Your book lobbies extensively for family farming. You describe what, in your opinion, is both a thing of the past and an ideal for the future, which is a farm involving the entire extended family, the clan. A sort of “small community” based on respecting traditions and leadership of elders, a production plant satisfying its food needs. It is a place where “the self does not exist” and where the collective good prevails over the individual. Do you think that this model can affect/motivate today’s African youth? What would you say to those who are twenty years old?
My ideal is not at all going back to the clan, to the leadership of elders, to the youth not having the right to express themselves. On the contrary, my personal quest is that of fundamental rights. This means I think that fundamental rights should not have the absolute right to overrule community rights and solidarity. I believe that in order to exist, human beings need to be individuals but also be part of an “us”. This “us” is the family farm, working together yet the resources and individual goods are known. We say that the herd belongs to the family but everyone in this family knows which animals belong to whom. We are linked to a community that recognises individuals and their goods.
The first part of the book describes what is not going well on these farms. They face many shortfalls that prevent them from more effective production, to have guaranteed income. This is not about asking young people only to love their family and to sit around and do nothing because there is nothing to do! We are asking for investment policies that enable farming to be profitable for those whose livelihoods depend on it and for society. This is the only way that young people will find their place. Therefore we are asking for agricultural policies, public investment, income security, employment guarantees, etc. These are non-negotiable and we have to fight to achieve these objectives.
Unfortunately today, it is almost impossible for a young person to take up farming. Credit rates are high, there is no long-term credit, and there are no youth support funds, as there are in many other parts of the world. As parents, we want the younger generation to be aware of these problems so that they can join forces. You know, simply leaving a difficult situation, cannot be a solution. Urban life is no easier. For those not wanting to live in the countryside, I would like to know what they find in the city.
Of course, we accept the freedom to live one’s life. In my book, I simply say that there are no optimal conditions today for a young person to be attracted to employment in rural areas. ROPPA’s quest is to change all that.
You say that we cannot mobilise the younger generation by telling them that their only hope is to be less poor. However, today this is the focus of the entire international aid system. You also criticise African governments for sticking their hand out too much, for not having financed NEPAD themselves. Dambisa Moyo in her book, “Dead Aid”, goes further by asserting that aid has intoxicated Africa. Do you believe that?
Aid has been led astray. As it originated within the context of the cold war, it was an issue of political patronage. Each group wanted to hold on to its members. Aid was “created” against this background and, you know, it is not easy to fix a building sitting on a bad foundation. Often you have to raze the entire building and that can be too costly. But the biggest mistake lies not with those who give, but with those who receive or ask. I try to get this point across in my book: we have to be self-critical. Everything that comes to pass cannot be the fault of others. Since independence until now, we have had the opportunity to have public officials, economists, etc. It is difficult to imagine that they cannot manage our resources well. However, I know that the money has been taken to build an upper middle class and new elite for those who have replaced the colonists.
But we are talking about how aid is given today.
There are hundreds of thousands of projects and we are in a system in which everyone says “I am going to launch a project”. This becomes a market, like the stock market, we go and we buy. For example, the French government decides that the new focus would be on “gender”. Hence, everyone starts to do “gender” projects. The Americans say that they are interested in climate change so we have to do climate projects, etc. Development co-operation has become a fashionable issue. The basic rules of development never change. Intelligent men and women speak to each other, think together taking into account the natural, ecological, etc. contexts. These contexts never budge.
Another constraint on aid is the obligation to spend it. A co-operation ministry that obtained a budget does not want to say at the end of the year that it has not been spent. You have to use it up, good or bad.
I would also like to touch on aid and procedure coherence problems. Look at the European Union, the biggest donor and also the main contributor to the World Bank and IMF resources as well as the provider of bilateral aid through their respective co-operation agencies. Each of these institutions has its own representatives within governments, its rules, channels, procedures, control and monitoring systems. They totally ignore each other.
In general, aid was created with a lot of problems, it then became frail and now it is paralyzed.
But, again, I am not saying that it is only the fault of others. In my book, I talk a lot about us, what are our responsibilities in the situations that we face. For example, NEPAD, how can we have an idea, that we want to make a break yet we do not use our own resources to back up this idea? This is not how things should work. An idea, a programme, a project begins with your ideas, your expertise and your 10 francs. When you bring these three things together, you will be respected by all the other institutions because they are going to say, it is his idea and he thus put his money where his mouth is.
