Carney rallied for middle powers to unite together, cooperate in the areas of interests, and anchored on mutual respect and benefits. He expressed Canada’s preparedness to conduct trade with willing countries (China inclusive) premised on values, interests and courtesy.

The French Prime Minister, Emmanuel Macron in a separate speech at Davos tagged this line calling for renewed multilateralism and even called upon China to deepen its investment in France -establishing physical presence beyond just exports.

The EU adjusting to a new security architecture and seeking to uphold sovereignty in the face of a US changing trade polices is entering with India a momentous trade deal. Denmark and Sweden companies are selling their US shares. Keir Starmer, UK Prime Minister, was in China last week to establish a long-term and stable strategic partnership.

Also, developing regions and countries have long time awoken to a shifting geopolitical landscape and have thought about how to adapt and survive this volatile state of the world.

The Africa talk session of WEF 2026 revolved around the omission of the developing world in the ongoing geopolitical contests and how Africa can assert itself, adapt and position for growth in a changing political economy and rapidly advancing artificial intelligence field where unemployment and urbanization pose challenge and with youth population, education, agriculture and mineral resources leverages.

Africa has been building important infrastructure that enable sovereignty and domestic resilience, leveraging private capital.

Through Dangote Group, a huge refinery was built in Lagos, Nigeria, remarked as “the world’s largest single-train refinery”. Also, recently, different deals on infrastructure were reached with the Group, separately, with Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, and Zambia.

Nigeria has been restructuring its operating environment and financial system, with reforms, to enable ease of doing business, trust and transparency, and attraction of foreign capital. As such exited two high financial risk lists -in 2025 the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) grey List and in 2026 the high-risk third country list.

Last year, the Nigerian stock exchange market capitalization grew over 51% year-on-year to a landmark peak crossing ₦100 trillion. This January her external reserve hit a $46 billion historic high, the highest in 8 years. The IMF projected Nigeria’s economy will grow by 4.4% in 2026 from 3.9% in 2025.

Nigerian delegates of recent paid a strategic state visit to Türkiye aimed at cementing ties between both countries, on investment, defense and security, and in key sectors. Another meeting took place with UAE, which sought to deepen bilateral trade, technology transfer and sectoral collaborations.

At this year’s Davos Nigeria had a sovereign pavilion for the first time. Dr. Jumoke Oduwole, Federal Minister for Industry, Trade, and Investment the brain behind the Nigeria Davos House informed that the initiative was fully funded by private sector. The Vice President of Nigeria, His Excellency Senator Kashim Shettima launched the pavillion, reiterating its foundation on a “renewed resolve to actively participate in global economic conversations…moving to performance”.

As Nigeria seeks new investments ties that are beneficial to both partnering parties, Canada has become a country to look towards with the ethos of pragmatic understanding of the world and fair dealings.

The good thing is that both countries already conduct bilateral trade valued at $3.5 billion, which is net positive for Nigeria.

Both countries have a lot in common, endowed with great resources -young, diverse, literate and tech savvy workforce, rich marine, significant oil and agricultural productions and exports powering global economy; beautiful, multicultural and strategically positioned attracting visits and investments.

These features also make them ground of geopolitical tussles and susceptible to global economic disruptions.

The similarities of endowments and shared realities could promote deeper ties by mutual understanding and common strengths between both countries.

Trades between both countries entail petroleum products, agricultural commodities, farm inputs, raw materials, machinery and equipment.

These products although essential are however basic and would need to be included with high value-added products and services to realize the best of potentials of both countries.

Mark Carney in his WEF’s speech mentioned that Canada is “fast-tracking a trillion dollars of investment in energy, AI, critical minerals, new trade corridors and beyond…and doubling defense spending to build domestic industries.”

Nigeria has ambition of a trillion dollars economy by 2030. It is seeking to increase mineral resources exploration to create capital, products and leverage to boost manufacturing, exports, and also hardware and software production to partake in the global AI economy but also to combat insecurities to enable food production and economic activities.

The Nigeran Davos house investment interests for partnership focused on solid minerals, climate-sustainable agriculture, creative industries, and digital sectors.

The collaborations, cooperation and partnerships between Nigeria and Canada can encompass all these.

