Connect with us

Politics

EVERY SIP YOU TAKE: How safe is your bottled water?

10 min read.

The concept of bottled water being safer than tap water has been ingrained in people’s minds. From being status symbols of sorts, bottled water is now a necessity in many households. But as STELLAR MURUMBA reveals, bottled water is not as safe as we think it is.

Published

on

EVERY SIP YOU TAKE: How safe is your bottled water?
Download PDFPrint Article

On most of Kenya’s streets and roads, young men and women hawk bottles of water to passing motorists. It is impossible to walk through any urban area without coming across a bottled water vendor. The concept of bottled water being “better” and “safer” than tap water has become ingrained in people’s minds. From being a status symbol of sorts, bottled water is now a basic necessity in many households. And with cholera and other water-borne diseases becoming the norm, it is no wonder that the sale of bottled water has been growing by leaps and bounds over the years.

But just what is in that bottle of water you are taking? What risks are you and your family taking when you opt to drink bottled water rather than tap water?

Medics have raised a red flag over the increased health risks, especially on mental health, posed by high levels of chemicals, such as fluoride, in drinking water.

We went ahead to test samples of bottled water collected from different areas of Nairobi – Eastleigh and BuruBuru estates and the Central Business District. What we found was shocking. At least four out of ten samples of bottled drinking were unfit for human consumption.

The samples of bottled included top brands, such as Coca Cola’s Dasani, Grange Park, Mt. Kenya and Avodale, which were bought from supermarkets in these areas and were analysed at the Government Chemist in April.

Out of the ten samples submitted for chemical analysis to the Government Chemist, four turned out to be unfit for human consumption.

The analysis revealed that the sampled water had high levels of fluoride, in excess of the World Health Organisation (WHO) guideline limits of 0.3 ppm for drinking water.  They also had high levels of iron, and were acidic.

“There is an increased concern posed by fluorosis, for instance, especially on mental health due to stigmatisation,” said Consultant Family Physician at Aga Khan University Hospital, Dr Jacob Shabani in an interview. “Increased use of borehole water and bottled water from underground sources for which adequate chemical composition has not been adhered to is showing increased risk of poor bone health with increased fracture risk and poor teeth.”

Health risks

Out of the ten samples submitted for chemical analysis to the Government Chemist, four turned out to be unfit for human consumption. Dasani bottled water sampled from Buruburu, for instance, was found to have iron levels that exceeded the WHO guideline limits of 0.3 ppm for drinking water. Interestingly, two other samples of the same brand sampled from the Nairobi CBD and Eastleigh were found to be chemically fit for human consumption, pointing to a possible lack of adherence to standards by the manufacturer or a laxity of some sort by the industry regulator, the Kenya Bureau of Standards (KEBS), in doing random testing to ensure standards are maintained across all production cycles.

Dasani botted water

Government Chemist report on chemical analysis of water – Dasani bottled water (Buruburu). Dasani total dissolved solids, residue dried at 180 degrees Celsius is 29.4. The recommendation by Government Chemist: Neutral and soft water that is lowly mineralized. The levels of Iron (0.35) exceed the WHO guideline limits of 0.3 ppm for drinking water. Treatment to lower level of Iron is recommended.

A sample of Grange Park bottled water from Buruburu was also found to have fluoride levels exceeding the WHO maximum guideline value of 1.5ppm for drinking water. Another sample of Mt. Kenya Bottled water from Buruburu was found to have exceeding fluoride levels over the WHO maximum guideline value of 1.5ppm for drinking water.

Grange Park bottled water

Government Chemist report for Grange Park bottled water (Buruburu). Grange Park total dissolved solids, residue dried at 180 degrees is 72.5. The recommendation by Government Chemist: Alkaline and soft water that is lowly mineralized. The fluoride level (2.0) exceeds the WHO maximum guideline value of 1.5 ppm for drinking water. Treatment to lower the fluoride level is therefore recommended.

“Dasani bottled water (sampled from Buruburu) had levels of iron exceeding the WHO guideline limits of 0.3 ppm for drinking water. Treatment to lower the level of iron is recommended,” said the report signed by Senior Principal Chemist at Government Chemist, Anne Nderitu.

“Grange Park bottled water and Mt. Kenya bottled water sampled from Buruburu had their fluoride levels exceed the WHO maximum guideline value of 1.5 ppm for drinking water. Treatment to lower the fluoride level is therefore recommended.”

