A farmer hires a young hand. Each night, no matter the weather, the young man goes to bed early. When a storm finally breaks, the farmer panics. He runs to check the fields. However, he discovers that the barn doors are fastened. The tools are secured. The animals are sheltered. The hay is tied down. Everything had been prepared. The young man could sleep when the wind blew, because his work was already in order.
Budgets without backbone
Currently, I observe the following trends in the country. All governments, past and present, have focused mainly on budgeting and disbursing the funds they receive. The machinery is geared to release money and “create a conducive environment.” It monitors. But it does this without actually planning the industry itself.
That is a shame. Because when we avoid planning the industry, we trap ourselves in an endless cycle:
cash allocations that don’t yield repayment,
borrowers who appear to build assets with money that does not belong to them,
and a country that thickens its skin the next time it seeks funding — all without seeing real economic growth.
There is also an unspoken hope that we will be let off the hook because “we are Africans.” But finance does not forgive weak structures.
Dividing what should be united
Each cycle, allocations are trumpeted to youth, women, and farmers. But in reality, these three are not separate categories — they are a family. Women and youth are embedded in family farms. To slice them into compartments for the sake of budgeting is not only wasteful, it is divisive.
True industry planning does not start with who gets the allocation. It starts with building the backbone that ensures profitability for all: demand mapping, planting calendars, logistics, markets, and reinvestment. Once this spine is in place, the benefits naturally flow to every farmer — whether woman, youth, or elder.
Why the backbone is ignored
The deeper reason this backbone is overlooked is the dichotomy we live with as a nation. We underplay the role of STEM in our economy and agriculture. Yet agriculture is one of the industries that most demands a STEM-disciplined approach. This ranges from governance structures down to the farmer’s choice of seed.
When land and GDP are tended by hands guided by STEM discipline, they produce predictability, scaling, and growth. When managed without it, results fluctuate with the weather, pests, and luck.
One hectare, two futures
To make this real: take two farmers, each with 1 hectare.
The STEM-hardwired farmer runs soil tests and balances water precisely. She selects the right seed for climate and disease. She also manages pests with foresight. Over five years, her profits grow steadily from BWP 80,000 to over 100,000.
The non-STEM farmer plants by habit and intuition. Some seasons bring decent returns, others collapse under shocks. Over the same period, his profits swing wildly, sometimes as low as BWP 5,000.
One farmer can reinvest and scale. The other cannot.
STEM as the Backbone
Agriculture is not only about soil and seed — it is about systems, and systems require STEM discipline. From governance down to the individual farmer, STEM makes the difference between sustained growth and endless frustration.
On the farm — with STEM
Seed selection: Matching varieties to soil type, climate, and disease resistance using agronomic trials and data.
Water management: Irrigation calibrated to evapotranspiration rates, soil moisture sensors, and seasonal rainfall models.
Fertilisation: Nutrient application based on soil chemistry analysis, preventing both waste and depletion.
Pest management: Integrated pest management (IPM) using monitoring thresholds and biological controls rather than reacting late with chemicals.
Scaling: Precision data provides confidence to expand from 1 ha to 2, then 10 — with predictable margins.
On the farm — without STEM
Seeds chosen by habit or availability, vulnerable to climate shifts.
Irrigation by “eye” — too much or too little water.
Pests noticed too late, leading to crop loss or costly sprays.
Scaling is a gamble; banks are hesitant to lend.
The result? Inconsistent yields, poor profitability, and farmers dropping out of horticulture.
In the system — with STEM
Data pipelines: Retailers share weekly SKU-level demand, analysed and published as crop calendars.
Forecasting: National dashboards project shortfalls or surpluses, triggering clear import or storage policies.
Logistics design: Cold chain hubs placed using flow models of supply vs. demand, not guesswork.
Finance: Lenders and insurers trust the system because data reduces risk.
In the system — without STEM
Ministries working in silos — Agriculture with farmers, Trade with retailers, no shared demand–supply map.
Imports opened or closed arbitrarily, undercutting local farmers.
Collection centres built as afterthoughts, often underused because produce doesn’t match demand.
Credit extended, but repayment fails because profitability was never secured.
The absence of STEM discipline is what gets in the way of building the coordination systems horticulture requires. Without it, money flows — but growth stalls.
👉 This section shows concretely: STEM is not just a “nice-to-have” in farming. It is the backbone of both productivity and coordination.
Scaling to the nation
Now imagine horticulture taking 30% of Botswana’s crop land (≈3 million ha), with STEM adoption rising over time.
Year
STEM Area (ha)
Non-STEM Area (ha)
STEM Profit (BWP Bn)
Non-STEM Profit (BWP Bn)
Total Profit (BWP Bn)
3
600,000
2,400,000
54.0
72.0
126.0
5
1,200,000
1,800,000
108.0
54.0
162.0
10
1,800,000
1,200,000
162.0
36.0
198.0
20
2,400,000
600,000
216.0
18.0
234.0
With a STEM backbone, national profits rise steadily and reinvestment becomes possible. Without it, volatility, waste, and default persist.
What leadership requires
The leader who takes this on will not just fix horticulture. They will demonstrate that Botswana can move from funding to building industries that plan and re-fund themselves.
That leader will be remembered for building the industry spine. It was the system that allowed farmers, families, and the nation to reinvest. It let them scale and finally sleep when the wind blows.
Closing thought
Botswana does not lack hardworking farmers. It lacks the discipline of coordination and STEM-driven planning that secures the barns before the storm. If we build that spine, we can turn volatility into predictability, allocations into industries, and families into investors.
Bought the seeds. Paid for inputs. Hired labour. Measured every drop of water. Watched over her crop with the kind of personal care only farmers understand. After weeks of nurturing, her cherry tomatoes gleamed on the vines — plump, red, and ready.
She took them to the retailer who once told her, “When you have them, bring them.” But when she arrived with her harvest, the same buyer turned her away.
“Who placed an order for cherry tomatoes?” the retailer asked.
No order meant no sale. Hours of sweet labour, investment, and determination — side-stepped.
And here’s the bitter twist (and a true story). Those very tomatoes had just won first prize at the national agricultural show. The nation had applauded her produce, yet her local retail shelves never saw it. By the time the retail chain placed its order, it was for imported cherry tomatoes. They simply did not know that, in their own backyard, a farmer was already producing prize-winning fruit.
Why this matters
This is not just one farmer’s story. It is a mirror of the system we all work within.
Horticulture farmers plant blind, not knowing what demand will look like when the crop matures.
