There are too many people?
Here in Rwanda roughly 900 people inhabit each square kilometre of arable land. The population is also expanding rapidly. According to several government estimates, if growth trends continue, the current number of Rwandans – 8.6 million – will double by the year 2020. Alarmingly, Rwanda’s population is growing at a much faster rate than the anemic rate at which it is expanding food production for the domestic market. As food imports continue to rise to meet mounting demand, the outlook for Rwanda’s impoverished rural majority is bleak. Heightened import dependence could mean greater risks for those that are not engaged in subsistence agriculture, such as non-diversified cash crop farmers and agricultural labourers. For example, rural people that depend increasingly upon imports might not have the means necessary to purchase their own basic food needs if the value of the Rwandan franc were to tank. Similarly, if climate events like the devastating 2006 East African drought occur more frequently, greater reliance on imports from that region could be associated with decreased food security.
Alternatively, a future free from import dependence could be equally grim for the poor. Two standard policy options for pre-empting imports and expanding domestic food production also have the potential to impoverish people: a vast scaling-up of the amount of land under cultivation, and diversification away from export-oriented agriculture. Regarding the former, the ad hoc growth in Rwanda’s arable land to date has denuded its spectacularly rolling landscape. Farmers that cultivate the famous hillsides where forests once stood tall are now often faced with the reality that their soil is eroding and easily exhausted. Consequently, boosting the output of food through extensive growth does not seem sustainable. The alternative to expanding production extensively – the increased use of inputs such as pesticides – would not actually reduce import reliance. It would simply switch imports of food for imports of costly inputs that, in the case of some pesticides, have the potential to undermine the long-term health of direct producers. Diversifying away from Rwanda’s greatest sources of foreign exchange earnings – its tea and coffee exports – also appears to be an unpalatable policy option. While both of these products are nonessential and subject to wild price swings on world markets, it would be extremely difficult for the government to find substitute sources of hard currency inflows. The proposition that Rwanda’s tea and coffee farmers would be better off growing food for domestic consumers is also highly questionable. Absent government coordination and the creation of effective safety nets, adjustment costs could easily throw many of these rural dwellers into the ranks of the extreme poor.
Over two centuries ago Thomas Malthus, the classical political economist, hypothesized that population growth had a tendency to outpace increases in the food supply. While countless reports issued by the Food and Agriculture Organization over the past decades have discredited his theory and drawn attention to problems associated with the global distribution of food, some might still be tempted to view Rwanda’s crisis through a Malthusian lens. Those so influenced could foreseeably make the perverse argument that there are actually too many people in Rwanda. Only 13 short years ago, according to credible and critical accounts, the ‘international community’ was complicit in the deaths of nearly one million Rwandans. Can anyone from this ‘community’ honestly tell Rwanda’s poorest – over 60 per cent of the population – that there are simply too many of them?
As I traveled west from Kigali to Kibuye on the shores of Lake Kivu last Saturday, I started to think that Rwanda’s population ‘problem’ was not just about the inability of its people or government to reduce fertility. It seemed to me that other factors were at play as well, principal among them, the colonial demarcation of Africa that took place in 1885 at the Berlin Conference. Witnessing thousands of people making the hike along crowded roads towards bustling markets I thought for a moment that rural Rwandans could really benefit from an effort to redraw the old territorial lines. I remembered that Rwanda’s giant neighbour, the Democratic Republic of Congo, enjoys a much lower population density. I briefly found myself believing that some sort of resettlement scheme would be an ideal (if somewhat unworkable) ‘solution’ to Rwanda’s looming land crisis. Then I came back to earth. Literally. I imagined the fit that Gordon King, my radical ecologist grandfather, would pull if I told him that the optimal ‘solution’ was to resettle Rwandans in one of the most biologically diverse and fragile ecosystems on the planet. The importance of reconciling pro-poor outcomes with the maintenance of the biosphere came into sharp focus in my mind, but my thinking on the topic remained wooly. I found myself recalling a little piece of advice Neil Gislason gave me before my travels: “use condoms." Neil's counsel, while dissonant with my own thinking that day, seemed a relevant and realistic prescription for Rwanda.
---
So, what was I doing in Rwanda? I went to Rwanda to see as much of the country as I could on an extended long weekend. I saw the haunting memorial sites at Kibuye, Nyamata and Ntarama. I had a great tour guide in Mireille Saurette, and enjoyed the company of great hosts at the ‘Never Again International’ country office. Was my trip worth the carbon emissions? Let me know.
