Connect with us

WITNESS RADIO MILESTONES

China: ramping up investment in African agriculture

Published

on

by Helen Castell
As China’s government pledges to help funnel more aid, development finance and private-sector capital into African agriculture, what’s motivating the flow and is it having a positive impact?
The flow of Chinese money into Africa is growing fast, with agriculture attracting a sizeable chunk. In 2014, Africa received around 12% of China’s overseas agricultural investment and the proportion continues to grow, according to a 2018 USDA report, which based its calculations on Chinese government data.
Chinese firms investing overseas receive strong financial support from the Chinese government, which sees Africa and agriculture as important to China’s ‘Go Global’ drive
At the 7th Forum on China-Africa Co-operation (FOCAC) held in Beijing September 2018, Chinese President Xi Jinping pledged €52 billion in financing for projects across Africa over the following 3 years. This will include €13 billion in grants and interest-free or concessional loans – three times the amount pledged at the previous FOCAC in 2015 – €17 billion in credit lines, a €9 billion development finance fund and €4 billion to finance imports from Africa.
While Jinping did not detail the projects, he said agricultural modernisation would be a key focus, with the investment including funding for 50 agricultural assistance programmes and to send 500 agricultural experts to Africa to train entrepreneurs and agricultural scientists. Chinese firms would also be encouraged to invest at least another €9 billion in Africa over the period, Jinping added.
Public-private partnerships
While the Chinese government is the main driver for investment in African agriculture, it is increasingly seeking to involve private-sector companies through public-private partnerships, notes Cathy Xi Cao, an independent agricultural analyst at the time of writing. She predicts that this will likely accelerate as China’s huge Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) – which seeks to build trade routes across Europe and Africa – gains momentum. And, while many BRI investments will focus on hard infrastructure, like roads and ports, these should theoretically support agriculture, improving logistics as well as helping farmers reach domestic and overseas markets.
Agricultural technology demonstration centres, typically operated by private Chinese companies with financial support from China’s Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM), represent China’s most high-profile investment in African agriculture. There are now 23 centres across the continent offering farmers Chinese seeds for rice and other crops, as well as technology and training on cultivating everything from mushrooms to maize and rearing livestock such as cows or poultry.

Proponents of this model include the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which has partnered with MOFCOM to support two centres in Mozambique and Zambia and says that China has valuable technologies to share with Africa, as well as expertise gained during its own agricultural transformation.