Retailers scramble, relying on imports because there is no coordinated calendar of who is growing what, where, and when.
Policymakers toggle between bans and openings, without a real-time picture of supply gaps or gluts.
The result? Crops are wasted in fields. Empty shelves in shops. Rising import bills. And declining confidence among the very farmers we need to carry this sector forward.
The bigger issue
This story is not about one farmer. It is about a system where demand lives with Trade. Supply oversight sits with Agriculture. The bridge in between is missing. Farmers plant in hope, retailers stock in panic, and national policy oscillates between bans and openings.
How did other countries solve this?
How other countries broke the cycle
Netherlands: transparent flower and vegetable auctions give growers and buyers the same daily data.
Spain’s Almería region: cooperatives coordinate planting schedules, logistics, and marketing so no farmer is left stranded.
Kenya: a single horticulture directorate oversees both production and marketing, ending the “split brain” between ministries.
India’s Operation Greens: real-time demand intelligence and price stabilization prevent wipeouts from gluts and shortages.
This picture (which shows the split between Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Trade, and the missing coordination in the middle):
Note: This picture highlights a critical gap in Botswana’s horticulture sector.
On one side of each vertical line, the Ministry of Agriculture oversees farmers, extension, and production.
On the other, the Ministry of Trade manages retail, imports, and demand data.
In the interim, there is no coordinating mechanism. It is unclear who grows what, where, and when to match the actual demand in shops and institutions.
The result is wasted crops, empty shelves, and farmers discouraged from investing further.
A National Horticulture Coordination Unit can bridge this gap. It links production to market demand. It publishes clear crop calendars. This unit ensures imports are guided by real data—not guesswork.
Without this bridge, farmers will continue to plant blind. With it, Botswana can move from meeting 70% of its demand to achieving 100% and beyond.
Each of these countries built what Botswana lacks. It is a coordination spine that maps demand to supply. This gives both farmers and retailers a reliable compass.
What Botswana can do
Establish a National Horticulture Coordination Unit – jointly housed by Trade and Agriculture, with clear legal authority.
Publish a Horticulture Market Observatory – weekly retailer data (sales, volumes, gaps) made visible to farmers and policymakers.
Issue crop calendars by district – so farmers know when and how much to plant.
Invest in packhouses and cold chain hubs – so produce doesn’t die at the farm gate.
Set transparent import triggers – clear rules on when imports open and close, avoiding last-minute surprises.
We found several existing or emerging initiatives in Botswana. They partly touch on what we’re describing. Some are close to the supply-demand pipeline we want to build. Others are still missing elements. These might be things you can link into or build upon.
Publish a Friday snapshot + 8-week rolling forecast by district/crop.
Use FAO HiH tooling for the analytics layer. (FAOHome)
District Crop Calendars & Planting Targets
Start with top 8–10 veg; publish sow/harvest windows + target tonnage per district (refresh monthly).
Base targets on the Observatory forecast + Letsema/Tokafala signals. (Letsemahm)
Transparent Import Trigger Bands
Example: if projected supply <85% of demand for 4–6 weeks, open imports; >110% triggers processing/price-stabilization measures.
Announce changes via the Observatory (predictability for farmers and retailers).
Finance/Grant Conditionality
NDB/other windows require an assigned market slot (pre-order or auction) or alignment to district targets. (NDB)
90-day stitching plan (practical)
Week 0–2: Form a small Working Cell (MoA, MoT, Letsema, Tokafala, two retailers, NDB, FAO HiH).
Week 2–6: Stand up v1 Market Observatory (Google Sheet → public webpage); collect first 4 weeks of retailer SKUs.
Week 4–8: Publish draft crop calendars for two corridors (Gaborone–South, Francistown–North); recruit 50 pilot farmers via PYEC/TVET.
Week 6–10: Pilot Friday pre-order window at Letsema (listing + minimum volumes); Tokafala farmers prioritize listed SKUs. (Letsemahm)
Week 10–12: Announce import-trigger bands for those SKUs; align NDB grant/loan approvals to calendar slots.
The prize-winning tomatoes that never reached the shelf
The farmer in our story is not unique. Across Botswana, farmers are working with grit, faith, and long hours. They produce quality food. This food too often fails to meet the market. It is not because of their shortcomings. It is because the system has no bridge between production and demand.
Her cherry tomatoes were good enough to win the nation’s top prize. Yet they could not win a spot on the nation’s dinner tables.
That gap is what a National Horticulture Production Management System is meant to close.
Closing thought
Farmers can’t plant blind. Retailers can’t stock empty shelves. Policymakers can’t steer an economy on partial data.
Botswana’s farmers have already reached about 70% of local demand under difficult conditions. With coordination, transparency, and investment in the missing middle, that 70% can become 100% — and beyond.
The prize-winning tomatoes are proof that quality is here. Now it’s time to build the system that ensures such produce doesn’t just win awards. It must also win its rightful place on our tables.
“Does this system give the farmer clear, real-time information about how much to produce, when to produce, and where it will go?”
If the answer is no, the policy—like the food systems exposed in Rotten—may be setting them up for failure.
What I am describing is not nationalization in the strict sense (i.e. state ownership of farms), but rather centrally coordinated agricultural production — where the government, in partnership with national farmer associations, plans production to meet national needs and organized export targets, while the land and operations remain privately or corporately owned.
This model aligns more with:
Coordinated market economies (e.g., in parts of Europe)
Export-led agricultural systems (e.g., in Asia and Latin America)
Public-private agriculture governance structures
Below is a list of countries (or regional blocs) that most closely reflect this model, where government and farmer associations work together to ensure supply meets aggregated national and global demand without owning the farms:
🌾 Countries with Strong National Coordination in Agriculture (Non-Nationalized)
1. Netherlands
Model: Highly planned and tech-enabled production.
Coordination body: Ministry of Agriculture works closely with farmer cooperatives (e.g., LTO Nederland).
Export focus: Major exporter of vegetables, flowers, meat.
Tools used: Digital farm registries, production quotas, national R&D targets, and organized market access through co-ops.
2. France
Model: Strong Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) alignment.
Coordination body: Ministry of Agriculture + National Interprofessional Councils (interprofessions).
Mechanisms: Strategic sector plans, quotas, and export agreements within EU and globally.
Coordination: Ministry of Agriculture + Embrapa (agricultural research) + national crop boards (e.g., ABPA for poultry).
Tools: Satellite monitoring, national zoning laws, and crop forecasts for soy, beef, sugar, etc.
8. India
Model: Large-scale crop planning with farmer incentives.