This forms the basis for the discussion between Toheeb Azeez (The Lasgidi Farmer and The Host of The Lasgidi Farmer Podcast) and Adekanmi Samuel (A trained and professional banker with experience in both Nigeria and Canada banking sectors and financial systems, and with special focus on agribusiness) about the Canadian & Nigerian Agrifood Markets.

Although the conversations will touch on many and other issues, our focus will be primarily on the Agrifood markets which the interest of the Podcast and also our interests are on but would others with the understanding of how agriculture is not isolated and events in other sectors and areas can impact it.

We want to look at the issues faced by both countries -how geopolitical conflicts, trade war, energy insecurity, and domestic issues (political instability and rising nationalism, inflation, interest rates and infrastructure gap) are impacting production landscape and affecting food systems, output and demand -contrast them and draw out applicable lessons.

In addition to these challenges, we want to look at the opportunities, and especially for agritech, and also inform on areas and ways to deepen ties. We want to also assess the role and importance of private sector and public-private partnerships in exploiting these opportunities.

We hope you are inspired by this write up and would join us this coming Saturday Feb 7, 2026 by 6pm West African Time to chart the future of both countries to sovereignty and self-reliance. See you there!

The series of violent conflicts emerging these days –Israel-Iran war in particular -have me worried about what the state of global food security will be by the end of this year and the ensuing impact.

According to a recent report by the World Food Programme (WFP) “65% of acutely food-insecure people live in a fragile or conflict-affected countries.”

The correlation between food insecurity and conflict is well-documented and established.

Conflict predisposes people to hunger and malnutrition, cutting their physical and economic access to food and also disrupting food production and systems.

In the present day we have seen the impact of conflict on Ukraine in a protracted war with Russia. Ukraine since the rekindled war in February 2022 has experienced a 9% decline in its total cultivated area, recorded an estimated $127 billion infrastructural damage, $34.25 billion agricultural losses (equivalent to 75% of its annual agricultural output) and having 20% of its population currently food insecure.

As Israel and Iran suffer severe damages to the ongoing war between each other there is every reason to believe that both sides could experience increased food insecurity –the warring parties are seeing increasing casualties and destruction of critical infrastructures (road, energy, water, health, etc.) –and it could be much worse for Iran.

Iran has a 92 million population and of which 55.9% (51.6 million) are food insecure, a figure higher than for any other country in the Middle East and West Asia. A sustained conflict, coupled with economic sanctions and inflation already faced by the country, threatens to worsen conditions for the Islamic Republic.

While the conflict impact is expected to be more localized, it could spread beyond borders of the parties at loggerheads. This broader impact thus worries me as much as the immediate impact.

The Iranian population is the 2nd largest of the Middle East and West Asia populations, representing 18% of 507 million and 29% of 314 million respectively. Her 51.6 million food insecure people constitute 27% of the 189 million food insecure Middle East population. Iran’s food insecurity rising thus means the region’s food insecurity statistics automatically rises.

Also, with the Jewish-Persian war prolonging, worsening and drawing outside participation, insecurity in the Middle East could degenerate and exacerbate the already precarious state of food insecurity in the region.

It would be reminded that 7 countries inclusive Iran (Palestine, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt) in the Middle East (considering North Africa) experience significant form of food insecurity -Palestine, Yemen and Syria battle acute food insecurity, Lebanon and Iraq face a moderate form, and Iran and Egypt a huge proportion but less severe one. 

Food insecurity for most of these countries is driven largely by conflict, insecurity, destroyed infrastructure, instability and economic crisis.

A full-blown nature of the current Israeli-Iranian war would severely affect these struggling nations and could bring the Middle East to its knee and with ripples in the global economy.     

With the war, economic activities in the Middle East are being sabotaged, flights disrupted and redirected, revenue declining, and consumption power, investor confidence and capital market growth impacted, all informing of an ensuing possible decline in FDI, FPI and GDP.

Also, we have learnt that in a globalized and interconnected world an event somewhere and in a critical place can have reverberating impact elsewhere or even across the globe.

The Russia-Ukraine war contributed greatly to the volatility of grains, fertilizer and crude oil supply chains and energy insecurity, with attendant hike in global price of grains and other foods and elevated food insecurity especially in developing and import-dependent nations.

