Harare — There is a "silent" war going on in the cotton industry right now.

And this time it is mainly being waged by established cotton merchants under the Cotton Ginners Association, the CGA. Their main gripe is that cotton farmers who grew the crop on contract with CGA firms are now side-marketing their produce to a new buyer who recently arrived on the scene. The CGA members are saying they are entitled to 100 percent cotton delivery from farmers who got 100 percent inputs from CGA members. That sounds fair enough.

But the bone of contention arises on the interpretation of a 100 percent delivery. Farmers believe they are tied to the contractor until they have paid in full for the inputs they got. After all, the farmers argue, prices of these inputs are quoted with a high mark-up. Not only that, but also that the inputs prices are determined on the day the farmers bring their produce.

Farmers say any extra cotton they hold after they are fully paid-up with the contractor, they are free to sell to the highest bidder. Sounds fair enough. Nobody questions the noble intentions of contractors in trying to help farmers produce more to keep the sector running. But this overzealousness to concentrate solely on contract growing at the expense of promoting the independent grower is cause for concern.

Cotton companies show little interest in the farmer who tries to fund his/her own effort. What usually happens is that such farmer who turns up at an inputs outlet with cash in hand is told: "Sorry, we are sold out on all cash sale inputs. The only supplies left are on contract basis." That leaves the farmer with no option. Now what are some of the conditions the farmer is faced with under contract growing?

Sometimes the inputs are not priced. This is on the understanding that the prices will be determined on the day the farmer delivers his/her crop. This is tantamount to asking the farmer to sign a blank cheque in favour of the contractor. On delivery day the crop is weighed and graded by the contractors who will have set their price that goes with every grade.

Early this season, The Herald ran a story of an independent grower who was turned away from a buying point with about 3 000kg of his crop. The poor fellow said he had been told by the buying company that they were giving priority to cotton delivered by contract growers. Surely a system that does not encourage diversity and self-reliance has no prospects for expansion.

Contractors often cry about poor prices on the international market, by which they normally are talking about the western market. China's industry is reported to gobble up to eight million kgs a year. And yet when our agricultural ministry officials toured the Chinese cotton industry, they found Chinese warehouses with not a single cotton bale from Zimbabwe.

But there was cotton from Mali, Egypt and several other North African countries. President Mugabe has on several occasions implored local businesses to explore Chinese prospects, but it appears the appeal has met very little success. World economics is rapidly changing. China is now the world's biggest vehicle market and look at how westerners risk broken limbs in their scramble for that market.

Meanwhile, we are bound by our age-old prejudice. Now China has come for our cotton and our establish cotton merchants are up in arms. The Chinese and their Sino-Zim Company appear to be paying farmers a better price. The farmer today has a choice either to switch to other crops or finding better paying buyers. Government has reportedly suspended contract farming.

All those intending to engage in it can only do so through the responsible ministry. The Zimbabwe Commercial Farmers' Union has called on government to introduce the auction system on cotton. The ZCFU Mashonaland West provincial secretary, Mr David Marimo was reported as saying the absence of a regulatory framework on the pricing of cotton left farmers stranded.

He said the Cotton Ginners Association does not advance the farmers cause while the Agricultural Marketing Authority has not been doing anything to help come up with cotton prices that allow them (farmers) to break even after marketing. "Currently, there is no competitive pricing for cotton as the CGA has no competitors and just sets prices that do not take into account the numerous factors involved in the production process," he said. The Chinese have landed, causing the CGA to sound a bit menacing.

In their latest advertisement headed "Side marketing your contracted cotton crop is a c rime," they warn: "If you are a cotton farmer who is under contract and side marketing your crop, you are committing a crime. "Stick to your contractual agreement and ensure that you maintain a healthy relationship with your known buyer. Always remember that after all has been said and done, you will still need to go back to the field."

Legally, the CGA is 100 percent correct. The farmer under contract has an obligation to sell to the contractor. But taking cognisance of sentiments expressed by the ZCFU, can this be said to be a healthy relationship? Are current contractual conditions conducive for the cotton farmer to go back to the contractor as a contented partner? Opening Parliament three weeks ago, President Mugabe said the Government would, among other things, take steps to resuscitate the agricultural sector.

Steps would be taken to guarantee food security and anchor the country's agro-based economy by giving priority to increasing productivity through timeous provision of inputs and equipment. This was a very clear indication of where the agricultural sector is headed. Perhaps it's time Government took decisive measures in this contract farming business.

Only recently, tobacco farmers were complaining that contractors were saddling them with unbearable bills whose source they could not understand. The debts were so huge they could not pay back in a single harvest. Just what benefit is this contract growing to the farmer?