Coordination: Central and state governments work with cooperatives and marketing boards (e.g., NAFED, FCI).
Challenges: Implementation complexity due to scale, but export crops like basmati rice, spices, cotton are heavily coordinated.
9. Thailand
Model: Coordinated value chains for rice, rubber, and fruit exports.
Coordination: Ministry + farmer groups + contract farming for export fulfillment.
10. South Korea
Model: Government sets supply and demand forecasts, supports cooperatives.
Example: Korea Agro-Fisheries & Food Trade Corporation (aT) facilitates exports and sets production planning.
🔄 Common Features Among These Countries:
Centralized data on supply & demand, often real-time.
Institutionalized partnerships between government, farmers, and exporters.
Use of permits, quotas, and forward contracts to stabilize markets.
Heavy investment in agricultural R&D, extension services, and export facilitation.
Sometimes involve minimum price guarantees or subsidies tied to national plans.
🌍 Notable Regional Example:
European Union (CAP – Common Agricultural Policy)
Supranational coordination of agricultural production.
Uses production planning, environmental standards, and trade negotiations collectively.
Member states develop National Strategic Plans under an EU umbrella.
❗️Where This Is Not Common:
Most of Sub-Saharan Africa: Lacks centralized systems due to fragmentation, lack of digital traceability, weak farmer cooperatives, and limited export integration.
United States: While subsidies and crop insurance exist, production decisions are mostly private. There’s no national production permit system based on demand forecasts.
✅ So to answer the question:
At least 10–15 countries today have strong, centralized coordination systems that match your description — though they do not own farms. These systems are more about:
Orchestrated agriculture – where national production is planned, monitored, and aligned with export strategies in partnership with organized farmer associations.
What Stopsa Country From Adopting Coordinated Demand-driven Agricultural Production?
A country is often not able to adopt coordinated, demand-driven agricultural production (without nationalizing farms) for six major reasons, each with multiple layers of structural and systemic inertia.
❶ Weak or Fragmented Farmer Organizations
Why it matters: Coordinated production requires organized producers (e.g., cooperatives, associations) that can receive quotas, participate in planning, and supply consistently.
What stops it:
Historical mistrust in cooperatives
Politicization or elite capture of farmer groups
Fragmentation: Too many small, uncoordinated actors
Weak leadership or lack of technical capacity in associations
Example: In Botswana, farmers often operate individually or in loose groups without strong aggregation mechanisms for production or marketing.
❷ Poor Agricultural Market Intelligence & Data Systems
Why it matters: Governments need real-time data on local production, global prices, weather, input access, and demand forecasts to guide decisions.
What stops it:
Absence of centralized production databases
Lack of investment in agricultural statistics and remote sensing
Disconnection between research bodies and policy decisions
Low digital infrastructure in rural areas
Without data, there’s no basis to permit, predict, or plan.
❸ Lack of Institutional Coordination
Why it matters: Coordinated production requires alignment across:
Absence of a national agriculture command-and-control dashboard
❹ Absence of National and Export Market Contracts
Why it matters: Export-led production thrives on forward contracts and pre-negotiated quotas with international buyers. These guide local production volumes and timing.
What stops it:
Limited international trade negotiations in agriculture
Poor branding of national produce (quality, consistency, certifications)
Weak or non-existent export councils for agriculture
Lack of investment in post-harvest handling and cold chains
In short: no buyers, no reason to scale production.
❺ Insecure Land Tenure and Weak Investment Incentives
Why it matters: Farmers need to feel secure to invest in scaling production to meet quotas. Private capital needs clear property rights to engage.
What stops it:
Customary or leased land not usable as collateral
Unclear title deeds or long delays in land allocation
Inconsistent tax and subsidy policies
Fear of state interference or lack of trust in public agencies
❻ Skills Gaps: STEM, Management, Agronomy
Why it matters: Coordinated production needs a skilled backbone — both in government planners and farmer-managers — who understand:
Market systems
Agribusiness logistics
Crop science and climate-smart production
Systems thinking for scaling
What stops it:
Education systems focus on “agriculture” but not core STEM
Extension workers lack upskilling in global trends
Low digital fluency across the agri-value chain
🧩 Underneath It All: A Missing Mental Model
At the heart of all these constraints is a mental model of agriculture as a:
Subsistence sector (not a commercial production industry)
Social policy tool (employment & land access) rather than an economic engine
Politically risky sector to regulate, due to voter sensitivities
Until this mental model shifts, efforts at coordination often stall.
✅ What It Takes to Shift
To transition to coordinated agriculture like the Netherlands, Denmark, or Vietnam, a country must:
Build national crop & livestock registries (traceability)
Mandate digital reporting of land use and yields
Empower farmer associations with planning & market access roles
Set up joint public-private Export Market Councils
Link national education to agribusiness STEM fields
Reorganize the Ministry into a strategy + data + extension nucleus
A transformation map for Botswana
Here’s a Botswana-Specific 10-Year Transformation Map to move from fragmented, input-subsidy-dependent farming to coordinated, demand-driven agricultural production that enables both food sovereignty and organized export markets — without nationalizing farms.
Goal: Shift to a system where production is guided by national demand + structured export contracts, via strong public-private coordination. Principle:Farms stay private; coordination becomes public.