“Ukraine and Russia account for 28% of wheat, 15% of maize, 66% of sunflower oil and 16% of fertilizer export market in the world. Russia exports constitute 18%, 11% and 20% of global coal, crude oil and natural gas exports.”

Iran a major oil producer hit with economic blockades only get to export majority of its oil to China, however, since Tehran’s major oil infrastructure has been hit production has ceased.

This is not only threatening for the Persian population facing high inflation and unemployment to economic hardship but also to China and (fragile) countries dependent on cheap Chinese goods, especially when China is in a reciprocal tariff war with the US and the latter’s sanction on Russian oil pushing up the oil shipping cost and having China seek alternatives.

Even, Iran is in control of critical shipping route Strait Hormuz “the world’s single most important oil passageway” taking about one-fifth of global oil cargo and other goods. There has never been stronger intent to block the channel by Iran than now, as a leverage.

The proxy fighters of Iran have also threatened the target of critical infrastructure (energy and defense bases) of countries (especially Middle Eastern) choosing to attack Iran on behalf of Israel, shipping vessels sabotage and blockage of the Suez Canal (one of the world’s five major international shipping routes).

The Middle East habours a significant portion of global oil and natural gas reserves and has strategic importance connecting Europe, Asia and Africa.

It therefore means that an escalated war there would not only affect oil and gas production and their shipment, skyrocketing oil price with attendant inflation across the globe, but also unleash insecurity and catalyze migration crisis across regions.

Oil price drives energy cost and with supply chain determine/influence input and production cost in other sectors and of other materials. Increased production cost translates to increased food price.

If the dreaded escalation occur the state of global economy and food security would undoubtedly worsen.

The few days of the current war sent shockwaves across Europe. Aljazeera reported that “European equities drifted down on the news of Israel’s attack, Germany’s DAX and France’s CAC 40 fell a little more than 1.1% at the end of last week while the UK’ FTSE 100 ended 0.5% lower on Friday.”

Analyst experts are concerned that a stretched conflict in the Middle East could compound a normalizing high inflation and living cost in Europe previously driven by the impact of harsh macroeconomic events. This is what is expected for the rest of the world and even more for fragile economies.

This looming crisis comes where gains seen with food insecurity are sliding with about a billion people hungry and the global economies and supply chains rocked back-to-back by Covid19, Russia-Ukraine war, supply chains insecurities in the Middle East, and geopolitical trade and tariff wars.  

Hence, it is important that urgent resolution is reached. How the conflict will be ended is a long road but it must first start with de-escalation of tension and protection of lives and critical infrastructures.

Moreover, justice and fairness must also be pursued and uprooting double standards to achieve a lasting solution. It is abnormal that in the 21st century one country would go assassinate leaders of another sovereign country. Even when for reasons of transgression, there are international laws and mediation courts to seek redress.

While nuclear weapon and weapon of mass destruction (WMD) threaten the existence of the world, one country with nuclear weapon cannot say another cannot have nuclear weapon –they should not have together. A country having nuclear weapon and justifies such for reasons of securing its existence and that it is less likely to deploy it but maintaining another country should not have it arguing the country is more likely to use does not cut it. The moral intent cannot be ascertained.  

Few countries have learnt to rapidly develop their military might and sophisticated arsenals or refuse to dismantle their nuclear programme seeing how weaker countries and the countries that choose peaceful process of denuclearization are treated.

It portrays the failure of the UN to protect weaker and sincere nations and the union’s incapacitated state for some members to assume more power than others and able to do whatever without (fearing) consequences.

In the last 20yrs a number of governments has been forcefully overthrown in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) and with irreparable destructions, fragmentation and insecurity lasting today, for rationales which turned out false.

Israel has repeatedly violated the UN ceasefire accord in Gaza and call for protection of civilians in the prolonged Israel-Palestine conflict. The State of Palestine with hardship faced currently has about 100% food insecurity proportion of its population.

This nonchalance and indiscriminate illegal acts deepen resentments and hostilities within the Middle East especially toward hegemonic western nations and Israel perceived to be an illegal occupation alien to the region and forced into it, and as long as these continue cannot bring about enduring peace and stability for the progress of the region and the globe and thus must stop.

Overall, respect for peoples’ sovereignty and not interfering with their lives and political processes and ensuring fairness, equality and justice are nonnegotiable to building peace, stability and cohesion to repositioning the Middle East, to have improved economy, living standard and human development index.

This is not to absolve Iran of many criminal acts levied against it –sponsoring terrorism and engaging proxies for assault purposes, in which there are reasons to believe this could be true –and by all means appropriate discipline and deterrent should be exercised and with right measures which address the real issues and perpetrators but not innocent majority citizens. The country has received so much sanctions and with economic hardship that living and accessing opportunities have been challenging and unfair for its innocent common people. This should not be so.

The current Nigeria and France “renewed” relationship is what comes to my mind as I think about the recent X (Twitter) discourse I facilitated on slavery, colonialism, imperialism and the Nigerian Agriculture. Whether the renewed relationship means good for Nigeria?

As Asiwaju visited Paris, signed among others to deepen commerce and diplomatic ties, was a $300m pact to develop in Nigeria critical sectors agriculture inclusive. This is important for many reasons: the present state of food insecurity in the nation, France’s agricultural capacity, and a changing nature of geopolitics in Africa.

France has an $80bn annual agricultural output. This represents 18% of EU’s total agricultural output, earning her EU’s largest agricultural producer. Her agrifood industry yielded over $200bn in sales last 2 years.  

Such ties with a strong agricultural state could promote mutually beneficial trade and adoption of progressive ideas for agricultural transformation and help fix food insecurity in Nigeria.

While this development appears new and promising, the history of contract suggests otherwise.

First is that Nigeria already does a $5bn trade with France. The nation with this is France’s largest trade partner in Sub-Saharan Africa. In 2022, Nigeria’s export to France amounted to $4.95bn and France’s to Nigeria $645m.

While it appears a positive trade balance for Nigeria, 84% of Nigeria’s export was crude oil and followed by petroleum gas ($598m) and soybean meal ($78.7m).

France’s exports, however, were formed largely by refined petroleum (11.25%), medical supplies (8.4%) and hard liquor (7.5%), and could be benefiting more selling refined products, the raw materials for their manufacturing many originally purchased from Nigeria.

With this it is apparent that trade and a huge one at that was already in place between both countries, but never more on agriculture and value-added products despite the both nation’s agricultural potential, production and dependence.   

It thus breeds question on the two nations: why Nigeria does more exports of raw inputs/materials to France and not trade rather, value-added products exploiting Paris’ $80bn agriculture or $200bn agrifood industry? 

It is understood that this could just be of Nigeria’s parochial focus on oil commodity export and the sector constituting bulk of its foreign earnings and agricultural exports not given much attention.

However, it is not that Nigeria does not undertake agricultural exports. Nigeria, for instance, does a huge annual £7bn trade with the United Kingdom, £3bn originating from Nigeria where agrifood commodities represent 45% of the commodity exports.

In spite, the 45% agrifood composition just represents 0.4% of the value of the £3bn trade. A major reason for this is that bulk of the Nigerian exports were in raw form and/or raw materials and mineral fuel and related others took more proportional value.

This is what we observe of Nigeria-France trade with soybean meal (raw material) representing the only agricultural produce and crude petroleum taking the lion share of the export pie.

This whole scenario depicts on a broader scale what is of Nigeria’s trade with Western nations (European and US) and is also true for Africa.

For instance, the global cocoa value chain market is worth over $150bn with West Africa accounting for 70% global cocoa production, but while the region supplies bulk of the cocoa used in the world her share of the global cocoa value chain market is just 13%.

West Africa as whole and being the globe’s cocoa production hub realizes in export returns less than $6bn whereas Germany that does not produce cocoa and as a country earns more than $10bn.

A leading reason for this is not unconnected from what we have seen with Nigeria –selling cocoa as mere beans while rich importing nations incorporates value addition, processing into chocolate and other valuable products commanding higher prices.

Why Nigeria and Africa continue to operate this way baffled me and still baffles me, and it was indeed why I held the discourse on foreign influence on the nation, its manufacturing ability and agriculture potential, the impact such interference had on the nation and continues to have at present, the new forms and the structure preserving the skewed order.

