| About Necofa | General Acitivities | Projects | National Network Groups | Picture Gallery | Services | Contact & Imprint |
|
Vol. 6,2 |
|
Capacity Building International, Germany ( Established through the merger of CDG II and DSE ) InWEnt gGmbH Rural and Agricultural Development, Development Management Division Wielinger Str. 52 D-82340 Feldafing Germany Tel: ++49 8157 / 938 - 0 Fax: ++49 8157 / 938 - 315 email: feldafing@inwent.org
and :
|
|
International Centre North South Dialogue
P.O.Box 1361 D-37203 Witzenhausen Germany Tel: ++49 5542 / 502 - 9173 Fax: ++49 5542 / 502 - 9175 email: info@icnsd.org
Editors: Sahle Tesfai ( ICNSD ) Hartmut Gast ( InWEnt )
|
Necofa The network for Ecofarming in Africa embark on a new chapter of activities relation with the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH,- German for Technical Cooperation “GtZ”. That, the basic relations of NECOFA which are already under way with Regional/local GtZ offices in some parts of the NECOFA Country Groups, for example, in Kenya, Ghana, Cameroon etc. are now extending to other Countries NECOFA Groups. The basic supports are now adhering from the Central office of the German for Technical Cooperation –GtZ, in Germany in Echborn, Germany.
NECOFA Country Groups are told to submit project proposals which concerns Organic Agriculture, dealing in the aspects of Production, Marketing and Certification and see means of financing the proposed NECOFA country projects from GtZ.
The International NECOFA Office and Advisory Body, urged all NECOFA Groups to develop a project concept and present it on the specified time to GtZ.
For better communication recommended the International Office to contact directly the Department of GtZ, Programme Office for Social and Ecological Standards Organic Agriculture.
Below presents the Editorial Board the activities of Department of GtZ, Programme Office for Social and Ecological Standards Organic Agriculture with all its communication means and one of the proposed project from the Country Group Ghana titled “PROJECT PROPOSAL 2004 NECOFA ACTIVITIES IN GHANA IN THE FIELD OF PRODUCTION SEED MAIZE AND VEGETABLES”
The activities of NECOFA Country Group Zambia are summarised as stated below. Looking on the Green Manure/Cover Crop project and other activities, they describe, “Our promotion of Green manure /cover crop has gained momentum” and we say, go ahead NECOFA Zambia!!
The specific problems for small scale farmers in Africa are described by Mr. Saro G. Ratter (Dipl.Ing.agr.). Mr. Saro G. Ratter, is a graduate of the University of Kassel, Germany and works as consultant on Organic Agriculture, in Germany. Due to its particular relation with NECOFA, his
contribution for the NECOFA Newsletter of the wonderful research, on the above mentioned topic and especially, that of the Cotton Production and its Politics in the African Countries, is welcomed!!
The Editorial Board thanks Mr. Saro for his contribution of the topic. Mr. Saro G. Ratter can be contacted under his E-mail: Saro_R@web.de
Last but not least, the NECOFA Group South Africa are actively acting and following the discussions on GMO.
Below is a Press release of SAFeAGE, the South African Freeze Alliance regarding a conference of the South African Parliament on Genetically Engineered(GE) crops, food and technology in Stellenbosch on the 15th and 16th of April.
We thank the NECOFA Group South Africa for sending us the Press release.
S. Tesfai
 |
||
 |
|
 |
Production
What is needed?
What do we offer?
Assistance in
Marketing
What is needed?
What do we offer?
Assistance in
Certification
What is needed?
What do we offer?
Contact:
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH
P.O. Box 5180
65726 Eschborn (Germany)
Programme Office for Social and Ecological Standards
|
Marion Buley Telephone: (+49) 6196 – 79 14 66 E-Mail:Marion.Buley@gtz.de
|
|
|
 |
Daniel Vildozo
Telephone: (+49) 6196 – 79 65 55
E-Mail: Daniel.Vildozo@gtz.de
Information, publications and details of the programme: www.gtz.de/organic-agriculture
INTRODUCTION
Necofa, Ghana with its objectives in mind has been undertaking some work in the country. Due to financial constraints, activities are mostly centred in three regions out of the ten regions in the country.
Brong- Ahafo known as the ‘food basket’ of Ghana is one of the regions in which Necofa is actively working. Necofa Ghana, intends to undertake some activities in four districts of the region in the field of organic production.