🟩 PHASE 1: 2025–2027 – Foundation & Visibility
Theme:“See the System” – Map, Aggregate, Connect
Priority Area
Key Actions
Lead Entities
🧭 1. National Production Mapping
– Build digital registry of farms (land, crops, size, irrigation) – Use satellite + mobile reporting – Identify agro-climatic zones per crop
MoA, Statistics Botswana, Land Board, UNDP
🤝 2. Empower Farmer Associations
– Legal & capacity reform for existing associations – Support formation of national-level boards per major commodity (e.g., Potatoes, Horticulture, Poultry)
Registrar of Societies, Farmers Unions, Business Botswana
📊 3. Market Intelligence Platform
– Establish a digital dashboard for crop price, demand, weather, input availability – Run national demand studies & baseline exports
Ministry of Trade, MoA, SEZA
🔎 4. Rethink Subsidies
– Begin shifting ISPAAD & LIMID from blanket inputs to targeted support based on crop priorities and agrozones
MoA Policy Division, MFED
🟨 PHASE 2: 2027–2030 – Coordination & Control
Theme:“Guide the System” – Aggregate Demand, Set Targets
Priority Area
Key Actions
Lead Entities
📈 5. National Crop & Livestock Council
– Form a legally mandated multi-stakeholder council (Govt + Farmer Boards + Exporters + Researchers) – Use council to approve seasonal production quotas and export targets
Office of the President, MoA, Business Botswana
🔐 6. Contract Farming Expansion
– Pilot export-oriented contracts in garlic, potatoes, chilies, and beef – Sign regional procurement contracts (e.g., SADC school feeding, GCC retailers)
BITC, MoFAIC, Trade Attachés
📉 7. STEM-Agri Curriculum Reform
– Integrate data analysis, systems thinking, and agribusiness into SHS and tertiary agri courses – Establish internship placements on export farms
MoESD, BIUST, BUAN
💼 8. Professionalise Extension Officers
– Upskill officers in market systems, contract farming, regenerative production – Make performance linked to farmer productivity & supply alignment
Theme:“Run the System” – Export with Confidence, Invest with Trust
Priority Area
Key Actions
Lead Entities
🛫 9. National Export Board for Agriculture
– Consolidate oversight of agri-export promotion, standards, marketing – Align with customs, veterinary permits, cold chain logistics
MoA, BAMB, Botswana Bureau of Standards
🏭 10. Value Chain Finance & Insurance
– Develop crop insurance linked to production permits – Channel NDB and citizen equity funds through farmer boards – Attract private agri-finance via forward contracts
NDB, CEDA, BITC, BoB
🧠 11. Systems Research & Forecasting
– Use weather, market, soil, and input data to run production simulations – Use archetype-based insights to prevent overproduction, glut cycles
STRLDi, BUAN, MoA
🔄 12. Legislative Backing
– Revise National Agriculture Policy to reflect coordinated production model – Anchor it in Food Security and Economic Diversification strategy
Parliament, Attorney General’s Office
🧩 SYSTEM FEATURES ENABLED BY 2035:
✅ Production permits based on demand forecasts (not guesswork)
✅ National farm registry and traceability system
✅ Data-driven price stabilization and export contracting
✅ Digital dashboards at MoA and Districts for planning
✅ Professionalized farmer base (similar to manufacturing)
✅ Resilience against import bans and regional shocks
🔄 Optional: 4-Year Electoral Fit (2025–2029)
To align with political cycles, Phase 1 and early Phase 2 deliverables can form part of a presidential or ministerial results agenda, showing clear progress before elections.
My Inspiration for this Post
If you are a farmer or an agriculturalist (at any level), then you should watch this! Now!
Here’s a structured rundown of Netflix’s Rotten—the documentary series that inspired my reflection on farmers caught in volatile price cycles. It exposes how hidden market dynamics, fraud, and corporate systems hurt producers, often those at the very bottom of the chain.
📺 Overview of Rotten
A Netflix original investigative series (first season released January 5, 2018; second season October 4, 2019) with a total of twelve episodes across two seasons, each exploring corruption, fraud, and exploitation in global food systems (GQ, Wikipedia).
🔍 Season 1 (6 episodes) – “True Food Crimes”
1. Lawyers, Guns & Honey
Uncovers massive honey adulteration—beekeepers struggling to compete with cheap, syrup‑diluted honey flooding the U.S. market from China and other countries. Domestic producers are squeezed out, and regulators struggle to detect fraud (Garden Culture Magazine).
2. The Peanut Problem
Investigates a surge in peanut allergies in the U.S., linking it to shifts in processing, environment, and early childhood exposure. Highlights how industrial peanut systems affect public health and put pressure on farmers to keep up with opaque demand trends (Allergy Amulet).
3. Garlic Breath
The most gripping episode: a legal and ethical battlefield between Chinese exporters (some using prison labor) and U.S. garlic farmers. It reveals how global supply shocks, trade disputes, and price dumping devastate small producers (GQ).
4. Big Bird
Focuses on poultry production, showing how large-scale consolidation and export-driven demand distort local markets and compress margins for independent growers, often underregulated (GQ).
5. Milk Money
Centers on the raw milk controversy in the U.S., juxtaposing small dairy farm viability with public-health risks. It highlights how fear-based regulation and consumer mistrust can impact livelihoods without clear national strategy or market clarity (David Gumpert, GQ).
6. Cod Is Dead
Explores overfishing, regulatory loopholes, and global demand for seafood, showing how small fishing communities fall prey to industrial fleets and opaque supply chains, often without knowing who consumes their catch or at what price (Los Angeles Times, GQ).
🌍 Season 2 (6 episodes) – Deeper on Commodities & Ethics
Includes stories like:
The Avocado War – Supermarket chains squeezing small growers in Latin America.
Reign of Terroir – How terroir branding is co-opted by big players.
Troubled Water – Bottled water scams that leave communities thirsty.
A Sweet Deal, Bitter Chocolate, High on Edibles – covering sugar, chocolate production (including deforestation and labor abuse), and cannabis edibles respectively (Wikipedia).
🧩 Cross‑Cutting Themes
Global supply shocks and price volatility leave producers blind to demand, often overinvesting and ending in ruin.
Food fraud and adulteration undermine trust and crop value (honey, garlic, chocolate).
Corporate consolidation & opaque trade—big buyers and multinationals capturing margins, leaving farmers in informational darkness.
Labor exploitation, especially in low-cost producers like prison farms in China or cocoa plantations under slavery-like conditions.
Regulatory dysfunction: government bodies failing to protect small producers or clarify demand forecasts.
Emotional storytelling draws empathy—but also criticism for dramatizing issues over structural analysis (GQ).
🧑🌾 Relevance to Farmer Experience
Your concerns—that small farmers invest blindly, with no real insight into national or export demand, and thus suffer catastrophic losses—mirrors Rotten’s narrative. Farmers often don’t control:
Market entry or exit timing,
Price contracts,
Export pathways or demand data.
They’re typically stuck reacting rather than planning—leaving them vulnerable to price crashes, import floods, and external shocks. The series underscores the human toll of systemic opacity and misalignment.
✅ Summary Table
Episode / Theme
Key Insight
Impact on Farmers
Honey adulteration
Price-undercutting by fraudulent syrup imports
Domestic beekeepers driven out or starved
Garlic dumping
Global trade wars, forced labor, export inequality
U.S. garlic farmers lose ground and market share
Commodity allergies
Shifting health trends and processing norms
Peanut farmers suffer demand unpredictability
Poultry, fish, dairy
Export pressures and consolidation
Small producers edged out, price and demand opaque
Did the documentary reach the conclusions we reached here?
No, the documentary Rottendoes not explicitly reach the conclusion we’ve raised here — that coordinated, demand-driven national production planning is a necessary safeguard for farmers.
