Connect with us

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

How food and water are driving a 21st-century African land grab

Published

on

A woman tends vegetables at a giant Saudi-financed farm in Ethiopia.

An Observer investigation reveals how rich countries faced by a global food shortage now farm an area double the size of the UK to guarantee supplies for their citizens.

We turned off the main road to Awassa, talked our way past security guards and drove a mile across empty land before we found what will soon be Ethiopia’s largest greenhouse. Nestling below an escarpment of the Rift Valley, the development is far from finished, but the plastic and steel structure already stretches over 20 hectares – the size of 20 football pitches.

The farm manager shows us millions of tomatoes, peppers and other vegetables being grown in 500m rows in computer controlled conditions. Spanish engineers are building the steel structure, Dutch technology minimises water use from two bore-holes and 1,000 women pick and pack 50 tonnes of food a day. Within 24 hours, it has been driven 200 miles to Addis Ababa and flown 1,000 miles to the shops and restaurants of Dubai, Jeddah and elsewhere in the Middle East.

Ethiopia is one of the hungriest countries in the world with 2.8 million people needing food aid, but paradoxically the government is offering at least 3m hectares of its most fertile land to rich countries and some of the world’s most wealthy individuals to export food for their own populations.

The 1,000 hectares of land which contain the Awassa greenhouses are leased for 99 years to a Saudi billionaire businessman, Ethiopian-born Sheikh Mohammed al-Amoudi, one of the 50 richest men in the world. His Saudi Star company plans to spend up to $2bn acquiring and developing 500,000 hectares of land in Ethiopia in the next few years. So far, it has bought four farms and is already growing wheat, rice, vegetables and flowers for the Saudi market. It expects eventually to employ more than 10,000 people.

But Ethiopia is only one of 20 or more African countries where land is being bought or leased for intensive agriculture on an immense scale in what may be the greatest change of ownership since the colonial era.

An Observer investigation estimates that up to 50m hectares of land – an area more than double the size of the UK – has been acquired in the last few years or is in the process of being negotiated by governments and wealthy investors working with state subsidies. The data used was collected by Grain, the International Institute for Environment and Development, the International Land Coalition, ActionAid and other non-governmental groups.

The land rush, which is still accelerating, has been triggered by the worldwide food shortages which followed the sharp oil price rises in 2008, growing water shortages and the European Union’s insistence that 10% of all transport fuel must come from plant-based biofuels by 2015.

In many areas the deals have led to evictions, civil unrest and complaints of “land grabbing”.

The experience of Nyikaw Ochalla, an indigenous Anuak from the Gambella region of Ethiopia now living in Britain but who is in regular contact with farmers in his region, is typical. He said: “All of the land in the Gambella region is utilised. Each community has and looks after its own territory and the rivers and farmlands within it. It is a myth propagated by the government and investors to say that there is waste land or land that is not utilised in Gambella.

“The foreign companies are arriving in large numbers, depriving people of land they have used for centuries. There is no consultation with the indigenous population. The deals are done secretly. The only thing the local people see is people coming with lots of tractors to invade their lands.

“All the land round my family village of Illia has been taken over and is being cleared. People now have to work for an Indian company. Their land has been compulsorily taken and they have been given no compensation. People cannot believe what is happening. Thousands of people will be affected and people will go hungry.”

It is not known if the acquisitions will improve or worsen food security in Africa, or if they will stimulate separatist conflicts, but a major World Bank report due to be published this month is expected to warn of both the potential benefits and the immense dangers they represent to people and nature.

Leading the rush are international agribusinesses, investment banks, hedge funds, commodity traders, sovereign wealth funds as well as UK pension funds, foundations and individuals attracted by some of the world’s cheapest land.

Together they are scouring Sudan, Kenya, Nigeria, Tanzania, Malawi, Ethiopia, Congo, Zambia, Uganda, Madagascar, Zimbabwe, Mali, Sierra Leone, Ghana and elsewhere. Ethiopia alone has approved 815 foreign-financed agricultural projects since 2007. Any land there, which investors have not been able to buy, is being leased for approximately $1 per year per hectare.