Government Chemist report for Mt. Kenya bottled water (Buruburu). Mt. Kenya total dissolved solids, reside dried at 280 degrees Celsius is 45.2. The recommendation by Government Chemist: Alkaline and soft water that is slowly mineralized. The fluoride level [2.0mg/l (ppm)] exceeds the World Health Organisation (WHO) maximum guideline value of 1.5ppm for drinking water. Treatment to lower the fluoride level is therefore recommended.

Excess fluoride in drinking water can cause dental or skeletal fluorosis. Dental fluorosis is the snow capping (when mild) or browning (when severe) of teeth. It has no cure and damaged teeth cannot be restored. These teeth are prone to tooth decay, are weak and easily chip off.

Skeletal fluorosis, which in its acute stage causes total immobility, develops slowly and can take up to 30 years, leading to bones that develop outgrowths, are deformed and prone to fractures.

Studies in Kenya show that children with dental fluorosis face societal stigma. It makes them self-conscious and uncomfortable, thus denying them a chance to socialise freely. They also face societal stigma, including being shunned as future marriage partners. They have reduced chances of securing employment and are in fact ineligible to join the disciplined forces or to pursue careers that place a premium on appearance.

A Kenya Society for Fluoride Research (KSFR) report shows that over 19 million Kenyans suffer from fluorosis. A 2013 survey by KSFR showed that more than 80 per cent of potential armed forces recruits in Central Kenya were not accepted due to the bad condition of their teeth, which was attributable to fluoride.

“The WHO, however, recommends safe fluoride levels at less than 1.5 milligrams per litre (0.5 mg/litre) as they are protective of the enamel and hence the reason for fluoridation of toothpastes,” said Dr Shabani. “Children are however more susceptible to fluorides and mild dental fluorosis can occur at drinking-water concentrations between 0.9 and 1.2 mg/litre.”

A Kenya Society for Fluoride Research (KSFR) report shows that over 19 million Kenyans suffer from fluorosis. A 2013 survey by KSFR showed that more than 80 per cent of potential armed forces recruits in Central Kenya were not accepted due to the bad condition of their teeth, which was attributable to fluoride.

Besides having excess fluoride and iron, a sample of Avodale bottled water from Eastleigh was found to be acidic and the pH of the water was out of the WHO guideline range of 6.5 to 8.5 for drinking water.

“Avodale bottled water (sampled from Eastleigh) had a pH value out of the WHO guideline of 6.5 – 8.5 for drinking water. Treatment to adjust the pH of water accordingly is therefore recommended. The pH value for this sample was 5.9,” read another Government Chemist report signed by Francis Maina. (pH is a measure of the concentration of hydrogen ions in a diluted solution. It can range from 0 to 14, with 7 denoting a neutral value. Acidic water has a pH below 7; alkaline water, above 7.)

Report on chemical analysis of water - Avodale bottled water (Eastleigh)

Government Chemist report on chemical analysis of water – Avodale bottled water (Eastleigh). Avodale dissolved solids, residue dried at 180 degrees is 84.0. The Government Chemist recommendation: soft and acidic water that is likely mineralized. The pH of the water is out of the WHO guideline range of 6.5 – 8.5 for drinking water. Treatment to adjust the pH of the water accordingly is therefore recommended.

“Alkaline water (high pH) causes damage to the eyes, skin and mucous membranes. WHO warns that extreme pH levels can worsen existing skin conditions,” said Dr Shabani.

According to the Deputy Director at the National Quality Control Laboratory, Dr Pius Wanjala, excess iron in drinking water (also referred to as iron overload) can cause damage to body organs like the liver, heart and pancreas. “It can also cause diabetes and when there is too much iron in drinking water, one can have digestion issues which can also lead to stomach problems, vomiting and nausea among other health issues,” said Dr Wanjala.

Human bodies require iron to function properly, but iron, like many substances, is toxic in high doses. Iron is used as construction material, mainly for drinking-water pipes, pigments in paints and plastics, coagulants in water treatment.

Dr Shabani added that the effect of too much iron in children compared to adults is generally the same except that children will experience harmful effects on smaller doses of iron due to their smaller body weight compared to adults. The average lethal dose of iron is 200 to 250 mg/kg of body weight, “but death has occurred following the ingestion of doses as low as 40 mg/kg of body weight. Lethal exposures have caused sloughing and necrosis of stomach mucosa”, he said.

