03 Dec 07
Turns out, and get this, after years of famine, poverty and hardship, the Malawi government got fed up with Western Governmental aid agencies insisting upon free-market policies and discouraging (the lightest term for it) subsidising of fertiliser and seed. Turning their back on western economic "advice" in 2005, the goverment heavily subsidised fertiliser and seeds. the crop doubled by the 2006 harvest, and almost tripled for this years harvest. The breadbasket is so full, that they are now exporting grain to Zimbabwe and no longer need baby-feed from the UN, which is now being distributed to countries in the region who continue to follow the free-market policies espoused by the west.
"after the 2005 harvest, the worst in a decade, Bingu wa Mutharika, Malawi's newly elected president, decided to follow what the West practiced, not what it preached."
(emphasis mine)
"record-breaking corn harvests in 2006 and 2007, according to government crop estimates. Corn production leapt to 2.7 billion metric tons in 2006 and 3.4 billion in 2007 from 1.2 billion in 2005"
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/01/africa/02malawi.php
How long before the rest of Africa wakes up and stops practicing the free-market policies of the west, which have now been shown to be ineffective, at least in the case of famine stricken nations where the economy is not developed enough for them? How long before the rest of Africas nations begin to do as the west practices and not as it preaches?
03 Dec 07
Originally posted by agrysonThis is a very interesting article indeed; congratulations to the government of Malawi are in order, I believe.
Turns out, and get this, after years of famine, poverty and hardship, the Malawi government got fed up with Western Governmental aid agencies insisting upon free-market policies and discouraging (the lightest term for it) subsidising of fertiliser and seed. Turning their back on western economic "advice" in 2005, the goverment heavily subsidised fertiliser a ...[text shortened]... ore the rest of Africas nations begin to do as the west practices and not as it preaches?
Of course, whether the other countries of Africa will begin to follow Malawi's example remains to be seen; the answer to this question is a gauge of the strength of the hold of international aid on African governments' economic success and popularity. It seems to be a matter of biting the bullet and making that leap across the abyss of short-term disaster into a situation of long-term gain.
The West may preach from the Bible of Adam Smith, but the problem is that the effective functioning of free-market economics requires a highly developed infrastructure which the bulk of Africa sadly lacks; economic co-operation in the context of a mixed economy is necessary to build said infrastructure - one need only look at the success of the EU nations, having introduced farming subsidies after the Second World War, to see this.
03 Dec 07
Originally posted by agrysonYou're probably right -- the Malawi government should follow the example of Robert Mugabe and Zimbabwe.
Turns out, and get this, after years of famine, poverty and hardship, the Malawi government got fed up with Western Governmental aid agencies insisting upon free-market policies and discouraging (the lightest term for it) subsidising of fertiliser and seed. Turning their back on western economic "advice" in 2005, the goverment heavily subsidised fertiliser a ...[text shortened]... ore the rest of Africas nations begin to do as the west practices and not as it preaches?
03 Dec 07
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterDer schwarze bitter, what the Malawi government did was follow our example (but not our stated recipe), you know that, unless you're drawing some link between Mugabe's poor handling of an economy and misuse of the military for personal political gain with someone closer to home?
You're probably right -- the Malawi government should follow the example of Robert Mugabe and Zimbabwe.
Why do you think the IMF was telling them to follow free-market principles when neither the US nor the EU do so? Seems like a lab-rat just sprung the cage and thanks to that no longer goes to bed hungry.
03 Dec 07
Originally posted by shavixmirIt's funny that you mention DDT and propaganda in the same breath:
Propagandist rubbish. Go wash your mouth out with DDT or something.
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=15220
Last Chance for DDT
By ROGER BATE
November 5, 2007; Page A19
Thanks to the pragmatism of African health officials and the efforts of some in the U.S. government, the insecticide DDT is still repelling and killing mosquitoes in Africa nations, saving thousands of people from malaria and other infectious diseases each year. But its days may be numbered. While the Bush administration and the World Health Organization have argued articulately in favor of DDT over the past two years, so-called environmentalists and those companies selling alternatives to DDT are pushing to prevent it from being deployed.
President Bush launched the President's Malaria Initiative (PMI) in 2005 with the explicit aim of using all the best methods for preventing the disease. As a result, last year DDT was procured with taxpayer funds for use indoors in tiny amounts in Zambia. The tactic, known as indoor residual spraying, or IRS, is cheap and highly effective, repelling and killing mosquitoes before they can bite and transmit disease while avoiding widespread, outdoor spraying. (The PMI has not procured this insecticide for any other nation, but has funded alternatives to DDT, such as deltamethrin, in Uganda, Angola, Tanzania and Rwanda.)