Saudi Arabia, along with other Middle Eastern emirate states such as Qatar, Kuwait and Abu Dhabi, is thought to be the biggest buyer. In 2008 the Saudi government, which was one of the Middle East’s largest wheat-growers, announced it was to reduce its domestic cereal production by 12% a year to conserve its water. It earmarked $5bn to provide loans at preferential rates to Saudi companies which wanted to invest in countries with strong agricultural potential .

Meanwhile, the Saudi investment company Foras, backed by the Islamic Development Bank and wealthy Saudi investors, plans to spend $1bn buying land and growing 7m tonnes of rice for the Saudi market within seven years. The company says it is investigating buying land in Mali, Senegal, Sudan and Uganda. By turning to Africa to grow its staple crops, Saudi Arabia is not just acquiring Africa’s land but is securing itself the equivalent of hundreds of millions of gallons of scarce water a year. Water, says the UN, will be the defining resource of the next 100 years.

Since 2008 Saudi investors have bought heavily in Sudan, Egypt, Ethiopia and Kenya. Last year the first sacks of wheat grown in Ethiopia for the Saudi market were presented by al-Amoudi to King Abdullah.

Some of the African deals lined up are eye-wateringly large: China has signed a contract with the Democratic Republic of Congo to grow 2.8m hectares of palm oil for biofuels. Before it fell apart after riots, a proposed 1.2m hectares deal between Madagascar and the South Korean company Daewoo would have included nearly half of the country’s arable land.

Land to grow biofuel crops is also in demand. “European biofuel companies have acquired or requested about 3.9m hectares in Africa. This has led to displacement of people, lack of consultation and compensation, broken promises about wages and job opportunities,” said Tim Rice, author of an ActionAid report which estimates that the EU needs to grow crops on 17.5m hectares, well over half the size of Italy, if it is to meet its 10% biofuel target by 2015.

“The biofuel land grab in Africa is already displacing farmers and food production. The number of people going hungry will increase,” he said. British firms have secured tracts of land in Angola, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Nigeria and Tanzania to grow flowers and vegetables.

Indian companies, backed by government loans, have bought or leased hundreds of thousands of hectares in Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Senegal and Mozambique, where they are growing rice, sugar cane, maize and lentils to feed their domestic market.

Nowhere is now out of bounds. Sudan, emerging from civil war and mostly bereft of development for a generation, is one of the new hot spots. South Korean companies last year bought 700,000 hectares of northern Sudan for wheat cultivation; the United Arab Emirates have acquired 750,000 hectares and Saudi Arabia last month concluded a 42,000-hectare deal in Nile province.

The government of southern Sudan says many companies are now trying to acquire land. “We have had many requests from many developers. Negotiations are going on,” said Peter Chooli, director of water resources and irrigation, in Juba last week. “A Danish group is in discussions with the state and another wants to use land near the Nile.”

In one of the most extraordinary deals, buccaneering New York investment firm Jarch Capital, run by a former commodities trader, Philip Heilberg, has leased 800,000 hectares in southern Sudan near Darfur. Heilberg has promised not only to create jobs but also to put 10% or more of his profits back into the local community. But he has been accused by Sudanese of “grabbing” communal land and leading an American attempt to fragment Sudan and exploit its resources.

Devlin Kuyek, a Montreal-based researcher with Grain, said investing in Africa was now seen as a new food supply strategy by many governments. “Rich countries are eyeing Africa not just for a healthy return on capital, but also as an insurance policy. Food shortages and riots in 28 countries in 2008, declining water supplies, climate change and huge population growth have together made land attractive. Africa has the most land and, compared with other continents, is cheap,” he said.

“Farmland in sub-Saharan Africa is giving 25% returns a year and new technology can treble crop yields in short time frames,” said Susan Payne, chief executive of Emergent Asset Management, a UK investment fund seeking to spend $50m on African land, which, she said, was attracting governments, corporations, multinationals and other investors. “Agricultural development is not only sustainable, it is our future. If we do not pay great care and attention now to increase food production by over 50% before 2050, we will face serious food shortages globally,” she said.

But many of the deals are widely condemned by both western non-government groups and nationals as “new colonialism”, driving people off the land and taking scarce resources away from people.