How safe is the water you are drinking?

“Excess iron in the human body may also cause life-threatening illnesses like liver cirrhosis for those with the genetic disorder haemachromatosis,” said Dr Shabani.

Haemachromatosis is an iron disorder that is hereditary in which the body loads too much iron. When the excess iron is left untreated, it can damage joints, organs, and eventually be fatal.

“Excess iron in the human body may also cause life-threatening illnesses like liver cirrhosis for those with the genetic disorder haemachromatosis,” said Dr Shabani.

In addition to causing Diabetes mellitus, Dr Shabani added that if not diagnosed or left untreated, haemachromatosis can also cause irregular heartbeats or heart attacks, arthritis, cirrhosis of the liver or liver cancer, gallbladder disease, depression and even impotence. The disorder can also cause infertility, hypothyroidism and hypogonadism.

A number of emails and calls to the named firms went unanswered, with efforts to reach the Coca Cola Company through their Facebook page leaving this writer with only this promise to get back: “Stellar, we’d like to look into this. Please reply with your telephone and email address so we can follow up with you. Thanks for reaching out.”

And when they finally responded, Coca Cola, the bottlers of Dasani, through its Public Affairs, Communications and Sustainability arm said the quality of their products and safety of their consumers are of paramount importance to them.

“We are committed to the highest quality standards for the products and services we provide and focus on continual improvement every minute of every day. The water we use goes through multi-step filtration processes prior to production further, we consistently and regularly conduct random tests on our products before releasing them to the market. These tests are conducted against the standards set by the Kenya Bureau of Standards (KeBS) and other global standards. Samples are also shared with internationally accredited laboratories for independent verification. 

Our families, friends, and community members drink our products. We remember that with every product we manufacture or provide. As such we remain confident about the safety and reliability of Dasani,” – Public Affairs, Communications & Sustainability.

Most of these firms operate from unknown places and get water from unknown sources, with contacts available on the printed bottles not going through. Efforts to find contacts for the manufacturer of Avodale bottled drinking water were futile as there was no information of the same online.

The contradiction

Despite the immense health risks associated with excess chemical components in drinking water, KEBS’ Corporates Communication Manager, Patricia Kimanthi, insisted that all water available in the market is compliant as per the Kenya and East Africa Community minimum and maximum standards. Non-compliant water, she said, has been banned until it conforms to KEBS standards.

Ms Kimanthi said that KEBS tests the quality of water against the two standards available on its website, adding that the WHO standards are “too wide and general”.

“I do not understand why they (Government Chemist) used WHO standards. WHO standards sometimes are so wide and so general. Moreover, international standards are different each year. We [KEBS] test against Kenya standards and EAC standards,” said Ms Kimanthi, adding that the Kenya/EAC standards are more specific.

“We cannot act on results we have not sampled but we have continued market surveillance and all firms which are complying are registered on our website. There’s need, however, to go to the market for further analysis based on these findings and what is available in the market and do the needful.”

However, Mr Maina from the Government Chemist stated: “For Kenya we also have KEBS standards, but us at the Government Chemist we use WHO guidelines which are international because we handle samples from outside Kenya so that we do not look selfish. All standards are developed using WHO guide.”

KEBS listed due to an increase in the number of illegal water bottling firms and traders. As of May 2016, there were about 600 authorised water bottlers in the country. Some 158 firms whose water did not comply with the Kenya/EAC standards were in May this year found to be operating illegally by KEBS and got suspended. Out of the 158 firms, number 15 on the list was Mt Kenya bottled water – Mureru Water Project.

Requirements

According to KEBS, the move to suspend the rogue traders was to ensure that standards are adhered to. The then KEBS Managing Director, Charles Ongwae, singled out the water bottling sector where there has been an upsurge of unscrupulous water bottling firms that are not adhering to the laid down standards and procedures.

In 2016, KEBS listed water as a high risk product in the country due to an increase in the number of illegal water bottling firms and traders. As of May 2016, there were about 600 authorised water bottlers in the country. Some 158 firms whose water did not comply with the Kenya/EAC standards were in May this year found to be operating illegally by KEBS and got suspended.

“There are people in the country who love short cuts and do not adhere to the law. We are announcing 157 water bottling firms that are operating illegally without valid product certification marks and have failed to meet required standards for bottling water,” said Mr Ongwae, appealing to those firms whose names appear in the list of illegally operating companies to formalise their operations with KEBS.