But developing nations are skittish. Their populations have been scared by environmentalists into thinking DDT causes cancer and birth defects; and their farmers have been frightened by EU officials and segments of the Western chemical industry into believing their crop exports will be boycotted. As a result, many African leaders have delayed re-introduction of DDT, perhaps indefinitely. Over the past three years, for example, two different Ugandan health ministers have wanted to deploy DDT indoors, but fearful of Western trade reprisals, their farmers have blocked all attempts to do so.
Meanwhile, vast swathes of the anti-malaria community, including the malaria teams within national donor agencies, are quietly opposed to DDT. Agencies include insecticide spraying in their literature, but then run No-Spray programs. Aid agencies -- including UNICEF and the World Bank -- have steered clear of DDT, choosing instead to support anti-malaria experiments such as mosquito bed nets for the past decade. The managements of the donor agencies offer spurious explanations as to why DDT and indoor spraying in general shouldn't be used.
The favorite excuse is that DDT campaigns are unsustainable because they require more infrastructure to be delivered than simply handing out bed nets. Yet the evidence is that the distribution of bed nets, without significant educational support on their proper use, is not as effective as hoped. Some of the recent bed-net success stories in Kenya highlight this fact.
With the notable exception of the PMI, and occasionally the Global Fund for AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, no agencies seem to want to sustain a spray program. Yet Mozambique, which has very poor health infrastructure, has managed to sustain a well-run indoor residual spraying program for more than seven years by partnering with neighboring South Africa and Swaziland. As a result of this initiative, the country's malaria burden has dramatically decreased. Rates have dropped by 88% among children in the key target areas. Instead of excuses, regional leaders made malaria control sustainable.
Such success stories about spraying are rarely reported. What is reported is any bad news about DDT. And anti-DDT bias in the academic literature is accelerating. A recent article in The Lancet Infectious Diseases Journal alleges that superior methods for malaria-control exist, yet the authors do not provide a single reference for this claim. The authors also claim that DDT represents a public-health hazard by citing two studies -- studies that, according to a 1995 WHO technical report, do not provide "convincing evidence of adverse effects of DDT exposure as a result of indoor residual spraying."
In fact, after 60 years of use there is still no solid evidence of any human harm from DDT. Yet the article in The Lancet, like so many before it, will be used by those in the field to dissuade Africans from using the insecticide.
The United Nations is also ramping up opposition to DDT. At its third session, ending on May 4, 2007, the Conference of the Parties of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants requested its secretariat, in collaboration with the "World Health Organization and interested parties [emphasis mine] to develop a business plan for promoting a global partnership to develop and deploy alternatives to DDT for disease vector control."
Since there are many "interested parties" who want to sell alternatives to DDT, and nearly all the participants in the Stockholm Convention are opposed to the insecticide, the partnership is likely to be broad, well-financed and politically connected. It may prove to be the final nail in the coffin.
DDT is no panacea, but it has a far better track record on malaria control than any other intervention, and in most settings is also the most cost-effective. But lives are lost every day because of continued opposition to its use. Aid agencies must help overcome that opposition rather than support it. DDT will one day no longer be necessary, but that day remains a long way off.
Mr. Bate is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. This commentary is adapted from a longer paper, "The Rise, Fall, Rise and Imminent Fall of DDT," published today by AEI.
URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119423194366082213.html
03 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterUgh... just post the URL next time. Yes, all of that is pretty true. I say pretty because it has misrepresented the literature a bit. DDT has been shown in several studies to be linked to various cancers, just not conclusively enough for scientists to label it as acutely toxic. It's probably toxic, but we're just not sure. Given the fact that alternatives exist which are known to be safe, conclusively, it is better to use them. Better safe than sorry basically. Why is it so necessary to use DDT as opposed to the other chemical alternatives?
It's funny that you mention DDT and propaganda in the same breath:
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=15220
Last Chance for DDT
By ROGER BATE
November 5, 2007; Page A19
Thanks to the pragmatism of African health officials and the efforts of some in the U.S. government, the insecticide DDT is still repelling and killing mo
URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119423194366082213.html
03 Dec 07
Originally posted by uzlessIt bio-accumulates? It's got a lot of chlorine up the end, that should prevent accumulation, liver normally scrubs stuff like that, which was what I thought explained slightly higher incidences of liver failure in farmers who used it. Any links?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$
But there is a reason we don't use DDT anymore in the west. It's been well documented. It's not propoganda.
BIO-ACCUMULATION
03 Dec 07
Originally posted by agrysonMay well be, it definitely increases liver enzyme activity.
It bio-accumulates? It's got a lot of chlorine up the end, that should prevent accumulation, liver normally scrubs stuff like that, which was what I thought explained slightly higher incidences of liver failure in farmers who used it. Any links?
http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/carbaryl-dicrotophos/ddt-ext.html
03 Dec 07
Originally posted by agryson"Denial of the obvious by reference to the irrelevant" 🙂
Turns out, and get this, after years of famine, poverty and hardship, the Malawi government got fed up with Western Governmental aid agencies insisting upon free-market policies and discouraging (the lightest term for it) subsidising of fertiliser and seed. Turning their back on western economic "advice" in 2005, the goverment heavily subsidised fertiliser a ...[text shortened]... ore the rest of Africas nations begin to do as the west practices and not as it preaches?
In all seriousness, his article hightlights prefectly the problem with orgs like the World Bank being political animals.
Ask any corn farmer in the U.S. and he would have told them they need good seed, water and fertilizer and it doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you more of something you subsidize it and if you want less, you tax it.
What the author doesn't realize or decides to gloss over is the importance of rain. The bad crop of 05 came with a drought (Global Warming! Ack!) The good crops of 06 and 07 came with good rains. (Global Warming! Ack!)
It's not that the subsidies did nothing, just that they are useless without water.
Beyong whether this program is sustainable over the long term or just needs some retooling, which is at most a minor point, a couple of questions come to mind here.
Have any farmers moved to Malawi from Zimbabwe? It would make sense that having some expertise in running a fram big enough to export food beyong the last hut of the left would be of some assistance.
Most importantly, Is Malawi working on any plans to consolidate smaller farms into bigger farms? Small farms are not very inefficient and don't make enough money to be able to afford an alternative way to water the crops in dry years.
In the long run, they need to create bigger farms that can not only water themselves in dry years, but also make abundant and cheap crops year after year in order to free up capital for other investments/improvements.
03 Dec 07
Originally posted by MerkIt was '07 that had the good rains, and no comparable increase in crop production has been seen in Malawis neighbours, even though it's been seen across the board in Malawi, Mozambique and Tanzania share the Malawi lake catchment area AND it is a sub-tropical region which should ordinarily have good rainfall (allowing for climate change). Also, it is American and British governmental aid organisations which have been discouraging subsidies, as well as the world bank, so there's not so much of an easy scapegoat there.
"Denial of the obvious by reference to the irrelevant" 🙂
In all seriousness, his article hightlights prefectly the problem with orgs like the World Bank being political animals.
Ask any corn farmer in the U.S. and he would have told them they need good seed, water and fertilizer and it doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you more of something yo ...[text shortened]... heap crops year after year in order to free up capital for other investments/improvements.
You're absolutely right that if you ask any farmer in the US or EU what to do to increase yields they'll respond by saying "get fertiliser!" but that's not the advice that was being given by the international bodies.
By Malawi ignoring the premature implementation of free market policies, they have turned around their agricultural industry.
03 Dec 07
Originally posted by agrysonThey're not out of the woods yet. They should get credit for what they've accomplished. What they need to do now is move is make the move to more efficient farming.
It was '07 that had the good rains, and no comparable increase in crop production has been seen in Malawis neighbours, even though it's been seen across the board in Malawi, Mozambique and Tanzania share the Malawi lake catchment area AND it is a sub-tropical region which should ordinarily have good rainfall (allowing for climate change). Also, it is America ...[text shortened]... ementation of free market policies, they have turned around their agricultural industry.
03 Dec 07
Originally posted by MerkAs for your point on conglomerating farms, I don't know what the plans are there, but you seem to be looking at it from an exportation point of view. Small farms are perfectly sufficient to feed teh local populace, though if Malawi hopes to make a significant profit off of agriculture, tehy will need to encourage co-ops or consolidation of farms, but in the meantime, their priorities are on feeding the local populace and bringing down inflation (which has almost halved in the past two years since the new government came in)
"Denial of the obvious by reference to the irrelevant" 🙂
In all seriousness, his article hightlights prefectly the problem with orgs like the World Bank being political animals.
Ask any corn farmer in the U.S. and he would have told them they need good seed, water and fertilizer and it doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you more of something yo ...[text shortened]... heap crops year after year in order to free up capital for other investments/improvements.