Notice: Undefined index: id in /home/ft4user/foreststreesagroforestry.org/wp-content/themes/FTA/template-parts/content.php on line 3
  • Home
  • Insecurity, COVID-19 hit women-led shea sector on eve of Africa free trade deal

Insecurity, COVID-19 hit women-led shea sector on eve of Africa free trade deal


Notice: Undefined variable: id_overview in /home/ft4user/foreststreesagroforestry.org/wp-content/themes/FTA/template-parts/content.php on line 64
After they are roasted and crushed, the shea nuts are ground into a fine paste by women in Burkina Faso. CIFOR/Ollivier Girard
Posted by

FTA communications

Article originally posted on Forest News.

Emphasis on agri-business exports puts small-scale producers at risk

Women have dominated shea production and sales for centuries in West Africa, managing trees, gathering nuts, roasting and crushing kernels to create rich butter used in cooking, cosmetics and medicines.

This women-led shea market value chain now faces increasing uncertainties on various fronts, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

A deteriorating security situation in Burkina Faso has seen the country “replace Mali at the epicenter of the Sahel’s security crisis” over the past year, as countries in the semi-arid region engage in increasingly volatile battles against insurgencies with links to al Qaeda and Islamic State.

To explore the potential impact of multiple changes affecting domestic and international trade in shea, the Global Shea Alliance (GSA) – a multi-stakeholder platform comprised of government, private sector, non-governmental organizations, civil society organizations, research and women’s shea producer associations – recently organized three online sessions for a “Virtual Shea Lab.”

The shea trade has been seen by Europeans as a potentially lucrative investment opportunity from at least the early 20th century, said Andrew Wardell, a principal scientist with the Center for International Research (CIFOR), who delivered one of the presentations during the event.

“Various historical, political, economic and social threads are becoming entangled and should be addressed to protect the industry as the region confronts a confluence of significant crises and changes,” he said.

The first significant European incursions into the shea sector involved so-called Treaties of Friendship and Trade that were negotiated with local chiefs by the French, British and Germans as early as the 1890s.

In 1924, a colonial superintendent of agriculture and forestry in the Gold Coast Colony – now Ghana – observed that the collecting of shea kernels was entirely done by women, but anticipated that would change “…when it was found out there was money to be made from shea kernels,” Wardell said.

The most significant growth in shea demand in Burkina Faso has occurred over the past 20 years as large agri-business firms producing Cocoa Butter Equivalents (CBEs) have established trading bases and crushing facilities in the south-west of the country.

Although prices and the volume of trade in shea nuts have both increased, profit margins for women shea nut producers have been reduced as an oligarchy of wholesalers in Bobo Dioulasso — the country’s second largest city after the capital Ouagadougou — continue to act as intermediaries in bulking-up for the large transnational corporations, said Wardell, who has studied the sector for 20 years.

“In Burkina Faso, where 94 percent of households collect shea nuts and 60 percent of households sell shea nuts or butter, shea is the fourth largest source of government revenues after gold, cotton and livestock,” he said. “Not only is it the most significant source of household revenues and subsistence use for women, but it remains a staple food oil for more than 200 million people across sub-Saharan Africa.”

MARKET EXPANSION

The CBE technology was developed in the 1960s, although the main CBE manufacturers, including the Danish-Swedish speciality fats producer AAK AB., Indian fats and cosmetics company 3F Industries Ltd. and the U.S. agricultural commodities trader Bunge Ltd. did not establish trading bases or crushing facilities in the country until after 2005. Previously, they operated out of West African ports such as Abidjan, Tema and Cotonou and hence, depended on in-country wholesalers.

“Since global demand in chocolate products grew in the BRICS countries – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – we’ve seen a big growth in demand for shea nuts for use in chocolate manufacture because it’s much less expensive as a raw material,” Wardell said, explaining that cocoa butter can now be substituted up to 5 percent by a so-called equivalent.

Although the CBE manufacturers have recently initiated direct purchasing from women’s shea producer associations, they remain dependent on a complex pyramidal purchasing network established by Bobo Dioulasso wholesalers during the colonial period.

The network trading is based on trust, distant kinships, “apprenticeship” of wholesaler family members and an intimate knowledge of local units of sale — yoruba and cocotassa — and weight loss associated with the drying of shea nuts, he said.

The shea trade in Burkina Faso is now divided into two basic strands, Wardell added. The smaller strand, which represents about 10 percent of trade, is a classic agri-food, vertically-integrated value chain, driven by buyers and increasingly governed by trading standards. This is similar to the horticultural trade from other sub-Saharan African countries such as Kenya with European supermarkets. In this scenario, shea is typically traded as butter to supply the cosmetics industry.

The second strand is where 90 percent of the trade now occurs; it involves the unprocessed nuts or semi-processed nuts. The nuts are crushed, then they are fractionated to separate the different oils, the latter occurring outside the country.

