NB! The following article was written late one evening after a long day at work, mainly using publicly accessible websites and digital reports. While it does not entirely satisfy academic requirements for citations, I am fairly confident in the validity of my arguments after having cross-checked what the sources claim. All of the bile is entirely my own.
The Estonian Roundtable for Development Cooperation – the umbrella organisation for Estonian development NGOs and the mediator for my volunteer programme – posted the following picture and comment on their Facebook page (see below the photo for my translation):
'An excellent, emotional picture that shows the essence of the problem not only in Africa, but in developing countries vs the Western world in general. Unfortunately, the photo doesn't show a solution – water issues in developing countries won’t be solved when we in Estonia refrain from pouring water on ourselves.
However, we can help by, for example, wearing less clothes made of cotton or by not buying products containing cane sugar, both of which take the developing countries enormous amounts of water to grow.'
Although clearly written with only the best intentions in mind, the message is not only misleading but actually directed against the interests of the people it supposedly seeks to support. The tactic used is a simple one: use the current viral trend to bring attention to serious issues. Unfortunately, both the content as well as form of the appeal are seriously flawed.
The following analysis focuses on West- and Sub-Saharan Africa, as these are the areas I have had some exposure to in my academic studies as well as – being based in Cameroon at the moment – through personal contact. Under no circumstances should the conclusions here be used to make generalisations about other regions. Unsustainable use of water in agriculture is a very real and a very serious issue in many places around the world[1] – but by no means can it be reduced to a simple contradistinction of ‘developing countries vs the Western world’.
Cotton production
The main cotton producers in Africa are Benin, Burkina Faso, Mali, and Chad – collectively known as the C4, i.e. Cotton 4. All four countries share a number of characteristics, such as a high percentage of rural population, low GDP, and significant reliance on one main export article (in 2006, cotton amounted to 40% of the total export revenue for each country)[2].
Most of the cotton produced by C4 countries comes from small-scale farmers, providing about 50% of income in rural areas. Although production volumes are relatively low compared to other countries, the growing methods are generally sustainable and environmentally friendly[3]. One notable example of differences with other producers is the use of nitrogen-based fertilisers. According to WTO, the use of nitrogen in African cotton production is well below the world average, and up to three times less than in the USA and four times less than in Australia[4] (although neither of those two countries could be described as ‘developing economies’).
The main challenge for the C4 and other cotton producers in the region (who could be almost seen as ‘green’ or eco-friendly producers in comparison to large agro-industries) is not the environment, but international trade regulations. Namely, the importance of domestic cotton production in the United States is proportional to the U.S. influence in the WTO which so far has been remarkably ineffective in enforcing the same free trade regulations on America it requires from other, politically less powerful states – such as the C4. The government subsidies to U.S. cotton farmers basically exceed the value of annual production and guarantee a steady income even during years when the crops are poor [2], [5] – while at the same time closing the U.S. market to the production of countries with comparatively more suitable climate conditions (i.e. where irrigation occurs naturally and with little intervention).
Which takes us to the next point.
Africa and water
Access to clean and safe drinking water does not only vary greatly between continents, but also within regions and even in the same one country. According to the United Nations, 92 per cent of North Africa can enjoy access to clean drinking water, whereas in Sub-Saharan Africa the same indicator is only 60 per cent[6].
However, the channeling of drinking water to agriculture is not the problem. The interchange between wet and dry seasons in Sub-Saharan Africa mean periods of water abundance and periods of drought when natural water sources are overused and dry up. The lack of infrastructure is also a critical element – the effects of which I got to see with my own eyes while conducting the Food and Nutrition Security survey in North West Cameroon. The systems for collecting, treating and distributing water are either insufficient or simply not there, due to the lack of funds on the part of the local governments and because of the weak economy in general (which, in turn, is largely the result of Western interference). The regions where access to ground water (such as mountain areas or the Sahelian zone in North and Far North Cameroon) is limited are most severely affected. At the same time, the UN and international development organisations – most often with the help of local NGOs and CSOs – have initiated several regional programmes (so-called ‘WASH’ projects) aimed at improving access to clean and safe drinking water in rural areas. While Cholera continues to be a significant problem in the Northern regions of Cameroon, it does not have the slightest connection with cotton or sugar cane – or with other developing countries, for that matter – in terms of causal relationships.
At the moment, however, it is rain season in Sub-Saharan Africa, meaning – depending on the region – daily showers that can be a few hours to a few days in length. The abundance of water, humidity and relatively high temperature thus make the region especially suitable for agriculture at the moment.
* * *
I will not go into detail with cane sugar production, as I have very little knowledge about the topic. A cursory search yielded no significant materials on the severity of the possible problem. The one report referred to here does note a great variation in the water footprint of cane sugar production between states[7]. It is thus unreasonable to talk about a global problem: every region has its own social, economic, environmental and political particularities, and they should be approached contextually.
Terveilm.ee, however, has shared a picture that reduces an entire continent with its countless regional variations, characteristics and distinguished history into one simple message: the whole of Africa can be represented with an image of thirsty children. The picture with the accompanying message only replicates existing stereotypes and does more to damage the understanding of problems experienced in African - and other - countries than to solve them. When I showed the photo and a translation of the text to my Cameroonian colleagues, they replied with indignant looks and expressed doubts about the competence of the author.
Stereotypes are misleading. Most often they are based on shallowness and a lack of knowledge, and can lead to unpredictable consequences. Taking to heart the warning against buying cotton clothes could potentially have extensive, negative impact on African subsistence farmers who already are in an economically fragile situation. Large agro-industries – where the sector is dominated by the U.S. and Australia, among others – are a lot more flexible at adjusting to fluctuations in market demands thanks to more extensive capital and better economic stability. At the same time, cotton can easily be the main or only source of income for households in countries with few financial guarantees for small producers. Boycott against products made of cotton could perhaps mean unpleasantness for some Western businessman by not being able to afford a second new car (things are better in the States, where production and domestic market are protected by government subsidies and tax money), but it is a completely different category for a Malian farmer and his family exclusively dependent on their small plot of land for income.
In conclusion, the water systems in the U.S. and Africa are only connected through the global gas exchange and not pouring a bucket of water onto yourself affects the thirsty about as much finishing the food on your plate helps starving children (even though most cases of famine have more to do with physical or financial access than actual lack of food – often occurring in situations where there is otherwise an abundance of sustenance. But this is a completely different topic).
Conclusion number two. Buy products made of African cotton.
P.S. I am really tempted to recreate both photos: with black-skinned individuals soaking themselves and a white person receiving alms instead. Such a situation is equally possible as the original. The main challenge would be to adequately explain to my local acquaintances why on Earth should they find it a good idea.
References
[2] Lee and Smith, 2006, "The Political Economy of Small African states in the WTO", The Round Table: The Commonwealth Journal of International Affairs, 97:395, pp 259-271 (I am happy to share the article via e-mail)
