Connect with us

NGO WORK

12 Replies to 12 Lies about Industrial Tree Plantations: New edition of a WRM briefing paper

Published

on

On the occasion of September 21st, 2022, the International Day of Struggle Against Monoculture Tree Plantations, WRM launched the briefing “12 Replies to 12 Lies about Industrial Tree Plantations”.

On the occasion of September 21st, 2022, the International Day of Struggle Against Monoculture Tree Plantations, WRM launched the briefing “12 Replies to 12 Lies about Industrial Tree Plantations”.

This briefing was originally published in 1999, under the title “Ten Replies to Ten Lies”. At the time, monoculture tree plantations of eucalyptus, acacia, pine and rubber were expanding in many countries. In this context, WRM identified the need for a simple tool to provide community activists and grassroots organisations with information that could counter the most misleading statements that companies were using to promote these industrial tree plantations.

Since then, the plantation companies have continued to refine their response to critiques of plantations and the plantation model expressed by communities, activists and organisations. Perhaps predictably, instead of addressing the critiques, companies have come up with more lies. This, together with the current renewed push for industrial tree plantations in many countries, motivated WRM to publish a new edition of the 1999 briefing.

WRM’s Campaign Against Monoculture Tree Plantations

The briefing published in 1999 was made in the context of a WRM campaign, launched in 1998, against monoculture tree plantation. As part of this campaign, several tools were produced and activities carried out to support communities in their struggles against monoculture tree plantations. The campaign continues until today.

Why does the tree plantations issue play such a key role in WRM´s work for so long?

One reason is that promoting monoculture tree plantations has been a key ingredient of the main international policies elaborated in the past 30-40 years to address deforestation – in spite of the fact that such plantations are a cause of deforestation. Promoting industrial tree plantations was, for example, one of the pillars of the Tropical Forestry Action Plan, launched in 1985 by the United Nation´s Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), in partnership with the World Bank and other institutions. The REDD+ mechanism, in its turn, when it was launched in 2007, stated that, among other things, it was about “increasing forest carbon stocks”, opening the door for promoting large-scale tree plantations as REDD+ projects.

Deliberately confusing plantations with “forests” – while the only similarity between both is the presence of trees – is one more reason for WRM to give a central role to the tree plantations issue in its work. Until today, industrial tree plantations of often exotic species, even genetically engineered trees, are considered “forest” by FAO, the main UN agency dealing with forest issues. It is probably also the main lie that plantation companies have spread around and benefited from.

One more reason for WRM´s focus on tree plantations is the fact that the global South has become the main area targeted for expansion of industrial tree monoculture plantations over the past 30-40 years. The main reason is that in the global South companies find the most favourable conditions to make profits. Among these are cheap and fertile lands, cheap labor and a climate that favors trees, in particular eucalyptus, growing very fast.

Besides, in the global South in particular, the “plantation model” has a long history that goes back to the colonial era. During that era, European powers stole lands of communities to set up profitable export-oriented plantations, based on slave labor, of different monoculture crops. Although liberation struggles formally ended the colonial era, the “plantation model” survived. Corporations claim that nowadays plantations have ´modernized´ their working conditions, that they are “socially responsible” and “sustainable” and have their practices “certified”. However, the main characteristics of the “plantation model” remain unchanged, for example, labor exploitation, the grabbing of huge expanses of community lands and forests and the destruction and contamination of community livelihoods. The neo-colonial plantations of today continue to reflect and strengthen mainly Northern capitalist interests. They also continue oppressing indigenous and black communities and in particular women in the global South, maintaining and strengthening racism and patriarchy.

New Lies Spread by Plantation Companies

Plantation companies continue to use most of the lies they used in 1999, including calling tree plantations ‘planted forests’; claiming that industrial tree plantations are set up on degraded lands; that plantations improve the environment and counteract climate change; that they protect native forests and contribute to job creation and local economies.

In addition, there are a number of new lies. For example, that by substituting fossil fuels, plantations can contribute to a so-called “bio-economy”. They promote planting trees for electricity generation and alternative fuel through “biomass” or “biofuel” plantations”, or producing products for mass consumption such as plastics, textiles or medicines. It is an attempt to counter the critique that tree plantations contribute to the destruction of forests and other biomes, and thus further worsen climate change.

How can industrial plantations and all of their negative impacts be the basis for a “bio-economy” that claims to respect life and nature? Putting the plantation companies’ plan into practice would involve planting entire countries in the global South with eucalyptus trees. Probably the main motivation of the plantation company owners is another: a tremendous new business opportunity.

Another lie that companies spread is that conflicts with communities around land, pollution of water, working conditions, etc., can be solved by “certification” of plantations. The FSC (Forest Stewardship Council), for example, awards a label to a company if it demonstrates that it is engaged in “sustainable management” of its plantations. The FSC label has been a success for companies. Many of them have received the label, even when documents showed that their land titles were illegal or that the company was embroiled in conflicts with local communities.  That FSC does not fulfil its promises has to do with the fact it does not question the main characteristics of the ´plantation model´: its large-scale, the planting of trees in monoculture, the grabbing of fertile community lands, as well as of the water in the area.

Following a United Nations Initiative, several companies now also claim that they are committed to the empowerment of women in the workplace, marketplace and community. Corporate gender policies have come up in response to the critiques and struggles of women against the plantation model. The fact that plantation companies have set up such policies is also a response to the committed struggles of women against industrial tree plantations in particular.

But the supposed ´equal´ employment opportunities that companies offer to women hide the common practice that companies take advantage of hiring women particularly for dangerous and poorly paid tasks, if they believe that women carry them out more efficiently. Examples include the very precise work performed in tree nurseries and the application of agrotoxins. Besides, companies destroy the lands women depend on to maintain their traditional knowledge and practices. Companies tend to further reinforce patriarchal structures when they seek and rely on the mainly male-dominated processes of the community approval to use community lands for plantations.

Wherever women stand up, companies have used strategies to break their resistance by intimidating and criminalizing them. Companies usually ignore the fact that their plantations are connected with an increase in sexual violence and harassment of women, one of the most silenced yet perverse impacts of the “plantation model”.

On the African continent where investors hope to make most money in future with plantations, consultants spread the lie that African countries should follow the success story of tree plantations in Brazil and Uruguay.  If the measure of success is the wealth of company owners in these countries, those plantations have certainly been a success. The main owner of the biggest Brazilian plantation company is among the richest families in the country. But plantation companies in Brazil have stolen lands from indigenous peoples, black and other communities, and provoked more impoverishment and racism against these communities. In Uruguay, due to a major exodus of rural dwellers, plantations can expand relatively easily. Currently, just 5 per cent of the population lives in rural areas.

Another lie plantation companies spread around is that plantations are financially a very healthy business and thus deserve support. But the main reason tree plantations are profitable for company owners and shareholders is that public and private banks and institutions award generous financial subsidies and incentives to the plantation companies. In reality, most of them are heavily indebted.
The approach companies use to still gain access to fresh funding involves converting part of their debt into so-called ‘bonds’. This approach is usually available only to companies, not to ordinary people. A bond is nothing more than a document worth a certain amount of debt. The company can sell it to receive additional funding. This is an attractive deal for buyers, because the company will pay back the money invested after an agreed upon number of years, plus an additional amount—the interest rate.

“Green bonds” is a new name used by plantation companies to refer to the same bonds as before. Plantation companies call them “green” because they claim their business is “green” and that they significantly contribute to reducing climate change and conserving the environment.

A last, but very important lie is that peasant farmers can benefit from tree plantations. The strategy to involve peasant farmers in the plantations business is a reaction to the widespread resistance of communities around the world to large-scale tree plantations. To avoid evicting peasant farmers to get access to the plan, companies have increasingly been promoting “smallholder” or “outgrower” schemes. Under such schemes, farmers sign a contract with a company to plant trees on their land. Companies promise a good income to those planting trees, and that peasant farmers can continue planting their food crops.

In reality, most of the benefits go to the company, while most of the risks and costs are the farmers’ problem. While companies and governments claim it will improve farmers’ livelihoods and income, it actually does the opposite.

In summary, what all the 12 lies presented in the new WRM briefing paper have in common is that they all seek to hide the damaging nature of the “plantation model” that is at the root of the conflicts, impacts and oppressions that come along with the promotion of industrial tree plantations. Struggling against plantations therefore is in essence the struggle against patriarchy, neo-colonialism, racism and capitalism and all their different forms of oppression.