Instead, Rotten does the following:
🎥 What the Documentary Does Say:
It exposes the invisible machinery behind food systems — fraud, monopolies, unfair trade, exploitation, price dumping.
It empathizes with small farmers who suffer under market opacity, global trade forces, and power imbalances.
It documents farmer bankruptcies, family trauma, and systemic silence that precedes collapse.
It often frames these as consequences of deregulated capitalism, consolidation of corporate power, and corruption in trade.
🧠 What It Does Not Do:
It does not explicitly propose national production permits, demand forecasting, or farmer-board coordination as solutions.
It does not draw a policy systems map or push for governance reforms like those we are advocating.
It largely avoids proposing structural solutions, staying in the investigative and emotional storytelling space rather than systemic policy design.
✅ So, What Have We Done Differently?
We have taken Rotten a step further by:
Translating narrative diagnosis into policy prescription.
Where Rotten shows the symptoms, we’ve proposed the systemic cause and a coordinated solution.
The documentary paints the tragedy. We’ve used it to frame the design.
This is precisely the value of the systems thinking lens—where stories like Rotten become entry points to expose structure, delay, loop dynamics, and system traps that can be redesigned.
📄 Policy Memo: From Rotten to Resilient – Why Botswana Must Coordinate Its Agricultural Production
To: Ministry of Agriculture, Trade & Industry, Office of the President From: [Your Name / STRLDi] Date: [Insert Date] Subject: Preventing Farmer Collapse through Coordinated, Demand-Driven Agricultural Planning
🎬 Background Inspiration
The global food documentary series Rotten (Netflix, 2018–2019) offers a sobering account of how disorganized, opaque, and exploitative food systems ruin small producers. While it focuses on the U.S., China, and Latin America, the core lessons are deeply relevant to Botswana’s farmers:
“What destroys the farmer isn’t drought or pest—it’s the silence before the market crashes.”
🚨 Key Lessons from Rotten
Episode Theme
Underlying Failure
Result for Farmers
Honey Fraud
Lack of quality regulation & import control
Local beekeepers undercut & collapse
Garlic Dumping
Unregulated trade, forced labor, price flooding
Local garlic growers sued, outcompeted
Poultry Consolidation
No control over contract terms, production quotas
Chicken farmers left with losses
Milk & Fish Episodes
No demand forecasting, oversupply, regulatory chaos
Prices crash; family farms shut down
🇧🇼 The Botswana Parallel
Farmers across Botswana face the same pattern of systemic vulnerability:
They produce without visibility into national or global demand.
They invest heavily without guaranteed buyers.
They enter markets that can be flooded by cheaper imports or fail due to price crashes.
Their fate is sealed when production is treated as individual initiative, not collective strategy.
🔑 Policy Recommendation: Coordinate Agricultural Production
Botswana can avoid this fate—not through state ownership, but through central coordination with decentralized production.
What Needs to Change
How to Implement It
❌ Farmers produce blindly
✅ Establish seasonal production permits & quotas based on national + export demand forecasts
❌ No market visibility
✅ Develop a National Agricultural Intelligence Platform (real-time price, supply, demand)
❌ Weak farmer associations
✅ Mandate and professionalize crop-specific national producer boards
❌ Reactive policies
✅ Use predictive modeling, weather & trade analytics to plan ahead
❌ No export assurance
✅ Pre-negotiate contracts via Export Market Councils (public-private)
📈 Strategic Benefits
Reduces price volatility for both producers and consumers
Prevents overproduction gluts and underproduction shocks
Builds investor confidence in agribusiness supply chains
Protects smallholder farmers from being the last to know—and the first to suffer
🧠 The Rotten Test: Ask of Any Policy
“Does this system give the farmer clear, real-time information about how much to produce, when to produce, and where it will go?”
If the answer is no, the policy—like the food systems exposed in Rotten—may be setting them up for failure.
📌 Closing Note
The stories of collapsed garlic farms, ruined poultry growers, and poisoned fishers in Rotten show us one thing: a happy family at the breakfast table doesn’t come from heroic individual effort—it comes from a system that plans, protects, and pays. Botswana’s farmers deserve no less.
We do not yet have access to the extensive national data collection that underpinned the unemployment study. However, we have identified substantive datasets for Botswana and the region through FAOStats, which form a solid initial foundation. Using these, we are currently developing a case study to examine these dynamics at a global scale.
That said, the work would benefit significantly from deeper, locally anchored data. I would strongly welcome the opportunity for the Ministry to co-lead in organizing the data infrastructure. The region, more broadly, could also participate in strengthening the infrastructure. This is needed to support a systems thinking inquiry of this kind. Such collaboration would bring greater analytical depth. It would also ensure national and regional ownership of the insights that emerge.
At this point, our thinking is guided by what is publicly available through internet-based searches. While this has allowed us to outline key directions, we are acutely aware of the limitations. For that reason, I ask that you handle this information with professional discretion. Please do so until we are in a position to confirm and consolidate findings more robustly.
A distinctive aspect of our approach to systemic mapping is its ability to trace causal influences. It does this both at a specific point in time, but importantly, also traces these influences across time. This allows us to surface structural patterns. These include feedback loops, delays, and reinforcing behaviors. Such patterns often underpin not just the problem, but its persistence. We can begin this work with 20-year datasets. However, having a longer time series makes the causal structure more robust. This long-view perspective is especially important for policymakers seeking interventions that are not only responsive but also transformative.
Introduction
If the stories and explanations we’ve been using haven’t helped solve the problem, it’s time to take a step back. We need to ask new questions. Sometimes, we need to look deeper—or in entirely new directions—to find what’s really going on. Only then can we start telling a new story, one that brings real and lasting change.
**“We may not control the weather with the press of a button—but we are already influencing it, profoundly. The systems we built to extract water have altered rainfall patterns. This includes deforestation, exposed-field farming, and over-irrigation. These actions have weakened the water cycle. The question isn’t whether human action affects weather; it’s how we choose to act.
When we start to treat water as a partner, we create landscapes that invite rain. It’s not just a resource. Moist soils, living roots, and transpiring plants cool the land, seed clouds, and stabilize local climates. It’s not about control—it’s about cooperation with the natural systems we depend on.”**
— Adapted for regenerative agriculture and water cycle resilience messaging
What Nature Speaks: Rethinking Water Use and Agriculture in Botswana – Summary
High water use, low returns: Botswana’s agriculture consumes large volumes of water but contributes minimally to GDP.