Some of these violations include companies operating from unknown locations, non-compliance to the requirements of the relevant water standards, such as the code of hygiene, using suspect sources of water and poor or misleading labelling.

Water bottlers are now required to automatise bottle filling and sealing to safeguard hygiene practices.  All old applicants have until November 2018 to have in place an automated bottle filling and sealing mechanism while new applicants are required to have automation before they start business.

In May, KEBS also increased the validity period of Standardisation Mark from one year to three years on condition that the product should have been operating and certified for a period not less than six years, with the manufacturer expected to demonstrate a track record of manufacturing quality products. The permit fees for the three years is to be paid once in advance.

The regulator has so far issued 11,234 permits out of which 671 are for bottled water. “So far there are 426 firms with valid permits in the water sector. Another 49 other firms have applied for permits but have not completed the certification process. We have identified 157 firms that are operating illegally and the should cease operations immediately.”

Dr Shabani said with most Kenyans continue to buy bottled water thinking it is safer than tap water or water they get from water bowsers or boreholes. He urges consumers to be as keen to know about bottled water as they are about water from other water sources.

And since many Nairobi residents are dependent on borehole water, particularly after the county initiated water rationing, Dr Shabani asks the public to also have chemical analyses done for ground and well water before using it for drinking and cooking.

“Chemical impurities are more common in these sources. It is important to read labels of bottled water which are required by industry standards and health authorities to list the composition of these elements in their water,” said Dr Shabani.

The standardisation body also said they are working with the Water Resource Management Authority to test borehole water before issuing a report indicating the quality of water in the market.

Dr Shabani says it is the government’s role to ensure strict regulation of the water industry, especially bottled water, and to ensure that water is prepared free of contamination and that underground bottled water meets WHO’s recommended standards for fluoride and pH. He said that county governments should also have inspectors to conduct chemical analysis of bottled water while industry players should be encouraged to use rust-proof materials for piping and storage.

Support The Elephant.

The Elephant is helping to build a truly public platform, while producing consistent, quality investigations, opinions and analysis. The Elephant cannot survive and grow without your participation. Now, more than ever, it is vital for The Elephant to reach as many people as possible.

Your support helps protect The Elephant's independence and it means we can continue keeping the democratic space free, open and robust. Every contribution, however big or small, is so valuable for our collective future.

By

Stellar Murumba is the Project Manager of PesaCheck, a member of the Wanadata Network and Lead in Code for Africa's Chokers-counterfeit medicines project.

Politics

Who Won Kenya’s “Nominations”?

Being nominated rather than selected by party members may undermine grass-roots legitimacy but it is hard not to suspect that some of the losers in the nominations process might feel a little bit relieved at this out-turn.

Published

on

Who Won Kenya’s “Nominations”?
Download PDFPrint Article

Who won Kenya’s “nominations”, the tense and often unpredictable political process through which parties select which candidates they want to represent them in the general election scheduled for 9 August? That may sound like a silly question. Social media is full of photographs of smiling candidate clutching their certificates of nomination—surely we need to look no further for the winners?

But maybe we do. Beyond the individual candidates in the contests for nominations, there are other winners. One may be obvious: it seems the general feeling is that Deputy President William Ruto came out better from the nominations than did his principal rival in the presidential race, former opposition leader Raila Odinga—about which more below. However, for some, coming out on top in the nominations may prove a poisoned chalice. Where nominations are seen to have been illegitimate, candidates are likely to find that losing rivals who stand as independents may be locally popular and may gain sympathy votes, making it harder for party candidates to win the general election. This means that there are often some less obvious winners and losers.

One reason for this is that nominations shape how voters think about the parties and who they want to give their vote to, come the general election. Research that we conducted in 2017, including a nationally representative survey of public opinion on these issues, found that citizens who felt that their party’s nomination process had not been legitimate were less likely to say that they would vote in the general election. In other words, disputed and controversial nomination processes can encourage voters to stay away from the general election, making it harder for leaders to get their vote out. In 2017, this appeared to disadvantage Odinga and his Orange Democratic Movement (ODM), whose nomination process was generally seen to have been more problematic—although whether this is because they were, or rather because this is how they were depicted by the media, is hard to say.

In the context of a tight election in 2022, popular perceptions of how the nominations were managed may therefore be as significant for who “wins” and “loses” as the question of which individuals secured the party ticket.

Why do parties dread nominations?