Big private-sector Chinese players in African agriculture that have wrapped technical assistance around their investments include Tian Ze, a subsidiary of China Tobacco Co. Since 2005, it has used a contract farming model to expand across Zimbabwe – where, by 2014, it had 387 tobacco farmers in its network – and also into Malawi, Tanzania and Zambia, according to USDA. Tian Ze’s investments reportedly include the provision of low- or no-interest finance to farmers, although exact figures are not available.
Chinese firms investing overseas receive strong financial support from the Chinese government, which sees Africa and agriculture as important to China’s ‘Go Global’ drive. For example, when the Agriculture Development Bank of China and the country’s Ministry of Agriculture agreed in 2016 to provide €390 billion in agricultural lending, supporting Chinese agricultural companies’ overseas investments was cited as one of 10 targets for the money.
Commercial motives
Beijing’s main motivation for supporting investments in African agriculture is widely assumed to be securing food supplies for China but this is not supported by data. Africa supplied only 2% of China’s agricultural imports during 2010-15, according to Chinese customs figures, the USDA report notes. And, while much of its technical assistance and aid focuses on rice, China does not import rice or any other grains from Africa. Indeed, FOCAC stressed in its action plan the importance of helping Africa to achieve food security by 2030.
Rather, aid flows appear to be designed to build goodwill in African countries, facilitating the entry and profitability of Chinese firms, and building markets for Chinese inputs such as rice seeds. For example, investments by Chinese animal feed supplier New Hope Group, including in Egypt and South Africa, focus on building markets in those countries for its feed.
Indeterminate impact
With multiple media reports accuse Chinese entities of ‘land grabbing’ some 6 million ha of land across the continent, the impact of Chinese investments in African agriculture is a sensitive topic. However, the reports appear to have been greatly exaggerated, with the China Africa Research Initiative at John Hopkins University stating that barely 4% of this figure – 252,901 ha – can be confirmed.
China’s readiness to lend to African governments – Kenya, for example, owes around €4.6 billion to China, equivalent to around a fifth of its total external debt – has also raised concerns, with critics alleging it is a way of China gaining political influence, particularly when borrowers struggle to repay. This may or may not be true, but much of this government-to-government lending is focused on energy or transport infrastructure rather than agriculture, where Chinese development and commercial bank lending is directed at Chinese firms.
On an individual farmer level, the impact of Chinese investment has been mixed. For example, while Zimbabwe’s tobacco board has credited Tian Ze’s contract farming model for helping the sector thrive at a time when international sanctions kept investors from other nations away, the Chinese firm reportedly demanded loan repayments from tobacco farmers in 2016 when they could not deliver the crop due to drought and crop failure. And, while Chinese agricultural technology is cheaper than that from the West, some media reports quote farmers as saying that it is still too expensive and that they have learned little of use at Chinese demonstration centres.
CIDCA: a new era?
In April 2018, it was hoped with the launch of the China International Development Cooperation Agency (CIDCA) that Beijing was ushering in a more transparent and collaborative approach to its aid flows in areas including African agriculture and a willingness to acknowledge mistakes. Less than 6 months later, the publication of a joint report by CIDCA and UNDP assessing the impact and effectiveness of two Chinese projects – the Agricultural Technical Cooperation Project in Guinea-Bissau and the Agricultural Technology Demonstration Center in Mozambique – appeared to represent a step in that direction. The report made several recommendations, including that Chinese technical experts stay in-country for longer and engage more with local partners such as farmer cooperatives and NGOs.
Biggest offer on the table
Nevertheless, within the continent and abroad, China’s investment in African agriculture remains controversial. The unusually strong ties between the state and private sector in China are regularly criticised by western governments and companies, who argue cheap funding gives Chinese firms an unfair advantage in markets, including agriculture, and hands Beijing a worrying level of influence over African leaders. Others argue that African farmers will not gain in the long term from a model that is geared towards Chinese commercial interests. For the moment, however, China’s offer remains, if not always the best, by far the biggest offer on the table for African agriculture. Only when rival governments up their own commitments to the sector will this change.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

WITNESS RADIO MILESTONES

A Global Report reveals that Development Banks’ Accountability Systems are failing communities.

Published

on

By Witness Radio team.

For decades, development projects have been funded to address some of the World’s most pressing problems, including poverty, wildlife conservation, and climate change. However, what unfolds on the ground is sometimes the opposite of development. Instead of benefits, these projects have often harmed the very people they are supposed to support.

The effort to address such harm has led to the establishment of Independent Accountability Mechanisms (IAMs) by various development banks. Yet, communities affected by these projects often face betrayal by national court systems, leaving them feeling overlooked and vulnerable, emotions that underscore the urgent need for effective justice.

According to experts in development financing, since the early 1990s, development banks have sought to address and mitigate harm through IAMs—non-judicial grievance mechanisms that provide a direct avenue for impacted communities to raise concerns, engage with project implementers, and obtain remedies for the harm they have experienced.

The study, conducted by Accountability Counsel and titled Accountability in Action or Inaction? An Empirical Study of Remedy Delivery in Independent Accountability Mechanisms shows that while IAMs exist, their relevance has fallen short, underscoring the urgent need for reform to restore community trust and hope.

In compiling the report, researchers reviewed 2,270 complaints across 16 IAMs and conducted 45 interviews covering 25 cases globally.

The report reveals a persistent gap between the promise of remedies and their realization, highlighting that only 15% of closed complaints led to commitments, and just 10% achieved full completion, underscoring the urgent need for effective remedies for communities.

The findings highlight ongoing challenges, including inadequate implementation, limited monitoring, and persistent power imbalances, which continue to block communities from accessing meaningful remedies and demand immediate reform.

“The consequences of these institutional gaps are severe. As these cases show, institutional silence can exacerbate risk, while meaningful intervention can help de-escalate it.” The Report adds.

Uganda is among the countries where communities have sought justice using these accountability mechanisms. Between 2006 and 2010, communities in one of the districts of Uganda were brutally evicted by the UK-based Company, which was growing trees in the area.

The company was formerly an investee of the Agri-Vie Agribusiness Fund, a private equity fund supported by the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the private sector arm of the World Bank Group. The community filed a Complaint with the IFC’s accountability mechanism, the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO).