We met Tegenu Morku, a land agent, in a roadside cafe on his way to the region of Oromia in Ethiopia to find 500 hectares of land for a group of Egyptian investors. They planned to fatten cattle, grow cereals and spices and export as much as possible to Egypt. There had to be water available and he expected the price to be about 15 birr (75p) per hectare per year – less than a quarter of the cost of land in Egypt and a tenth of the price of land in Asia.

“The land and labour is cheap and the climate is good here. Everyone – Saudis, Turks, Chinese, Egyptians – is looking. The farmers do not like it because they get displaced, but they can find land elsewhere and, besides, they get compensation, equivalent to about 10 years’ crop yield,” he said.

Oromia is one of the centres of the African land rush. Haile Hirpa, president of the Oromia studies’ association, said last week in a letter of protest to UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon that India had acquired 1m hectares, Djibouti 10,000 hectares, Saudi Arabia 100,000 hectares, and that Egyptian, South Korean, Chinese, Nigerian and other Arab investors were all active in the state.

“This is the new, 21st-century colonisation. The Saudis are enjoying the rice harvest, while the Oromos are dying from man-made famine as we speak,” he said.

The Ethiopian government denied the deals were causing hunger and said that the land deals were attracting hundreds of millions of dollars of foreign investments and tens of thousands of jobs. A spokesman said: “Ethiopia has 74m hectares of fertile land, of which only 15% is currently in use – mainly by subsistence farmers. Of the remaining land, only a small percentage – 3 to 4% – is offered to foreign investors. Investors are never given land that belongs to Ethiopian farmers. The government also encourages Ethiopians in the diaspora to invest in their homeland. They bring badly needed technology, they offer jobs and training to Ethiopians, they operate in areas where there is suitable land and access to water.”

The reality on the ground is different, according to Michael Taylor, a policy specialist at the International Land Coalition. “If land in Africa hasn’t been planted, it’s probably for a reason. Maybe it’s used to graze livestock or deliberately left fallow to prevent nutrient depletion and erosion. Anybody who has seen these areas identified as unused understands that there is no land in Ethiopia that has no owners and users.”

Development experts are divided on the benefits of large-scale, intensive farming. Indian ecologist Vandana Shiva said in London last week that large-scale industrial agriculture not only threw people off the land but also required chemicals, pesticides, herbicides, fertilisers, intensive water use, and large-scale transport, storage and distribution which together turned landscapes into enormous mono-cultural plantations.

“We are seeing dispossession on a massive scale. It means less food is available and local people will have less. There will be more conflict and political instability and cultures will be uprooted. The small farmers of Africa are the basis of food security. The food availability of the planet will decline,” she says. But Rodney Cooke, director at the UN’s International Fund for Agricultural Development, sees potential benefits. “I would avoid the blanket term ‘land-grabbing’. Done the right way, these deals can bring benefits for all parties and be a tool for development.”

Lorenzo Cotula, senior researcher with the International Institute for Environment and Development, who co-authored a report on African land exchanges with the UN fund last year, found that well-structured deals could guarantee employment, better infrastructures and better crop yields. But badly handled they could cause great harm, especially if local people were excluded from decisions about allocating land and if their land rights were not protected.

Water is also controversial. Local government officers in Ethiopia told the Observer that foreign companies that set up flower farms and other large intensive farms were not being charged for water. “We would like to, but the deal is made by central government,” said one. In Awassa, the al-Amouni farm uses as much water a year as 100,000 Ethiopians.

• This article was amended on 22 March 2011. Owing to an editing error the original said that more than 13 million people in Ethiopia need food aid. This has been corrected.

Original Post: The Guardian

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Food systems in conflict areas: Architectures of armed conflict are turning food and hunger into weapons of war.

Published

on

By the Witness Radio team.

War now extends beyond guns and bombs, with food systems becoming strategic tools in modern conflict, a crucial factor for understanding global security and the deliberate targeting of food as a weapon.

Fields are burned before harvest. Irrigation systems are destroyed. Fishing zones are blocked. Grain silos are bombed. Seeds are contaminated or confiscated. Entire communities are cut off from their ability to grow or buy food for months or years, deliberately harming people’s access to food.

The result is not only displacement or destruction, but a slower, more deliberate outcome: hunger. In many cases, it functions not as a side effect of war but as a method of weakening populations and reshaping control over land, resources, and survival itself.