The major parties dreaded the nominations process—dreaded it so much, in fact, that despite all their bold words early on about democracy and the popular choice (and despite investments in digital technology and polling staff), most of the parties tried pretty hard to avoid primary elections as a way of deciding on their candidates. In some cases that avoidance was complete: the Jubilee party gave direct nominations to all those who will stand in its name. Other parties held some primaries—Ruto’s United Democratic Alliance (UDA) seems to have managed most—but in many cases they turned to other methods.

That is because of a complicated thing about parties and elections in Kenya. It is widely assumed—and a recent opinion poll commissioned by South Consulting confirms this—that when it comes to 9 August most voters will decide how to cast their ballot on the basis of individual candidates and not which party they are standing for. Political parties in Kenya are often ephemeral, and people readily move from one to another. But that does not mean that political parties are irrelevant. They are symbolic markers with emotive associations – sometimes to particular ideas, sometimes to a particular regional base. ODM, for example, has been linked both with a commitment to constitutional reform and with the Luo community, most notably in Nyanza. So the local politician who wants to be a member of a county assembly will be relying mostly on their personal influence and popularity—but they know that if they get a nomination for a party which has that kind of emotive association, it will smoothen their path.

Disputed and controversial nomination processes can encourage voters to stay away from the general election, making it harder for leaders to get their vote out.

This means that multiple candidates vie for each possible nomination slot. In the past, that competition has always been expensive, as rival aspirants wooed voters with gifts. It occasionally turned violent, and often involved cheating. Primary elections in 2013 and 2017 were messy and chaotic, and were not certain to result in the selection of the candidate most likely to win the general election. From the point of view of the presidential candidates, there are real risks to the primary elections their parties or coalitions oversee: the reputational damage due to chaos and the awareness that local support might be lost if a disgruntled aspirant turns against the party.

This helps to explain why in 2022 many parties made use of direct nominations—variously dressed up as the operation of consensus or the result of mysterious “opinion polls” to identify the strongest candidate. What that really meant was an intensive process of promise-making and/or pressure to persuade some candidates to stand down. Where that did not work, and primaries still took place, the promise-making and bullying came afterwards—to stop disappointed aspirants from turning against the party and standing as independents. The consequence of all that top-down management was that the nominations saw much less open violence than in previous years.

So who won, and who lost, at the national level?

Despite all the back-room deal-making, top-down political management was not especially successful in soothing the feelings of those who did not come out holding certificates. That brings us to the big national winners and losers of the process. Odinga—and his ODM party—have come out rather bruised. They have been accused of nepotism, bribery and of ignoring local wishes. This is a particularly dangerous accusation for Odinga, as it plays into popular concerns that, following his “handshake” with President Kenyatta and his adoption as the candidate of the “establishment”, he is a “project” of wealthy and powerful individuals who wish to retain power through the backdoor after Kenyatta stands down having served two-terms in office. In the face of well-publicised claims that Odinga would be a “remote controlled president” doing the bidding of the Kenyatta family and their allies, the impression that the nominations were stage-managed from on high in an undemocratic process was the last thing Azimio needed.

Moreover, perhaps because Odinga seems to have been less active than his rival in personally intervening to mollify aggrieved local politicians, the ODM nominations process seems to have left more of a mess. That was compounded by complications in the Azimio la Umoja/One Kenya Alliance Coalition Party (we’ll call it Azimio from now on, for convenience). Where Azimio “zoned”—that is, agreed on a single candidate from all its constituent parties—disappointed aspirants complained. Where it did not zone, and agreed to let each party nominate its own candidate for governor, MP and so on, then smaller parties in the coalition complained that they would face unfair competition come the general election. That is why the leaders of some of these smaller groups such as Machakos Governor Alfred Mutua made dramatic (or theatrical, depending on your view) announcements of their decision to leave Azimio and support Ruto.

Despite all the back-room deal-making, top-down political management was not especially successful in soothing the feelings of those who did not come out holding certificates.

So Ruto looks like a nomination winner. But his success comes with a big price tag. His interventions to placate disgruntled aspirants involved more than soothing words. A new government will have lots of goodies to distribute to supporters—positions in the civil service and parastatals, diplomatic roles, not to mention business opportunities of many kinds. But the bag of goodies is not bottomless, and it seems likely that a lot of promises have been made. Ruto’s undoubted talents as an organizer and deal-maker have been useful to him through the nominations—but those deals may prove expensive for him, and for Kenya, if he wins the presidential poll.

Money, politics, and the cost of campaigns

Those who “won” by being directly nominated to their desired positions may also come to see this process as something of a double-edged sword. In the short term, many of them will have saved considerable money: depending on exactly when the deal was done, they will have been spared some days of campaign expenses—no need to fuel cars, buy airtime for bloggers, pay for t-shirts and posters, and hand out cash. But that will be a brief respite. The disappointed rivals who have gone independent will make the campaigns harder for them—and likely more expensive. The belief that they were favoured by the party machinery may mean that voter expectations are higher when it comes to handouts and donations on the campaign trail. And the fact they were nominated rather than selected by party members may undermine their grass-roots legitimacy.

Others may experience a similar delayed effect. Among the short-term losers of the nominations will have been some of the “goons” who have played a prominent physical role in previous nominations: their muscular services were largely not required (although there were exceptions). The printers of posters and t-shirts will similarly have seen a disappointing nominations period (although surely they will have received enough early orders to keep them happy, especially where uncertainty over the nomination was very prolonged). The providers of billboard advertising may have seen a little less demand than they had hoped for, although they too seem to have done quite well from selling space to aspirants who—willingly or not—did not make it to the primaries. But where the general election will be fiercely contested, entrepreneurs will likely make up any lost ground as the campaigns get going. In these cases, competition has been postponed, not avoided.

Those in less competitive wards, constituencies or counties—the kind in which one party tends to dominate in the general election—are unlikely to be able to make up for lost time. These “one-party” areas may be in shorter supply in 2022 than in the past, due to the way that the control of specific leaders and alliances over the country’s former provinces has fragmented, but there will still be some races in which it is obvious who will win, and so the campaigns will be less heated.

Those who “won” by being directly nominated to their desired positions may also come to see this process as something of a double-edged sword.

More definite losers are the parties themselves. In some ways, we could say they did well as institutions, because they were spared the embarrassment of violent primaries. But the settling of many nominations without primaries meant not collecting nomination fees from aspirants in some cases, and refunding them in others. That will have cost parties a chunk of money, which they won’t get back. That may not affect the campaigns much—the money for campaigns flows in opaque and complex ways that may not touch the parties themselves. But it will affect the finances of the parties as organizations, which are often more than a little fragile.

Are the losers actually the biggest winners?

Some losers, however, are really big winners. Think about those candidates who would not have won competitive primaries but were strong enough to be able to credibly complain that they had been hard done by due to the decision to select a rival in a direct process. In many cases, these individuals were able to extract considerable concessions in return for the promise not to contest as independents, and so disrupt their coalition’s best laid plans. This means that many of the losers—who may well have been defeated anyway—walked away with the promise of a post-election reward without the expense and bother of having to campaign up until the polls.

It is hard not to suspect that some of them might feel a little bit relieved at this out-turn. In fact, some of them may have been aiming at this all along. For those with limited resources and uncertain prospects at the ballot, the opportunity to stand down in favour of another candidate may have been pretty welcome. Instead of spending the next three months in an exhausting round of funerals, fund-raisers and rallies, constantly worrying about whether they have enough fifty (or larger) shilling notes to hand out and avoiding answering their phones, they can sit back and wait for their parastatal appointment, ambassadorship, or business opportunity.

For those with limited resources and uncertain prospects at the ballot, the opportunity to stand down in favour of another candidate may have been pretty welcome.

For these individuals, the biggest worry now is not their popularity or campaign, but simply the risk that their coalition might not win the presidential election, rendering the promises they have received worthless. Those whose wishes come true will be considerably more fortunate—and financially better off—than their colleagues who made it through the nominations but fall at the final hurdle of the general election.

Separating the winners of the nominations process from the losers may therefore be harder than it seems.

Continue Reading

Politics

Asylum Pact: Rwanda Must Do Some Political Housecleaning

Rwandans are welcoming, but the government’s priority must be to solve the internal political problems which produce refugees.

Published

on

Asylum Pact: Rwanda Must Do Some Political Housecleaning
Download PDFPrint Article

The governments of the United Kingdom and Rwanda have signed an agreement to move asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda for processing. This partnership has been heavily criticized and has been referred to as unethical and inhumane. It has also been opposed by the United Nations Refugee Agency on the grounds that it is contrary to the spirit of the Refugee Convention.

