Water and Development in Sub-saharan Africa: a few more notes

Drought in Central Africa 2002-2009

Source: NASA Earth Observatory

A posting or two back I made some comments about a fantasy of economic development in Sub-Saharan Africa delivered by a speaker from the Mercatus Centre at George Mason University. In her presentation she utterly ignored the immense environmental issues which must be faced if the region is to enjoy even modest rates of economic growth over more than a year or two. Those environmental challenges combine with demographic problems and political instability to make extremely modest projections of future economic expansion for many of the countries in the region little more than wishful thinking. While there are several environmental issues of concern, and all of them are immense impediments to economic growth, at the moment, and likely for the foreseeable future, drought, the absence of adequate water to support rain fed agriculture, is the most significant one.

Drought in central Africa, during the period shown on the map above extending even into normally very humid areas, is the key problem for agriculture on the continent. Raising the currently abysmally low levels of food and fiber output per unit of land (or of labor) requires reliable water sources. In most areas that means adequate rainfall  given the absence of irrigation infrastructure. Recent climatic data, reflecting ongoing climate change, raise substantial doubt that adequate water will be reliably available even in some areas where adequate precipitation was once taken for granted. Shy of huge investments in irrigation facilities farmers will either have to shift to drought resistant crops and new cultivation techniques, usually lowering output per hectare, or face catastrophic decline in output using current crops and techniques.

Drought is also important for burgeoning urban populations. Not a few of those people driven into cities, thereby generating breathtaking rates of urban population growth in some Sub-Saharan countries, have left impoverished agricultural zones where drought has made crop and animal production and therefore subsistence rural living impossible. A number of African cities do not have reliable water supplies adequate even for their present populations, and any population growth means even less water available per capita without large investments to increase urban water supplies. If there is no reliable source of water near a city, then it is nearly impossible to bring adequate quantities of water into it at a feasible investment of resources.

I do not have the time between now and the end of the term further to investigate the dimensions of the problems of drought in Africa, so the topic will be mentioned but not discussed in detail in our course. Anyone who has a serious interest in the continent and its prospects for the future must invest time assessing the impact of drought. That assessment needs to include the immediate term future, for drought in Kenya and adjacent areas has been linked by some observers to the political problems currently brewing there and may also have links to political unrest elsewhere. Anyone who fails to make such an assessment is thoroughly unqualified to consider him or herself an "expert" on Sub-Saharan Africa or its prospects for the future. Hungry people are not easy to govern, and the food scarcity implicit in droughts is hardly conducive to economic growth! 

Mercatus and African Development

Source: http://printable-maps.blogspot.com/2008/09/map-of-climate-of-africa.html

This morning I had the unsettling experience of listening to a lecturer from the Mercatus Center of George Mason University (of which more below) preach to an OLLI audience why she thinks Africa has a bright future. The underlying gospel message was "if only unfettered 'free market capitalism' is allowed, all will be well." For the sake of the people of Sub-Saharan Africa, one must hope that the conclusions drawn from the shockingly incomplete and biased sermon are correct, but Ms Boudreaux's explanation of why the situation is improving is so far removed from any reasonable enumeration and analysis of facts on the ground as to beggar a point by point refutation. Indeed, one wonders what sources she may have used to reach her fanciful conclusions - the only sources she cited were a few commercial web sites, including one about public toilets in Kenya, and her personal experiences. Those of us who are concerned outside observers making a serious effort to keep ideology and personal bias out of our conclusions find it very hard to share even a smidgen of her optimism, for most of the published evidence suggests that in the most optimistic overview conditions are not getting any worse. Of course Sub-Saharan Africa is a very large area with many countries, and not all of them face an equally grim future, especially if Chinese mining companies expand at the rate currently projected.

It is worth briefly noting several statements and omissions in Ms. Boudreaux's sermon. A statement that Africa is somehow less prone to conflict than in the past can only come from a Panglossian ignorance of the contents of serious news sources which suggest that nasty conflict has died down only slightly and  for the moment, probably due in some measure to sheer exhaustion of the combatants in several countries. Some of the largest, and until recently more pacific and successful, states, notably Kenya and Nigeria, are threatened by the kind of conflicts which in the recent past resulted in perhaps as many as 5 million deaths in Congo, hideous civil warfare in various West African countries, the deadly chaos in parts of Sudan and Somalia, and the genocide in Rwanda. The statistics of a year or two simply do not trump trends shown by the events of decades. Economic growth rates of 5 per cent were claimed, perhaps correctly though the source of the information was not stated, but when the labor force is growing at that rate or more, it merely means running fast to stay in place. Trying to make the sermon gender friendly, Ms. Boudreaux talked about female empowerment. Never mind that some parts of Africa have a longer tradition of active female participation in the economy, as entrepreneurs and decision makers and not just as labor, than many northern countries including the US.  

