Why did we even bother with climate change summit?n

The contradictions of government state ments and reality will take the country nowhere, as it is said that if you do not know where you are going anyway will take you there.

  Eventually, Swaziland attended the Climate Change Summit at Copenhagen, Denmark in December, 2009, but the country’s leadership is still dreaming of establishing a thermal power plant to generate electricity because it is thought that the country has a huge reserve of coal deposit in the lowveld. 

Is this not suggesting that the summit did not mean anything to Swaziland? Climate change comes out with opportunities, threats and challenges which require careful consideration and planning. Furthermore, singing food security without proper action is not good enough.  What does food security mean? Well, in a nutshell it means enough food for a specific period. 

Then, where does one start, by mobilising individuals to grow enough food grain to feed themselves or encourage individuals to go for commercial farming to make food available in the markets? 
Commercial farming is normally influenced by the available markets and prices of the product. The consumers may have a say in the quality of the product thus forcing the farmers to grow the product according to the specification which may turn to be expensive. 

The product may have nothing to do with food security but forcing the farmers, especially in Swaziland who have been conditioned to go for sugar cane because it is commercially viable and not maize. Then, it appears, if one wants to achieve the mission of food security, must separate food security from commercial farming. What are the other factors that cause failure to achieve food security?

Those who attend the so many World Summits of Food Security spend a lot of time and energy on finger pointing that the rich countries must do this and that and the poor ones vice versa. Passed resolutions end-up in the paper written on. Besides the much talked about climate change, there is neglect of agriculture, the right of food, world trade roles, causes of food insecurity, hunger goals, ideological solutions, etc that fail food security. 

The United Nations (UN) through the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) aims to reduce the scourge of hunger by half before 2015. Furthermore, food security covers the right to food as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Therefore, it is an obligation for any national government to make sure that there is enough food in a country.
Tasked
In the World Summit on Food Security, November 2009, countries were tasked to eliminate hunger by 2025, hence to put in place implementable strategies to achieve this ambitious programme. But then, what are the causes of food insecurity?  There are multiple influences, often interacting confusingly as both cause and symptom. This is also true with poverty. If a household cannot purchase food despite of its availability, then poverty is the cause of food insecurity.  

There are three main causes of food insecurity; decline of investment in agriculture in the developing world, in appropriate rules for trade and investment in poor countries and finally the diversion of food resources as raw materials to other production. Many poor countries have neglected declarations formulated to improve agricultural output. Then, there is a need for ideological solutions to be used in the climate changing times. Farmers continue planting ancestoral crops, at times not suitable for those areas and times.  Some countries have failed to formulate policies dealing with genetically modified organisms which can easily improve food security.

Food security can best be achieved by an effective gov ernment which is accountable and transparent. Climate change can be contained if proper action is taken and implemented by the ruling elite. It is said that the sea level is increasing due to the melting of the ice in the poles, heavy rains and flooding rivers.
In the first place, why are these flooded rivers allowed to reach the sea? Make catchments, dams, harvest the water and divert these floods to deserts to grow more food grain.   Is the Tinkhundla regime ready to take the country out of food insecurity?

The minister of Agriculture is reported to have assured the nation that a big drive is underway to establish a sugar cane milling company at Sidvokodvo. One may ask, why not a maize milling one, thus prompting those farmers who may have more maize than their domestic consumssion needs can have markets for the surplus?
Therefore, the proposed sugar cane in that area will promote sugar cane growing thus dwarfing that of maize which is a contributor to food security in this country.  As if this is not enough, in this Lower Usuthu project (LUSIP), the first scheme to utilise the water there, has been given a grant, surprisingly to grow sugar cane.  Will this help put food on the table or satisfy outside market demands? 

Or is one saying that the country must generate money and start looking for food grain from countries that have food security?  There is no seriousness and no willingness to achieve food security for now and in the future. Water is essential for any planting purposes, hence a strategy to harvest it was needed as of yesterday. 
And with the current rains, some Swazis are at it again, shouting on top of their voices that farmers must grow sweet potato without telling those who care to listen that the place must be fenced to prevent the animals from destroying it. In addition, the Water Act, 2003 has provided many benefits to would be users of water and that water has been declared by this Act and the Constitution as a national resource, hence servitudes to it must be provided for people and wild animals to have access to this resource. 

The canal to LUSIP dam from the Great Usuthu river is constructed in a way that the surrounding people and the animals cannot have access to the water; it has an almost v-shape and deep.  If an animal can jump in, it maybe impossible to come out.  One would have expected that some ponds to be made along the canal at certain intervals to benefit the nearby residents and animals.  As it is these can only see and smell the water without access to it.  How long must the nation be fed with political statements?

 
So much has been said that people who hold high positions must be reputable and big thinkers who turn around issues before taking decisions.  Bad decisions backfire and damage the image of a country, the government, the ruling elite, the individuals, their families, children and relatives. What does the Holy Bible say about such people who are the source of wrong advice.  
How many times have politicians, advisors, governors, members of certain committees, etc have piloted laws that are targeted at specific individuals and then forget that their actions may backfire and harm them and their families?  How many times have judges passed sentences to appease the authorities at the expense of innocent people?

Looking at this scenario, how is Swaziland fairing under the Tinkhundla regime?  How many Swazis have been sent to the lions den for crimes they have not committed or have been bad mouthed for unfounded accusations by the so called trusted people within the Tinkhundla system?  These people who earn a living by gossiping are in fact, intellectual midgets that are dangerous to the development of the country.
These individuals have established bases in the Tinkhundla regime.