Alternatively, a future free from import dependence could be equally grim for the poor. Two standard policy options for pre-empting imports and expanding domestic food production also have the potential to impoverish people: a vast scaling-up of the amount of land under cultivation, and diversification away from export-oriented agriculture. Regarding the former, the ad hoc growth in Rwanda’s arable land to date has denuded its spectacularly rolling landscape. Farmers that cultivate the famous hillsides where forests once stood tall are now often faced with the reality that their soil is eroding and easily exhausted. Consequently, boosting the output of food through extensive growth does not seem sustainable. The alternative to expanding production extensively – the increased use of inputs such as pesticides – would not actually reduce import reliance. It would simply switch imports of food for imports of costly inputs that, in the case of some pesticides, have the potential to undermine the long-term health of direct producers. Diversifying away from Rwanda’s greatest sources of foreign exchange earnings – its tea and coffee exports – also appears to be an unpalatable policy option. While both of these products are nonessential and subject to wild price swings on world markets, it would be extremely difficult for the government to find substitute sources of hard currency inflows. The proposition that Rwanda’s tea and coffee farmers would be better off growing food for domestic consumers is also highly questionable. Absent government coordination and the creation of effective safety nets, adjustment costs could easily throw many of these rural dwellers into the ranks of the extreme poor.
Over two centuries ago Thomas Malthus, the classical political economist, hypothesized that population growth had a tendency to outpace increases in the food supply. While countless reports issued by the Food and Agriculture Organization over the past decades have discredited his theory and drawn attention to problems associated with the global distribution of food, some might still be tempted to view Rwanda’s crisis through a Malthusian lens. Those so influenced could foreseeably make the perverse argument that there are actually too many people in Rwanda. Only 13 short years ago, according to credible and critical accounts, the ‘international community’ was complicit in the deaths of nearly one million Rwandans. Can anyone from this ‘community’ honestly tell Rwanda’s poorest – over 60 per cent of the population – that there are simply too many of them?
As I traveled west from Kigali to Kibuye on the shores of Lake Kivu last Saturday, I started to think that Rwanda’s population ‘problem’ was not just about the inability of its people or government to reduce fertility. It seemed to me that other factors were at play as well, principal among them, the colonial demarcation of Africa that took place in 1885 at the Berlin Conference. Witnessing thousands of people making the hike along crowded roads towards bustling markets I thought for a moment that rural Rwandans could really benefit from an effort to redraw the old territorial lines. I remembered that Rwanda’s giant neighbour, the Democratic Republic of Congo, enjoys a much lower population density. I briefly found myself believing that some sort of resettlement scheme would be an ideal (if somewhat unworkable) ‘solution’ to Rwanda’s looming land crisis. Then I came back to earth. Literally. I imagined the fit that Gordon King, my radical ecologist grandfather, would pull if I told him that the optimal ‘solution’ was to resettle Rwandans in one of the most biologically diverse and fragile ecosystems on the planet. The importance of reconciling pro-poor outcomes with the maintenance of the biosphere came into sharp focus in my mind, but my thinking on the topic remained wooly. I found myself recalling a little piece of advice Neil Gislason gave me before my travels: “use condoms." Neil's counsel, while dissonant with my own thinking that day, seemed a relevant and realistic prescription for Rwanda.
---
So, what was I doing in Rwanda? I went to Rwanda to see as much of the country as I could on an extended long weekend. I saw the haunting memorial sites at Kibuye, Nyamata and Ntarama. I had a great tour guide in Mireille Saurette, and enjoyed the company of great hosts at the ‘Never Again International’ country office. Was my trip worth the carbon emissions? Let me know.
posted by adam at 10:40 AM
2 Comments:
Why are you so slow to update the blog?
Just kidding.
You know? Africa, Latin America and Asia quite often get labelled as being well over their carrying-capacity in terms of people per square killometer.
Not enough food, clean water, etc. etc.
900 per km in Kenya, 500 in Brazil, but what always throws me is that The Netherlands is somewhere between 1200 - 1500 depending on how you crunch the math, and no dutchman dies of hunger!
Keep up the battle Sneyd!
Post a Comment
<< Home