We did recognize that there are domestic factors that limit the potential of the nature and pursuing trade routes that yield better and more outcome for the nation but, however, that there were/are external factors (and which even spur, direct and strengthen domestic factors) that impede and sabotage the possibilities of the nation and continent.

Here we talked about the direct exploitation of human and material resources in the name of slavery and theft. The transition to indentured servitude and colonialism with systematic destruction and demotion of manufacturing of high-quality goods and production of value added products in colony states to consumption of and dependence on inferior foreign goods and production of raw materials. Also is the preservation and instutionalization of skewed trade, raw material supply and agricultural value chains dynamics with predatory lending, debt-loading, bureaucratic gates, political and economic measures, hereditary democracy and strategic placement of stooges.

Thus, when France seeks a ‘renewed’ bilateral relationship and after virtually none on agriculture, we must ask why, what it really wants, why now, and if it would really amount to anything significant judging by its history and present state of affairs.   

It is important to remind that France was one of the seven western European nations that undertook the great ‘scramble for Africa’ partitioning the continent into segments for colonization (an evolved exploitation machinery established after slavery and forceful labour saw rebuke) and also instituted both formal and informal imperialisms and neocolonialism to sustain manipulated commerce, power sphere and Francafrique.

The French never left fully even after independence, covertly and overtly interfering with political, social and economic processes with liberal interventionism, cultural engineering and economic schemes usurping the financial system of the Francophone African nations, pegging their currency to Euro and their foreign reserve deposited in the French treasure in the guise of assistance with proper administration for a strong and stable financial system while raking in humongous profit and giving back peanut aid, this by itself a neocolonialism structure.

Paris in the past sought expansionist ambition to grow their wealth and also rival other European nations in the trade of sugar, tobacco, rubber, gold, diamond and some other cash crops and valuable precious resources, thus established their primary production hub in the colonies for exploitation to supply French-owned processing companies in French Africa and Paris for the benefits of France and French capitalists. 

While establishing local production appears good for the former colonies, it only demoted them to and ensured their permanent position in the manufacturing role along the value chains.    

This position and a consistent supply of those materials and at cheaper cost is being maintained today by an imperial constitution of France’s unfettered right to access resources and raw materials in previous colonies, a pegged currency, currency arbitrage, amalgamation of financial systems, deliberate bureaucracy with exportation of value-added products of colonial masters’ interest, and soft power pressure.

France had been involved in unrests and coups in French Africa removing leaders and destabilizing the region to assert dominance and exploit strategic interests. It led NATO into French North Africa, Lybia to remove Gaddafi, supported by the United States and United Kingdom, a tool from the old play book western nations setting aside their differences and aligning forces abroad and in colony against a common enemy and/or in pursing common interest, for instance against the Soviets and like we currently see against Russia in French West and Equatorial Africa.  

The destabilization of Libya paved way for escalation of conflicts, emergence of insurgents and them emboldened, the proliferation of arms and spread of terrorism across Sub-Saharan Africa, leaving behind fierce contest for resources, destruction of or rending unfit for production cultivable lands, and hunger, malnutrition, poverty and deaths.

It is a major reason for the sharp rise of insurgency and terrorism in Nigeria after the Libyan regime change with insurgents and arms finding way into the nation through neigbouring countries as Chad and Niger.

This has wreaked havoc on the nation’s food production capability with seize of arable lands, destruction and theft of farm produces and investments, displacement and maiming of rural inhabitants and farmers, and disruption of economic activities and supply chains with frequent unrests, tolls and levies.

Insecurity has been reported to be responsible for 50% of Nigeria’s food insecurity. About 100,000 people have been killed, many of them farmer, to insecurity in the Northern Nigeria from 2011 to 2023 in the administration of former presidents Goodluck Jonathan and Muhammadu Buhari. This led to many farmers fleeing their farms and abandoning production and which widened supply-demand gap.

It then begs the question why go into a more cordial relationship and that would involve sharing intelligence and establishment of naval base with a nation that has history of engineering schemes instigating unrest, sabotaging economies and food systems that directly and indirectly affect you or an arrangement that may not benefit you judging by the history of your trade with them wrapped around supply of raw materials and not value-added products?

It is important to remind again that France had been fingered in fomenting state dissolution efforts in Nigeria backing separatist groups. Could this renewed arrangement enable such treasonous cause?

