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!

Potato has a huge value chains and many of its by products are (a close substitute to essential industrial raw materials) highly demand -starch, ethanol and biogas, sugar, sorbitol, food additives, animal feed, nutrient supplements, cooking oil, and baking and food products, etc.

Let’s be clear, it’s not that we don’t produce value-added potato products. We produce fried potato chips, flakes, etc. These are primary and there are many more on the high end and also by-products, and which demand high technicalities and not just simple and parochial approach.

We export raw shea nut than value-added shea products. A lot lost in earnings. Thus, we banned raw shea nut exports to catalyze local value-added shea products manufacturing. But we were producing shea butter. We did not assess our capacity to make high-value added shea products.

A rapid ban could impact supply chains and livelihoods. Better thoughts would have ensured more strategic measures.

There is the realization that when we industrialize potato production, the wasted and surplus potatoes we experience may not be enough as inputs. While we produce tons of potatoes, our yield/ha is very low to global standards.

It is crucial this is known, internalized and considered for address. This is good to spur production and create more opportunities.

It therefore informs that as much as industrialization and value addition are the way, we need to think of them properly and wholly, the complexities of challenges and the road to ensuring them -assessing present, future and real challenges, evolving market realities and dynamics, other essential inputs and infrastructural readiness.

In summary, we have to catalyze the potato industry, it is not only a way to ensure our demands and needs are met by way of high-quality manufacturing but which also create opportunities for more earnings, jobs and improvement of the overall value chains, however these contingent on ensuring a favourable environment.

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 term food security has different definitions and which generally have the pillars of availability, accessibility, utilization, and stability.

The availability encompasses production, distribution and exchange of food. It generally means food to be available to people by these means.

The other pillar accessibility portrays having access to food (adequate, safe and nutritious) which could be by directly producing ones food or being able to access food not only having the economic means but the food also affordable.

Utilization refers to how people use the foods they have access to that ensures appropriate and optimum absorption of nutrients.

The last pillar entails these other pillars being constant as that is what ensures food security. The definition of food security by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations embodies all these.

‘Food Security exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food which meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.’

I have chosen to first provide definition for food security and its pillar because they are relevant to the topic of discussion and also that Ramadan impacts every aspect of these pillars, one way or the other.

However, before delving fully into the article let me first narrate what made me embark on it in the first place.

I was to have an impromptu business meeting Friday in the penultimate week of February in Kano and Abuja, communicated late a day prior. I rushed down to the Lagos local Airport early in the morning the same Friday. The flights were fully booked for all airlines albeit with space for the next day but not for two people and a round trip I had wanted.

If not for the impromptu communication I could have booked the flight earlier. It turned out that the Ramadan to start on Saturday meant Northern Muslim residents in Lagos were flying back to the north to observe the first Ramadan prayer and to begin Ramadan. This gives insight into how Ramadan impacts economic activities.

Later on the same day, a friend that supplies me live catfish for smoked fish-making phoned in to inform me of changes in procurement price arrangement. I asked why and emphasized food prices have been falling across board. He held Ramadan and hoarding act by fish producers liable for the price hike. Thus, at that point I thought to write about the Impact of Ramadan on Food Security.

I begin with the food supply and availability component of food security. To discuss this it is important to understand what Ramadan is.

Ramadan is a month of fasting, prayer, reflection, and community for Muslims. It entails acts of worships, prayer, voluntary charity and restraint from food and water from dawn to sunset, and from things considered impure and unkind to self and others –smoking, drinking, lust, bad thoughts and actions harming self and others. In this period, special effort is made to reach out to people in need and also connect with communities. It is a frequent occurrence in this month to see Muslims giving alms and part of their wealth (for the rich), sitting together to end their fast, and sharing foods, water and fruits. The month instills reflections on a life with less or nothing to eat and having the feelings of those who have nothing or little to eat.

In the wake of Ramadan there is usually changes in food supply dynamics. Muslim stock up their homes for foods like starchy foods (rice, yam, potato, plantain, garri and fufu, etc.), protein (beans, beef, egg and milk) and soup ingredients (peppers, tomato, onion and oil) that would have them with energy and hydrated to adequately undertake fast and vitamins and minerals-rich foods to help them stay healthy for instance, vegetables and fruits.

In anticipation of this demand and wanting to seize opportunities at this time farmers grow these foods timely to be harvested and supplied into the market as Ramadan begins. As such, the mentioned foods are usually available in the period, influencing food types present and food availability at this period, for not only (fasting) Muslims but also non-Muslims.

The focus on these particular food types however affects other foods, where they are not given much attention until Ramadan ends. This on the one hand is responsible for food price hike in Ramadan, but for the foods not more demanded in the holy month.

Nonetheless, there have been reports of the foods sought in Ramadan also costly despite an increased supply. Thus on the other hand, while supply for these foods appear to increase, they are more produced to service a select part of the population (Muslims) in this period, whereas broader categories of the population buy these foods –especially the starchy foods, legumes and vegetables. Hence, we have a case of demand higher than supply and which pushes up food prices.

Nevertheless, there are other factors that influence prices of foods during Ramadan, increased transportation cost with rising demand to transport foods, seasonal availability especially impacting fruits and vegetables and uncontrollable by farmers, rising production cost to anticipation of Ramadan, and traders wanting to seize opportunity of a once-in-a-while market, and uncertain economic occurrences.

These all show that the food supply chain, food supply and prices are impacted by a host of factors in Ramadan (many peculiar to the period) and therefore shape food availability and security.

Having discussed food availability the next thing is to discuss food access. As it has been established, food production to serve Ramadan is usually demand-driven as it is the demanded food types for that period are what is produced. This helps with managing wastages but it does not prevent it because those foods are produced to type/classes but not according to how many tons or ration required.

Wastages contribute to what makes some people not to have  food to eat because rather than excess foods going to people in need they are wasted. Ramadan however discourages this by promoting restraint of appetite and giving out of one’s excess to people having little or nothing to food.

Indeed, many Muslims perform charity act for instance giving foods to the needy and when meals containing different classes of food are given it not only assists with access to calorie by others but also to diverse classes of food enabling hunger and malnutrition eradication and reaching food security.

Muslims have also been known to invite non-Muslims over for iftar and for Eid (Islamic celebration of Ramadan end) and/or share foods with them, which could extend positive impact of Ramadan on food security and could also promote non-Muslims adoption of lived by healthy food practices, community ideals, and ways of life that benefits food security.

Also, Muslims give zakat (obligatory charity) and sadaqah (voluntary charity) through wealth or money (especially for the former) distribution to the less privileged which enables their economic access to their most preferred foods that best meet their food needs.   

In tandem with food wastage being discussed previously, a survey of Muslims reported that 58% of the respondents informed they often have food remnants in Ramadan and 96% of these 58% maintain they often reserve their remnants for consumption for the following day. 98% of the total Muslims surveyed affirmed that they would like their children see food waste an important issue.

However, food wastages are being continually reported in Ramadan. It is estimated that 20%-30% of food bought or cooked in Ramadan end up in the bin or dump and more food wastes are generated in Ramadan than in other months. It is even reported that both rich and poor Muslim countries generate food wastes and at almost similar tons in the discussed month.

The surveyed Muslims are reported to take more meals than usual at Iftar (break of fast) and the affluent Muslims organize elaborate gatherings where food is wasted.

Equal giving to the needy without consideration of gender and status enable equality of access to food, an element that serves to break the power dynamics that impact who has access to food and to what food.

All these therefore portray the volatile nature and intricacies of food waste and access and not necessarily of Ramadan but of the faith adherent’s variability with sticking to the teachings of the month but which in turn affects food availability and access.

