriculture and food security which was held in December 2009. The principal objective of the protocol is to adopt and enforce sanitary and phytosanitary measures in order to minimize their negative effects on trade. The protocol elaborates rules for application, which relate to the use of countries to implement these measures
The Guardian KILIMO KWANZA
8
Tuesday 7 December, 2010
INVESTMENT
KILIMO KWANZA DIRECTORY
WATER AND SANITATION
Dar es Salaam Water and Sewerage Authority (DAWASA) – Tel: +255 22 276 0006
Dar es Salaam Water and Sewarage Corporation (DAWASCO) Tel: +255 22-2131191/4 Drilling and Dam Construction Agency (DDCA) Tel: +255 22 2410430/2410299 Energy and Water Utilities Regulatory Authority Tel: +255 22 2123850, 22 2123853 Water and Environmental Sanitation Projects Maintenance Organization (WEPMO) Tel: +255 22 2410738, 716 099959 Ministry of Water Tel: +255 22 245 1448
INDUSTRY SUPPORT AND ASSOCIATIONS
Small Industries Development Organization (SIDO) – Email: dg@sido.go.tz, info@sido.go.tz ANSAF - P.O. Box 6370, Dar es Salaam CNFA - info@cnfatanzania.org
Tractors Limited Cells: +255 784 421606, 786 150213
Consolidated Holdings Corporation (CHC) Tel: 255 (022) 2117988/9 Vocational Education and Training Authority (VETA) – Tel: +255 22 2863683/2863409 Export Processing Zones in Tanzania (EPZ) Tel: +255 22 2451827-9 Agricultural Economics Society of Tanzania (AGREST) – Tel. +255-23 260 3415
Tanzania National Business Council (TNBC) Tel: +255 22 2122984-6 Tanzania Agriculture Partnership (TAP) Tel: +255 22 2124851
Divestiture of Ranches Increases Local Investment is finding ready markets for the beef. The government has therefore been urged to build more abattoirs in areas close to the ranches. Currently there are only two public abattoirs in Arusha and Dodoma with the capacity to slaughter about 200 cattle and 200 small ruminants each per day. The Dodoma abattoir has a Meat Technology Training Centre, which is being used to train local entrepreneurs on meat cuts technology. A number of private meat processing plants are also emerging and this is creating a demand for quality livestock products, thus motivating livestock producers to increase off take rate and consequently increase efficiency in the production chain. However the livestock farmers still face many challenges, key among which is lack of access to credit. “Banks claim that there is high risk in livestock keeping and as such are not interested in offering loans to farmers,” the ranchers said. This severely hampers development and the ranchers have called on government to institute policies that
T
T
HERE is an increase in private investment in free range beef cattle ranching in Kagera region, following the government’s move to sub-let portions of the National Ranching Company (NARCO). Speaking to Kilimo Kwanza recently, ranchers from the region also commended the government for its divestiture programme that has presented commercial ranching opportunities to farmers. “We are now able to keep more cattle and improve the quality of meat we produce,” Faustine Rutahoile of Ukurwa Limited Ranch said. He added that ranching has also increased production because cattle now birth once a year as opposed to once every three years when herded in the village. The rancher also commended the government for subsidies to agriculture and the livestock sector as this has made inputs more affordable. “The price of one litre of cattle dip is now only half its original price,” he said, adding that the present challenge
will assist the ranchers to access credit. Recently the president launched the agricultural facility in the Tanzania Investment Bank (TIB) that is expected to lead to the formation of a farmers bank. Other challenges facing the ranchers include conflicts with farmers who indiscriminately start fires to clear land for cultivation . The fires often spread to the ranches, destroying pastures and water sources. Water conflicts, charcoal burning activities, disease outbreak (especially foot and mouth) which caused quarantines last year and droughts also pose a significant threat to successful ranching. “We have a program to eradicate foot and mouth disease by inoculating all our cattle at least twice every six months. We are also cross breeding zebu cattle with the boran breed to improve meat quality,” Rutahoile said. Tanzania has a land resource base estimated at 94 million hectares out of which 50 million hectares are rangelands suitable for livestock production. he country endowed with a livestock
resource and ranks third in Africa in terms of cattle population. The estimated livestock population amounts to 18.5 million cattle, 13.1 million goats, 3.6 million sheep and 30 million indigenous chickens. Distribution and ownership of livestock is highly skewed with about 70% of the herd being concentrated in eight administrative regions including, Shinyanga, Mwanza, Singida, Mara, Tabora, Arusha, Manyara and Dodoma. Rangeland resource is estimated at 61 million hectares of which about 44 million hectares are for grazing and 17 million hectares are fallow and forestland. This resource is currently supporting about 17 million tropical livestock units (TLU). However, if the rangeland resource is well developed and managed will open up more grazing land that will support over 20 million TLU. There is therefore room for expansion of the livestock industry and hence the potential for further investment opportunities.
Tanzania Milk Processors Association (TAMPA) Tel: +255 222 450 426
Rural Livelihood Development Company (RLDC) Tel: +255 26 2321455 Tanzania Cotton Board Tel: +255 22 2122564, 2128347
Horticultural Development Council of Tanzania (HODECT) Cell: +255 789 222 344; Fax: +255 27254 4568 TATEECO Ltd – Tel: +255 784 427817 AGRO-PROCESSING ERTH Food - Tel: +255 22 2862040 MUKPAR Tanzania Ltd Tel: +255 28 250038/184
ASAS Diaries Limited - Tel: +255 26 2725200 Tanga Fresh – Tel +255 27 2644238 NatureRipe Kilimanjaro Limited Tel: +255 22 21 51457 EQUIPMENT Gurudumu Tatu Limited Tel: +255 22 2865632 / 2863699
National Service Corporation Sole (SUMAJKT) Cell: +255 717 993 874, 715 787 887 FINANCE Private Agricultural Sector Support (PASS) Tel: 023-3752/3758/3765 Community Bank Association Tel: +255 22 2123245
Bank of Tanzania P.O. Box 2939, Dar es Slaam, Tanzania AGRO-INPUTS Minjingu Mines & Fertilizers Ltd Tel: +255 27 253 9259 250 4679