A new position paper by La Via Campesina, representing over 200 million peasants, Indigenous peoples, farmers, and rural workers, argues that controlling land and food is a deliberate political act, and that defending these resources is vital to life itself. This underscores the critical need for collective action to safeguard food security.

The report frames war and hunger as interconnected forces within a global political order, highlighting the widespread implications of targeting food systems.

The document states that “war and hunger are two faces of the same system,” and adds that defending land and food systems is inseparable from defending life itself.

La Via Campesina describes the current global moment as one defined by overlapping conflicts across Gaza, Sudan, Ukraine, Yemen, the Sahel, Myanmar, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and other regions. Rather than isolated crises, the report suggests these wars reflect a broader global system shaped by intensifying geopolitical competition, expanding military industries, weakening international governance, and growing pressure on land, water, and food systems.

“Rare earth elements, fossil fuels, water, and agricultural land are the true stakes of most contemporary conflicts. The targeting of Ukrainian grain exports, the scramble for Congolese cobalt, and the siege of Gaza’s fishing grounds all reflect this logic,” the paper reveals.

The rural poor, who produce most of the World’s food, are bearing the heaviest burden. They face poverty, hunger, displacement, and vulnerability.

Modern conflicts target food infrastructure-irrigation, grain reserves, and seed banks-highlighting how warfare deliberately undermines food security and calls for increased vigilance.

“The use of starvation as a weapon of war is strategic. Throughout history, empires understood that destroying a people’s capacity to feed themselves is among the most effective tools of subjugation.” La Via Campesina describes.

Across the cases examined in the report, La Via Campesina argues that controlling food has long been a way of controlling populations. What is different today, it suggests, is the scale, coordination, and technological sophistication through which food systems are disrupted in modern warfare.

In Gaza, the report cites widespread destruction of agricultural land and severe restrictions on fishing areas, alongside repeated disruptions of food supply corridors. Humanitarian assessments referenced in the paper indicate that more than 80% of farmland has been damaged or rendered unusable, deepening already severe food insecurity and famine risk warnings.

In Yemen, years of restrictions on key ports, particularly Hudaydah, through which most food imports enter, have significantly limited access to essential supplies. Combined with ongoing conflict, this has contributed to one of the most severe and prolonged hunger crises in the world.

In eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, cycles of armed violence have repeatedly destroyed crops and forced farming communities from their land. In many areas, agricultural production has collapsed entirely due to insecurity and the presence of armed groups controlling rural territory. The result has been persistent and widespread food insecurity affecting millions of people.

In Sudan, the conflict has similarly disrupted food systems through the looting of grain stores, destruction of farms, and mass displacement of rural populations. Entire agricultural regions have been emptied, turning once-productive farmland into zones of acute hunger.

The environmental degradation in war zones, including soil contamination and deforestation, is linked directly to global climate and resource crises, calling for a heightened awareness of these interconnected issues.

The report also links these local environmental impacts to global ecological pressures. It argues that as climate instability, water scarcity, soil degradation, and biodiversity loss intensify, competition over natural resources is increasing. In this context, land, water, and fertile agricultural regions become strategic assets in broader geopolitical struggles.

What emerges from both the data and case studies is a picture of hunger that is not only humanitarian but deeply political. It is shaped by conflict, resource control, and global systems that determine who can produce food, who can access it, and who is excluded from both.

In this sense, the report suggests, war is no longer confined to battlefields. It extends into wheat fields, fishing waters, seed banks, and supply routes. Hunger becomes not just a consequence of war, but one of its most powerful instruments.

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Experts warn that without Africa’s control over resources and climate financing, the continent faces the risk of entering a new era of “green colonialism”.

Published

on

By Witness Radio Team

As the global push for clean energy accelerates, African governments are under mounting pressure to move away from fossil fuels and embrace renewable energy. But economists, political leaders, and climate justice advocates are warning that Africa’s transition could reproduce the same unequal economic structures established during colonialism unless the continent gains greater control over its resources, industries, and financing systems, inspiring a sense of agency and possibility.

Although Africa contributes less than 4 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, it is among the regions most vulnerable to climate change. The continent continues to suffer disproportionately from a crisis largely caused by industrialized nations, including prolonged droughts and devastating floods, which greatly affect its people.