“We complained to this body in 2011, hoping for justice, but over 15 years later our people are still struggling, living miserably, some without homes,” a community land and environmental defender told the Witness Radio team.

According to the affected residents, the CAO process did not lead to success or meaningful compensation, as they had hoped.

Between 2013 and 2014, the communities, with support from the CAO, signed a final agreement with the Company to address the harm. Among other commitments, this included resettlement of the affected communities.

In its 28-page report published in 2015 titled: A Story of Community-Company Dispute Resolution in Uganda, the CAO wrote,” With the agreements concluded, implementation is gathering pace. As agreed, the company has begun extending development assistance to both cooperatives, and the process of restoring and enhancing livelihoods has commenced.

The first step taken by both cooperatives was to acquire land. In late 2013, the Mubende Cooperative bought 500 acres of ‘fertile agricultural land’ in the Mubende district. Their vision was to allocate a certain percentage of the land for resettlement, with the remainder utilized for farming projects.

Reports from the ground indicate that communities remain dissatisfied with the process, claiming it failed to address their concerns fully and highlighting the urgent need for more effective remedy systems.

“When you say that people are well, it is really a total lie. Many people were never compensated or resettled. Even those who got a portion of land say they have never seen a fertile land—I have never seen it, because people are living or cultivating on rocky, infertile lands,” the defender further revealed.

The struggle faced by the Ugandan community is not unique. Their experience mirrors what the Accountability Counsel report identifies worldwide. Despite registering more than 2000 complaints by communities harmed by bank-financed projects globally, there has been no comprehensive system-wide analysis of whether and how often these mechanisms deliver meaningful remedies, defined as tangible, material outcomes that repair harm and improve lives.

In addition to the slow success of such IAMs, the report notes that, across interviews covering 25 complaints, 84% referenced retaliation, violence, or threats of violence-an alarming indicator of the risks faced by communities seeking justice, demanding immediate attention and action.

“Government officials and company representatives were frequently implicated in efforts to suppress dissent. This not only reduces the likelihood of achieving a substantial remedy, but also suppresses the willingness of community members to speak honestly and openly about Complaint outcomes.” The report further adds,

Further, it reveals that communities described a range of retaliatory tactics, including physical clashes, arrests, detentions, fatalities, intimidation and harassment, death threats, and anonymous warning letters, among others.

“Remedy must be reimagined not as a peripheral concern but as a core responsibility of development institutions. It must be adequately resourced, independently monitored, and centered around the needs and voices of affected people,” the report adds.

The report recommends that development banks and IAMs establish a Remedy Framework with clear standards to ensure remedies are timely, adequate, and community-centered, and to encourage stakeholders to prioritize systemic reform for better justice outcomes.

The report also urges development banks and their accountability mechanisms to make remedies a foundational element of responsible finance. Adopting institutional frameworks that prioritize redress, empowering IAMs to oversee and enforce commitments, and incorporating the outcomes of IAM processes into project evaluations and institutional learning.

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Young activists fight to be heard as officials push forward on devastating project: ‘It is corporate greed’

Published

on

“We refuse to inherit a damaged planet and devastated communities.”

Youth climate activists in Uganda protesting the East African Crude Oil Pipeline, or EACOP, are frustrated with the government’s response to their demonstration as the years-long project moves forward.

According to the country’s Daily Monitor, youth activists organized with End Fossil Occupy Uganda took to the streets of Kampala in early August to protest EACOP. The pipeline, under construction since about 2017 and now 62 percent complete, is set to transport crude oil from Uganda’s Tilenga and Kingfisher fields through Tanzania to the Indian Ocean port of Tanga by 2026.

Activists noted the devastating toll, with group spokesperson Felix Musinguzi saying that already around 13,000 people “have lost their land with unfair compensation” and estimating that around 90,000 more in Uganda and Tanzania could be affected. End Fossil Occupy Uganda has also warned of risks to vital water sources, including Lake Victoria, which it says 40 million people rely on.

The group has been calling on financial institutions to withdraw funding for the project. Following a demonstration at Stanbic Bank earlier in the month, 12 activists were arrested, according to the Daily Monitor.