Cereal crops as a key outlier: While beef and horticulture align with global water-use norms, cereal crops are often drought-resistant. However, they use far more water and have lower productivity.
Not poor practice, but environmental exposure: The inefficiency stems from exposed-field farming in a semi-arid climate, leading to extreme evaporation.
Drought-resistance as a false solution: Over-reliance on drought-tolerant crops may suppress transpiration, disrupt rainfall cycles, and accelerate land degradation.
Yields and GDP suffer: Reduced rainfall and deteriorating soils weaken crop yields and reinforce the sector’s underperformance.
A call to ecological cooperation: The article urges a shift from controlling nature to partnering with it through regenerative practices.
Time to reintroduce water-cycle crops: Non-drought crops—especially horticultural varieties—can cool the land, restore rainfall patterns, and build resilience.
Toward a regenerative future: By designing agriculture to regenerate rather than extract, Botswana can improve climate stability. It can also boost productivity and enhance long-term economic contribution.
🔁 From Efficiency to Regeneration: Rethinking Water Use and Crop Strategy in Botswana
Dr. Rasbash’s analysis in “Thirsty Farms, Empty Returns” The Gazette, 28 May, 2025 (pg 24) highlights a critical issue. Botswana uses a lot of agricultural water. However, it experiences low economic returns.
We, like Dr Rasbash, noticed a significant deviation in water consumption per tonne of agricultural produce in Botswana. This is evident when compared to global benchmarks (for details refer to Part III below). The most striking difference, however, is in cereal production. Beef is the most water-intensive product. However, both beef and horticultural crops show water usage broadly comparable to international standards. Cereal crops, on the other hand, diverge sharply.
If so, this discrepancy may not be a reflection of poor farming practices, inefficient irrigation, or crop selection per se. Rather, it stems from the environmental context in which these crops are grown. Unlike horticultural crops, cereals in Botswana are typically cultivated in open fields without protective cover. The country’s semi-arid to arid climate causes a substantial loss of applied water due to evaporation. For details refer to: Comparison of Average Annual Evaporation by Climate Zones in Part III below. High solar radiation and ambient heat drive this evaporation process.
This insight now invites us to go beyond technical adjustments. It compels us to ask deeper questions:
What keeps the sector from understanding inefficiencies despite repeated episodes of the issue? The answer may lie in the assumptions we’ve internalized about what defines “productive” agriculture in dryland conditions.
Rainfall cycles and cooler climates are supported by vegetation that actively contributes to transpiration. These plants boost atmospheric moisture. These traits are less common in drought-resistant crops (for details, refer to Part I below). By designing agricultural systems that collaborate with natural water cycles, Botswana can enhance resilience. These systems work with nature. They do not resist it. (For details on the consequences of resisting it, refer to Part II below). This approach allows Botswana to move toward climate-resilient productivity and long-term food security.
Too often, agricultural solutions default to scaling up drought-resistant crops—an understandable and technically sound response to erratic rainfall. However, this approach risks masking a deeper systemic challenge. While drought-resistant crops will buy us time, they cannot reverse the underlying drivers of desertification. Nor can they rebuild climate resilience if soil health continues to decline and vegetation cover is reduced. These conditions weaken the land’s capacity to retain water. They disrupt critical feedback loops in the water cycle. This disruption ultimately contributes to declining yields. It also fosters the perception that agriculture underperforms in driving national GDP.
Crops that promote transpiration and atmospheric moisture, on the other hand, include many horticultural varieties. These crops will initially require time to re-establish after years of disuse. However, they offer long-term potential to help restore local rainfall cycles and moderate surface temperatures. When grown under protective systems and supported by regenerative practices, they:
Improve soil structure and organic matter to retain moisture,
Reduce surface temperatures through better vegetative cover,
Ultimately lead to fewer heatwaves and more stable growing conditions leading to better yields and more stable climates.
Enhance transpiration, which supports cloud formation and rainfall,
This is not just a shift in crop choice. It is a recalibration of agriculture’s role. The focus is changing from resisting climate change to regenerating the conditions that make farming viable in the first place.
Instead, we should view agriculture as a partner in the water cycle, not just a consumer of it.
It’s true—we cannot “control” the weather in the way we control machines or systems with switches and dials. But we’re already influencing it, profoundly—just not always with awareness or intention. The very technologies and land-use systems we designed to maximize extraction have altered rainfall patterns. This occurs through deforestation, large-scale irrigation, or monocropping. They have also increased surface temperatures and weakened the water cycle.
The question is not whether human action affects the weather—it clearly does. The question is how we choose to act.
Think of it like a forest. No single tree controls the climate, but together, their presence regulates humidity, encourages rainfall, moderates temperature, and stabilizes soil. Likewise, agriculture, land cover, and soil practices can act like an ecological switchboard.
We see measurable improvements when we treat water as a partner in productivity. It’s not just a resource to be extracted. Moist soils reduce land temperatures. Vegetation increases transpiration, which adds moisture to the air. This feedback is slow, subtle, and cumulative. They are real and supported by growing evidence in agroecology, climate science, and satellite data.
We may not press a button to make it rain tomorrow. However, we can build landscapes that invite rainfall over the seasons. In doing so, we move from technological control to ecological cooperation—from managing components to designing for outcomes.
Without this shift, efforts at water efficiency—however well-intentioned—may end up reinforcing the vulnerabilities they aim to fix.
“Efficiency without regeneration risks accelerating the very vulnerabilities we aim to overcome.”
Ultimately, this calls for a paradigm shift. We need to move from maximizing extraction to optimizing contribution. Land, water, and communities should be healthier each season than the last. Botswana’s agricultural strategy must evolve from technical reform to systemic redesign, aligning with ecological processes rather than resisting them.
PART I
The Impact of Crops That Transpire Less
Crops that transpire less can significantly alter the local and regional water cycle, especially when adopted widely across a landscape. Here’s a breakdown of the key impacts:
1. Reduced Moisture Recycling (Less Local Rainfall)
Transpiration contributes to atmospheric moisture, which can return as local or regional rainfall.
When crops transpire less, less water vapor enters the atmosphere, leading to:
Lower humidity
Reduced cloud formation
Decreased local rainfall, especially in semi-arid and continental interiors
🔹 Impact: This can contribute to longer dry spells and a feedback loop of aridification, especially in areas already vulnerable to desertification.
2. Lower Evapotranspiration = Slower Water Cycling
Evapotranspiration (ET) = evaporation from soil + transpiration from plants.
Lower ET = slower movement of water from soil to atmosphere.
