“Africa can neither be explained nor understood without first unravelling the continent’s colonial experience" (Ndege, 2009).
Having a historical perspective is an essential part of tackling current food, water and development issues in sub-Saharan Africa with a decolonial approach. It looks past the harmful narrative that the region is innately prone to food insecurity because of its agriculturally unproductive biophysical environment or underdeveloped human systems. This is why it was a priority for me to explore in this blog.
A more realistic picture is that the processes of colonialism and neocolonialism have severely contributed to the poor performance of irrigation schemes and low rates of agricultural production in the region. A key element of this involved gearing traditional agricultural production systems towards export crops at the expense of domestic production, markets and rural economic development (Bjornlund, Bjornlund & Rooyen, 2020).
So what’s the current situation?
By 2050, the population of sub-Saharan Africa is projected to increase 2.5-fold and its demand for food will consequently triple. Alarmingly, sub-Saharan Africa is the only region on earth where per capita rates of food production have declined since 1980 and 30% of its population are already food insecure (Pfister et al., 2011).
 |
| World agricultural production per capita 1961–2005 (Hazell & Wood, 2008) |
 |
| Acute food insecurity across Sub-Saharan Africa in 2020 |
Let’s rewind to the early colonial period…
Prior to its colonial period, agricultural water management (AWM) practices endogenous to SSA existed, involving complex systems of controlling and distributing surface and subterranean water sources to support large populations (Bjornlund, Bjornlund & Rooyen, 2020a). These were highly attuned to spatially and temporally variable rates of water availability. In Kenya, for example, fallows and ‘miconjo’, (piles of decomposed vegetation that prevented water and soil erosion) were commonly deployed farming techniques (Mackenzie, 1991). From the 1700s onwards, AWM systems were expanded by European traders to produce agricultural raw materials for export to Europe including palm oil and cocoa and initially African farmers particularly in western Africa and the Sahel benefited from European trade (Bjornlund et al., 2020b).
What came next that created conditions for the low rates agricultural production that we see today?
In general, colonial governments viewed African farmers as less capable of managing land and began transitioning away from AWM practices that were specially adapted to local hydrological, topographical and ecological conditions. They used numerous strategies to enforce a system shift to export-crop production, reallocating land and labour resources from local food and often dispossessing African farmers of their land in countries including Kenya. What’s more, job and skill increases in industries that manufactured and processed raw agricultural materials largely occurred in Europe where economic growth became concentrated, preventing local African industries from accessing value-adding opportunities (Austin, 2010). Another key impact was the way Africa was divided into ‘nations’ during its colonial period which severely disrupted different communities. Hunter-gatherers, nomadic herders and pastoralists in the area that became Kenya were newly forced to compete for resources and space (Ndege 2009).
The other thing that colonial administrations pushed for were externally funded and controlled irrigation schemes, which again, weren’t compatible with traditional AWM techniques adapted to dry climatic conditions and further reduced land available for subsistence food production. For example, the Gezira Scheme was created to increase the cash crop cotton exportation in the Gezira plain in the early 20th century. It forced traditional Sudanese pastoralists to give up their land, become cotton croppers and deprioritise subsistence farming activities for sorghum and livestock (Bernal, 1997). Others, ignoring the Indigenous farming system adapted to local water variability, outright failed. The Scarcies polder rice irrigation scheme in Sierra Leone disregarded local farming techniques that relied on seasonal tidal surges to curb weed growth which ultimately made rice growing unviable unreliable and the scheme failed (Richards, 1986 in Bjornlund, Bjornlund & Rooyen, 2020a).”
Post-independence eraYou might ask, when Africa began to decolonize did this remove European colonial influence on agricultural production? OF COURSE NOT! The colonial legacy continued to favour unsuitable Western-influenced export-oriented production systems and irrigation schemes.
“Governments were ill-equipped, under-resourced and unprepared to handle the difficult processes of restructuring the dualistic agricultural economy and developing a domestic food production sector” (Bjornlund, Bjornlund & Rooyen, 2020).
