In the past year, I have listened to the story of Africa told by others and it saddens me, and drains me emotionally and intellectually. It causes me to go on asking: why? Do you want to hear it from me the way I have been hearing it?

Alright: non-performing economies, more than 80% of the people live below the poverty line, food production is down for a continent whose economy depends on agriculture, extension services are no longer existent, children are dropping out of school as their parents can no longer afford it, women are dehumanized, political instability, corruption, lack of healthcare for the poor who are the majority, bad governance and now HIV/AIDS which, accentuated by poverty, is wiping out everybody. And so on and so forth.

Then in one such meeting somebody else said: "You know when I visited Kenya, I was surprised to find 5-star hotels, electricity, phones, internet services and skyscraper buildings. So I get confused". What would you, as an African, say in a situation like that? The fact is the inequities we see at the international level, also exist and are even worse in our own countries. I do not wish to become political here, because I am not a politician. I am just a simple professor trying to do something, to make a difference. The challenge is huge for the African professional. We should take a huge responsibility over the continent's failures. We have sat back and said "politics is for politicians and ours is science." The truth of the matter is that science needs an enabling political environment to perform and thrive. Science cannot stay in a crucible. It has to flow out like concentrated sulfuric acid agitates when you add cold water to it. It is time for science to take a lead in Africa's development or, shall I say, renewed development. We are now at a crossroads: we either stay afloat or we sink as a continent. To stay afloat, the game has to be played on the international scene, like the World Cup (for soccer).

If our soccer teams can play and win, if Senegal and Cameroon, and South Africa can shine internationally, so can our scientists. Like our football players, we have to play the ball both at home and internationally. It is encouraging that Kenyan scientists are speaking up as we discuss a new constitution. They have stated that other countries of North America, Europe and Asia have developed from a science base and indeed from an agriculture base. Kenya right now has more than a critical mass of scientists to be able to make a difference.

Starting with this issue, and indeed with the last issue (see Michael Foster's paper Vol. 1 No. 1) and in the first issue (Per Pinstrup-Andersen's paper Vol. 1 No. 1) we shall continue to discuss the revitalization of Africa's agriculture for enhancement of food security and nutrition at continental, regional, community, household and individual levels.

We shall address biotechnology in its broad and specific terms, we shall address other agricultural enhancing technologies, some of which are old but have never really been applied in a sustained manner. Here I am referring to farmers' use of enhanced seed, fertilizer and application of viable crop and livestock husbandry to increase food fields for both home consumption and for local and external markets.

We need as professionals to discuss issues of external trade. The Financial Times-June 6, 2002, quotes President Obasanjo of Nigeria appealing to industrialized countries to open up their markets to commodities from Africa.
He made reference to the US farm Bill which will give subsidies to American farmers for the next 10 years.

This is not new. The fact is that American farmers have always been subsidized. This was a common fact when I was studying there in the early seventies. America's food is produced by a handful of farmers who would quit "shop" if such subsidies were not guaranteed. Most of Europe subsidizes its farmers except for Germany who are trying new policies to see whether subsidies can be translated into pro-poor support. You can be sure such a move is not popular with the farmers in Germany. On my visit to Iowa State, one of the maize producing States in the USA, [there maize (corn) fields are everywhere] farmers would not produce without subsidy. My host told me "subsidy is the farmer's profit because right now the world price for maize is less than production price". Farmers are insured by the State against naturally-induced losses and farmers are paid not to grow in a particular season if there is a glut of a particular product that may cause storage problems if it is grown. These reasons, including a working extension support system, easy availability of inputs and guaranteed markets, explain why anybody still carries on with farming at all in some of these countries.

Many African countries used to subsidize farmers. Kenya is a classic example. What happened? For a country that depended on subsistence farmers, we would not have realized national food sufficiency were it not for the deliberate and concerted support that was given to farmers; right now, if our farmers had an option, they would not farm.

As our economies started to de-perform, and grants turned into loans, and we allowed somebody else to play the tune, one of the first things to go, regrettably, was the support for the farmer; "remove farm subsidies" was the message. I did not have to be an economist to see what this would mean.

I recall a time when Kenyan farmers had government guaranteed credit, extension services were working and were in fact the envy of our neighbors around, farm inputs were easily accessible, and farmers' cooperatives were well managed and served the farmer well. Of course it is not only removal of subsidies that has hurt our farmers, food production sector and by association the economy. Worse still, institutions that used to serve the farmer on the marketing side have been riddled with corruption and outright mismanagement; most of our farmers do not have an option. So they continue to till land which has been drained of most useful nutrients. They do not even produce enough to feed their families. How can we then expect them to make a difference at the continental level?

Have we advised our leaders properly? Are we able to? I stated earlier I am not a politician. I am not an economist either, remember? However, I consider myself a logical thinker. Coming back to the football example, it seems to me our agricultural game at home is in shambles. Yet, we expect to play competitively at the international level where the playing field is not level, and where we stand to lose miserably. Africa needs to sort out its own agriculture and ensure there is a product to sell in the first place. Africa needs to sort out its own markets at country level and then graduate into African trade. Having done that, Africa can then go to the international arena and say: "we want fair trade, not favored trade" and this we need to do to maintain self-dignity. Science, through various applications of biotechnology, is probably needed more by Africa than any other continent. I have been known to advocate for a food-chain approach to our food security problems for years. I guess the reason is that being a food and nutrition scientist, I am more concerned with the consumption side of the food chain. My field is only relevant when there is food. There has been less and less food in both quality and quantity for the population groups I deal with, those who are resource constrained.

Biotechnology applications can enhance productivity, can improve keeping and processing quality, can improve nutrient levels and can also provide very high nutrient products for specific population groups. Unfortunately, biotechnology has become like "abortion". You are either for it, or against it. It is a subject right now that is completely misunderstood. In many African countries, activists from outside the continent are allowed to mislead and to misinform and one wonders "why?". My view is that we need to train African scientists in some of these areas and it is they, who would then advise our governments on the course to take. But then, our governments need to be sensitized to consult their own scientists on some of these controversial and sensitive, yet so critical issues that affect our livelihoods and potentially impact quality of life.

Another issue that continues to disturb is the fact that in most parts of Africa, not all, it is women who produce most food. Women produce food in a most unfavorable environment, with little extension support or none, hardly any inputs except their own labor and that of their children, and using non-improved seed. They do not even use fertilizer. It is little surprise that many times their labor's worth is not realized when harvest time comes. Increasingly, productive men continue to leave the rural areas, if they have not already been hit by HIV/AIDS, in search of employment in the cities. Increasingly, the women left behind continue to be overburdened by household and community chores. Just think about it: how does Africa expect to realize optimum food production this way?

We must find ways to keep men in agriculture. We must find ways to make business and money out of agriculture, because only then will men be attracted to it. Equally important is the need to make sure we value women's contributions to family nurturing and indeed, to food security at various levels and to national development. Women deserve equal support as in whatever they do (as much as men, if not more). Let me stop here lest I get accused of sounding sexist.

I was impressed on my visit to India earlier this year to find many Biotechnology villages being "manned" by women, women who were extremely proud of their capabilities and of the multiple harvests they have been able to realize, which went a long way towards the improvement of their livelihoods at the family level. Who says women cannot grasp complex technological information? Just as for small-scale poor farmers, it all depends on how this information is packaged and delivered. Women, in fact, are fairly amenable to new ideas and would do well in the new and experimental field of biotechnology. Is it new surely?

We need to use science to develop our food systems. There is no other way. We need to look at food systems holistically. There are no short-cuts. So let us go on talking about these issues, but more importantly, let us act. It is sinful for us to go on debating while our children die from preventable conditions of hunger and malnutrition. It is unforgivable when our children, men and women succumb to diseases because they have nothing to eat. Act we must, and now.

Downloadable Version.Pdf

HUMAN CAPACITY BUILDING AND AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT
Editorial

Human capacity building is an important input into the development process. The complexity of the human development constraint in Africa calls for more to be done in this area. African economies have remained very weak and in a number of cases are declining. HIV/AIDS and malnutrition ravage the continent, destroying the manpower base and core institutions it supports in the development process. Inadequacy of human capacity on the continent, which is becoming acute due to the intractable problem of brain drain and the HIV/AIDS scourge, poses a major challenge to effective participation by Africa in the global economy. A fortiori, it is a threat to the achievement of the UN Millennium Development Goals in Africa, not least the successful implementation of the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD) initiative. The nutrition world has an important role to play in the human capacity building endeavors for Africa.

The food insecurity situation in Africa is a perennial issue. The situation is worse for the southern Africa region where persistent drought conditions have exacerbated the situation, putting more than thirteen million lives at risk, according to estimates by major United Nations bodies. The global malnutrition rate is high, with Africa evidencing an increasing rate in absolute numbers. The implication of this scenario for the development of a sustainable manpower base is telling. But has NEPAD addressed this issue?

National-level food and nutrition policy and programming is the primary long-term strategy for alleviating the food and nutrition problem. The world nations have signed on to the UN global food security 2020 vision initiative. The achievement of the objectives, however, remains a long-drawn shot in many African countries, even in those where a food and nutrition policy exists. A significant amount of effort has been put in at the micro-level, mainly targeting the most vulnerable populations. Works of institutions and organizations such as the World Food Program, Oxfam, Rural Outreach Program, Heifer International, CARE, and Catholic Relief Services need to be commended for such on-ground efforts. In an environment where the capacity of African governments to provide for the citizenry has been compromised, the interventions of these institutions and organizations have become the first-line action for enhancing nutritional well-being. A more sustainable alternative is to work towards the infusion of adequate resources so as to guarantee more stable outcomes from the interventions. A broad-based sector-wide development program for Africa, for instance the NEPAD initiative, will go a long way in complementing micro-level efforts at alleviating nutritional problems.

Commitment to investment in human capacity building is evident in much of Africa. However, a great deal is still required to significantly raise the current level of capacity to that which can reasonably sustain the growth and development process. At present, there are institutions in Africa and development partners that are supporting the capacity building process. Bilateral and multilateral donors through technical cooperation programs are playing an important role in this area. A mix of short-term and long-term human resource development strategies have been adopted. Capacity building in the field of nutrition has often lagged behind other sectors of development. Where implemented, efforts in the field of nutrition have mainly centered on education for extension and higher education career development. There is a need to build capacity for research, policy analysis and programming in the field of nutrition for effective collaboration for the design, implementation and evaluation of interventions at local levels.

Comprehensive technical skills in nutritional status assessment, as well as in nutrition program design and evaluation have generally lagged behind. Also of importance, is the linkage with other disciplines such as agricultural, health and economic planning. These should be the areas of focus in striving to achieve balance in capacity building, and to make the field of nutrition more relevant and attractive as a discipline. Beyond field experience, there is need to involve Africa-based nutritionists in collaborative research work as a strategy for building and strengthening indigenous capacity. There are numerous other strategies and instruments through which development funding agencies can support the capacity building process in this respect. All this will, however, not achieve the desired long-term impact, if existing professionals in the field are not recognized, effectively utilized, adequately rewarded and nurtured to enable them to grow the full potentials of their skills and maximize the utility of such skills.

*Edith Mukudi, Ph.D
Assistant Professor
2131 Moore Hall
Graduate School of Education and Information Studies,
UCLA, Box 951521, Los Angels, CA 90095-1521
Email: mukudi@gseis.ucla.edu