Ramadan promotes the access to nutritious foods as we have come to see with food availability encompassing the 5 classes of foods important for a balanced diet and proper growth and development and general wellbeing.

This is however counteracted by overconsumption we have talked about, with excess food cooked, consumed and thrown away when Muslims do not adhere to food restraint. Overconsumption even when it involves eating the 5 classes of food but in excess is a type of malnutrition by overnutrition that often leads to obesity, overweight, diabetes and some other cardiovascular diseases.

In the prior survey cited, 62% of the respondents believe that 80% of Muslim families cooked excess food at least once during Ramadan even though 72% of the survey respondents reported that the proportion of their meal for breaking fast was equal or lesser to the meal they usually have.

Ramadan enables the utilization part of food security with cooked food shared for iftar or given to the needy allowing for easy consumption, digestibility and utilization. Other times, in the form of compelled or voluntary giving foods are giving with cooking ingredients and sometimes cooking utensils/equipment that facilitate easy cooking and readiness for consumption and utilization.

There is also a way Ramadan facilitates utilization and not from the cooking aspect but the metabolism of fasting.

Fasting enables the breakdown of stored energy and fat in storage tissues to energy depletion in the body catalyzed by food absence and promoting glucose absorption by correcting insulin insensitivity and opening up muscle cells with exercise in the form of solat (Muslim daily prayers) and Tarawih (long prayer in the evening during Ramadan).

Fasting thus not only increases glucose metabolism and assimilation but also prevent high blood sugar levels, fat deposits and toxin build up that cause diabetes, obesity and overweight conditions, insulin malfunction to abdominal fat accumulation, and high blood pressure, cardiac arrest and other heath related diseases to plaque formation and dislodge in the blood vessels, which affects food absorption, food security and health.

Non-Muslims, people who fast, and healthcare research have found fasting beneficial to metabolism diseases and especially Type 2 diabetes of correctable insulin insensitivity and as such prescribe it as a non-drug therapy.

Ramadan enables and influence the fourth pillar of food security, stability where with its 30day duration it ensures consistent availability of the discussed (nutritious) classes/types of foods over that period, enable their access through distribution by teaching to avoid wastages and giving to the needy, and ensuring utilization by promoting optimum metabolism and nutrient absorption and facilitating equipment and ingredients that enable cooking, consumption and digestibility.

Also, Muslims are expected to continue to live by the teachings of Ramadan in other months, and their abiding by such would mean a prolonged positive impact on food security.

Overall, it would be concluded that Ramadan has influence on food security –directly and indirectly –and more positively that encompass diverse categories of people and even non-Muslims, enabling equality and discouraging discrimination.

There are however also some unintended negatives impact but which especially emanate from Ramadan observers; their neglect or nonchalance to the holy month’s ideals.  

Therefore, Muslims adherence to the teaching of Ramadan (and even adoption by non-Muslims) would enable food security, this includes equality; as food security portrays ‘…when all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food which meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.’

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.

In the same year, ₦228.4b of the nation’s ₦221.83trn budget went to agriculture. It represents 1.05%.

This is equivalent of $523.4m factoring in $435.75 FX rate benchmark of the 2023 budget.

Hence, in the period of foucus the agriculture sector used $523.4m budget to yield $93.7b.

That is, the sector multiplied by 179 folds the inputs provided it.

A principle of effective management is that inputs should go more to revenue generating activities than cost generating activities.

What we have rather is that budgetary allocation barely above 1% consistently goes to agriculture, falling short greatly to the recommended 10% allocation of the 2003 Maputo Declaration on Agriculture and Food Security.  

Many sectors not performing as agriculture rather receive huge share of national budget.

This is not to imply that the other sectors are not important and should not receive meaningful allocations.

Finance, defense, health, education and police accordingly occupy 1 to 5 of the top 10 MDAs (Ministries, Departments and Agencies) with the largest allocations of the 2023 budget. These MDAs are important.

Moreover, agriculture was part of the top 10 but only that it was last on the said list. The argument here is that agriculture should receive more allocations as it contributes and require to make more impact.

In sector terms, agriculture surpasses every other sectors to contribute most to the Nigerian economy, only come close to by trade, ICT and manufacturing sectors.

Only the service sector ranks atop agriculture in GDP contributions, but the service sector is a combination of many other important and diverse sectors of the economy hence a reason for its huge proportion of the economy and over agriculture.

However, the agriculture sector is not a monolith either; it has subsectors (although lesser and more related) –crop, livestock, fishing and forestry.

The crop production unit is the largest of the subsectors representing 87.6% of the agriculture sector and which directly constitutes as a unit, 21.9% of Nigeria’s GDP.

This portrays the importance of agriculture to the country’s economy either as a sector or in subunit terms.

While agriculture represents more percentage proportion of the Nigerian economy, the value in sum of such proportion is lower compared to other nations with lower proportion but higher sum value.

Brazil has a population slightly above 200 million similar as Nigeria, this earns it the largest country in South American continent just as Nigeria in Africa.

Brazil is endowed with oil and other mineral deposits, has the highest oil production in S/American and Nigeria endowed similarly leads oil production in Africa as well. Both are ranked 10th and 11th respectively on global oil production rankings.

Agriculture is very much part of the Brazilian GDP ranking (6.8%) behind service (58.9%) and industry (20.7%) sectors as the highest proportion of the nation’s economy just as it is for Nigeria.

However, the agriculture composition has a value of $146.9b of the 2023 total $2.2trillion GDP, 56.7% higher than the Nigerian agriculture contribution value despite having lower proportion to national GDP. This is even more when agribusiness 24.1% GDP value is considered.  

Productivity is one of the reasons for such. However, one would see the evident huge difference in national GDP between the two countries despite many similar economic realities.

This is important to factor and is even part of the reasons for the disparity seen, because what is earned is what is shared across sectors, ministries, departments and agencies, for their respective functions, and the health of a nation’s economy determined by GDP can often inform on how prosperous business operators can be.

The Brazilian GDP is about 6 times Nigeria’s GDP. This figure in addition elements of national income and gross national product excluded from GDP compounds total national revenue for budgetary allocations.  

According to latest figures, TSE (Total Support Estimate) of $4.45b was given to agriculture in Brazil and the compounded national revenue detailed above explains how Brazil could give such. The TSE is ‘the annual value of all gross transfer from taxpayers and consumers arising from policy measures that support agriculture, net of the associated budgetary receipts’.

Despite the TSE being huge, its productivity to GDP is lower compared to Nigeria’s. The $4.45bn TSE yields 33-folds its value at $146.9b compared to Nigeria’s 179-folds.

However, when compared to the Brazil’s agribusiness 24.1% which comprises agriculture, rural industry and trade and livestock as the Nigerian agriculture has subsectors, the TSE productivity rises with a value of $530.2b and producing higher outcome by 119-folds, but not still up to Nigeria’s.

It thus shows the productivity of the Nigerian agriculture in efficiently using allocations to give greater outcome and which could be more if more resources are committed to the sector.

Nonetheless, the productivity lapse for the Nigerian agriculture comes of expanse of land and workforce deployed to agricultural productions.

For instance, Nigeria undertakes 34million hectares of agricultural uses as against Brazil’s 63.5million hectares. While the latter appears to be larger than the former, Brazil has only cultivated 15.48% of its 410million hectares total arable land compared to Nigeria’s 48.57% of her 70million hectares.

Adding to this, 70% of the Nigerian 216million population is reported to be engaged in agriculture while Brazil has 15.1% of its 100million workforce in agriculture. That is a population of 151.2million people (more than half the nation’s populace) to 15million people which constitutes just 7.1% of 211million Brazilian population.

The productivity problem could also be attributed to the level of mechanisation adoption with Nigeria having 25,000 tractors to 28million farmers to Brazil’s 44,836 tractors to 4.7million farm families. That is 1:1,120 to 1:105 in comparison.

Moreover, Nigeria’s agriculture GDP per capita is also lower at $619.7 (agriculture labour force) or $3,346 (farmers) relative to Brazil’s $31,255 (agriculture) or $112,808.5 (agribusiness).

Despite the many hands involved in Nigeria’s agriculture and more lands put to cultivation, the nation has its worst food inflation this year, ranking 8th among the world’s top 10 worst food inflation, while it has a negative ₦1.037trn agricultural trade balance in 2023.  

Rather, in 2022 Brazil had a positive balance of trade $141.6b while still leading the world’s production of coffee, sugarcane, soybean and orange and is amongst leaders of many other arable crops production in the world and poultry and cattle products.

Now back to the significance of national economy in the unleashing of productivity in the agriculture and private sectors with multinational impacts.

The $375b Nigeria’s 2023 GDP just represents 58% of Walmart’s 2023 revenue. This is the largest revenue by company in the world.

Also, Walmart is indigenous to the United States that had a GDP of $27.36trn in 2023, the globe’s highest.

Amazon from the US also comes behind Walmart on such list and with Apple and Microsoft having the largest market capitalisation in the world over $3trn, both also originated from the US.

The health of the US economy and an enabling environment it provides for businesses to flourish is evident in how the mentioned companies progress domestically and dominate global market landscape.

The United States might not be a good comparison to Nigeria with Washington’s GDP about 8-times Africa’s, but it is important to mention that South Africa with 60million population has the largest economy in Africa ahead of Nigeria with a population of 216million and endowed with diverse natural resources.

Nonetheless, we go back to using Brazil as comparison. As opposed to the US with the highest grossing company being private and not into oil production even when the nation is the globe’s largest oil producer, the topmost earning company in Brazil is a state-owned oil company, Petrobas with $118.3b revenue.

The case is similar for Nigeria, NNPC being the highest earner in the country and with $9.5b.

Private businesses then come next in this category, MTN and Vitru with $3.5b and $111.9b respective earnings for both countries being compared. Both companies have something similar with Amazon engaged in technology as a service, the former ICT for communications and the latter for educational purposes.

It would be noted that for both the highest earners, public and private companies, Brazil greatly surpasses Nigeria’s. Even Petrobas (5.3%) and Vitrus (5.0%) form greater percentage of the Brazilian economy than NNPC (2.5%) and MTN (0.9%) in Nigeria. It would be also observed that Petrobas and Vitrus have almost the same percentage GDP proportion.

None of Nigerian indigenous companies even those focused on here feature on the top list of highest earning and market capitalisation in Africa. Only MTN is on the list but as a South African group.

It is thus apparent that the Nigerian economy is smaller compared to what can be and is hindering potentials in many sectors and businesses, agriculture inclusive –with a subpar FDI, FPI, indigenous private and public funds, infrastructure, disposable income and purchasing power, production resources and policies impacting businesses and their environment.

The essence of all this illustration hence was to portray the importance of the economy to sectors and businesses operating within the economy because they often portray how enabling an economy is.   

In summary, the Nigerian agriculture is productive giving more value than is received but could be more productive if given the warranted larder budgetary allocation and its production enhanced by incorporation of productive inputs but that the national economy needs to transform to provide enabling conditions that promote such.

The government opting for food imports with waivers shows it is abreast with what it must do to drive down food cost short-term and that importing alone -without waivers– will not be enough or work.

Looking at the latest trade figures; total import in Q1 2024 surpassed N12trillion. Agricultural goods were one of the top imports. It grew by 95.28% to N920.54bn in Q1 2024 from N471.39bn in Q1 2023.

At the end of the same quarter in 2024, food inflation reached 40.01%, a 15.56% increase from the previous year.

This tell us that food imports had been occurring and grew higher, and food prices increased significantly despite such.

Hence, the recent food import instruction should not come across as new and does not offer much hope. But with waivers, it does (to an extent). Importation cost is the main deal.

Forex ban on 43 items in 2015 and over, high exchange rates and import-deterring measures have ensured an enduring increased cost of food imports.

The mean price of imported food index rose to a new record in the last 4 years by 105.03%. Imported food saw 16.12% change in inflation rates between the year 2020 and 2024 in the month of January.

At a time in April, cargo cost fell to ₦1,260.49/$ from a peak of ₦1,624/$ with measures in forex market in Q2 2024 that took autonomous market rates to ₦1,255/$. This reflected in the price of (imported) foods at that time, with foreign rice selling for ₦70,000 and tended to drop further after climbing over ₦80,000.

The discussed waiver thus is a positive but there is a reservation. The import directive focuses on/subsidizes consumption not production. It gives waivers to food but not inputs.

Input price hike is a leading driver of increased production cost and price of food. Prices of seeds and agrochemicals have more than doubled in the same period over. The waiver has to target both.

Raw materials accompany agricultural goods to account for bulk of imports in Q1 2024. This import rise did not result in a fallen price of food.

It appears that importation cost is pushing the prices of inputs and cancelling their positive impact on food prices or that, irrespective, core production of vital input elements has to occur locally.

The latter is important and sustainable, because relying on external inputs exposes domestic food system to global shocks.

Locally, maize price jumped by 52.2% post-lockdown and fertiliser price by 80% since Russia-Ukraine hostility from early 2022.

Nonetheless, I’m concerned about the dangers of importation. Importation without breaks has overturned/hindered domestic production and destroyed many of our sectors.

We cannot produce all the food we eat and should not commit to producing all our needs.

Full-swing protectionism, without well thought-out plan, in the past has had more harm on food prices.

When the border closure was considered in 2015, I argued for strategic closure than outright closure. Now look at what we have today, increased rice capacity but so also over 500% increase in price of rice.

We improved our production output but a fast-growing population and inefficiency across the value chain ensure demand is always in excess and our rice output dwindle and with a considerable supply deficit.

Clinging to protectionism whilst demand was high, shot up rice and other food prices with an irreversible effect apparent today.

Importation could have supplemented that, and scarce resources distributed to other productive endeavours.

We have serious maize problem today and the commodity has had a significant impact on our food price.

We do not produce enough to meet our maize needs. But does that mean we do not produce a substantial volume of maize? Certainly not! In fact, we produce over 11million metric tonnes. This accounts for the second largest production in Africa. However, our demand is 15million MT.

The problem is with productivity, which can improve with hybrid varieties, good agronomic practices, other production enhancing inputs and being able to cultivable lands usurped by insecurity.

The United States uses 39million hectares to produce 347million MT of maize, Nigeria realizes 15million MT from 5.9million ha. A big difference on yields/ha.

Aside productivity, the availability of maize in Nigeria and demand for it is influenced by several competing uses. 45.5% goes to livestock production, about 15% to human consumption, 13% for flour, flakes and confectioneries, and 6.5% for breweries.

With maize output not rising but declining unable to meet local demand and its imports levied a 5% tariff and blocked from forex window, maize scarcity and hiked price ensued and have wreaked havoc on fish and poultry sectors greatly dependent on it and with impact on prices of fish, chicken and eggs.

For instance, a Kg of catfish which sold for ₦800 presently retails at ₦2,500. A crate of eggs sells today for about ₦4,000 from ₦950 in early 2020.

I am not saying importation is the solution but that sticking to protectionism in spite vivid reality would cause unnecessary sufferings, almost always irredeemable.

The case here for maize as with many other crops is to commit to productivity than undertaking more productions and enforcing austere economic measures.

Getting the balance between importation and domestic production without dissuading local producers is the delicate part, but it is not impossible.

Importation has a place. In fact, many of the leading food producers and exporters -US, China, India, etc -have significant import bills. China is a leading exporter of rice but also the largest rice importer.

The balance of trade should however be positive, greatly, and imports rather should play augmentation role where there is deficit and not totally replace what we have comparative advantage to produce and capacity to satisfy domestic demand.

I would assume the government instituting a short import waiver window (150-day duty free import) understands this.

But if the government knew all this and the possible impacts, why did it let things go this bad before taking the needed actions?

Understanding (based on available reports) imports have been responsible for bulk of our foods and inputs and the impact input and importation costs have on food prices, why had it not granted, short term, special concession for agricultural imports seeing how unification of exchange rates and removal of fuel subsidy would drive input and food prices?

Nonetheless, the government must understand that importation and waivers are not a sustainable and lasting solution but fostering domestic production strategically is, that there are other factors, local, aside tariffs as dwindling food production, inefficient and unproductive production, insecurity, spoilages and wastages, seasonality, illegal and multiple fees along supply chains, and energy price etc. that are driving food prices. These problems must be holistically addressed.

I have not seen all these being addressed in the recent released ‘raft of measures’, however, the agriculture minister acknowledged some of these issues alongside many others in the brief.

Perhaps, solutions are being proffered to them, but we hope to see more and rapid results in those areas.  

It is my hope that this importation directive is properly navigated and does not compound issues and erode gains seen with local production from the past. 

The whole catfish sector is in distress from inflation and there is bound to be serious effects.

Farmers recently reached a consensus to sell catfish for ₦2,000/kg irrespective of grow-out size as they cannot keep up with a rising production cost, feed in particular.

Price of feed has been soaring but farm gate price for catfish has not been in equal proportion.

Just before the newly agreed price, (in Lagos) a kg of live catfish sold for ₦1,100/kg 29% higher to ₦850/kg it was late 2020, whereas price of a bag of 2mm Blue Crown (one of the cheapest fish feeds) increased by 54% from ₦6,500 september last year to about ₦10,000 today, almost twice the percentage increase of catfish retail price.

Regardless of the different degree to which both are affected by inflation, both show the impact of inflation in the catfish industry.

The pandemic wreaked havoc and still is on supply chains and economies around the world, not only raising cost of foreign feed production but also freight to importing countries which too is impacted by falling value of the naira and increased importing cost.

Situation at home is not any better nor offsetting global impact but rather compounds it. Insurgency and climate change have cut short maize and other vital ingredients supply for local feed-making as substitute, which with increased road tariffs and transport fare, prices of feed ingredients and feed itself keep soaring.

Now, farmers could rely on increasing gate price passing cost burden on to consumers, but this is not sustainable with inflationary forces still waxing strong and purchasing power dwindling. There is a limit to which they can hike price without demand responding appropriately.

While we have no control over happenings on a global scale, we can see to local affairs building capacity and resilience to ameliorate the global crush.

As a matter of urgency, we have to effect sound fiscal and monetary policies to resuscitate and stimulate the economy to contain inflation, subsiding general production cost, raise earnings and purchasing power.

Issues building tension and insecurity deterring farmers from cultivating needed crops essential for feed-making should be sincerely seen to and substantial investment made into the animal feed industry for R&D, production, to breed seeds that yield high in spite changing climate and reinforcing the nation’s capacity to produce quality feeds as the foreign brands, which reduces need for importing feeds.

Of all, farmers should be bailed & supported with intervention funds & subsidized inputs to keep them afloat & committed to production.

If these are not addressed and trends as we see it go on, the true implication then is catfish will become exotic food from being costly with it being excluded as protein source for many that can’t afford it.

With declining demand, farms and feed mills shut down where more people become hungry from losing their livelihood. The effect would be felt in the animal feed and other industries dependent on the catfish sector.