Africa must not suffer for actions of others

24 July 2007, Kenya Times
URL: http://www.timesnews.co.ke/20jul07/nwsstory/opinion.html

Nairobi:  Even before the dust settles over the controversial "food miles" debate sparked by British supermarkets a few months ago, Kenya's booming horticultural industry faces yet another huddle from one of the most powerful lobby groups in the U.K.'s food industry, the Soil Association.

In what is to be a defining moment for the horticultural industry in Kenya and other African countries that rely heavily on foreign currency generated from flower, vegetable, and other agricultural exports to sustain their development goals, the Soil Association, late last month launched what it referred to as "airfreight consultation" that is aimed at looking into ways of reducing or eliminating environmental impacts of organic air freight.

The influential lobby group, which certifies three-quarters of organic foods in the UK, is saying, it is concerned about climate change.

In the next three or so months, until September 28, 2007, the Soil Association will be consulting development charities, environmentalists, organic consumers, organic businesses in the UK and abroad, and a wide range of other interested parties about this emotive issue.

All stakeholders in this immensely important industry, thus, have a chance to convince the British NGO--the Soil Association--that unilateral action against air freighted produce from Africa and other developing countries is ill-advised, will undermine the UN Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol, that exempts Africa and other developing countries from historical and current responsibility of greenhouse gas emissions reductions.

The fact is that the United Kingdom and other developed countries are historically and presently responsible for the excess greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere causing intolerable impacts of climate change in Africa and beyond.

The frequent and intense droughts and floods we are suffering in Africa are attributed to global warming with their attendance consequences, such as: food insecurity, famines and malnutrition, highland malaria, typhoid, cholera, Rift Valley Fever, community conflicts over scarce natural resources e.g. water and rangelands for pasture, increased threats to the livelihoods of marginalised communities, in particular, the pastoralists and indigenous peoples, infrastructure damages, threats to hydropower generation, additional strain on national budgets, undermining of efforts to attain Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), etc.

But instead of the British Soil Association aiming to cut greenhouse gas emissions at home, it is coming to Africa to further hurt the victims of their profligate and energy intensive lifestyles. How long will Africa suffer because of actions of others? Africa presently has no greenhouse gas emissions worth talking about. Africa is responsible for only 3-4% of the global total emissions, which is symptomatic of our underdevelopment and for this reason we were exempted by the Climate Change Convention from cutting down emissions until in future when we develop.

If the British Soil Association and the likes, do not target emissions reductions in their countries but instead export their reduction responsibility to poor countries, starting with the agricultural sector which employs 80% of our population, then it means their objective is to protect their intensive energy development at the expense of Africa's survival.

The agricultural sector in Kenya and Africa, employs poor farm workers who toil with their bare hands under the sun to eke out a living. If their produce will be subjected by the British Soil Association to greenhouse gas emission reductions, for which they are not responsible, then this will be purely an affront to their fundamental human rights to economic survival.

Alarmingly, the Soil Association, after their so-called consultations which will end by December 2007, has promised to introduce whatever measures are deemed appropriate--regardless of any parallel actions taken by the British Government or the European Union. But as Africans and victims of climate change impacts caused by industrialised countries including Britain, we want to state categorically that this "feel-good-do-nothing-at-home" by the British Soil Association is unacceptable.

Why can't the association, for example, target the British Airports Authority for always expanding Heathrow Airport? Heathrow Airport is one of the largest greenhouse gas emission industries in the U.K. Since September 2005, British Airways alone has fired into the air 27 million tones of C02 and they are not about to reduce this anytime soon. Why target a poor African farmer?

It is the British government and its citizens who have obligations to reduce greenhouse gases not poor Africans!The aim of the British Soil Association and the likes, is to try and psychologically box Africa into a corner and make Africa feel guilty about greenhouse gas emissions reductions instead of the British and other developed country citizens.

* Commentary by Grace Okumu