Governments across Africa are increasingly adopting renewable energy policies promoted as pathways toward sustainable development. Despite being promoted, a growing number of experts argue that the transition risks becoming another extractive project in which African resources fuel foreign industries while local communities remain impoverished.

The global transition to clean energy has sharply increased demand for minerals such as cobalt, lithium, graphite, manganese, and copper, which are abundant across Africa and critical for batteries, electric vehicles, and renewable energy technologies.

At the same time, the continent possesses vast renewable energy potential. According to the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), Africa could generate significantly more renewable energy than it currently consumes.

In an interview with Witness Radio, Tunisian economist and President of the Global Institute for Sustainable Prosperity, Fadhel Kaboub, said Africa’s role in the global transition should go beyond merely supplying raw materials to industrialized countries.

“We cannot decarbonize a system that hasn’t been structurally economically decolonized yet. Africa has the potential to become an energy powerhouse globally, an industrial powerhouse, and as a result, an economic and geopolitical powerhouse.” Kaboub reveals.

Kaboub argued that the current global economic system continues to place African countries at the bottom of supply chains, echoing colonial patterns. This pattern is vital for economists and global citizens to understand.

“Africa was assigned the role of supplying cheap raw materials while importing finished products and technologies. The danger is that the green transition is reinforcing the same model instead of transforming it,” he added.

Across the continent, activists and researchers are increasingly raising concerns about what they describe as “green colonialism,” where climate and environmental projects dispossess communities while benefiting foreign governments and corporations.

In several African countries, including Uganda, large-scale carbon offset projects have been linked to land conflicts and forced displacement. Critics say some carbon markets allow polluting corporations in the Global North to continue emitting greenhouse gases while using African land and forests to offset their emissions.

Environmental advocates warn that unless African governments ensure local ownership and value addition in mining linked to renewable energy, the continent risks repeating the history of raw material extraction, which is key for informed policy decisions.

Africa’s green transition discussions also focused on climate financing as a key point of debate. African leaders have repeatedly criticized rich countries for not sufficiently financing adaptation and renewable energy projects, despite their historic role in spewing the bulk of the World’s carbon emissions.

At the COP29 climate Summit in November 2024 in Azerbaijan, His Excellency Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, warned that many African countries are trapped between debt repayment obligations and climate adaptation needs.

“Africa did little to cause the climate crisis, yet the debt climate trap has saddled many of its nations with a tragic choice: Eschew repayments to fund adaptation to climate shocks and risk default- a financial purgatory where development indicators plummet; or honor obligations and compromise on resilience, thus entrenching vulnerability to development-shuttering climate events,” he added.

Speaking during the Africa Climate Summit 2025, former Ethiopian Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn said debt restructuring must become part of global climate discussions.

“Unless we confront the debt crisis head-on, efforts to finance Africa’s climate ambitions will continue to fall short,” Desalegn said.

Kaboub believes the financing crisis reflects a broader historical injustice. “The industrialized world has consumed most of the global carbon budget that creates a climate debt owed to Africa and the Global South.” He revealed.

Some African economists and climate justice groups are calling for climate reparations, not more loans that deepen dependency, to address historical injustices and support equitable development.

“The future of Africa’s green transition depends on who controls it. If Africa controls its resources, industries, and development path, the transition could become a tool for liberation. If not, it risks becoming another phase of exploitation under a green banner.” Kaboub concluded.

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Rising fertilizer dependence sparks debate over Africa’s agricultural future; experts call for urgent critical review process.

Published

on

By Witness Radio Team.

In March this year, the United Nations World Food Program (WFP) warned that the number of people facing acute hunger globally could rise sharply if escalating conflict in the Middle East continues to destabilize the global economy, projecting that nearly 45 million additional people could slide into acute food insecurity.

Since 28 February 2026, the United States and Israel have been engaged in a war with Iran and its regional allies. The conflict began when the US and Israel launched airstrikes on Iran, targeting military and government sites and assassinating several Iranian officials, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Iran responded with missile and drone strikes on Israel, US bases, and US-allied Arab countries in West Asia, and the temporary closure of the Strait of Hormuz, disrupting global trade.

