Agriculture in Southern Sudan vital but neglected

By Jacob K. Lupai

September 4, 2009 — It is not clear as to what extent the media can influence government policy. However, the media may be able to expose the flaws of a policy through a critique. We are informed through official documents of government policies and the enthusiastic overtones of how the implementation of such policies will improve people’s living conditions. Formulation and deciding on a policy is one thing and the implementation of the policy is quite another.

Southern Sudan is blessed with abundant arable land and substantial water resources. In addition to rainfall the Nile traverses through the length of Southern Sudan entering through its borders with Uganda. The Nile water basin contributes most of available surface water. Traditional subsistence agriculture dominates the economy of Southern Sudan with 69 per cent of arable land and with about 90 per cent of the population dependent on crop production and livestock husbandry to support their livelihoods. It is therefore safe to say that agriculture is the backbone of the economy of Southern Sudan. Indeed like their counterparts in the other parts of Africa policy-makers in Southern Sudan have recognised the importance of the agricultural sector as the backbone of the economy.

In the 1980s Africans identified food security as one of the main priorities and called for a target rate of growth of 4 per cent per annum in the agricultural sector. The Africans also called on their governments to devote up to 25 per cent of government budgets to the agricultural sector. Those were bold steps for self-reliance in agricultural production to achieve food security. However, whether there is 4 per cent growth in agriculture and up to 25 per cent of budgets is devoted to agriculture in the African context is an open question.

The main agricultural policy of the government of Southern Sudan is to transform agriculture from traditional subsistence system to a science-based one in order to achieve food security. The policy is to be implemented through a series of measures. The implementation of the policy will include the provision of improved seeds, agro-chemicals, farm machinery and credit facility to farmers. Improvement of infrastructure especially feeder roads and marketing structure of agricultural products is also part of the implementation of the agricultural policy. The government of Southern Sudan obviously has good intentions for agriculture. It is, however, important to note that food insecurity is a product of low agricultural production plus low incomes, not one or the other alone, and is a consequence of policy failure as well as institutional failure. In Southern Sudan it is difficult to point out a reliable rate of growth per annum in the agricultural sector. There is hardly any data on the rate of growth in agriculture. In contrast the percentage of the government budget devoted to the agricultural sector can be obtained though reliability may be an issue.

It may not be possible for the government of Southern Sudan to devote 25 per cent of its budget to the agricultural sector. For developing countries as a whole, expenditure on agriculture in the 1980s represented only 7-8 per cent of all public expenditure and the growth rate of agriculture in the 1990s averaged only 2.1 per cent. It is therefore not unreasonable to expect the government of Southern Sudan to devote at least 10 per cent of its budget to the agricultural sector in order to realise growth as a sign of development in the effort to achieve food security. For the approved budget of 2008, the Table below shows percentage estimates devoted to the various sectors.

Estimates in percentage devoted to sectors

1 Security = 29.4%

2 Infrastructure = 15.1

3 Rule of Law = 14.8

4 Transfers to States = 9.3

5 Public Administration = 6.7

6 Education = 6.4

7 Social & Humanitarian Affairs = 4.5

8 Rural Development = 4.2

9 Health = 4.2

10 Economic Functions = 2.2

11 Accountability = 1.6

12 Natural Resources (Agriculture, Forestry, Animal Resources & Fisheries) = 1.6

Source: Government of Southern Sudan 2008 Budget

From the outset there is no claim that the 2008 budget estimates calculated in percentages devoted to the various sectors are absolutely free of errors. However, care has been taken when calculating the percentages. The message or the implication of the calculation is very clear. Agriculture is disgracefully starved of resources as it is the least in the list of budgetary priorities. If this is not neglect of agriculture it is difficult to say what it is. It is not strange that Southern Sudan will continue perpetually to rely on food items from Uganda and Kenya and handouts from the World Food Programme when agriculture is miserably at the bottom of the list of priorities. Security tops the list for obvious reasons. It is welcome that security should be a top priority to safeguard life and property.

It is not clear whether complacency is a contributory factor to the neglect of agriculture in Southern Sudan. Recently, cases related to food security contracts of huge amounts were in the media. The billions that seemed to have been squandered in the name of food security could have enabled the purchase of thousands of tractors and implements, seeds, tools and equipment to modernise agriculture in Southern Sudan for self-sufficiency in food production. The government may be seen neither serious nor keen on agriculture. How could the government explain its neglect of the agricultural sector which was vital as the backbone of the economy by only devoting 1.6 per cent to agriculture and the sector was at the bottom in budgetary allocations? Bold answers were needed from a government that was proud of nothing to hide and was endeavouring for transparency in all institutions.

The Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) is the dominant party in government. It therefore has a part to account for the miserable budgetary allocation to agriculture. People are aware of the SPLM’s policy of taking towns to people. This cannot happen without agriculture being the central focus. This means investment in agriculture in comparison to the meagre allocation in the approved budget of 2008. With climate change, which is a real challenge to agricultural development, the government of Southern Sudan needs to do more. People are knowledgeable when only praises are heaped on agriculture as the backbone of the economy while in fact poor investment is observed. A pragmatic approach needs to be adopted in addressing the real needs of agriculture. It might be shameful to call oneself an agriculturist while we were being spoon-fed by farmers from across the borders as if we were disabled.

The 1.6 per cent as the percentage of the budget devoted to natural resources may be misleading when the Table clearly shows that the natural resources sector comprises agriculture, forestry, animal resources and fisheries. If the percentage was equally divided among the four components of the natural resources sector, then the percentage devoted to agriculture proper would be 0.4 per cent. This may suggest that agriculture in Southern Sudan is the most neglected in Sub-Saharan Africa and really sums up our performance.

One wonders how the southern regional government of the Addis Ababa Agreement would have performed if it had the entire amount of money we have received since the signing of the comprehensive peace agreement (CPA) in 2005. With limited funds and in a matter of short time southerners had enjoyed basic services and security second to none. However, we should not be yearning for those past golden days for it is now history. We have to roll up our sleeves, as it were, to make now and the future brighter than those old days. Technocrats should be the pioneers in development planning. Politicians are helpful but may become a bore because of simply offering nothing new. This may be an unkind statement but we need politicians to make a difference.

In conclusion a robust system is needed. In the absence of such a robust system even the honest may be tempted to help themselves to the enticing public resources. A system of punishing culprits and rewarding the diligent promptly may be respected and venerated. However, a system led by a weak, indecisive and a tribalistic person or racist is a recipe for worse things to come. On agriculture it is advised that concrete strategic policy objectives should match budgetary allocations. Southerners seem to worry much about the amount of money to be spent but hardly give any thought to the outcome whether it is value for money. However, there appears to be no worry when the money is heading to private accounts. Agriculture cannot be developed by word of mouth. Investment is paramount and the use of expert knowledge is unavoidable if we are serious about self-reliance in agricultural production to achieve food security. Rumour mongering and gossiping in uninformed society like ours are taken as gospel truth and may be obstacles to development. Nationalism requires broadmindedness and sacrifices for development for a high standard of living for all but not for the privileged few that seem to live in a different world.

The author is a regular contributor to Sudan Tribune and can be reached at [email protected]
.