Increasing urban migration patterns, tourism, and the rise of fast food in East Africa have led to a regional $1 billion annual market for processed potatoes and chips; and demand is growing at 10-17% per year. In-country production and processing does not currently match demand however, and the market is dominated by European and South African suppliers.Dr Berga Lemaga, of The International Potato Center (CIP) believes that the domestic production of processed potatoes has great wealth generating potential across East Africa. Recent surveys from the center conclude that more than 50% (as high as 100% of wealthier Rwandans) of urban East Africans make their own chips. Yet in-region processing of potatoes for chips is virtually non-existent.
But Lemaga is optimistic, predicting: "Farmers have good soils and a good climate to grow more of these processing varieties. If the right things are put in place I am positive that the region will be self-sufficient, and if that happens these countries can save up to nearly $1 billion per year in importing frozen chips."Only Kenya has a sizable output, and the result is that 80% of hotels and restaurants make their chips from imported Belgian products. (Statistics provided by CIP via the embedded article)
Right now, $1 billion are being spent annually by East African restaurants and hotels for frozen European chips. The International Potato Center thinks that East African producers might be able to fill this demand in the future as to keep that one billion dollars in the East African economic bloc and raise the incomes of urban and rural agricultural producers. The plan is ambitious; the road difficult; but the article is markedly optimistic. I love the idea. The heady academic in me, though, wants the article to more thoroughly outline the barriers and problems for the chips plan. Right now however, the piece only presents large scale region level concerns. None of them have easy answers, and I feel that approaching this idea on the level of the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) only forces people looking to expand domestic chip supply to concern themselves with large scale, capital intensive (human and physical) barriers right out the gate. I feel that we can give the CIP the benefit of the doubt as I'm sure someone has thought of this, but I'll explain how I think compartmentalizing this plan into a series of parallel statewide initiatives would be a good starting policy point. Taking for granted that most all states and policy minded organizations will be strapped for cash into the foreseeable economic future, I feel that creating lobbying groups in their various state arenas would allow for each body searching to increase in-state chip production to only engage presumably more manageable localized barriers and problems.
This compartmentalization could mean that enthusiasts would be concerned with fixing a regional Kenyan highway for example, rather than fixing the Kenya-Uganda railway (see previous post). The former would cost lest money, have less international red-tape, and presumably take less time to complete. Approaching potato trade on a local level could also mean that lobbyists could personally approach local government officials for policy moves, rather than dealing with the rigors of COMESA.
It might also be true that, as the article presented, demand for locally produced potatoes and chips would be contingent on quality assurances, and proper packaging and maintenance. Localization could be the platform off of which relatively capital intensive, small-scale pilot initiatives could be built. These might provide the materials necessary (farm inputs, processing equipment, refrigeration, etc.) to create mechanism by which demanders could be assured of the future quality of similarly derived products. Demand would rise, and the promise of market security could be gradually extended to peripheral agricultural localities, thus expanding the number of growers who want to get in on the game. In this way, supply and demand would mutually augmenting on the local level - following the model provided by the Gates Foundation's P4P initiative on a smaller scale.
This compartmentalization could mean that enthusiasts would be concerned with fixing a regional Kenyan highway for example, rather than fixing the Kenya-Uganda railway (see previous post). The former would cost lest money, have less international red-tape, and presumably take less time to complete. Approaching potato trade on a local level could also mean that lobbyists could personally approach local government officials for policy moves, rather than dealing with the rigors of COMESA.
It might also be true that, as the article presented, demand for locally produced potatoes and chips would be contingent on quality assurances, and proper packaging and maintenance. Localization could be the platform off of which relatively capital intensive, small-scale pilot initiatives could be built. These might provide the materials necessary (farm inputs, processing equipment, refrigeration, etc.) to create mechanism by which demanders could be assured of the future quality of similarly derived products. Demand would rise, and the promise of market security could be gradually extended to peripheral agricultural localities, thus expanding the number of growers who want to get in on the game. In this way, supply and demand would mutually augmenting on the local level - following the model provided by the Gates Foundation's P4P initiative on a smaller scale.
No comments:
Post a Comment