This can:
Reduce cooling of the land surface (because ET consumes heat)
Potentially increase surface temperatures during the day
🔹 Impact: Hotter days, reduced rainfall, and possible heat stress for crops and livestock.
Less water is lost to the atmosphere. As a result, soils may stay moist longer. This initially improves drought resistance and reduces irrigation needs. This initially improves drought resistance and reduces irrigation needs.
🔹 Impact: In the short term, this supports water conservation. In the long term, if this leads to reduced rainfall, it can backfire.
4. Landscape-Level Hydrological Shifts
When drought-resistant, low-transpiration crops replace native vegetation or high-transpiration crops, they:
Disrupt ecosystem-level water cycling
Potentially lower groundwater recharge (fewer rain events = less infiltration)
Shift local climate patterns due to changes in surface albedo* and humidity
🔹 Example: Large-scale planting of low-transpiration crops across a savanna could reduce the frequency of convective afternoon rains.
Rainfall Levels for Botswana 1970 to 2020.
*Albedo is a scientific term. It refers to the reflectivity of a surface. Specifically, it describes how much sunlight (solar radiation) a surface reflects back into the atmosphere instead of absorbing it.
Simple Definition:
Albedo is the fraction of incoming solar energy that is reflected by a surface.
It is measured on a scale from 0 to 1:
0 = No reflection (total absorption, like black asphalt)
1 = Full reflection (perfectly reflective, like fresh snow)
Examples of Albedo in Nature and Land Use:
Surface Type
Typical Albedo
Fresh snow
0.8 – 0.9
Dry sand/desert
0.3 – 0.4
Grassland/crops
0.2 – 0.25
Forest (dark vegetation)
0.1 – 0.2
Water (angle-dependent)
0.05 – 0.1
Black soil/asphalt
0.04 – 0.1
Why It Matters in Agriculture and Climate:
Higher albedo = more solar radiation is reflected = cooler local temperatures.
Lower albedo = more solar radiation is absorbed = warmer local temperatures.
For example, deforestation lowers albedo because darker soil absorbs more heat, potentially intensifying local warming.
In agriculture, mulching, crop type, soil exposure, and canopy density each impact the albedo of a farming landscape. These factors influence microclimates and water loss.
Would you like a visual example or its role in climate feedback loops?
Summary Table
Effect
Low-Transpiration Crops Impact
Local Rainfall
↓ Decreases
Humidity
↓ Decreases
Soil Moisture (Short-term)
↑ Increases
Groundwater Recharge (Long-term)
↓ Decreases
Temperature Moderation
↓ Less evaporative cooling
Water Use Efficiency
↑ Increases
Implications for Agricultural Planning in Botswana
Drought-resistant, low-transpiration crops help in the short term. However, relying on them without reforesting, mulching, and soil regeneration can be risky. It’s important to balance these crops with plants that transpire more. Otherwise, it may lead to a drier, hotter, and less predictable climate.
Strategic planning must balance plant-level efficiency with landscape-level water cycle stability.
KEY INSIGHTS:
Declining Rainfall in Key Production Areas:
Rainfall levels in Botswana have declined in specific cereal- and livestock-producing regions over the past 15 years. Other areas have remained unaffected, according to historical data from the Botswana Meteorological Department. This challenges the idea of a uniform global warming effect. It suggests that localized environmental degradation may be happening. This degradation is likely linked to agricultural land use and possibly deforestation.
Limitations of Cereal Investment Narratives:
There is a common assumption that increasing investment in cereal production alone can reverse national declines. However, efforts to regenerate ecological conditions must occur in parallel. This includes maintaining moisture levels and soil structure. Otherwise, such strategies may prove unsustainable, even for drought-resistant crops.
Escalating Desertification Risks:
Desertification is not static—it is steadily progressing. Without systemic change, even crops bred for resilience will eventually become non-viable. Long-term adaptation strategies must go beyond input substitution and address root climatic trends.
Rationale for Regenerative and Horticulture Focus
In response, STRLDi advocates for a regenerative agriculture strategy, particularly through horticulture. Horticulture is initially vulnerable to erratic weather. However, it offers a critical advantage by actively contributing to atmospheric moisture and soil regeneration. Over time, this enhances local microclimates and can help reverse drying trends caused by extractive practices.
Balancing Competing Agricultural Priorities:
The solution is not to swing policy wholly toward one system or another. Instead, it lies in designing a balanced agricultural model. This model must meet food security targets and restore ecological function.
Data Gaps Undermine Strategic Action:
Preliminary FAOSTAT data indicate a countrywide decline in cereal production, aligning with producer concerns over inconsistent field data. This may limit the Ministry’s capacity to regulate imports effectively or justify increased sectoral investment. Delayed payments to producers could be symptomatic of this deeper structural imbalance.
Recommendation:
There is an urgent need for a national effort to collect and analyze disaggregated, region-specific production and climate data. Policymakers, investors, and farmers need a systems-based understanding of Botswana’s agricultural future. This understanding will help them co-create a more resilient and self-sustaining agricultural sector.
Subject: Reflections on National Cereal Production and Data Trends
Dear Mr. Tema,
I had thus far refrained from commenting on the country’s cereal and meat production landscape. I felt it important to first examine more recent and comprehensive data sets in both sectors.
Fifteen years ago, I had noted that rainfall patterns were declining in certain areas. This was based on historical data from the Botswana Meteorological Department. These localities were known for cereal and livestock production. Interestingly, this trend was not mirrored in all parts of the country. This suggests that the issue may not solely be the result of a uniform global warming effect. Rather, it indicated possible localised environmental degradation. This could be linked to agricultural practices and land use changes. Such changes may include or even lead to deforestation. With more robust and longitudinal datasets, these causal relationships can be better defined and understood.
This point may appear subtle, yet it carries significant weight and is often overlooked in discussions. It illustrates how we identify high-leverage interventions. Specifically, it concerns the observed correlation between drought-resistant cereals and declining rainfall. The common conclusion is to increase investment in cereal production to counteract the decline—an understandable response. However, without addressing the underlying climatic shifts driving these patterns, we risk falling short of achieving true resilience. Long-term productivity gains are unlikely without confronting these deeper systemic changes.
I recall saying at that time that even drought-resistant crops will eventually be phased out. The climatic conditions they are meant to survive will worsen. Even they cannot withstand these changes. Desertification is not a fixed point—it is dynamic and constantly expanding. We must change land use, water retention strategies, and soil regeneration practices. Otherwise, we risk pursuing production targets in environments that are no longer viable.
This may help you understand why I have taken a regenerative agriculture approach. I have also placed emphasis on boosting horticulture production levels. Horticulture might initially suffer from the same drying effects of climate variability. However, when approached regeneratively, it presents a potential solution. It contributes to atmospheric moisture and enhances local microclimates. Unlike conventional cereal farming, it can help reverse some drying conditions. These conditions are caused by widespread cultivation of crops that, while drought-resistant, do not release moisture into the atmosphere. This occurs in combination with other extractive agricultural practices. The key, I believe, is not to swing the pendulum entirely in one direction. Instead, a practical balance should be found. This balance is between systems that nourish the land and those that meet the country’s food needs.
I have compiled an initial set of figures from FAOSTAT to begin exploring these patterns. While the current dataset is limited, the preliminary trends suggest a sustained nationwide decline in cereal production. This situation may partly explain why producer associations feel caught between competing pressures. They are unable to rely on consistent field-level data to inform the Ministry’s regulatory decisions. This is particularly true concerning the timing and scale of import restrictions.
The Ministry itself may also be facing a difficult balancing act. Without clear evidence of import substitution, justifying increased allocations to the sector becomes challenging. There is no significant drop in the national import bill for cereals. This, in turn, likely affects its capacity to pay producers promptly, further exacerbating trust and viability within the sector.
A more coordinated effort is needed. We need to gather and analyze disaggregated, locality-specific production and climate data (see inbox below). This effort would shape responsive policies. These policies would strengthen national food security and protect the economic interests of our producers.
Warm regards, Sheila Damodaran Managing Director Systems Thinking Research & Leadership Development Institute (STRLDi) Botswana Tel: 75987534
May 14, 2025
PART II
GRAIN PRODUCTION, DEMAND AND CONSUMPTION TRENDS 1960S – 2020S
Comparing Botswana’s grain production and demand from the 1960s to the present shows a persistent gap. Domestic production consistently falls short of consumption needs. This disparity has necessitated substantial grain imports to meet the country’s food requirements.
📊 Grain Production Trends (1960s–2020s)
1960s–1980s: Grain production was generally low, with significant fluctuations due to droughts and limited agricultural infrastructure. For instance, in 1984, production dropped to a record low of 9,525 metric tons. (CEIC Data)
1990s–2000s: Efforts to improve agricultural output led to some increases in grain production. However, challenges such as inconsistent rainfall and limited agricultural infrastructure continued to hinder substantial growth.
2010s: Production levels varied, with some years witnessing improvements due to better rainfall and government support programs. For example, in 2017, the total grain production was 2,348 metric tons. However, by 2019, production had declined sharply to 583 metric tons, primarily due to drought conditions.
2020s: Recent data indicates a gradual increase in grain production. In 2022, cereal production was reported at 85,049 metric tons. By 2028, grain production could rise to 64,100 metric tons. This is an increase from 59,000 metric tons in 2023. It reflects an annual growth rate of 1.3%.
📈 Grain Demand and Consumption
While specific year-on-year consumption data is limited, it’s evident that Botswana’s grain demand has consistently outpaced domestic production. The country’s reliance on grain imports underscores this gap. For instance, in 2023, Botswana ranked 143rd globally in grain production, with Lesotho surpassing it by producing 59,000 metric tons. (Taylor & Francis Online, ReportLinker)
📉 Production vs. Demand Gap
The persistent shortfall in grain production relative to demand has led to a dependence on imports to ensure food security. Factors contributing to this gap include:
Crop Production Choices Exacerbating Climate Variability Botswana’s semi-arid climate and recurrent droughts have long posed challenges to agricultural productivity. Current crop production choices are adding to the problem. They limit the landscape’s ability to support moisture recycling. As a result, they decrease rainfall. In this way, agricultural decisions are not only shaped by climate variability but may also reinforce it.
📚 Data Sources for Detailed Analysis
For a more comprehensive year-by-year breakdown of grain production and consumption statistics in Botswana, the following resources are recommended:
FAO GIEWS Country Briefs: Offers insights into food security and agricultural trends. (FAOHome)
CEIC Data: Contains historical data on agricultural production and consumption. (CEIC Data)
To check the extent increases were the result of proceeds from sales or capital injections.
CEREALS PRODUCED IN PANDAMATENGA
Pandamatenga, situated in Botswana’s Chobe District, stands as the nation’s primary hub for cereal production. The area’s favorable conditions are ideal for large-scale, rainfed agriculture. These conditions include flat terrain, fertile Vertisol soils, and annual rainfall averaging around 600 mm. (Wikipedia, African Development Bank Group)
🌾 Major Cereals Produced in Pandamatenga
Sorghum: As Botswana’s staple grain, sorghum is extensively cultivated in Pandamatenga. In the 2022–23 season, the region produced approximately 42,100 tonnes of sorghum, marking an 11% increase from the previous year. This output significantly contributes to national self-sufficiency in sorghum production. (Mmegi Online)
Wheat: Traditionally a minor crop, wheat cultivation in Pandamatenga has expanded in recent years. During the 2022–23 season, there was a nearly 30% increase in wheat production. This indicates a growing importance in the region’s agricultural portfolio. (Facebook, Mmegi Online)
Maize: Maize is a significant cereal crop nationally. However, its cultivation in Pandamatenga is less prominent compared to sorghum and wheat. However, it remains an essential component of the region’s cereal production.
Millet: Grown on a smaller scale, millet contributes to the diversity of cereals produced in Pandamatenga. Its cultivation supports food security, especially in areas with variable rainfall.(chobedestination.co.bw)
🌱 Additional Crops
Beyond cereals, Pandamatenga’s farmers also cultivate various pulses and oilseeds, including cowpeas, chickpeas, mung beans, sunflower, and sugar beans. These crops not only diversify agricultural output but also enhance soil fertility through crop rotation practices. (Mmegi Online)
🏗️ Infrastructure and Development
To support and enhance agricultural productivity, significant investments have been made in infrastructure within the Pandamatenga region. Notably, 12 modern steel grain silos are being constructed. Each silo has a capacity of 5,000 metric tonnes. This aims to improve grain storage and management. This development is expected to motivate farmers to increase grain production, thereby promoting food security. (Guardian Sun, Daily News)
In summary, Pandamatenga’s strategic importance in Botswana’s agricultural sector is significant. It contributes substantially to cereal production, focusing on sorghum and wheat. These contributions are supported by favorable agro-climatic conditions and ongoing infrastructure development.
Systems Thinking Research & Leadership Development Institute (STRLDi) 
You must be logged in to post a comment.