Areas of project activity:
Wenchi, Techiman and Nkoranza districts
Necofa Ghana intends to assist seed maize growers who have been engaged in continuous cropping of their field for the production of seed maize for farmers within and outside. The use of chemical fertilisers to replenish the fertility of the soil is been continuously used. It is therefore intended to introduce to them the use of cover crops as a means of increasing soil nutrients and also to control weeds.
Two seed farmers from each district are to be assisted in collaboration with Ministry of Food and Agriculture in the respective districts. Assistance also will be rendered in the field of certification
Sene district
Necofa Ghana intends to assist small-scale vegetable farmers (tomato and egg-plant) in Sene district in the use of organic materials in production. Animal manure and liquid manure will be introduced to them. Also plant extracts for pest control will also be introduced
It is expected that ten farmers (5 each for the crops) will be assisted in collaboration with World Vision International, Sene zone.
Time frame
It is expected that the activities will start in March 2004.
Funding
It is expected that the proposed activities will be funded by GTZ Programme Office for Social and Ecological standards up to an amount of €4,000
Dear Sahle,
Thanks for your e-mail at last. NECOFA ZAMBIA is well and very much alive
and stronger. Please communicate with us more regularly.
As is the situation with many country groups, electronic communication through cafes is extremely expensive especially in our case where public facilities are purely business. If we had our own the expense in only one tenth. Please look into this kind of support.
2003 was a successful relatively. We had a small donation from the German Embassy of a used CPU (PC) and keyboard without the monitor and modem facility. We borrow a monitor.
We now have an office - rented at a reasonable charge of about $30 a month. It has proved worthwhile in offering advisory services and small publication.
We managed to operate a bank account at a local Bank.
Our promotion of Green manure /cover crop has gained momentum. During the year we marketed seed for sunnhemp and velvet beans on behalf of the farmers to some NGO e.g. Care International, WFP (World Food Programme locally operates under PAM - Prevention Against Malnutrition).
The arrangement was that we got 10% as commission. It was planned to sell 1200Kg but we have only managed 700Kg. One Kilo (1Kg) was selling at $1. The rest have been put under demonstrations on behalf of Agriculture Support Programme (ASP - SIDA) in one high school and three Teachers Colleges.
Our Project proposal for our activities were submitted to USAID and NORAD. The total budget is $120,000 for six Districts NECOFA groups in the Northern Province.
In collaboration with a Catholic NGO - "Household in Distress" a biogas plant was installed at a farmer training Centre in Mbala close to Lake Tanganika. Given Sikasote was instrumental in that project.
The country coordinator became a member of a local Radio Station called "Radio Mano - i.e. Radio Wisdom.
This has afforded us a chance to air our Ecofarming programmes. The air time is paid for by Ministry of agriculture and Cooperatives. Two slots a week for thirty minutes is our quota. Its coverage is approximates 300Km radius.
Membership has grown substantially (25%) if you can see the attached list. Female members are encouraged especially among the teachers colleges where we lecture once a month on Ecofarming activities.
There is a slight change to our Executive members two more ladies have joined us and the post of Vice Country Coordinator is now being held by a Mr. Evans Luambia who joined us during his tenure with SNV - Dutch Volunteer Services
Introduction
The majority of the population in developing countries is working in agriculture. In African countries it is about 90% of the population while in Germany it is less than 2%. At the same time working in agriculture has a very low reputation in the society of these countries.
Most of the small producers live in remote areas where the infrastructure and communication system is very poor. This leads to additional problems for the farmers like high marketing costs and poor services for the farmers. It makes living in these areas unattractive for educated people and the youth.
General situation
So the situation of the small scale farmers in Africa is characterised by
The following factors weaken to position of the cotton farmers.
Politics
Cotton production in African countries is a political issue. The cotton sector has an important role in the national economies and is often an important source for foreign currency. Therefore the governments have a big interest to influence the cotton production. They are doing this by regulating different parameters like:
The farm gate price for cotton is not only influenced by the World Market price but also by the official regulations of the cotton market in the respective countries. There are different taxes and other “contributions” to pay(*2). The farmers have little or no influence on the price especially when there is only one buyer.
Research
The cotton industry is interested in high cotton production in a limited area to keep the transport costs low. So they are not interested in a balanced crop rotation or alternative sources of income for the farmers.
Consequently the research about cotton growing is often not adapted to the needs of the small scale farmers because they need know how about low risk production systems.
However, the researchers are focussing mainly on maximising the cotton fibre yield and fibre quality in high input production systems which are not adapted to the small scale farming conditions.