Basically, what you criticise the most is the fact that Africa today is prevented from doing what everyone else has done in the past, to protect themselves behind high tariff barriers. Could there be a risk that West African agriculture will not evolve if it is protected by these high barriers? Doesn’t competition drive change and adjustment?
I am not saying that we should remain on the outside of the global economy forever. I am saying that all those that have succeeded took the time needed to protect themselves. We have two types of agriculture in West Africa. Our main export products (coffee, cocoa, bananas and pineapples) are already competing on the global market. The other products are for local consumption and do not leave the continent. These are what need to be protected.
Firstly, I think that the WTO is violating the United Nations Charter which recognises the right to food. Local product production is the right to food. No institution should take countermeasures to this right. We do not export manioc or little millet. Our culinary culture is based on these crops. We cannot even produce enough. We need an adjustment period so that we can protect ourselves and adapt. But the WTO should not attack what the United Nations Charter allows us to do.
Furthermore, we could ask for special dispensation from the WTO to which we have the right. I would like to see Africa more actively participate in negotiations. Currently we are not fully participating in negotiations as others negotiate and we simply follow. This is our basic problem that I describe in my book. African leaders are not doing the right thing by cheering or just saying “yes” or “no” without negotiating. In real negotiations, if I don’t understand, I don’t go. And if I understand, I defend my interests. That’s what is missing.
The target signatory date for the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) between West Africa (ECOWAS + Mauritania) and the European Union was not met (end June 2009). Where are the negotiations today? What are the main areas of disagreement? What could be the possible compromises to push the negotiations forward?
There is good news. We are no longer within a deadline. At the last meeting of ECOWAS trade ministers, three important points were declared: firstly, negotiations are continuing, this means that the deadline is when they are ready. Secondly, everything has to be re-categorised because of the 5th band of the Common External Tariff. There were four bands (0%, 5% 10%, 20%). Now that there is a fifth band of 35%, there has to be a re-categorisation. The third point is opening up and protection. We are satisfied now. We always said to our people that we can negotiate because trade does not make sense unless everyone wins.
So there are no disagreements among you?
Of course, the European Union obviously does not agree with what we have said. That’s why we are negotiating. But personally, I am not worried when the European Union does not agree with me. My problem is knowing whether or not the ECOWAS authorities are going to defend our position. Now that ECOWAS is committed and we agree on the fundamentals, I am reassured that ECOWAS is defending our interests.
The European Union does not have a problem with the 5th band. Its problem is the deadlines. ECOWAS now says, we are negotiating and we will sign when we are ready. I am not a negotiator so I don’t know the details. I have three pieces of good news: we are negotiating, there is no more deadline, we are going to re-categorise, that’s good enough for me.
The European Union has protected its agriculture for 50 years. What are we rushing for? Moreover, raw materials are not included in the EPA. The agreement does not deal with uranium, oil, diamonds, etc. The EPA basically focuses on small products and services. Europeans want us to open up our calls for tender to their businesses. How can we let Europeans participate in calls for tender for services in West Africa? African businesses cannot compete with Europeans. You know, every competition has rules. In boxing, there are weight categories. In horse racing there are also categories. So we have to take our time to further develop, improve and protect ourselves.
Land issues are at the core of many debates. In particular, we are seeing ever more land acquisitions and investment from Asia, Europe and the Middle East. There are differing reactions to this. On one side, new investors are injecting capital into the national economy and participating in the creation of knowledge/expertise. On the other side, the yields are only for export and not for the local populations in a region where food security is still precarious. What is your opinion? How would you respond to farmers who want to take advantage of this new financial opportunity?
No farmer is going to benefit from this windfall. It is a business between governments and investors. That’s why it is not sustainable.
We know investors. When they want to set up somewhere, they do like we do when we want to catch a fish. They spend a little money before like we bait the hook to catch a fish. Once they have the fish, they stop spending money. With the agreement with the government authorities, these foreign investors set up in zones where already there is not enough land for the local population who has been there for generations. A lease is for 99 years. For example, in “Office du Niger” in Mali, a farm rarely contains more than 10 hectares (one, two or three hectares per family is normal). And then we find out that they have given 100 hectares to the Chinese.
These investments do not give us anything in terms of knowledge or capacity building. Firstly, their production systems are out of our reach. They are highly mechanised and the “poor” guys who work in them usually earn only a dollar a day.