A wealthy elite monopolized the farming sector and left many rural communities unable to borrow money or expand farms and without access to agricultural supply chains (Bjornlund, 2009). Along with the forced dispossession of land of African farmers that had already taken place, these developments ruptured “autonomous trajectories of economic, political and sociocultural development” and left farmers in SSA vulnerable to external political forces and volatile markets and unable to participate in government irrigation schemes, hence why they’ve performed poorly (Weis, 2007).
So, the legacies of colonialism have created conditions for poor governance, lack of investment in local agricultural supply chains and unsuitable large-scale irrigation schemes. The post-colonial impacts of external forces will be explored in part 2, stay tuned…
Let’s rewind to the early colonial period…
Prior to its colonial period, agricultural water management (AWM) practices endogenous to SSA existed, involving complex systems of controlling and distributing surface and subterranean water sources to support large populations (Bjornlund, Bjornlund & Rooyen, 2020a). These were highly attuned to spatially and temporally variable rates of water availability. In Kenya, for example, fallows and ‘miconjo’, (piles of decomposed vegetation that prevented water and soil erosion) were commonly deployed farming techniques (Mackenzie, 1991). From the 1700s onwards, AWM systems were expanded by European traders to produce agricultural raw materials for export to Europe including palm oil and cocoa and initially African farmers particularly in western Africa and the Sahel benefited from European trade (Bjornlund et al., 2020b).
What came next that created conditions for the low rates agricultural production that we see today?
In general, colonial governments viewed African farmers as less capable of managing land and began transitioning away from AWM practices that were specially adapted to local hydrological, topographical and ecological conditions. They used numerous strategies to enforce a system shift to export-crop production, reallocating land and labour resources from local food and often dispossessing African farmers of their land in countries including Kenya. What’s more, job and skill increases in industries that manufactured and processed raw agricultural materials largely occurred in Europe where economic growth became concentrated, preventing local African industries from accessing value-adding opportunities (Austin, 2010). Another key impact was the way Africa was divided into ‘nations’ during its colonial period which severely disrupted different communities. Hunter-gatherers, nomadic herders and pastoralists in the area that became Kenya were newly forced to compete for resources and space (Ndege 2009).
The other thing that colonial administrations pushed for were externally funded and controlled irrigation schemes, which again, weren’t compatible with traditional AWM techniques adapted to dry climatic conditions and further reduced land available for subsistence food production. For example, the Gezira Scheme was created to increase the cash crop cotton exportation in the Gezira plain in the early 20th century. It forced traditional Sudanese pastoralists to give up their land, become cotton croppers and deprioritise subsistence farming activities for sorghum and livestock (Bernal, 1997). Others, ignoring the Indigenous farming system adapted to local water variability, outright failed. The Scarcies polder rice irrigation scheme in Sierra Leone disregarded local farming techniques that relied on seasonal tidal surges to curb weed growth which ultimately made rice growing unviable unreliable and the scheme failed (Richards, 1986 in Bjornlund, Bjornlund & Rooyen, 2020a).”
|
Post-independence era
You might ask, when Africa began to decolonize did this remove European colonial influence on agricultural production? OF COURSE NOT! The colonial legacy continued to favour unsuitable Western-influenced export-oriented production systems and irrigation schemes.
“Governments were ill-equipped, under-resourced and unprepared to handle the difficult processes of restructuring the dualistic agricultural economy and developing a domestic food production sector” (Bjornlund, Bjornlund & Rooyen, 2020).
A wealthy elite monopolized the farming sector and left many rural communities unable to borrow money or expand farms and without access to agricultural supply chains (Bjornlund, 2009). Along with the forced dispossession of land of African farmers that had already taken place, these developments ruptured “autonomous trajectories of economic, political and sociocultural development” and left farmers in SSA vulnerable to external political forces and volatile markets and unable to participate in government irrigation schemes, hence why they’ve performed poorly (Weis, 2007).
So, the legacies of colonialism have created conditions for poor governance, lack of investment in local agricultural supply chains and unsuitable large-scale irrigation schemes. The post-colonial impacts of external forces will be explored in part 2, stay tuned…
Comments
Post a Comment