Development

Green Belt Initiative stuck in its infancy 

The Green Belt Initiative (GBI) appears to be stuck in its infancy. EPHRAIM NYONDO examines why this is the case.

It all started in 2008 with an idea. In fact, it was an idea by former president the late Bingu wa Mutharika. He started the Green Belt Initiative (GBI) as a presidential initiative.Greenbelt-initiative

Later he made it a key component of the larger agricultural development framework known as the Green Revolution Development Programme (GRDP) of Malawi.

The GRDP has three main thematic areas—infrastructure development and rehabilitation; agricultural production and productivity; and agro-processing and market development.

GBI, on its part, aims at achieving and sustaining agricultural revolution in order to provide a sound footing for sustained economic growth and development.

Its stated objective is to use the available water resources to increase agricultural production, productivity, incomes and food security at both household and small-scale and large-scale irrigation schemes and maximisation of rain fed agriculture practices.

Such an objective is not from the blue. It is inspired by the fact that Malawi has only about 90 000 hectares under irrigation against a potential one million hectares. Ideally, the irrigation short-term goal, according to GBI concept paper, is to have, at least, 200 000 hectares under irrigation by the year 2016.

But is that possible?

To answer that question one needs to understand how GBI is being implemented. According to its national coordinator HenrieNjoloma, GBI implementation is in two parts.

He explains there is a part which is being wholly sponsored by government. He adds there is another where government partners with individuals, non-governmental organisations and the private sector.

On government’s ticket, the initiative, as part of pilot sites, is being implemented at four sites—Chikwawa in Salima, Nthola-Ilonga-Ngosi in Karonga, Malombe in Mangochi and Chilengo in Chikwawa.

On partnering with the private sector, so far, Dzuwa Farm in Chikwawa where Malawi Mangoes are produced is a classic example.

“So far, they have employed 3 000 Malawians,” says Njoloma, adding: “that excludes those who indirectly benefit from selling various items around the company’s surroundings.”

However, with only a single site showing fragmented signs of progress from the government-sponsored site and, again, not so much being registered on partnering with the private sector, the general feeling is that GBI is yet to take off as expected.

But why?

At the heart of GBI’s slow progress, both Njoloma and TamaniNkhono-Mvula, national coordinator of Civil Society Network on Agriculture (Cisanet) agree, has been the problem of funding.

Against the background of drastic reduction of funding over the years from the Treasury, early this year Cisanet issued a statement expressing shock at the low levels of funding to GBI observing that there is no corresponding action to rhetoric of President Peter Mutharika on the revival of the initiative.

The concern came amid confirmed reports that Treasury had only disbursed K450 million (US$10 million) of the K2 billion (US$4.4 million) which Parliament approved in the 2014/15 fiscal year.

Nkhono-Mvula appealed to government to disburse funding to operationalise GBI.

“We are deeply concerned that rhetoric is not matching action. The President pointed out that Green Belt Initiative [would be fast-tracked]in a bid to increase agriculture export base when he presided over the official opening of the 11th National Agriculture Fair in Blantyre in September 2014.

At the event, Mutharika noted that with climate change effects, the future of the agriculture sector in Malawi is mainly dependent on irrigated farming as such government was committed to revive GBI to intensify irrigation farming.

Even figures of allocation in the past years reveal how erratic finances have flowed to GBI. From K100 million (US$222 222) in 2009/10, the allocation increased to K2 billion in 2010/11 before reducing to K1 billion in 2011/12 against a budget outlay of K11 billion (US$24.4 million).

However, though agreeing with Tamani-Nkhono on funding, Njoloma says that it is important for Malawians to understand that Malawi, being a poor country, has many sectors that compete for the same limited government finances.

“I am happy that despite such a challenge, we have made recordable progress in GBI. We may not have achieved to everybody’s expectations, but GBI is a big project that demands a lot of money. We cannot have all these monies at the same time. But we are getting there,” he says.

Besides funding, another critical issue that has stalled GBI, according to a 2012 report by Cisanet, is the question of lack of civic participation in the process of its design.

Titled ‘Green Belt Initiative: An Assessment of the Policy Processes and Civic Engagement’ and done by researcher Dr Henry Chingaipe, the report’s main finding is that civic [or public] engagement in the GBI has been very minimal.

“It [civic engagement] has largely taken the forms of manipulation and group therapy at the worst, and one-way information flow from government to communities, at best.

“Community participation through chiefs is found to be seriously deficient. The key factors that have compromised civic engagement include the political economy context during the inception as well as pilot implementation phases of the GBI; lack of clarity on land questions and lack of an effective strategy for engaging communities and the private sector,” reads the report.

The effects of the GBI’s lack of civic engagement have been pronounced in increased land wrangles between government and communities and, again, the low rate of participation by the private sector.

For instance, the Cisanet report reveals that in some areas in the country, GBI, for its good intents and purposes, was rejected. Mnena Village in Salima is just an example. According to the report, the people in Mnena felt GBI was imposed on them, as such; it had no future apart from stealing their land.

 

TOMORROW: What needs to be done to get GBI on track?

Related Articles

One Comment

  1. I find it disheartening to see so much investment going into massive irrigation schemes–primarily aimed at increased maize production–when low-input crop diversification using perennial, seasonal, and local resources can achieve the same results (increased food and nutrition security) without the excessive financial and water requirements. A true ‘green revolution’ in Africa would include the hundreds upon hundreds of well-adapted traditional crops which are now largely ignored due to an over-emphasis on the monocropping of maize. Since the onset of the FISP programme, millions of dollars have been spent to increase maize production. This added investment has worked very well and for 8 consecutive years Malawi has over-produced maize (with some years seeing surplus harvests in excess of a million metric tonnes), but what has been missing in this equation is a reduction in the nation’s malnutrition rates (47% nutritional stunting). We need to come to the recognition that ‘food security’ is not simply ‘calories per hectare’, but rather year-round and daily access to highly nutritious foods from Malawi’s 6 food group model. This can easily be achieved in Malawi’s tropical 12-month growing conditions, even without the need for irrigation. Polycultural and agroecological systems, combined with proper soil and water management can bring about a true revolution in Malawi’s food security while at the same time serving to safeguard the nation against the effects of floods and drought. This would be an approach worth investing in.

Check Also
Close
Back to top button