The result is that the farmers are the
Weakest link in the textile chain
For many small scale farmers the cotton is the most important source of income. There is often no alternative for cash income in cotton growing areas because the market for other crops is not developed or the marketing costs are too high due to poor infrastructure.
But what is so special about the cash crop cotton?
Only about one third of the seed cotton weight is cotton fibre. The seed cotton must be ginned to separate the fibre from the seeds. The necessary processing facilities should be close to the growing areas because of the high transport costs for seed cotton. The cotton seeds are processed to oil for human consumption (e.g. edible oil or margarine) and to oilcake for cattle feed. But the value of the seeds represents only about 10 % of the fibre value. The cotton fibre itself can be transported to spinning mills anywhere in the world if it is pressed into bales of about 200 kg weight. The machines to press these bales require a big investment, which is not affordable for small scale farmers or farmer groups.
Therefore the small farmers who produce the cash crop cotton are not able to sell cotton fibre directly to the spinning mill of a textile producer. There must be an intermediary who organises the collection and processing of the seed cotton. So the farmers are completely dependent on the cotton buyers and processing companies in their region. If there are no functioning processing facilities it makes no sense to grow cotton. There are areas in Tanzania where the farmers had to give up cotton growing because there were no more operating ginneries. The ginning can not be organised by the small scale farmer himself because of the high capital requirements to run a ginnery.
Other factors are:
After all these negative aspects I would to present some
Factors for improvement and the potential of organic cotton production.
Due to the poverty and the low income of the farmers they are looking for short term benefits. Their main interest is to increase their income and to reduce their costs or debts. Therefore the priorities of the farmers are higher prices for cotton and lower costs or credit schemes for the necessary inputs. This can give them a short term benefit.
However organic agriculture is mainly leading to long term benefits. These benefits like improved productivity of the soil, less pollution and a healthier environment are only of secondary priority for the farmers. Therefore it is a big challenge to organise the organic cotton production in a way that there are enough short term benefits for the farmers e.g. by paying an organic premium or offering credit schemes for inputs.
It is important to see that cotton is grown within a farming system and organic cotton production should not be seen isolated from it.
A holistic approach is required to improve the ecological and economic conditions of cotton production. The whole farming system has to be optimised so that chemical inputs are no longer necessary and the profitability of the whole farming unit is improved.
Some important factors for improvement of the situation of small scale farmers are:
Importance of fair and reliable market partners.
Due to high overhead costs, a profitable production of certified organic cotton can only be organised in big volumes. Therefore it is essential for small scale farmers to find a financially strong, reliable and fair market partner.
The farmers producing certified organic cotton need a partner who
All these services can be quite costly especially if the quantities are small. But as the costs for cotton in a finished textile represents only a small percentage of the total costs it is possible to produce affordable textiles out of certified organic cotton if the volumes are big enough and the production is organised in an efficient way.
The small scale farmers need also partners who are willing to invest in the marketing of the organic textiles so that the demand for organic cotton is growing.
An average cotton farmer in Tanzania produces between 2 to 3 tons of seed cotton. This is enough for about 2 to 3 Thousand T-Shirts, as an example for a piece of textile made out of 300 g of cotton.
This means that with the annual cotton fibre production of 100 average cotton growers in Western Tanzania one can produce 200 to 300 Thousand T-Shirts. This can be very little for a textile trader but it can be the basis for a substantial improvement of the living conditions of of the 100 involved farming families and the necessary staff for extension services and the Internal Control System.
I hope that we can convince many textile traders to offer their customers the choice to buy organic textiles.
Recently I found a study from Mrs. Anita Hodgson about the situation in Northern Ghana. She wrote: Farmers in the survey were further disadvantaged because they had to have between three and seven days off work and stay in bed to recuperate after each cotton crop spray. The average wage is about 10,000 – 15,000 cedis per day (about 75p to £1) and in a season there would be six sprays, so there is a significant opportunity cost of approximately 20 working days lost each season.
(e.g. In Uganda has been introduced a system to deduct the input costs for chemical pesticides directly from the cotton price that is paid to the farmer. Consequently all farmers have to pay a certain amount for pesticides even if they have not used it.)
The South African Parliament held a conference 1on Genetically Engineered(GE) crops, food and technology in Stellenbosch on the 15th and 16th of April.
SAFeAGE, the South African Freeze Alliance was satisfied that the government
had clearly indicated a change in direction in its policy in dealing with the issue of Genetically Engineered (GE) crops in this country.