Some protesters were seen holding signs reading “Every loan to big oil is a debt to our children” and “It’s not economic development; it is corporate greed.”

Meanwhile, the regional newspaper says the government has described the activist efforts as driven by foreign actors who mean to subvert economic progress.

EACOP’s site notes that its shareholders include French multinational TotalEnergies — owning 62 percent of the company’s shares — Uganda National Oil Company, Tanzania Petroleum Development Corporation, and China National Offshore Oil Corporation.

The wave of young people taking action against EACOP could be seen as a sign of growing public frustration over infrastructural projects that promise economic gain while bringing harm to local communities and ecosystems. Activists say residents face costly threats from pipeline development, such as forced displacement and the loss of livelihoods.

Environmental hazards to Lake Victoria could also disrupt water supplies and food systems, bringing the potential for both financial and health impacts. Just 10 years ago, an oil spill in Kenya caused a humanitarian crisis. The Kenya Pipeline Company reportedly attributed the spill to pipeline corrosion, which led to contamination of the Thange River and severe illness.

The EACOP project has already locked the region into close to a decade of development, and concerns about the pipeline and continued investments in carbon-intensive systems go back just as long. Youth activists, as well as concerned citizens of all ages, say efforts to move toward climate resilience can’t wait. “As young people, we refuse to inherit a damaged planet and devastated communities,” Musinguzi said, per the Monitor.

Source: The Cool Down

Continue Reading

WITNESS RADIO MILESTONES

Why matooke farming is losing ground in Bukedi

Published

on

On a humid morning in Namusango Village, Kamonkoli South Ward, Kamonkoli Town Council in Budaka District, 58-year-old farmer James Kainja walks at the edge of what used to be his flourishing matooke garden.  For generations, the green banana plant—matooke—stood tall in Uganda’s farmlands, its broad leaves swaying in the wind and its heavy bunches promising a warm, hearty meal. But in Bukedi Sub-region today, that story is fading. Between the tired banana stools, spear grass has taken over. A few bunches hang small and low quality. “We used to harvest every week,” Mr Kainja says, dusting his palms.

“Now, it is once in a while and the money is not worth the struggle,” he adds. Across Bukedi, particularly in Pallisa, Budaka, Butebo, and Kibuku, the banana plants are shrinking back, replaced by maize, cassava, rice, and other faster-growing crops.  The sub-region that once sent truckloads of matooke to nearby districts now measures its banana harvest in small piles under tarpaulin. Where the green canopy of banana leaves once dominated, the landscape has changed. For many farmers, the decision is not about abandoning tradition but about survival.

Matooke as culture

In many Bukedi households, matooke still holds cultural value, especially during weddings, funerals, and community gatherings.  But with fewer plantations, sourcing enough bunches has become harder and more expensive. Matooke is now imported into Bukedi from Mbale and Mbarara. Mr Abubakar Nanghejje, an elder in Kibuku, warns: “If this trend continues, our children may only know matooke from stories. We are losing more than a crop—we are losing a piece of who we are.”

He adds that matooke, once abundant, is now a luxury: “People only access matooke during ceremonies because the cost of a bunch has turned expensive,” he explains. Within Kibuku Town Council, women sell matooke in pieces: three or four fingers for Shs1,000, while a complete bunch costs between Shs30,000 and Shs35,000. This contrasts sharply with central and western Uganda, where matooke is more than a crop—it is an identity, a culture, and a livelihood.  Yet across the country, banana plantations are thinning out, replaced by maize, beans, or simply abandoned.

Farmers’ voices

Mr Peter Mwigala, a 73-year-old farmer from Bubulanga Village, recalls with nostalgia: “I grew matooke for 30 years. But now my plantation is less than half what it used to be. The pests are too many, the prices are too low, and the rains are no longer reliable.” His story echoes across villages, evidence of a slow, steady decline in matooke production.  This decline has unfolded over two to three decades, rather than as a sudden collapse. Agricultural researchers point to several reasons. Among them, banana bacterial wilt (BBW), banana weevils, and nematodes that have devastated plantations in major banana-growing areas. These pests cause premature ripening, rotting, and eventual uprooting of infected plants.

