As part of an assignment in the GEOG3038 module, I have been looking at water and agriculture in Nigeria. Unlike arid and some poor parts of Africa, Nigeria is one of the most populous countries in the world, with a thriving economy and is also a tropical country blessed with blue water resources.
In this post, I will take a wider look at the country's economy, demographics and regional situation to show and also talk about challenges that still remain for agriculture, despite Nigeria's inherent advantages.
Nigeria is a tropical climate with a strong and distinct wet season. Source: World Bank
Nigeria straddles the boundaries between a tropical and semi-arid country. Northern and Central Nigera receive 500-1000mm of rainfall annually, much less than for instance the East Coast (4000mm) and West Coast (18000mm). So far so good for domestic and even agriculture. While high evaporation makes the amount of rainfall insufficient for growing crops like rice, Nigeria has an extensive drainage system that runs into hundreds of wetlands and out to lakes like Lake Chad. If timed rightly, natural flooding in the rainy season can provide the amount of water needed to grow wildrice.
However, as with many countries, Nigeria has been experiencing climate change. Since 1960, mean rainfall has decreased 1.8% per decade, or 3.5mm per month, calling into question long term availability of water in this rapidly growing and very youthful nation. The construction of many dam projects has reduced wetland flooding, and the traditional flood cycle that many farmers and rice cultivators relied on.
Before the expansion of the oil industry in Nigeria, agriculture was the highest earning export, and Nigeria exported valuable commodities like cocoa and rubber. The present decline in Nigeria's agricultural sector might not only reflect industrialisation, but also a reduction in water available for traditional wetland farmers.
Along with reduced water availability, grass and water for animals have also become scarcer, while demand for grazing has increased. Traditional cultures have little concern for the modern concept of borders, and herds from drier countries like Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso, as well as the Fulani tribe are seeking refuge in Nigeria during the dry season, as they have for decades. Unfortunately, this puts declining water resources and natural resources at further stress. Nigeria itself also has the largest cattle herd in Africa, and demand for beef in the middle-income country is likely to multiply four-fold by 2050.
With industrial wealth and oil money, Nigeria can afford to buy food if water resources are limiting agricultural production. However, this hardly addresses the question of equity. Increased usage of water for commercial and irrigation farming projects may starve traditional small farmers in the wetland systems into poverty, or drive them out of those areas and into cities as wage laborers. While irrigated farms do use water efficiently on-site, irrigation channels and the dams that feed them are subject to high water losses through groundwater seepage and evaporation. Studies have shown that natural resources provided by wetlands are productive and valuable, and more so than wasteful and low water efficiency irrigation projects.
Whether the current management of water in Nigeria is equitable or not, a route of livelihood improvement should be provided to traditional wetland farmers who are displaced because of heavy upstream water usage. If not, it would be a huge loss and a shame.
What also seems interesting to me is that countries with relatively more water than others are still subject to water stress and questions of sustainability continue to arise, especially as populations grow larger, richer and consume greater amounts of resources.
Mr. Cassava
I think it is sad to see these large scale irrigation project go ahead not only is more water used inefficiently, but also a lot of resources are put into them without really improving the life of locals who are the most in need. An important topic to investigate might be the reason why they developed these projects, to me at least it looks slightly pointless.
ReplyDeleteI believe that some projects were funded and begun in an area (1960s and 70s) where international knowledge in the field was very different, and priorities were on Green Revolution style projects as well as health and sanitation.
ReplyDeleteThe Green Revolution in Asia and South America were great successes in their own respect, and perhaps people didn't expect that such policies would not work in a more water-scarce environment.
Perhaps another answer is that the small groups of people who benefit from large scale water diversion projects hold more political worth or power than other unknown but suffering actors.