Meanwhile the sermon completely omitted mention of  most aspects of the severe environmental problems blighting Africa's future, not least those arising from climate change. Water is now a critically scarce resource in some areas and will become scarce in more regions should climate change be at levels currently projected. Africa may have a great deal of unused farm land, but that is a debatable point if one values wildlife, ecological balance, and the rights of indigenous people (to her credit Ms Boudreaux did mention that last concern). Sub-Saharan Africa suffers from rates of debilitating and fatal diseases, especially AIDS, far in excess of those recorded elsewhere, those diseases ravaging a population with some of the highest birth and death rates presently being recorded. Data on population size and growth, life expectancy, the sex-ratio and the dependency ratio  should be startling to anyone with the background of even a single undergraduate demography course. No valid evaluation of Africa's future prospects can fail to include environmental and demographic variables.

I am not an African specialist and would not presume to offer a lecture on the subject without heavy dependence on and citation of sources. That said, I could with little additional research give a better balanced and more insightful lecture on the topic than the one I heard this morning! That is not a claim of virtue on my part but rather a severe indictment of the quality of the sermon I heard.

The message that human progress requires unfettered "free market capitalism" (some leftist critics call that same phenomenon "late-stage monopoly-capitalism") is the basis of the economic theology promoted by Mercatus affiliated "scholars." In fact, Mercatus is a propaganda mill (aka "think tank") serving some immensely wealthy capitalists who wish to negate all taxation and economic regulation and the radical right-wing in American politics who represent those interests in Congress and other legislative bodies. It provides messages of comfort to the comfortable while enjoying the status of a research center at a state-funded  (second-tier) university, one with a fortunate location in the richest county of the United States. Of course, Fairfax is rich because it is home of thousands of highly paid government employees and various "beltway bandits," companies extracting rents from the federal government. While richer and more sophisticated than most of the state, Fairfax is a part of Virginia, itself a welfare state with an economy outside the Washington area heavily dependent on federal spending for the military and crop supports in agriculture, especially tobacco . The dependence on government expenditures for economic success makes  the presence of Mercatus with its central creed of  free market fundamentalism truly ironic! 

In an article in the 30 August 2010 issue of the New Yorker, Jane Mayer "Covert Operations: The billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama" discusses the Koch brothers of Kansas, part of the big money interests behind the supposedly grass-roots "tea party movement." Wishing to halt taxation of their immense wealth and government regulation of various mining and industrial activities they control, the brothers have been active in funding right-wing politicians and causes. The Mercatus Center is important among recipients of Koch brothers funds. Mayer's article raises important questions about the propriety of a state university housing a partisan propaganda mill, especially one funded by private interests with a very specific agenda.

Trees, Dirt and Streams

Raw Dirt, Construction Site, George Mason University

Fairfax, VA, August 2010

©EOP

Yesterday afternoon, with the car thermometer registering 101 degrees F, I drove to the Vienna-Fairfax Metro station to pick up my wife. The area just south of the station looked radically different from its visage on my last trip to that station a few weeks earlier. A wooded area of several hectares had been stripped of all vegetation and was bare dirt being worked over by large construction machinery. It is the second property near the intersection of Route 29 and Nutley Street recently stripped of vegetation for new construction. In close proximity to the Metro Station, high density land uses are certainly justified, but was it necessary to clear away every last tree?

Fairfax County claims to be concerned about its tree cover, and has an ordinance to that end which, according to a news release from the County:

The Fairfax County Board of Supervisors adopted a tree preservation ordinance at its Oct. 15 (2007) meeting, protecting four types of trees. Under the new law, individual specimen, heritage, memorial or street trees can be protected from being cut down.

The new measure is not intended to protect large wooded tracts. Instead, the law only affects individual trees that property owners voluntarily agree to safeguard.

The board approved the law because even a single tree can benefit the environment. One mature tree with a 26-foot canopy can absorb the emissions of a vehicle driven 11,500 miles every year.

Homeowners, residents or groups can recommend individual trees for protection. After a public hearing, the board will approve the preservation of specific trees. Easements also may be required to protect a tree’s roots. If needed, property owners will donate the easements to the county.

As defined by the law, specimen trees are those that are notable in their size and quality for their species. Heritage trees have a historical or cultural interest. Memorial trees, as the name suggests, commemorate a memorial. Street trees are those that have been planted by the county on public rights of way.