 “When wilt enters your plantation, you can lose everything in one season,” says Mr Abner Botiri, an agriculture officer in Budaka. He further explains that erratic rainfall and prolonged dry spells also take a toll.  Matooke thrives in consistent moisture, but under drought stress it yields smaller bunches.  Repeated losses have led some farmers to abandon the crop entirely. Continuous cultivation without soil management has also depleted many banana-growing soils. Beyond agronomic challenges, the economics of matooke farming have shifted dramatically.  Local market prices fluctuate widely depending on supply, while transport costs have risen sharply.

Mr John Gwanyi, a 71-year-old farmer, recalls: “In the 1980s and 1990s, matooke farmers could educate children through primary, secondary, and tertiary levels, and still cover basic needs. Today, a whole plantation might not pay for one term’s school fees.” Urbanisation has worsened the trend. Younger generations moving to towns now eat rice, spaghetti, and bread more frequently.

The once sacred matooke meal is no longer the undisputed centrepiece of Ugandan dining tables. Meanwhile, land fragmentation leaves families with smaller plots, unable to sustain large banana plantations.  In some areas, higher-value or quicker-return crops like coffee, passion fruit, or maize dominate.  As one agricultural economist notes: “A bunch of matooke takes nine months to mature, but maize can be ready in three months. For cash-strapped farmers, that difference matters.

Government interventions

Government and research institutions have made several attempts to address the situation.  The National Agricultural Research Organisation (NARO) has introduced resistant banana varieties and promoted good agronomic practices. NGOs are training farmers in mulching, proper spacing, and integrated pest management. Still, the decline carries a cultural weight. In Buganda, for instance, matooke is central to marriage ceremonies, community gatherings, and daily life.

“When you serve matooke at a function, it shows respect,” explains Mr Badiru Kirya, a cultural leader in Obwa Ikumbania bwa Bugwere. Yet, Mr Kirya attributes part of the decline to newer banana varieties introduced by research agencies. “The old varieties planted by our grandparents could withstand weather changes better. These new varieties are weaker against climate volatility,” he says. He also notes that soil infertility and population pressure have accelerated the decline, as families squeeze more onto smaller pieces of land.

National standing

Uganda remains one of the world’s largest banana consumers, with per capita consumption estimated at 250–300 kg annually in some regions. Yet, national banana production has generally declined. According to the Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS) 2024 census, only 27.1 percent of households participate in banana cultivation.  Dr Sadik Kassim, the NARO deputy director general in-charge of agricultural promotion, highlights several factors. “Soil fertility has gone low, while pests and disease build-up have grossly affected matooke gardens. Erratic rainfall and climate change further reduce yields.

Poor agricultural practices have made the decline worse,” he says. However, Dr Kassim dismisses the claim that new technologies are to blame. Similarly, Dr Rabooni Tumuhimbise, the director of research at Rwebitaba Zonal Agricultural Research and Development Institute, said: “As of now, I am not aware that Bukedi has registered a decline in banana production. This needs verification before conclusions.” But farmers and local leaders insist the reality is clear: matooke is disappearing from Bukedi. Mr Arthur Wako Mboizi, a seasoned politician and opinion leader, argues: “Bukedi has drastically registered a total decline in banana production due to various factors, including soil infertility, diseases, and erratic rainfall.”

Efforts are underway to add value. Under the Presidential Initiative on Banana, NARO and Kilimo Trust have developed matooke-based products such as flour, bread, and cakes. More than 13 million Ugandans consume bananas as their staple, and 75 percent of farmers grow them, contributing nearly $440 million annually to the economy. Yet, for Bukedi, the reality is sobering. The once proud producer of matooke is a shadow of its former self. As Mr Nanghejje, the Kibuku elder, put it: “We are losing more than a crop. We are losing a piece of who we are.”

Background 

In 2024, national banana production was estimated at 6 million tonnes annually, 70 percent of which was consumed at household level and 30 percent sold.

The Banana Merchandise Trade Statistics Bulletin (2024) shows export earnings rose from $2.1 million in June 2023 to $2.4 million in June 2024. Still, yields remain below potential—currently 5–30 tonnes per hectare compared to an attainable 60–70 tonnes.  Uganda’s banana losses to wilt disease are massive, with officials estimating a 71.4 percent loss of potential harvest annually, worth nearly $300 million.

Source: Monitor

Continue Reading

Resource Center

Legal Framework

READ BY CATEGORY

Facebook

Newsletter

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter



Trending

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter