Europe Is Standing In Africa’s Way On Agricultural Expansion

Europe is standing in Africa’s way on agricultural expansion by Thompson Ayodele 17 June 2013 European policy-makers are considering legislation to solve a problem that does not exist and creating circumstances that will relegate African agriculture producers and consumers to second-rate status – claims think-tank Africa is widely recognised as the next frontier in agriculture expansion, offering the greatest opportunity for development and replete with underserved markets. More than 60 per cent of the world’s unutilised land for agriculture is found on the continent. And the United Nation Children’s Fund estimates that malnutrition among Africa’s youth costs national economies some $25bn per year in lost productivity and healthcare costs. Not only are communities not producing enough food but they are also not earning enough money to fully engage in international markets. The solution to this chronic problem that has long plagued communities throughout the Africa is ever more investment, wealth creation, market access and education. But European policy-makers are considering legislation to solve a problem that does not exist and creating circumstances that will relegate African agriculture producers and consumers to second-rate status. A proposal currently being considered in the European Parliament regarding concerns over the theory of indirect land use change or ‘ILUC’ is just such a poison pill that the continent’s agriculture sector is being told to swallow. For ILUC has proven a powerful concept for opponents of the European Union’s biofuel policy but one that also pits them against small farmers throughout the developing world. While European and American communities enjoy the fruits of centuries of unfettered development and agriculture expansion, African communities seeking to enjoy the same prosperity are kept at arms length through a series of policies. A proposal for the introduction of ILUC into the EU’s Renewable Energy Directive by rapporteur MEP Corinne Lepage illustrates this dichotomy clearly. In her proposal, Lepage rejects the use of any biofuel feedstock produced from land converted since 2008 – a date that would have no effect for European biofuel producers but that would deny any aspiring farmer in Ghana or Nigeria from access to Europe’s biofuels market. And lest one should consider this an appropriate measure to ensure the maintenance of sufficient forest cover on the continent, consider a comparison between Lepage’s home country of France and Gabon, one of the frontiers for agriculture development. France boasts a commendable 29 per cent forest cover by developed world standards, while Gabon enjoys more than 85 per cent. Does Lepage or anyone from France’s delegation to the European Parliament feel that French farmers have more of a right to their livelihood than the Gabonese? But what do biofuels have to do with food demand? In a fungible and fluid global agriculture market, the two are inextricably linked. Today’s biofuels hold the potential to be tomorrow’s food. And campaigns against biofuels should not be allowed to impede food production. Unfortunately, by discouraging investment, that is precisely what the current debate on ILUC is at risk of doing. For instance, Malaysia is currently the third largest source of foreign direct investment on the continent, driven in part by its promotion of oil palm development and palm oil production throughout Sub-Saharan Africa – a key food and energy source for communities throughout the world. Malaysia’s Federal Land Development Authority, the largest small farmer coalition in the world, is driving poverty alleviation efforts alongside food production. But this investment and the potential benefits for African producers are as much the result of domestic food demand as from projected biofuel needs in Europe. Meanwhile, there is no evidence of competition between food and fuel needs of food and energy sources such as palm oil. Current palm oil prices are at four-year lows – down by 23 per cent year on year. But with projected demand expected to escalate rapidly – by some estimates doubling by 2020 – policy-makers should be encouraging more production now. And significant advances in the use of oil palm biomass for energy illustrates the extent to which the crop could meet both food and energy needs without any competition – a fact that Lepage has recognised and countered without any explanation in her proposal. Therein lies the tremendous potential offered by the EU’s RED for Africa’s potential trillion dollar agriculture sector – and illustrates the danger from proposals such as Lepage’s that would stifle development. By pandering to environmental campaigners that see biofuels anywhere land is developed for agriculture crops, they are also keeping food out of the mouths of Nigerians, Ghanaians, Ugandans and every other African community that hopes only to alleviate hunger and strive for a better life. There is nothing new to the notion that agriculture might be a driving force for economic prosperity. This was the very model accomplished in the United States and one that is resoundingly endorsed by the World Bank. But for it to succeed, producers need investors and consumers. Europe should not shut itself out but become a part of the solution. Unfortunately, the ILUC concept is part of the problem. Thompson Ayodele is director of the Nigeria-based think-tank the Initiative for Public Policy Analysis Read more: http://www.publicser…n#ixzz2WrOhKKiK Taylor Scott International