There is a $2,500 fine for removing a protected tree without permission from the county. The ordinance takes effect immediately, and it has been added to the county code as chapter 120.

The preservation ordinance supports the county’s 30-Year Tree Canopy Goal adopted by the board in July. The county aims to blanket 45 percent of the county with tree cover by 2037. It is important to preserve existing trees because the county expects to lose 4 percent of its canopy during the next 30 years. To reach the goal, the county and the public also will have to plant an additional 2.6 million new trees.

Once achieved, the canopy goal is expected to save taxpayers money. The trees when matured should produce savings equivalent to $5.3 million for air pollution removal and $4.7 million in energy conservation every year. The additional canopy also will have the capacity to absorb more than 10 million pounds of carbon dioxide annually, which could eliminate the need for $1 million in greenhouse gas reduction services each year.

For more information about the new ordinance or 30-Year Tree Canopy Goal, call 703-324-1770, TTY 711, or visit www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dpwes/environmental/trees.htm.

It is interesting to note that the ordinance applies only to specific trees, not to forested areas. Since much of the woodland in the county is second growth, frequently a product of the reforestation of exhausted tobacco and other farm lands since the early and middle parts of the 20th century, that forest growing on nutrient poor land contains very few "specimen" trees notable for their age, girth, historical importance or beauty. Moreover, the ordinance only applies if land owners agree.

Fairfax City (under Virginia's peculiar local government system not a part of Fairfax County even though it is completely surrounded by it) calls itself a "Tree City USA." The City does indeed have many grand old trees and small woodlands, one of the strongest reasons attracting us to live here. Fairfax City has a stringent ordinance requiring City permission for tree removal. Despite that ordinance, a large parcel on the eastern edge of the City adjacent to Main Street (Route 236) was stripped of all vegetation for construction of residences just as the Cheney-Bush recession began in 2008, and the land has remained bare dirt since. As of a few weeks ago activity at the site has suggested that building will commence soon, but for about two years, through the melting snow of intense winter blizzards and torrential summer rainfall, dirt has eroded from that parcel into storm sewers flowing into nearby streams.

There has been a construction boom on the Fairfax campus of George Mason University over the past several years, and while some of that building used sites that previously had been parking lots, a major project at the north west corner of the campus, adjacent to Fairfax City, has also stripped several hectares of all vegetation. At the height of land, the site is the headwaters for a small stream which flows across the campus into a  holding pond. Despite some serious efforts to minimize erosion during construction, recent heavy rain has turned that pond a muddy brown, filling it with silt from the construction site a few hundred meters to its north. Eventually some of that silt will wash into the Occoquan, a primary source of water for the Virginia slurbs of Washington, DC.

Mason Pond, muddy after summer thunderstorms

George Mason University Campus, Fairfax

©EOP

Discussion of deforestation frequently focuses on the widespread cutting of trees in the Amazon Basin, in Brasil's Atlantic rain-forest, in Borneo or elsewhere in the tropics. In fact deforestation is a matter of consequence in many other areas. A recent Scientific American posting suggested that urban dwellers are driving deforestation. It was focusing on conditions in poorer countries where urban demand for food and fuel is leading to forest clearance, but the argument could well be extended to the United States where the demand for new slurban construction sites is causing large areas to be stripped of trees and other vegetation.

Fairfax City and County together have a large set of small-scale clearances which, in total, have a substantial impact on climate and water flow.The cooling effect of wooded land on nearby areas is well-known and easily demonstrated. On a hot and sunny summer day, walk from a copse of trees, even a small one, onto a patch of bare ground and the difference is instantly apparent. In a heat wave like the ones that have blighted the summer of 2010, a wooded area can be as much as 5 degrees C cooler than nearby open areas.

The effects of wooded land on water flow are a little more complicated. Forests even out the flow of streams, holding back some of it during and just after heavy rain and then releasing water in drier periods. The geology and soil of the Fairfax area and the torrential rains common with summer thunderstorms provide perfect conditions for filling streams with silt when the soil is bare.Wooded areas slow and filter the rapidly flowing rainwater draining after a storm, and they retain much of the material that could become silt. Water authorities in the county and nearby are well aware of the problems deforestation, and impermeable surfaces like paving  (a subject for another posting), create. Heavy rains in deforested areas lead to rapid runoff of silt loaded water into streams and reservoirs, while in a longish drought like the one in the first part of summer 2010, those streams and impoundments diminish or even dry up (their storage capacity getting smaller each storm as silt accumulates). When needed for water supply, that shrinkage can lead to sleepless nights for water managers after a long dry spell!