Food Security Set To Decrease

PRICE increases of staple food for Namibia, especially maize, were announced recently.

The agronomic industry is generously protected at the expense of the consumer in that it fixes the price of its product through the floor price. The industry players, which involve producers/farmers and processors/millers, will literally assemble at a lodge or some hospitality establishment to negotiate the price of maize and wheat. The bonus on top of this for the industry is that the Namibian borders will be closed for import during the time they are selling their maize or wheat. Consumers over the years called for the system to be reviewed and that the Namibian producers and millers at least compete among themselves while enjoying protection against regional powerhouses such as South Africa. No changes took place and the industry undertook to conduct an investigation to determine if the practice violates the Namibian Competition law. The advice from a South African-based lawyer was vague and not helpful. While the industry decided to seek a conclusive opinion, almost 6 months have now passed without any subsequent action having taken place. The state of affairs in the agronomic industry is worrisome for the above (lack of competition) and following reasons. Namibia produces only about 50% of its stable food and the rest has to be imported during the open border period (after Namibian produce is sold). Of course even the Namibia negotiated price is said to take into account the foreign price, South African Futures Exchange (SAFEX). Such imports further potentially subject Namibian consumers to consumption of genetically modified (GMO) food, without knowing it. It is also well known among the industry that an award-winning producer of 2009 planted GMO maize in violation of the law. Some farmers, despite the protection they enjoy, have now resorted to planting Jatropha for biofuel/diesel purposes. This in actual fact means that meagre resources such as fertile land, water and electricity will now be diverted from feeding mouths to filling tanks. With the above mentioned 50% production, Namibia is not only going to decrease it’s food security even more, but Jatropha is also known to poison the soil.It was refreshing recently to have noted that the Minister of Mines and Energy reportedly stated that ‘Some farmers are planting for fuel and some maize and sorghum farmers have started planting Jatropha. This will cause us to be faced by food shortages that can be devastating.’ I cannot agree more, it is a plain risky move for Namibia to find itself in. Namibia already has so many lucrative products/minerals that are exported such as diamonds, fish, beef etc, but despite taxes earned by government and jobs provided, how many communities have been empowered by these products? Should we therefore use yet another product’s prospects of earning big bucks, by renting out some of our most fertile land? Even if it means we will do so at the expense of Namibia’s need to feed itself? Consumers do not have a problem with export, the concern is local consequences.It is the consumers’ view that experimenting with Jatropha should not even be entertained. As we said in the past, environmental benefits from biofuel are appreciated, but the priority is to feed the nation. Consumers are confident that it is indeed not government policy to advance and promote biofuel under conditions Namibia finds itself in. Although it is unknown how significantly Jatropha may be experimented on e.g. green schemes where government may be partnering with others. The problem seemingly is out of control on private and traditional land. While the private sector players may be aware of pros and cons, the traditional authorities may not have access to such information. It was reported recently that about 300 000 hectares of land was acquired to plant Jatropha to produce bio-diesel by an investor, in the far north east of Namibia. This most likely is a case of lack of information from the traditional authority’s part, which availed such land. It is therefore imperative on everyone including the government to launch an education campaign on the matter.As for price fixing for maize and wheat, this is not necessary and is seemingly not done by the horticultural side of production (fruit and vegetable). Although they too enjoy some protection/enablement in that traders/retailers are required to acquire a certain percentage of Namibian produce, when trading in horticulture. The percentage is insignificant for big traders, although franchise traders complain that they are required not to pass certain margins. Despite Namibia being net importer of fruit and vegetables, produce for local consumption is said to attract a levy, while export does not.The industry will be quick to refer to a study conducted by an audit firm it paid to do the study (some 3 years ago) that the current arrangement in fact is for the protection of the consumer. Namibian consumers are simply saying economic rivalry (competition) between firms enable consumers to reap benefits, e.g. reasonable prices, increased choice. Price fixing is a particularly detrimental phenomena to consumers and it normally attracts criminal or financial penalties. Thus, no more meetings between producers and millers, as it gravely disadvantages consumers.Michael GawesebExecutive DirectorNamibia Consumer Trust