Here in Rwanda, we heard the news of the partnership on the day it was signed. The subject has never been debated in the Rwandan parliament and neither had it been canvassed in the local media prior to the announcement.

According to the government’s official press release, the partnership reflects Rwanda’s commitment to protect vulnerable people around the world. It is argued that by relocating migrants to Rwanda, their dignity and rights will be respected and they will be provided with a range of opportunities, including for personal development and employment, in a country that has consistently been ranked among the safest in the world.

A considerable number of Rwandans have been refugees and therefore understand the struggle that comes with being an asylum seeker and what it means to receive help from host countries to rebuild lives. Therefore, most Rwandans are sensitive to the plight of those forced to leave their home countries and would be more than willing to make them feel welcome. However, the decision to relocate the migrants to Rwanda raises a number of questions.

The government argues that relocating migrants to Rwanda will address the inequalities in opportunity that push economic migrants to leave their homes. It is not clear how this will work considering that Rwanda is already the most unequal country in the East African region. And while it is indeed seen as among the safest countries in the world, it was however ranked among the bottom five globally in the recently released 2022 World Happiness Index. How would migrants, who may have suffered psychological trauma fare in such an environment, and in a country that is still rebuilding itself?

A considerable number of Rwandans have been refugees and therefore understand the struggle that comes with being an asylum seeker and what it means to receive help from host countries to rebuild lives.

What opportunities can Rwanda provide to the migrants? Between 2018—the year the index was first published—and 2020, Rwanda’s ranking on the Human Capital Index (HCI) has been consistently low. Published by the World Bank, HCI measures which countries are best at mobilising the economic and professional potential of their citizens. Rwanda’s score is lower than the average for sub-Saharan Africa and it is partly due to this that the government had found it difficult to attract private investment that would create significant levels of employment prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Unemployment, particularly among the youth, has since worsened.

Despite the accolades Rwanda has received internationally for its development record, Rwanda’s economy has never been driven by a dynamic private or trade sector; it has been driven by aid. The country’s debt reached 73 per cent of GDP in 2021 while its economy has not developed the key areas needed to achieve and secure genuine social and economic transformation for its entire population. In addition to human capital development, these include social capital development, especially mutual trust among citizens considering the country’s unfortunate historical past, establishing good relations with neighbouring states, respect for human rights, and guaranteeing the accountability of public officials.

Rwanda aspires to become an upper middle-income country by 2035 and a high-income country by 2050. In 2000, the country launched a development plan that aimed to transform it into a middle-income country by 2020 on the back on a knowledge economy. That development plan, which has received financial support from various development partners including the UK which contributed over £1 billion, did not deliver the anticipated outcomes. Today the country remains stuck in the category of low-income states. Its structural constraints as a small land-locked country with few natural resources are often cited as an obstacle to development. However, this is exacerbated by current governance in Rwanda, which limits the political space, lacks separation of powers, impedes freedom of expression and represses government critics, making it even harder for Rwanda to reach the desired developmental goals.

Rwanda’s structural constraints as a small land-locked country with no natural resources are often viewed as an obstacle to achieving the anticipated development.

As a result of the foregoing, Rwanda has been producing its own share of refugees, who have sought political and economic asylum in other countries. The UK alone took in 250 Rwandese last year. There are others around the world, the majority of whom have found refuge in different countries in Africa, including countries neighbouring Rwanda. The presence of these refugees has been a source of tension in the region with Kigali accusing neighbouring states of supporting those who want to overthrow the government by force. Some Rwandans have indeed taken up armed struggle, a situation that, if not resolved, threatens long-term security in Rwanda and the Great Lakes region. In fact, the UK government’s advice on travel to Rwanda has consistently warned of the unstable security situation near the border with the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Burundi.

While Rwanda’s intention to help address the global imbalance of opportunity that fuels illegal immigration is laudable, I would recommend that charity start at home. As host of the 26th Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting scheduled for June 2022, and Commonwealth Chair-in-Office for the next two years, the government should seize the opportunity to implement the core values and principles of the Commonwealth, particularly the promotion of democracy, the rule of law, freedom of expression, political and civil rights, and a vibrant civil society. This would enable Rwanda to address its internal social, economic and political challenges, creating a conducive environment for long-term economic development, and durable peace that will not only stop Rwanda from producing refugees but will also render the country ready and capable of economically and socially integrating refugees from less fortunate countries in the future.