Interim SAFeAGE co-ordinator Glenn Ashton said that while there were still
fundamental disagreements around the safety and desirability of GE crops and food derived from them, the promise from the government to provide transparent regulation and to set the highest possible standards of biosafety was encouraging.
The chairperson of the conference, held at Elsenberg Agricultural College in Stellenbosch, Neo Masithela indicated that South Africa's accession to the Cartegena Biosafety Protocol, the international framework agreement to regulate GE products globally, would provide a structure upon which we could build a model for biosafety in Africa.
All of the relevant departments of government were well represented. The lead department of Agriculture, that is presently tasked with oversight of GE releases in South Africa, also involved the Departments of Health; Trade and Industry; Arts, Culture, Science and Technology and Environment and Tourism. Both civil servants and parliamentarians were present, as well as representatives of business, civil society and academics. There was a strong request to devolve regulation of GE to the Department of Environment, as it was better suited to manage risk analyses and public participation processes.
The conference examined the desirability, legislative framework and concerns around GE food and crops as well as other uses of the technology. Promoters of GE remain adamant that the use of this technology is essential whilst examples were given of the negative effects on our agricultural trade regime in concrete examples from within the food industry.
SAFeAGE is convinced that the government has turned the corner in attempting to regulate these controversial organisms.
"Hopefully we have embarked on a new era of transparency in the regulation
and application of these crops in South Africa. It is up to us to monitor the process from here on in," said Ashton.
However he was concerned that the public was paying a high price for what was essentially an experiment that primarily benefited the developers of the technology. For instance, given that the Department of Agriculture has admitted its inability to properly monitor or inspect the growing of these crops, the maximum price for licensing of GE crops of only R8000.00 was clearly inadequate. This is insufficient to finance clerical oversight of applications, let alone field inspections, public participation, technical testing and other costs.
Seen against a background of privatization and application of the 'user pays
' principle in government relations with business, industry must take
responsibility to finance the state oversight of the technology. This stance fits with the recommendations of both the World Bank and, as far as food safety goes, with the Codex Alimentarius, the UN headed food safety body, as set out in its latest GE guidelines. The state has admitted also that it is unable to afford proper risk assessments and feeding studies. These too must be funded by business but run independently and transparently. We cannot only rely on offshore tests but also have to design and run tests designed for our own needs and local demands. Such funds would have to form part of a far more realistic permitting cost system. To do otherwise simply places an unwelcome burden on the taxpayer.
Moreover it was made clear that the costs of introducing and segregating GE and conventional crops in all spheres of the production process would be borne by consumers. It was felt that this is an a further onerous burden to place on consumers and again should be borne by those introducing these crops or any marginal financial benefits GE crops held would be cancelled by these hidden and onerous financial implications.
SAFeAGE is also worried about the presence of members of AfricaBio, an industry support group that presents itself as an objective commentator, on the Advisory Committee. This committee is tasked with regulation and oversight of introduction of these crops, under the existing Genetically
Modified Organisms Act. Such a conflict of interest is unacceptable.
SAFeAGE is even more concerned with the relationship of AfricaBio and government agencies generally. It is clear that government departments that do not have an adequate understanding of the issues raised by GE utilise the services of AfricaBio for their advice and their public education literature. This to is unacceptable. The state must source its educational literature from an independent source completely uncontaminated by industry interests.
Ashton commended the governments bold step to review its stance on the previously secretive and undemocratic introduction of GE technology and SAFeAGE membership keenly await future opportunities of co-operation with all branches of state. SAFeAGE insists that the Genetically Modified Organisms
Act (Act 15 of 1997) must be extensively reviewed in a transparent process.
"As a specialist group focussing the expertise of a broad based membership, SAFeAGE is uniquely placed to share its members extensive expertise with the government in an objective and co-operative manner," said Ashton.
Press release issued by Glenn Ashton, 17 April 2003.
For further details contact; safeage@iafrica.com or phone 027-021-789-1751
SAFeAGE, The SA Freeze Alliance on GE represents over 200, 000 South Africans from all spheres - unions, academics, religious groups, consumers organisations, NGOs, individuals and consumers - who are calling for a moratorium on the use of GE food and crops - as well as thier import, exports and growing - until such time that proper, transparent and acceptable criteria to ensure their safety and desirabilty are established.
SAFeAGE also is calling for a ban on patents of living organisms.
| About Necofa | General Acitivities | Projects | National Network Groups | Picture Gallery | Services | Contact & Imprint |