The full version of the new briefing paper “12 Replies to 12 Lies about Industrial Tree Plantations” is available here. It’s also available in SpanishFrench and Portuguese.

Original Source: World Rainforest Movement 

Continue Reading

NGO WORK

Urgent Call for Conditionalities on New IFC and EBRD Loan to Oyu Tolgoi Mine

Published

on

Joint Statement

December 9, 2024

We, the undersigned civil society organizations (CSOs) and representatives of herders from Mongolia, strongly condemn the International Finance Corporation (IFC) and European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) in providing a $100 million loan each, to Oyu Tolgoi (OT). This decision blatantly disregards years of unresolved grievances, environmental harm, and the failure of OT to comply with IFC and EBRD’s safeguard standards, as well as widespread rejection from local herders, CSOs, and even the Mongolian government.

Unresolved Harms and Non-Compliance

OT has failed to address critical issues, including its commitments under the 2017 Herders Complaint Resolution Agreements and IFC and EBRD’s social and environmental safeguards. Longstanding issues include:

  1. Failures in completing Resolution Agreements: Herders continue to struggle to sustain their livelihoods and protect the environment, as the agreements resulting from CAO complaints remain incomplete. The Tripartite Council (TPC), tasked with implementing the 2017 Agreements, has failed to ensure meaningful involvement of herders in safeguarding their rights and livelihoods.
  2. Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) Seepage: Despite implementing a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) as required by lenders to address the seepage from tailings cell 1 (TC1), OT has neither adequately mitigated the seepage nor transparently disclosed its full extent. Recent data reveals worsening water quality, with Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) levels rising dramatically downstream.
  3. Pasture and Water Scarcity: The mine’s expansion plans threaten vital grazing lands and water resources. Springs that once supported herders’ livelihoods have dried up, forcing herders to compete for limited resources. Moreover, the Dugat-Khaliv river, a key water source for herders, has been diverted around TC2 in a diversion channel without capacity to convey flood-level flows during rainy periods, leading to significant water loss for downstream herders.
  4. Environmental Failures: OT consistently fails to meet the design goal of 64% tailings solid content, resulting in inevitable seepage from the additional pressure exerted by excess water in the tailings cell. This and other design inefficiencies directly lead to massive water wastage estimated at up to $1.46 million per year.
  5. Inadequate Community Engagement: Herders were not meaningfully consulted about the RAP or OT’s expansion plans, violating IFC and EBRD principles of transparency and participation.

Water Mismanagement and Wastage

OT’s operations exacerbate water scarcity through inefficient tailings management. Water wasted due to tailings solids being below design criteria results in significant financial and environmental costs:

  • From 2013-2017, OT achieved 56% solids (8% below design standard), wasting $1.46 million worth of water annually. From 2018-2024, OT achieved nearly 60% solids (4% below design standard) on average, meaning OT wastes $730,000 annually on replacement water. OT has approximately wasted $12.41 million since 2017 from losing 248.2 million liters of water.
  • Oyu Tolgoi (OT) must attain the highest percentage of solid content as specified by its design criteria, 64%, to effectively prevent water scarcity in the South Gobi Desert and ensure improved water access for herders. While lenders argue that the 60-64% range meets the standard, 2012 ESIA states that “Final concentrate will be thickened to 65% solids” which proves otherwise. The TSF operating consistently below 60% results in excessive water waste, posing severe risks to the fragile desert ecosystem and the livelihoods of herders who rely on limited freshwater resources. Achieving the 64% target is not merely an option but a critical necessity to minimize environmental harm, optimize resource use, and uphold OT’s responsibility to local communities.
  • This inefficiency compounds the structural weakness of tailings dams, necessitating costly redesigns and increasing the risk of catastrophic failure. Concerns Over Project Categorization and Political Risks We are deeply concerned that IFC and EBRD categorized OT’s expansion as a Category B project, despite its significant and irreversible impacts on herders and the environment. This misclassification downplays the scale of the risks, undermining proper oversight. Additionally, the Mongolian government is in a disagreement on additional financing that will add more debt, and the Mongolian Parliament Resolution #103 requires an independent audit of underground mine cost overrun which has not been disclosed. Approving new financing in such a contentious political and social environment poses significant risks to the project’s viability.

Recommendations and Conditionalities

IFC and EBRD must impose strict conditionalities on OT before any disbursements begin and ensure the conditionalities are placed in the lending agreement, including:

  1. Fulfillment of Past Commitments:
    • Include the 2017 Herders Complaint Resolution Agreements (HCRAs) in lenders’ compliance requirements and fully implement them.
    • Amend the RAP to include routine medical assessments for herders and their animals impacted by the contaminated water from the TSF seepage, and update Stakeholder Engagement Plan to involve the wider herder community impacted by the seepage.
    • Disclose all the important data from the attachments and annexes of the RAP.
  2. Water and Tailings Management Improvements:
    • Achieve the 64% as the highest solid content target for tailings as per the original ESIA.
    • Disclose the full extent of TSF seepage impacts, including chemical contamination and health risks.
  3. Protection of Herders’ Livelihoods:
    • Permanently halt land acquisitions that displace herders and prioritize using existing lease areas for future tailings cells.
    • Construct a permanent Dugat-Khaliv diversion channel based on maximum flood probabilities.
  4. Transparency and Meaningful Engagement:
    • Disclose all environmental and social impact assessments (ESIA) for expansion plans, implementation of the ESAP from the initial OT project loan, and OT Green Investment Plan.
    • Take actions to strengthen TPC functions through assessing TPC Charter and the implementation of the HCRAs
    • Ensure meaningful consultation with affected communities on all project aspects. This includes consultations on the expansion plans, environmental and social assessment related documents and strengthening of the Tripartite Council with valid herder representation as the body responsible to address herders’ concerns around the OT project.

The approval of new financing to OT without addressing these critical issues perpetuates harm to herders and the environment while eroding public trust in IFC’s and EBRD’s commitment to sustainable development. We call on IFC and EBRD to uphold their safeguards and suspend agreement signing and financing until OT achieves full compliance and fulfills its obligations to herders and the environment.

(Link to full statement in English and Mongolian)

Contact Information:
Sukhgerel Dugersuren, Oyu Tolgoi Watch, 976-99185828, otwatch@gmail.com
Battsengel Lkhamdoorov, Gobi Soil, 976-88705595, tsengel_5595@yahoo.com
Julio Castor Achmadi, Accountability Counsel, julio@accountabilitycounsel.org
Nina Lesikhina, Bankwatch Network, ninalesikhina@bankwatch.org

Signatories:
Gobi Soil, Mongolia
Oyu Tolgoi Watch, Mongolia
Center for Human Rights and Development, Mongolia
AFE, Mongolia
APPDO, Mongolia
CA NGO, Mongolia
GFS, Mongolia
MFSW, Mongolia
RwB Mongolia
SR NGO, Mongolia
SWA, Mongolia
SWB NGO, Mongolia
Accountability Counsel
CEE Bankwatch Network, Regional
Bank Climate Advocates, USA
Bank Information Center, USA
Both ENDS, the Netherlands
Center for Community Mobilization and Support, Armenia
Centre for Research and Advocacy, Manipur, India
Earth Thrive, UK/Serbia
Friends with Environment in Development (FED), Uganda
GAIA, Regional
Gender Action, USA
Green Advocates
Initiative for Right View (IRV), Bangladesh
International Accountability Project
INWOLAG
Kazakhstan International bureau for human rights, Kazakhstan
London Mining Network
LSD, Senegal
NGO Forum on ADB, Regional
Peace Point Development Foundation-PDF, Nigeria
Recourse
Samata & mm&P, India
Sinergia Animal, Brazil
Urgewald, Germany
Witness Radio, Uganda.

Source: Accountability Counsel.

Continue Reading

NGO WORK

Op-Ed | A Missing Investment Strategy: Climate Resilience Hides in Local Food Markets

Published

on

Over the last several years, agriculture has stormed onto the climate agenda. And it’s about time. Policymakers, donors, and investors are seeing the wisdom of investing in soil restoration, agroecology, agroforestry, and biodiversity, among other regenerative actions. And yet, what we have learned from our African colleagues is that without simultaneously investing in healthy local markets, these investments in sustainable production are likely to fall short.

Local markets are climate resilient. Not only are these markets a good fit for smallholder farmers who practice agroecology, but they are also more equitable and accessible for women and youth. Strengthening local economic markets and smallholders’ access to them creates a mutually generative cycle of food and ecological resilience—essential to strong local incomes and livelihoods. Remember that family farms continue to feed 70 percent of the world’s population. Specialty crop export and global food trade are still only a minor part of the world’s food story.

Local markets have two distinct advantages in accelerating climate solutions; one is their proximity to consumers, decreasing the miles that food has to travel to get to market, a net savings; two is that increasing agroecological production will enhance soil fertility, capturing carbon, and decrease the use of carbon intensive inputs such as artificial fertilizers and chemical inputs. When considering the amount of food and land under climate resilient food production, the carbon reduction is significant.

Over the past five years, the Agroecology Fund, through a grants program and learning community, has been gleaning insights from African networks and farmers’ organizations about the role of territorial markets to amplify agroecology. With the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA) and over a dozen farmers’ organizations, we have seen how smallholder farmers are building local economies that strengthen equitable relationships and climate resilience. Some of the key lessons we learned include:

Local consumers want local, healthy produce. There is a strong market demand for local products from agroecological farms and producers, including green leafy vegetables, fruits, grains, small livestock, and native seeds. Local manufacturing of bio-inputs including fertilizers, bio- pesticides, and inoculants is booming. These markets are large and important to local producers. Strong markets for agroecology mean that farmers are incentivized to practice climate resilient agriculture. An unpublished study of cooperatives and entrepreneurs in Senegal and Mali by Groundswell International noted that local demand for healthy foods is significant and growing. Part of a larger consumer movement led by farmers and consumers, the My Food is African campaign launched by the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa has spread across the continent of Africa in national campaigns for healthy, local, and culturally relevant foods to be produced, celebrated and eaten regularly. Regional and national African leaders have taken up the cause by praising local dishes and demonstrating national pride in local foods as they recognize the costs associated with subsidizing imported staples.

Women farmers have the most to gain from local markets. African women and youth have the most to gain from investment in local markets and local entrepreneurship. Examples abound of growing healthy businesses and value-added production that rely upon women’s agricultural knowledge and practices. Climate resilience requires broad participation from the most vulnerable farmers who are rural women dependent on natural resources for their well-being. In Senegal, a cooperative of women called We Are the Solution has created a fast selling brand of bouillon mix, Sum Pak, made from locally available ingredients without chemicals or preservatives. Chefs and home cooks praise the mix which echoes village flavors and offers consumers low and no sodium lines capitalizing on doctors’ orders.

Finance can be inclusive and accessible. The missing middle is a myth. Smallholder agroecological farmers are not being supported at any level of finance. Many policymakers write convincingly about the missing middle in agribusiness. They assume that microfinance is addressing smallholder farmers’ needs and that larger investors are picking up opportunities over US$100,000. This is not true, less than 15 percent of smallholders practicing any kind of farming are accessing finance below US$100,000. Microfinance is often not being used by smallholder farmers because of high interest rates and repayment durations that do not match agricultural cycles.

Smallholder farmers engaging in agroecology need what regenerative farmers in the U.S. are requesting: low interest, long-term patient capital to engage in both transition to agroecology as well as building up aggregation, processing and marketing of their products. Financing infrastructure such as light farm machinery, storage and refrigeration in the US$2,000 to the US$20,000 range creates new opportunities. This infrastructure enables smallholders to flourish and serve local markets that increase the circulation of local, healthy food. Climate resilience requires thinking about financing the transition in different ways from traditional finance—which has exacerbated inequalities. In Uganda, the purchase of a grinding machine by Eastern and Southern Africa Small-scale Farmer Forum, Uganda (ESAFF) to produce high quality peanut butter enabled a woman’s cooperative to increase the value of their peanut crop 2.7 times. In Cameroon, Service d’Appui aux Initiatives Locales de Développement (SAILD), completed a market analysis that demonstrated the viability of replacing imported wheat flour with local tuber flours grown agroecologically. Indigenous local foods are the present and the future but require financing to play their critical role in food systems.

Local markets are diverse and flourishing. Farmers’ organizations are working alongside cooperatives, associations, entrepreneurs and local governments to develop multiple markets and channels for smallholders’ produce. This includes providing food to territorial markets as well as developing specialized markets, creating on-line digital markets through websites and apps, creating opportunities for bulk purchases and exploring regional markets. Innovative initiatives that connect communities in direct purchasing agreements between producers and purchasers that began during COVID are continuing with great success.

The Kenyan Peasants League worked to pair peri-urban communities of 100 families with direct purchases from smallholder farmers in villages to make regular purchases of food, small livestock and farm inputs directly. Cost savings from shared transportation and the absence of regional market costs enabled many groups to participate. Government procurement programs and interregional trade among African countries remain relatively under-developed strategies with great promise.

Farmers’ organizations are essential. Incubator programs reach small cohorts of farmer entrepreneurs, but community-rooted farmers’ organizations can build trust among a network of small enterprises by building associations and cooperatives to strengthen their voice and action. These cooperatives and associations, supported by representative farmer organizations and networks, have traditions and practices of rotating credit funds that are equitable and provide access to appropriate finance. By working with existing women-led farmer cooperatives, Concertation Nationale des Organisations Paysannes au Cameroun (CNOP CAM) has introduced and funded new agroecological businesses. Ongoing relationships and savings and credit programs, often managed by farmers’ organizations, enable women and smallholders to benefit from loans and technical assistance where others would overlook their potential and undervalue their existing assets, an all-too-common experience.

As policymakers and donors consider opportunities to create climate resilience through agroecology and regenerative agriculture, it is important to remember that territorial markets lie at the center of resilient food systems. We overlook investment in the public agencies that manage them, the businesses behind them, and the farmer organizations that advocate for them at our peril.

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Source: foodtank.com

Continue Reading

NGO WORK

Bone dry: Agribusiness’ African water grab

Published

on

Since the early 2010s corporations have acquired over 7 million hectares of land for large-scale, industrial farms in sub-Saharan Africa, with most of these projects focused on producing water-intensive crops in already water-stressed regions. While the media spotlight is often on climate change-induced droughts, little is being said about the corporate-driven water scarcity these projects are inflicting upon people across Africa. Driven by the goal of expanding export production of water-intensive crops, governments are auctioning Africa’s water resources to the highest bidder. The new rush for land on the continent to grow trees for carbon credits is making this worse.

Water plundering

Only in the last 8 years, companies have signed land deals for over 5 million hectares for water-hungry plants in Africa. Take, for example, the New York-based company African Agriculture Holdings. It planned to use massive amounts of water from the Senegal River– the main water source for Dakar and several other major cities in Senegal, to produce alfalfa for export to South Korea and the Gulf states on 25,000 ha of land within a protected wetland. The company also planned to grow alfalfa on up to 500,000 hectares in neighbouring Mauritania, one of the most water stressed countries on the planet, and to plant a million water-hungry acacia trees in Niger to generate carbon credits. While it now appears that the company is heading for financial ruin, its CEO has already announced a new venture to grow maize on over 600,000 hectares in central Africa.

Development banks, like the African Development Bank (AfDB) and the World Bank, are working with African governments to bankroll a massive rollout of new irrigation projects across the continent to facilitate more of these agribusiness investments. In Tanzania, for instance, the government and the AfDB have budgeted hundreds of millions of dollars of public funds for large-scale irrigation projects with the private sector, with a stated goal of irrigating 8.5 million hectares by 2030– which is more than today’s total irrigated land area in all of sub-Saharan Africa.

 

In Kenya, President Ruto has pledged nearly US$500 million for irrigation projects nationwide, including the Rwabura irrigation project in Kiambu county, the Iriari project in Embu as well as the Kanyuambora irrigation project. The Kanyuambora, like the others, will draw water from the Thuci river and irrigate 400 hectares, which will be used to farm crops such as horticultural produce.

One company that intends to profit big from this expansion of irrigation in Tanzania, Kenya and other countries in eastern and southern Africa is South Africa-based Westfalia. The company, which is particularly active in avocado production, controls 1,200 hectares in South Africa and 1,400 in Mozambique. With support from South Africa’s government-owned Industrial Development Corporation and the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation, Westfalia is promoting the expansion of the avocado industry in countries such as Mexico, Peru, Chile and Colombia, where avocados have already fuelled a severe water crisis. Replicating this model in other African countries promises to create a similar situation.

Africa’s experience to date with large-scale irrigation projects is dismal. Most of the projects implemented over the past decades failed or are in poor condition. And many of the so-called success cases have caused more harm than good. Consider the irrigation project in Lake Naivasha, Kenya, which triggered a boom in foreign investment in flower farms in the 1980s and 1990s that serve the European and Chinese markets. Only six farms now consume over half of the water volume used for irrigation in the lake’s basin. The impact of the flower farms range from pesticide pollution, to biodiversity loss, and hampering access to safe and clean water for local people. In return there have been few benefits, with workers toiling in gruelling and hazardous conditions for meagre wages and the companies avoiding taxes.

In Morocco fruit exports-primarily destined for European and UK markets-are driven by water hungry crops such as berries, watermelon, citrus and avocados. Between 2016 and 2021 these exports more than doubled. The biggest beneficiaries of this boom are corporations as Les Domaines Export, belonging to the country’s elite, alongside foreign companies like Surexport and Hortifrut, all backed by financial players, including pension funds and development banks. Today, Morocco has more irrigated land area than any other country in Africa, aside from Egypt.

A pastoralist from Moroto one of the most dry areas in Uganda looking after his herd. Pastoralists in this region move long distances to look for pasture and water for their herds.By Nobert Petro Kalule.

Export oriented industrial agriculture consumes 85% of the country’s water resources, intensifying the severe water stress gripping the kingdom, even as the country endures six consecutive years of drought. To cope with the crisis, the government announced the end of fruit subsidies. Yet, the measure will have little impact on large farms, since they have the financial capacity to continue with their operations, whereas small farmers will be the most affected. Other plans include investing in desalination plants. But the high energy and environmental costs make it far from a sustainable long-term solution.

On the opposite end of the continent, South Africa – one of Africa’s richest economy – has long struggled with a persistent water crisis. This is largely due to the fact that 65 percent of the country’s water resources are allocated to industrial agriculture.

Africa’s water custodians

The impact of industrial agriculture’s thirst for water is felt most acutely by African women. Already tasked with managing households, caring for families and farming for food, women and young girls are also responsible for collecting all the water needed for both their homes and farms.

As such, they bear the heavy burden of trekking long distances – sometimes multiple times a day – to collect water. It is estimated that African women collectively spend about 40 billion hours annually fetching water. As more of their water sources are diverted for use on export-oriented industrial farms, it will make it even harder for them to access the water they need for their households.

Paradoxically, those most affected by the water issues affecting the continent may also be the ones with the solutions. Rural women possess invaluable knowledge about local water sources, their usage, storage and conservation. They know, for example, ways of recycling water for washing, irrigation and livestock, like the women pastoralists of the Anuak people in Ethiopia’s Gambela region, know how and when to move their animals from wetter areas to drier ones in the rainy season, allowing local rivers to replenish and maintain its fertility.

In Kenya, Martha Waiganjo, a farmer from the dry lands of Gilgil, is one of many smallholder farmers working with the Seed Saver’s Network (SSN) to take advantage of rain water harvesting and conservation techniques as part of their agroecological practices. Through rain water harvesting, farmers like her are able to collect, store and conserve run off rain water for later use.

The run off water is stored in manually dug up dams that are lined with an anti-seepage layer of plastic commonly known as a dam liner. For Martha, her dam allows her to store close to 40,000 litres of water for her sustenance throughout the year. “[…] Water harvesting has been of great improvement on our farms, we don’t need the rain to plant. We use the water for irrigation and domestic use. The most important thing in water harvesting is that when the area is dry we use the water not only for farming but for the needs of the whole community. It is also of great importance to livestock farming.”[1]

In 2021, the UN estimated that nearly 160 million people in Sub-Saharan Africa (14% of the population) were affected by water scarcity and stress, and, with the effects of climate change now kicking in, the numbers are expected to be even higher in 2025 and beyond.

The fixation of governments, development banks and corporations on large-scale irrigation projects for industrial agriculture in Africa has to end. Water needs to instead be in the hands of the small-scale food producers who feed the continent and who are best able to develop solutions to the challenges posed by climate change.

Cover photo: Kenya 2011. Colin Crowley/Save the Children/ Creative Commons/Flickr

Original Source: Grain

Continue Reading

Resource Center

Legal Framework

READ BY CATEGORY

Facebook

Newsletter

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter



Trending

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter