by Chido Makunike
The debate in the UK UK
The debate, brokered by the Soil Association, is a response to concerns about how polluting airfreight contributes to carbon emissions and global warming. Proponents of limiting or banning the sale of produce air freighted from, say Africa , argue that it is a contradiction to purchase food grown organically far away because of the environmental cost of flying it to the UK UK
The counter arguments have included the higher carbon cost of intensive European (particularly greenhouse) production, the higher general “carbon footprint” of the European lifestyle compared to that in Africa and the benefits of export horticulture to thousands of poor farmers. Kenya, heavily economically reliant on a booming export horticulture sector involving vegetables, fruit and flowers, has among other measures launched a campaign to explain the relative environmental friendliness of its production systems. Other arguments have been that the scientific basis of the concerns are shaky and unproven, and that any restrictions constitute an unfair barrier to trade at a time African countries are being asked to fully open their markets to European goods.
The threat to African horticulture goes far beyond whether the Soil Association recommends business-as-before, a total ban on air freighting produce, or one of several measures in between those two extremes. The eco-labelling of imported products is an indication that there has been a fundamental perception change in the market over climate change concerns. Those changed perceptions are unlikely to go away whichever way the SA’s debate ends.
Nor are arguments against a ban or restrictions based on purely scientific criteria likely to have much impact on the UK
“Doing something” by putting the real cost of the “action” on somebody far away in Ghana, Kenya or Zambia is also far easier than examining and making changes to the carbon cost of one’s own lifestyle in London. This is simply human nature : slap a ban on produce flown from Africa and feel satisfied you have done something meaningful and radical “against” climate change while flying, driving and living as before. Against such typically human motivations, arguing about how much more polluting European production systems are compared to those in Africa is largely wasting time. This is not really about the science of production systems.
Similarly, appealing against a ban or restrictions on the basis of how they would imperil the lives of thousands of small scale producers working hard to meet the increasingly stringent
standards of the European market can only go so far. As true as this argument may be, I believe it is unrealistic to hope to sway a significant number of consumers with it. The imperatives swaying European consumers the other way, such as an accessible, personally painless way of being seen to be addressing the problem in question, are simply stronger at influencing purchasing decisions than the sympathy argument.
The sympathy-for-the-poor-African angle may work very well when some celebrity decides to keep his or her career alive by organising a concert, but I doubt that on a personal, every day sort of consumer level it can work. Besides, Africans themselves should be wary about invoking this argument because it perpetuates the sort of patronising relationship between the West and Africa that a growing number of people on both sides are uncomfortable with. There is already great discomfort and fierce debate in many African circles about whether Western celebrity do-gooders like Bono, Madonna and others are not doing more harm than good to the African cause and the already horribly distorted image in the West by their seemingly pandering to the stereotype of an African helplessness that can only be relieved by well-meaning Westerners.
While organic agriculture is touted for many reasons, including its suitability where high-input intensive techniques are simply not within reach, the ethical and environmental aspects have been stressed by its promoters. It has been promoted as one big, happy international family working in solidarity to eat more and better while farming in a way that saves the earth. But for many in Africa , its promotion as a burgeoning export niche in which even small farmers who can meet the demanding standards can improve their livelihoods by earning hard currency is its main immediate draw.
For the many who have entered this demanding market for these practical rather than sentimental or ideological reasons, it should not be hard to understand why the recommendation of a ban or restrictions by the UK’s SA would be considered a cruel, cynical stab in the back. The SA is not simply one of the more prestigious organic certifiers to whose standards African producers struggle to meet, it has also been in the forefront of “the one big happy international organic family” angle. It is doubtful that any arguments would assuage the sense of betrayal of the African organic farmers should the SA recommend a ban.
This would further compromise a sector that was just beginning to be taken seriously by sceptical policy makers and others concerned about serious approaches to Africa ’s agricultural productivity issues. Make no mistake about it, whatever ethical or environmental issues are invoked in favour of organic agriculture, in those few African countries where it has begun to show measurable economic potential, it is purely because of the existence of an accessible export market. Take that away, and there goes an important argument policy makers and sceptical proponents of “serious agriculture” have had to pay much attention to organic agriculture. Coming at a time of renewed, impassioned debate about which is the best and most realistic way for Africa to improve its agricultural productivity, one side of the debate would have suffered a mortal wound by having a strong economic argument in its favour suddenly pulled out from under it.
This threat to the African horticultural sector has also exposed its weaknesses in ways it should quickly address. It is clear that whichever way the SA debate goes, the airfreight-food mile-carbon footprint-buy local concerns are not going away. African export horticulturalists would be well-advised to come up with long-term coping strategies to avoid sudden, nasty surprises in the future, including the developments of local and regional markets, as well as alternative distant markets. More consistent lobbying and “eco-marketing” should also replace the current fire-fighting approach.
Countries with measurable export horticulture sectors like Kenya, Uganda, Ethiopia, Ghana, Senegal, South Africa and others may see themselves as competitors for the same markets, but it should be clear from the SA debate that there are also issues of grave importance on which they need to cooperate. They are simply too weak in their individual capacities to counter threats to their very existence as a sector, such as that posed by the possibility of a recommended ban on air freighting produce. Even as they compete, they need to come together to network and get to know each other, share information and to lobby for their interests at home and internationally.
Related to this, the ideological differences that have largely kept the organic and “conventional” export horticultural sectors seeing themselves as in two fundamentally separate camps need to be put aside. As bitterly as they may oppose each other on many issues, their respective insignificant market power internationally mean they need to find enough common ground on which to lobby for their many common interests, even as they respect each others' differences.
The outcome of the SA debate may be beyond the power of African export horticulturalists to influence, but what the future holds for them depends to a great extent on their actions, or lack thereof, from here on. This could be a watershed that relegates the sector to irrelevance, or a difficult period whose challenges teach the sector valuable lessons and forces it to grow stronger and in new directions.