As global tensions continue, experts have revealed that they are disrupting fertilizer supply chains and driving up prices, an issue likely to threaten food security and make policymakers feel responsible for safeguarding Africa’s future.

A recent report by GRAIN, an international Non-Governmental Organization (NGO), argues that Africa’s increasing reliance on imported chemical fertilizers is exposing farmers and food systems to economic, political, and environmental risks.

Titled “Can African Food Systems Thrive Without Chemical Fertilizers?”, the report links recent fertilizer price spikes to conflicts such as the Russia-Ukraine war and the recent escalation involving Iran, Israel, and the United States. According to the report, these crises have disrupted the movement of fertilizers and raw materials, such as natural gas and sulfur, pushing prices beyond the reach of many African farmers.

According to the report, the African fertilizer market is currently worth around US$10–15 billion and is projected to grow to US$20 billion over the next four years. It adds that the largest fertilizer manufacturers — including Yara of Norway, OCP of Morocco, PhosAgro of Russia, Nutrien of Canada, and Mosaic of the United States — are seeking to expand their presence in this fast-growing, highly profitable market.

GRAIN researcher Ange David Baimey told the Witness Radio team that growing concerns about the ongoing impact of global conflicts on African agriculture drove the investigation.

“As you can see, the recent crisis involving Iran, the USA, and the Middle East created a lot of uncertainty concerning how fertilizers can continue reaching African countries. Before this, we also had the Ukraine crisis and COVID-19. If you look at the last six years, these crises have seriously affected agriculture in Africa.” Ange, who participated in the research, told Witness Radio.

For decades, many African governments, donors, and agribusinesses have promoted chemical fertilizers as essential for increasing food production. However, the report highlights that relying on organic and sustainable practices-such as indigenous knowledge, crop diversity, and soil fertility methods-can be safer and more resilient. Showcasing successful case studies can help policymakers see practical alternatives to dependency.

“The only solution to the best agricultural practices is not chemical fertilizers. Farmers have tested and agreed that organic fertilizers are the answer. Ange further mentioned.

According to the report, the push for chemical fertilizers accelerated during the Green Revolution period, driven largely by multinational agribusiness interests seeking profits from agricultural inputs.

“The Green Revolution is not the beginning of agriculture in Africa. Our systems existed before chemical fertilizers. What we see now is a system where companies are making profits while creating dependency.” He said.

The report notes that many African countries import significant quantities of fertilizers from Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Oman. Countries including Sudan, Tanzania, Kenya, and Mozambique remain highly dependent on these imports, making them vulnerable to supply disruptions and rising global prices.

Although African governments spend billions of dollars on fertilizer subsidy programs, many small-scale farmers still struggle to afford the products. In some countries, fertilizer prices are significantly higher than global averages due to import dependency, market concentration, and the dominance of multinational corporations in the supply chain.

“In our research, we also discovered that African farmers often pay more for the same fertilizers than farmers in Europe or the United States. The market is controlled by powerful companies whose goal is profit.” Ange explained.

The report identifies major corporations such as Yara International, OCP Group, and Dangote Group as key players shaping Africa’s fertilizer markets.

“These companies have huge influence and power in African agriculture. Governments must examine even discussions around continental trade agreements carefully because the same multinational companies may continue dominating the market.” Ange observed.

Beyond economic concerns, the report also highlights environmental and health impacts associated with chemical fertilizers, including soil degradation, water pollution, and increased pesticide use. The report advises African countries to adopt organic approaches to improve their yields, human and soil health, and to avoid environmental shocks.

“A change of course off the chemical fertilizer treadmill and towards agroecology is even more urgent in the face of the climate crisis. Climate scientists are calling today for a 42% global reduction in fertilizer use by 2050, to keep the planet livable.” The report noted.

Experts urge African leaders to use these global shocks as an opportunity to rethink Africa’s agricultural direction. “If you are dependent upon another person for your food, what happens when that person cuts off access? That is the situation Africa is in. The COVID crisis, the Ukraine war, and now the Gulf crisis all prove that reliance on imported fertilizers is dangerous. Africa can feed itself. The question is whether governments are willing to assist with that transition.” He concluded.

Continue Reading

Resource Center

Legal Framework

READ BY CATEGORY

Facebook

Newsletter

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter



Trending

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter