 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 16 - 22 March 2000 Issue No. 473 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 16 - 22 March 2000 Issue No. 473
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Special Focus Travel Living Sports Profile People Time Out Chronicles Strawberry take-off?
By Aziza Sami
Over the past five years USAID has directed substantial sums towards liberalising Egypt's agricultural sector. Some $300 million has been allocated to this end, $250 million to be disbursed in annual sums payable to the Egyptian government on the condition that agreed-upon reforms have been implemented, the remaining $50 million to provide technical assistance.
As part of its promotion of agricultural liberalisation, USAID is currently focusing on supporting the export of horticultural products. Out of a projected portfolio of $60 million, $25 million has been directed to a programme known as Agricultural Technology Utilization and Transfer (ATUT).
But while USAID also acknowledges the need for food security and poverty alleviation, its programmes do not seem to accord such considerations as much weight as they do the privatisation and export drive.
To ensure food security and alleviate poverty, after all, requires that substantial efforts be made to improve existing production structures, particularly with regards to Egypt's staple commodities -- wheat, rice and cotton. Yet assistance with these crops, according to USAID, is restricted to "strategic collaborative research grants, in the US, focusing on... supporting Egypt's security needs and on-farm water management."
Given that US aid accords greater relative weight to promoting agricultural exports rather than those products that might meet domestic demand, a pertinent question arises: to what extent do USAID's priorities help in addressing the basic problems faced by Egypt's agricultural sector -- namely low productivity, inadequate acreage of cultivation, staple commodity production far below consumption levels, and the inefficient allocation of water resources? And while academic grants are important, far more impact would be made, were an equal amount of funding made available to support agricultural production for domestic needs, as is that directed to export-oriented crops.
The current production structure must be improved, the total area of cultivable land increased, particularly on the fringes of currently farmed arable areas, rather than in faraway spots requiring massive investments -- a view repeatedly advocated by experts such as geologist Rushdi Saeed.
The predicament facing the government as it delineates Egypt's agricultural policy is how, in a liberalised world market, it can juggle the pressing need to improve its staple commodity production to meet domestic demand, while fulfilling the needs of the export market.
Take, for example, Egypt's already sizeable fruit production. It suffers severe marketing problems, even within the domestic market. For USAID, then, to allocate substantial sums to teach exporters sophisticated methods of refrigeration and preservation seems at best to ignore the serious infrastructural problems that inhibit the performance of the entire sector.
According to figures provided by USAID, agriculture accounts for 19 per cent of Egypt's GDP, while related industries account for another 20 per cent. It provides 36 per cent of overall employment, and 22 per cent of commodity exports.
In lieu of promoting staple crops such as wheat or cotton, a major export earner for Egypt as late as the mid-fifties, USAID's preferred strategy appears to be to concentrate on the narrower horticultural market -- a domain where Egypt definitely enjoys a competitive edge and, has a theoretically hungry market in the European Union.
Egyptian fruits and vegetables -- especially cantaloupes and strawberries -- are already finding buyers in the European market, particularly during winter when prices are highest.
USAID officials insist that the lucrative horticultural market could make Egypt into "another Mexico." Their optimism, though, appears at odds with increasing incidents of protectionism, and to ignore problems already encountered by locally produced crops in entering the European market.
Soft fruit, even when combined with Egypt's citrus fruit production, is unlikely, too, to correct the sizeable imbalance in Egypt's trade with its major partner, the US. America is, in its turn, the world's larger exporter of agricultural produce. And the US is hardly a possible market for Egyptian agricultural products. In the words of one USAID official: "How can Egyptian oranges compete with all those oranges from California?"
