Plexus Cotton: Decision Time for African Smallholder Agriculture

As a supplier of inputs to small holder farmers in Sub Saharan Africa, it is easy to articulate the dilemma facing the developing cotton economies of the region. Over the last 12 months, we have witnessed the potential destruction of one of the area’s strongest bulwarks: the Zimbabwe cotton industry.

Over my lifetime in the cotton business Zimbabwe has been a beacon of light on how a developing domestic cotton industry should be run. Government rules and regulations were strong, the infrastructure was correct and the growth of the crop as a result, was huge. Both the Zimbabwean economy and its small holder producers benefited.

Advertisement

In essence a few licensed ginners supplied the full range of inputs (largely on credit terms) to hundreds of thousands of small holder farmers. In return they received a contract with the farmer at a price that guaranteed a reasonable return for both parties. Such a system works when the ginner is confident of receiving the crop he funded and the farmer is confident of receiving a fair price for that crop.

In the past few years, the discipline that emanated from the government has disappeared. Many new players have been allowed to enter the market without providing inputs. With no associated costs, they are free to buy cotton at premium prices from farmers who benefited from inputs supplied and paid for by the established ginners. It has encouraged broken contracts and defaults on crop development obligations, and it has brought the established ginners to their knees.

Of Two Minds

Top Articles
Cotton Companion: New Ag Tech in the Palm of Your Hand

There are two schools of thought as to this situation. One is that by encouraging many people into the marketplace, competition is increased which raises prices for the farmer, whom everybody is seeking to benefit.

The problem with this is that there is no long-term development of the cotton crop, no research, no seed multiplication and distribution, no chemical and fertilizer provision. There is an incentive to invest as little in crop development as possible.

Under this system, the person with the least long-term commitment buys the most crop and the others go out of business. This is the situation in Tanzania, Zimbabwe and Malawi today.

After a few years under such a system, tired 6th-10th generation seed barely germinates, chemicals and fertilizers are rarely used and yields are appalling. Some African yields are amongst the lowest in the world. So while the farmer might be getting a marginally better price for his cotton because of increased ginner competition, the cotton infrastructure of the whole country is destroyed as it moves into the hands of those targeting the quick buck, not long-term development.

The second school of thought promotes something akin to the concession system in Mozambique. Prices are agreed between government, farmers and input providers in line with international levels.

The concessionaire knows that inputs supplied will be repaid through seed-cotton deliveries so he is not afraid to invest in the crop. He provides agricultural training, gender programmes and farmer business schools. He contributes to government seed development plans and village bore-hole projects because he knows that he will benefit from the long-term economic growth that results. Yields increase, the country prospers and all stakeholders benefit.

Cotton systems vary across Africa. Some have direct government control, some have none; most fall somewhere in between. To me, it stands to reason that governments leave it to stakeholders on the ground but within a framework of regulation that promotes crops, livelihoods and long-term economic growth. This is the ideal model, and this is why I value concession or contract farming systems over the short-term competitive model that is destroying cash crops and infrastructure in some countries.

In 1947, America stopped picking cotton. Today there are 23,000 corporate American farmers. As a company, we provide inputs to 110,000 small-holder farmers in Mozambique alone. Creating economies of scale, increasing yields, extending training and education and encouraging value-addition is essential for African economies to accelerate their development.

Nearly every developing economy over time has begun its expansion with the textile industry. My own country, Great Britain, developed rapidly with the industrial revolution generated by the textile industry in Lancashire. This was echoed by textile revolutions in Hong Kong, Japan and Korea, then China, India and Pakistan.

The time for Africa is now, but it requires political will and discipline to see beyond the short-term and to put in place a vision to benefit all facets of industry and nation. I urge the pursuit of this debate in the forums of the ICAC, the World Bank and the IMF. I am certain that plans developed in conjunction with all segments of the industry will bear much greater fruit than some of the methods being adopted today.

0

Leave a Reply

Avatar for Hans Muzoora Hans Muzoora says:

Spot on Nick.A major development challenge facing Africa today is the delivery and financing of agricultural extension and advisory services. During the 1960s and 1970s, state-run, state-funded agricultural extension and advisory services played a key role in increasing agricultural productivity. Economic liberalization and institutional reforms in the 1980s and 1990s reduced and/or completely disbanded public extension services. Achieving sustainable productivity requires farmer support mechanisms that go beyond simply telling farmers how to grow the crop. Consistent, appropriate capacity building and farmer advisory are vital, and establishment of organized farmer groups with common interests, through the farmer field school approach, may facilitate this process. Effective quality inputs and farmer-friendly credit mechanisms are essential in improving agricultural productivity. However, for the transition to happen, the rural poor require more than just high-quality agricultural advice. They also need access to education, health services, transport, communications, credit, and remunerative markets. In other words, agricultural extension needs to be part of a wider program designed to stimulate the growth of both the agricultural sector and the non-farm rural economy.Due to declining donor and state-level funding, only through innovative, collaborative and public-private partnerships will it be possible to attract adequate and appropriate private sector investments that lead to increased agricultural incomes, sustainable livelihoods and, reduce hunger.This can be achieved through Contract farming.

I think one barrier in implementing Contract farming, is that this has often come under criticism (especially from Government) saying that this model is limited to cash crops and could easily lead to food insecurity. It is further argued that contract farming is contradictory to farmer self-organization, which works against strengthening of farmers’ position. It also inhibits the farmer in being able to add value to the raw commodity in the value chain.

I think for farmers to be able to make informed decisions and commitments on which crops to grow, it is crucial to develop transparent pricing systems. A fair contract between farmers and agro processing firms, profitable for both sides, is the crucial factor, which decides whether contract farming can be regarded as a pro-poor smallholder farmer empowerment system.The COMPACI program is a good example of achieving this.