I believe that this type of situation is going to lead to very serious problems in the near future. When everyone begins to realise the scope and the consequences, it will start to heat up. Authorities and investors will reap what they sow. If a “normal” government really wants to invest, they define an agricultural policy and then bring together all of the actors concerned, farmers’ organisations, producers, to discuss with the investors. Moreover, the land mass of Africa might be huge but there is not a lot of fertile/farmable land.
Nevertheless, the rest of the world believes that Africa is a large reserve of land for the future.
I think that is the wrong way of saying things. You have to take into account that in thirty years, we will be 1.3 billion inhabitants; thirty years, that’s the day after tomorrow. We have to consider land availability of the entire continent taking into account population growth. In addition, desertification is spreading with climate change. We do not have enough land.
You are a vehement defender and critical observer of regional integration. You are questioning the need for two regional agricultural policies (ECOWAS and UEMOA). Do African producers want these two institutions to merge?
In ECOWAS’ agricultural policy (ECOWAP) it is set out that all other policies on these issues need to be harmonised with ECOWAP. Don’t forget that the eight UEMOA Heads of State are also ECOWAS Heads of State. They have signed thus this is no longer an issue for UEMOA. The problem is that the UEMOA’s common policy was signed in Dakar in 2001 by the eight Heads of State and that of ECOWAS in 2005 in Accra by 15 Heads of State of which eight had signed in 2001. How much time is it going to take to have one policy? There is no deadline.
In fact, we never talk about the UEMOA agricultural policy. It is not because we have a problem with UEMOA. It is because UEMOA is within ECOWAS, so we are not going to waste our time. We are within the ECOWAS agricultural policy and we are striving for one single integration.
At the same time, we have to recognise that UEMOA has comparative advantages such as the common currency, monetary and economic policies. All of these as are weak points within ECOWAS. These are their only advantages for the moment and that’s not enough.
We believe that UEMOA is a stairway to integration.
What would you suggest concretely to speed up this process?
Continue to have our voices heard. Three months ago we asked ECOWAS to create an economic, social and cultural council which would involve all actors of civil society in order to accelerate integration. I think this is going to happen.
Nigeria, and to a lesser extent Ghana is sorely missing from your book which recounts the birth of the West African regional farmers’ movement. Basically, ROPPA only concerns half of the West African farmers that it is more or less a French-speaking “F CFA” organisation for family-size farmers, next to a more modern English-speaking agricultural world, geared towards the market and competition. How would you respond to this?
80% of Nigerian and Ghanaian farmers are small farmers who have not entered modernity. Ghana has been a ROPPA member for 5 years. Initially only women fish processors and some small farmers participated. Now, ROPPA in Ghana has expanded to include all categories of farmers in its new platform.
For Nigeria, we have to be patient. The process is a bit slower. We have a partner who is a paediatric doctor who closed his clinic to tend a manioc field. He was seeing that the medicine he was prescribing for children were not curing them and most of the illnesses were a result of hunger and malnutrition. He created farmer unions within 10 states. A 12-person delegation from Nigeria attended the food security summit in Niamey. We don’t build this in a day. The European Union of 27 countries was not built in one fell swoop. It started with 6 countries. We are in a building process that is based on our history and cultures. For example, when we go to Nigeria, we don’t usually speak English but Hausa. When we go to Ghana, we speak Mandingue or Yoruba, in the Gambia and Guinea-Bissau, we speak Mandingue, etc.. ROPPA is covering all of West Africa.
You clearly need lobbying to push forward the cause of farmers. What else do you need?
I would like that facilitating policy dialogue goes further. We do not only need financial support from donors, it’s also crucial for us to debate with co-operation agency officials to develop synergies and promote fair, sustainable and harmonised actions.
Allow me to remind you that this is the SWAC’s role and function as an interface. This has played a major role in the past and should be further developed. It is in settings like the SWAC that we can get our messages across.
For example, again, development is not a trendy issue. When I hear all the commotion that is going on around climate change today, I want to remind people that we have been working on this issue since 1973 with the CILSS and with the SWAC. I believe that we must seize this opportunity today to capitalise on these analyses. Many donors are behaving like it all just happened. It is important to look at the past in order to draw conclusions. From my perspective, this is one of the donors’ shortcomings, they have a short memory, which is one of a kind.
|
