Africa’s territorial mass markets define staple food – Newsday Zimbabwe

deleciousfood | July 10, 2024 | African Food | No Comments

A staple food is defined as a necessary good that is in constant demand. Given that several food commodities, other than maize and wheat, are now in constant demand in most African countries, the definition of a staple food is rapidly evolving.

These disruptive trends are fueled by territorial markets through unique feats of aggregation and distribution.

Mass markets show that in a modern, dynamic world, the definition of a commodity is subjective, as it is largely defined by the consumer/buyer and not by policy makers.

For someone who wants to drink tea every day, tea is a staple and for someone who wants to drink beer every day, beer becomes a staple.

For medical reasons, many African elders no longer consume white maize flour (sadza/ugali/nsima) and now turn to millet flour. Maize is therefore no longer their staple food.

It’s more about meal diversity than staple foods.

Overwhelming evidence shows how colonial staples are losing ground to diverse foods produced in different microclimates in response to climate change.

Most African households, both in urban and rural areas, prefer mixed meals to individual staple foods.

For example, tea and associated breakfast products are consumed in the morning.

Afternoon lunch is often characterized by lighter meals since most members of the household are not at home but at different workplaces.

The children will be at school, where meals cannot be based solely on corn flour.

The only time sadza/nsima/ugali can be consumed in large quantities is during dinner, when most of the household members are at home.

However, during dinner, children prefer rice and potatoes rather than sadza/nsima/ugali.

Tracking and consolidating all of these consumption patterns can reveal how food choices are rapidly changing, redefining what is considered a staple food by different people, even in rural areas.

In the case of Zimbabwe, the distribution prowess of mass markets now means that avocados can be found in Binga and potatoes in Gokwe, where they were not previously eaten because they were not traditionally grown there.

Farmers in these regions are now able to plant these crops in their gardens and wetlands to ensure constant availability for consumption.

It is also clear that corn is not a staple food for the younger generation.

This means that when policy makers develop a food basket, there is now a need to adopt a broader perspective beyond the use of an urban household food basket in which margarine, cooking oil, Mazoe Orange Crush drink and sugar are mentioned as components of a food basket for a family of six.

Demand for high-value crops such as carrots, peas and beans is increasing as many households gain access to them through mass markets.

This means that households consuming these foods in high-density areas can no longer fit the traditional colonial definition of low income because they cannot afford to purchase diverse and unique foods.

Even if a family can afford to buy bread, the fact that children no longer want bread every day signals that bread alone will no longer be a staple food for future generations.

The same applies to beverages. The proliferation of varieties of beverages and fruit juices means that policy makers can no longer prescribe basic beverages or fruit juices to consumers.

Urgent need for formal systems to move diverse foods

Food diversity now characterises many African microclimates, so that the greatest challenge in most African countries is no longer food production, but its equitable distribution.

Instead of declaring an El Niño-induced drought when a province is overwhelmed with fruit, ministries like the agriculture department should set up systems to transport the fruit to deficit areas rather than importing grain from South America.

By failing to monitor different food systems and facilitate aggregation and distribution, African governments are empowering foreign institutions like the Famine Early Warning System to define local food systems, including by labelling simple food shortages caused by lack of distribution as famine.

Language like ‘hungry season’, used by development organisations and external organisations to describe food situations, is used to access donor money to bring in external food when what is needed are systems of aggregation and movement of food from areas of abundance to areas of deficit.

To maximize the benefits of agriculture and food products, the Ministry of Agriculture in every African country should have a department responsible for the aggregation and distribution of all kinds of products and not just grains.

This department can focus on assessing and monitoring where products are abundant as well as seasonal availability of various products in different areas.

Such a department should seek to answer questions such as: Where do raw materials achieve lower prices than the competition? Where can raw materials be routed to obtain better prices?

This role cannot be left to the private sector, whose players are mainly interested in selected products for profit.

For example, in the case of grains, grain marketing boards often buy the grain from farmers and pass it on to millers who produce corn flour, which is then sold to consumers in place of other foods.

The main assumption is that consumers prefer processed maize flour for sadza/nsima/ugali, but in reality, households may prefer raw cereals for multiple uses, such as mixing with groundnuts, bambara nuts and other cereals to produce various local meals.

Why should corn distribution be limited to profit-making millers when corn grain has multiple uses?

In fact, formal millers destroy the growth potential of local small and medium-sized enterprises, such as local mills, which are often part of the social fabric of the community.

By making choices on behalf of consumers who should be making their own choices to cope with shocks, millers and other formal systems undermine resilience and local responses to shocks.

Recognizing this reality, mass markets ensure the availability of food in various forms.

Local food distribution builds resilience more than cash transfers and food aid

Instead of relying on external food aid, development organizations can foster resilience by supporting the movement of local foods from areas of abundance to areas of scarcity.

While some development organisations have become fond of cash transfers, the very idea of supporting so-called vulnerable households by giving them cash can prove counterproductive.

Rather than giving people money through cash transfers, it is better to make food available in communities at affordable prices.

For example, giving a household $35 to buy food that doesn’t exist is not a solution, especially if it is done without fully understanding the household’s needs.

The ideal approach would be to give people a choice between money and food. When food is available, it can easily be converted into other resources, such as money, for relevant uses.

Some households may sell chickens or goats to buy what they need. The demand and role of diverse products in building resilient food systems is evident.

The crucial question is: should we give people money to buy expensive food where it is scarce, or should we make food available at affordable prices so that communities can save and use the savings for other needs like medical bills and school fees?

Supporting the movement of food from high-production areas to low-production areas generates a double benefit.

Farmers in high-production areas are able to command better prices for their produce than if they sold it in local markets where everyone has the same product.

On the other hand, communities in low production areas get basic products at affordable prices, which triggers a culture of savings compared to buying a narrow range of basic products in retail stores without getting diversified products.