Southern Africa cotton producers’ association established

In a telephone interview, the Zimbabwe Farmers Union (ZFU) executive director Mr Paul Zakariya said the association at the moment has a membership of three countries.
“The regional cotton producers’ association has now been established with a membership of three countries, namely Zimbabwe, Zambia and Malawi. For a start, we have only three countries within the association but we expect more countries will join the association progressively.

“Currently, Zimbabwe, through the ZFU second vice-president Mr Berean Mukwende, chairs the association,” he said.
South Africa, Swaziland, Mozambique, Tanzania and Namibia are some of the countries that grow cotton.
“The association aims to address matters affecting cotton farmers at regional level — for example, issues to do with cotton pricing — hence there are always struggles on producer prices when we are marketing the crop,” he said.

The price of lint is determined by the international market and thus farmers in the region saw it necessary to form a regional body to promote the co-ordination of the cotton price.
Mr Zakariya said other countries in Africa such as Kenya had adopted the use of biotechnology because it was a cheaper production method and achieves higher yields.

He said it has been noted over the years that farmers in the region have incurred high production costs coupled with low yields mainly due to farming methods they applied.
In recent years before the promulgation of  Statutory Instrument 142 of 2009, which regulates Zimbabwe’s cotton sector, the industry was losing $15 million per year due to poor cotton grade delivered by farmers.

The promulgation of the regulatory framework has seen cotton output jumping by 30 percent to 270 000 tonnes last year from 207 000 tonnes in 2009.

However, despite increased production, the Zimbabwe Commercial Farmers Union this year cried foul over the drcrease in the cotton producer price from $1,05 per kilogramme to $0,55 per kg saying the figure was unacceptably low and would result in farmers losing out because the reduction did not cover growers’ expenses.