TRADE OFFS

Now, the coronavirus pandemic poses new threats due to lockdowns, which have limited business activities, led to unemployment and reduced incomes, and limited mobility while creating obstacles to free trade, even as the African Continental Free Trade Area agreement (AfCFTA) moves ever closer to implementation.

Once roasted, Rabo Nafissatou (L) and Bassia Mariam grind the shea nuts to a paste, mix it with water and beat it. CIFOR/Ollivier Girard

“COVID-19 has made the 16 million women throughout sub-Saharan Africa who rely on revenues from shea nuts and shea butter increasingly vulnerable,” Wardell said.

The U.N. Economic Commission for Africa estimates that the African continent will face an immediate decline in gross domestic product growth from 3.2 percent to 1.8 percent in 2020 due to COVID-19, but with a further adverse impact if it is not contained in the short-term, said Ify Ogo, regional coordination specialist for AfCFTA at the U.N. Development Programme and a speaker at the GSA Africa Conference 2020.

Trade is a significant conduit for this negative impact through three transmission channels,” she said, explaining that compressed demand related to Africa’s most important trading partners — including the European Union, China, the United States and India — are undergoing simultaneous crises and reducing imports.

Additionally, prices for many of the commodity exports on which Africa depends are dropping. Finally, disrupted supply chains are taking a toll, more than half of Africa’s exports go to countries that are significantly affected by COVID-19, while 53 percent of its imports originate from such significantly affected countries, she said, adding that quarantines and movement restrictions further frustrate supply chains.

GSA could see financial gains through AfCFTA, which came into effect in 2019, Ogo said.

But it remains unclear if women shea butter producers will see economic benefits when the free trade agreement — which was originally to be launched on July 1, but has now been put on hold due to coronavirus — is eventually implemented.

While negotiations are still underway, 55 member countries would remove tariffs from 90 percent of goods, with the goal of boosting trade on a continent-wide free trade market valued at more than $3 trillion, which would serve 1.2 billion people.

Shea nuts are harvested in Burkina Faso between mid-June and mid-September. After the pulp is removed, the nut is then washed and allowed to dry. CIFOR/Ollivier Girard

Under the agreement, shea exports could increase due to the removal of trade tariffs on shea products. Currently, tariffs on raw shea butter are between 10 and 40 percent in African countries, Ogo said. Other benefits would include the increase in productive capacity and enhancing trade readiness, she said.

Through the agreement, trade has a key role to play as a driver of economic recovery and development, therefore, for Africa, the post-COVID-19 stimulus package is the actual AfCFTA and the implementation of this agreement, she said, citing Wamkele Mene, secretary general of the AfCFTA secretariat.

“Under this scenario, trade routes must be open, so as yet it’s unclear how the single market would benefit women involved in the shea industry,” Wardell said. “As well, due to much of the work occurring in women’s collectives and associations, physical distancing makes production untenable.”

AfCFTA does not necessarily take into account historical trade routes, which are not always reflected in official country borders. Although it may be beneficial over the long term, it is still unclear how AfCFTA will help women shea producers in the short term, even without factoring in COVID complications.

“There is only so far the sector can expand,” Wardell said. “Women clearly get greater financial benefits from value-added processing of shea nuts into shea butter, then selling the unprocessed nuts. Even though there are greater volumes involved, the women are still getting proportionately very little from the trade in shea nuts.”

Research into this area continues at CIFOR through Globalizations in a nutshell: Opportunities and risks for women shea producers in West African shea parklands. The project, which is supported by Canada’s International Development Research Centre (IDRC) and the CGIAR Research Program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry (FTA), has so far supported three master’s students from Nazi Boni University’s Institute of Rural Development in Burkina Faso.

“Three draft theses are under review, one by a student studying the costs and benefits of certification of shea butter as a way of increasing the revenues of women shea producers,” Wardell said.

 

By Julie Mollins. FTA is the world’s largest research for development program to enhance the role of forests, trees and agroforestry in sustainable development and food security and to address climate change. CIFOR leads FTA in partnership with Bioversity International, CATIE, CIRAD, INBAR, ICRAF and TBI. FTA’s work is supported by the CGIAR Trust Fund.


Notice: Undefined index: id in /home/ft4user/foreststreesagroforestry.org/wp-content/themes/FTA/template-parts/content.php on line 3
  • Home
  • COVID-19-led ban on wild meat could take protein off the table for millions of forest dwellers

COVID-19-led ban on wild meat could take protein off the table for millions of forest dwellers


Notice: Undefined variable: id_overview in /home/ft4user/foreststreesagroforestry.org/wp-content/themes/FTA/template-parts/content.php on line 64
Young man hunting in the forest, Yangambi, DRC. Photo by Axel Fassio/CIFOR
Posted by

FTA communications

Originally posted on Forest News

Lack of access to wild meat could result in hunger and malnutrition for local and Indigenous communities

Conservationists have greeted China’s recent clampdown on wild animal hunting and consumption with enthusiasm.

The government made the move based on scientific theories that COVID-19 was transmitted from a pangolin or a bat to humans in a market in the city of Wuhan.

A similar response to the capture and consumption of wild meat occurred during the Ebola outbreak, which originated in an animal-human interaction and raged in West Africa from 2014 to 2016. At that time, conservationists suggested the disease was good for wildlife because people would not be eating wild animals as a result.

The transmission of disease between animals and people is nothing new. Animals have been the vector of more than 60 percent of infectious diseases, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which also states that three of every four new or emerging infectious diseases are zoonotic.

In the Middle Ages, plague, which is caused by the bacteria Yersinia pestis, found in small mammals and their fleas, led to pandemics. Known as the “Black Death,” in the 14th century it caused more than 50 million deaths in Europe. The Spanish flu virus, which is thought to have originated in pigs, led to the 1918-1919 pandemic, killing an estimated 40 million people worldwide.

Diseases often jump from animals to humans, but become much more serious and have the potential to create pandemics when human-to-human transmission occurs.

How does this happen? The current focus is on wild fauna, but remember, as in the case of the Spanish flu, some of the deadliest diseases have been transmitted to humans not by wildlife, but by domestic livestock. For example, poultry sparked avian influenza and rodents led to the plague and cause hantaviruses.

First, transmission occurs when humans create contacts with wild fauna in places where none previously existed. In other words, humans “go” to the site of virus reservoirs.

Research into Ebola by a multidisciplinary team coordinated by the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Spain’s University of Malaga and Britain’s Manchester Metropolitan University, into how wild animals, humans and natural landscapes interact, demonstrates that in large measure the problem is linked to deforestation and habitat degradation, which leads to environmental oscillations that enable the jump of diseases from animals to humans.

In a more recent study, the team showed that when bats in African rainforests are unsettled by humans, contact increases with people, likely influencing the spread of Ebola or other diseases carried by bats.

Second, transmission occurs when humans bring the reservoirs to their favored environments. For example, live animal markets or even pet trade sites — think psittacosis, also known as parrot fever.

The  global wildlife trade – whether legal or illegal – valued at billions of dollars, is also to blame for the spread of pathogens and infectious diseases resulting from the legal or illegal transport of animals or from selling them alive in markets in appalling conditions.

These two mechanisms of disease transmission from animals to humans are quite universal, even in the case of the current Coronavirus pandemic.

However, the solution to the problem must be more nuanced than an outright global ban.

If China’s example of outlawing hunting of wild animals is taken up by other countries, this could mean that millions of people – often the poorest rural and Indigenous communities – will not be allowed to access – through hunting or gathering wild animals – the only source of animal protein available to them.

Where no other protein is available, eating wild meat is a necessity, but it should be banned where there are alternatives and where profiteering from wildlife is the motive. Many urban consumers consider wild meat a luxury item, while others might buy it because they have migrated from rural areas to cities and they want to continue eating the food they traditionally consumed.

In very simple terms: nations should forbid the sale of live animals, close markets selling live animals, stop wildlife trafficking and stem the trade of wild animals from forests to cities.

By doing this, we help conserve wildlife in their habitats and enable communities to use this resource. Research shows that city dwellers do not rely on wild meat as the only source of animal protein, since other affordable sources of meat are available.

The interrelationship between wild meat consumption, food security and poverty alleviation must be explored simultaneously when making decisions without relying on an outdated colonial discourse of conservation that favors wildlife over people.

Rural and Indigenous communities who harvest wild meat sustainably as a source of dietary protein already face growing competition from deforestation, biodiversity loss, legal and illegal trade. We should not add to these increased risks of malnutrition or hunger.

Many tropical forests face “empty forest” syndrome – they are forests in good standing, but they are depleted of large animals because of overhunting, disease, the impact of climate change, deforestation and forest degradation.

To address unsustainable exploitation amid growing concerns about animal-human disease transmission, sound and locally-tailored policies must be developed and implemented.

CIFOR and the partners of the Sustainable Wildlife Management Programme — which includes the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, the French Agricultural Centre for International Development (CIRAD) and the Wildlife Conservation Society — with support from the European Commission, are contributing to this effort through research-action, open consultations, working with communities to learn how to best protect the livelihoods and traditions of subsistence forest and rural dwellers and the landscapes they depend upon.


By Robert Nasi and John E. Fa

FTA is the world’s largest research for development program to enhance the role of forests, trees and agroforestry in sustainable development and food security and to address climate change. CIFOR leads FTA in partnership with Bioversity International, CATIE, CIRAD, INBAR, ICRAF and TBI. FTA’s work is supported by the CGIAR Trust Fund.

 

Access all FTA publications on bushmeat here.


Back to top

Sign up to our monthly newsletter

Connect with us