It is important to remind that France recently has been booted out by former colonies, Mali, Niger and Burkina Faso with the same sentiment of tie severance spreading across Francophone African countries.

We must ask that why is France being sent parking from these countries, also that if other countries are distancing themselves from France why are we drawing her closer, and that what exactly does France want from Nigeria this time that it coincides with when it is being chased away from French Africa or why the sudden relationship with Nigeria now?

About 70% of France’s energy source comes from nuclear energy. 19% of the uranium required to power the nuclear plants comes from Niger. Paris’ energy security appears threatened with the kick-out of France by Niger.

It is worth mentioning that Niger which supplies France with bulk of the materials to generate power suffers blackouts in several homes to inability to fully utilize domestic energy generating resources for the benefit of self. It informs on the issue among many others that could be fuelling tension between French Africa and France.

This could be one of the reasons France looks toward Nigeria, rich in oil, gas deposits and agricultural commodities that it is being presently deprived of and important for the proper functioning of her economy.

The Russian gas and Russia and Ukraine grains are not coming anymore or as they use to with the expansion of NATO eastward and Ukraine’s plan to join NATO contravening agreements and an attending direct war (Russia-Ukraine) and proxy war (West vs. Russia/Soviet/East) straining political ties and cutting gas and grain supply that have triggered elevated cost of gas, manufacturing and food in Europe.

It is however understood that even while France and other countries in Europe suffer supply chains effect of Russia’s austere measures, some European countries could be gaining from such disruption and may have manipulated the supply chains.

For instance, the grain production capability of Ukraine drastically declined to the war, with France although known to be producer of grains but now and with the United States, Canada and Australia encroached supply gap left open by Ukraine’s declined and now replacing Ukraine’s export to countries dependent on Ukraine for about 50% of their grain needs. Also, these country that took over Ukraine trade Russia inclusive, have moved up in production scale. It is reported that these major producers not only boost their capacity to produce more grains with supply gap but also risen price of grains.

There is also another gas supply arrangement where the US now feeds Europe with gas and at higher cost as against from Russia.

However, back to the discussion, could it be that France’s newly pursued relationship with Nigeria is of neocolonialism playbook to find subtle, other means to preserve the order of things and/or find new host to ensure continuous flow of resources to keep the French (western) capitalism machinery running which is ever-expanding and consistently in need of resources which without would implode and collapse?   

It should be recollected that the President of Nigeria, Tinubu wrote to the Senate seeking military intervention in Niger and tried to lobby ECOWAS to restore normalcy in Francophones and stem the wave of ties severance with France. 

It would be naïve to think Nigeria wanting to invade Niger does not have the hand of France and those of other western nations not only wanting to ensure raw materials and energy security but also counter a growing Russian influence and that Nigeria does not have interests dependent on normalcy and stability in Niger and neigbouring countries around Niger.

Nigeria thus has an ambitious $13bn Trans-Saharan gas pipeline project that would run through French Africa (Niger, Algeria and Tunisia accordingly) to Europe through Italy that promises gas alternative for Europe seeking alternative energy source in Africa to replace Russian gas, which a coup in Niger of a government friendly to France and ties severance with France, a strengthening of relationship between Niger and Russia and a gas development project between both threaten.     

It becomes evident Africa would increasingly become hotbed of geopolitical strategic game with worsening global energy security and changing power dynamics and with Nigeria having more role to play.   

Hence, while it is important to ask what France really wants with a renewed relationship with Nigeria, it also important to ask what is in the agreement of the Nigerian government with France, whether Nigeria understands what is unfolding, if it would seek better arrangement that benefits itself and the African continent, and how it would maneuver the great game of influence and power dynamics where it must play and under the influence of soft power.   

Perhaps the $80bn agriculture and $200bn agrifood industry value of the trade partner is worth it and Nigeria would seek arrangement of trade that are fair and embodies high valuable products beneficial for both countries.

It is in our hope that Nigeria does not become an exploitation ground and also a Launchpad for the exploitation of other African countries by external political actors who are self-interested and do not mean good for the nation and continent, and that those in charge of the nation’s affairs do not become stooges and take actions that would catalyse tension within the country, inter-nations and across the continent regressing Nigeria and Africa and having them in the clenched fist of the imperialists.