Continue Reading

Politics

Beyond Borders: Why We Need a Truly Internationalist Climate Justice Movement

The elite’s ‘solution’ to the climate crisis is to turn the displaced into exploitable migrant labour. We need a truly internationalist alternative.

Published

on

Beyond Borders: Why We Need a Truly Internationalist Climate Justice Movement
Download PDFPrint Article

“We are not drowning, we are fighting” has become the rallying call for the Pacific Climate Warriors. From UN climate meetings to blockades of Australian coal ports, these young Indigenous defenders from twenty Pacific Island states are raising the alarm of global warming for low-lying atoll nations. Rejecting the narrative of victimisation – “you don’t need my pain or tears to know that we’re in a crisis,” as Samoan Brianna Fruean puts it – they are challenging the fossil fuel industry and colonial giants such as Australia, responsible for the world’s highest per-capita carbon emissions.

Around the world, climate disasters displace around 25.3 million people annually – one person every one to two seconds. In 2016, new displacements caused by climate disasters outnumbered new displacements as a result of persecution by a ratio of three to one. By 2050, an estimated 143 million people will be displaced in just three regions: Africa, South Asia, and Latin America. Some projections for global climate displacement are as high as one billion people.

Mapping who is most vulnerable to displacement reveals the fault lines between rich and poor, between the global North and South, and between whiteness and its Black, Indigenous and racialised others.

Globalised asymmetries of power create migration but constrict mobility. Displaced people – the least responsible for global warming – face militarised borders. While climate change is itself ignored by the political elite, climate migration is presented as a border security issue and the latest excuse for wealthy states to fortify their borders. In 2019, the Australian Defence Forces announced military patrols around Australia’s waters to intercept climate refugees.

The burgeoning terrain of “climate security” prioritises militarised borders, dovetailing perfectly into eco-apartheid. “Borders are the environment’s greatest ally; it is through them that we will save the planet,” declares the party of French far-Right politician Marine Le Pen. A US Pentagon-commissioned report on the security implications of climate change encapsulates the hostility to climate refugees: “Borders will be strengthened around the country to hold back unwanted starving immigrants from the Caribbean islands (an especially severe problem), Mexico, and South America.” The US has now launched Operation Vigilant Sentry off the Florida coast and created Homeland Security Task Force Southeast to enforce marine interdiction and deportation in the aftermath of disasters in the Caribbean.

Labour migration as climate mitigation

you broke the ocean in
half to be here.
only to meet nothing that wants you
– Nayyirah Waheed

Parallel to increasing border controls, temporary labour migration is increasingly touted as a climate adaptation strategy. As part of the ‘Nansen Initiative’, a multilateral, state-led project to address climate-induced displacement, the Australian government has put forward its temporary seasonal worker program as a key solution to building climate resilience in the Pacific region. The Australian statement to the Nansen Initiative Intergovernmental Global Consultation was, in fact, delivered not by the environment minister but by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection.

Beginning in April 2022, the new Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme will make it easier for Australian businesses to temporarily insource low-wage workers (what the scheme calls “low-skilled” and “unskilled” workers) from small Pacific island countries including Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Kiribati, Samoa, Tonga, and Tuvalu. Not coincidentally, many of these countries’ ecologies and economies have already been ravaged by Australian colonialism for over one hundred years.

It is not an anomaly that Australia is turning displaced climate refugees into a funnel of temporary labour migration. With growing ungovernable and irregular migration, including climate migration, temporary labour migration programs have become the worldwide template for “well-managed migration.” Elites present labour migration as a double win because high-income countries fill their labour shortage needs without providing job security or citizenship, while low-income countries alleviate structural impoverishment through migrants’ remittances.

Dangerous, low-wage jobs like farm, domestic, and service work that cannot be outsourced are now almost entirely insourced in this way. Insourcing and outsourcing represent two sides of the same neoliberal coin: deliberately deflated labour and political power. Not to be confused with free mobility, temporary labour migration represents an extreme neoliberal approach to the quartet of foreign, climate, immigration, and labour policy, all structured to expand networks of capital accumulation through the creation and disciplining of surplus populations.

The International Labour Organization recognises that temporary migrant workers face forced labour, low wages, poor working conditions, virtual absence of social protection, denial of freedom association and union rights, discrimination and xenophobia, as well as social exclusion. Under these state-sanctioned programs of indentureship, workers are legally tied to an employer and deportable. Temporary migrant workers are kept compliant through the threats of both termination and deportation, revealing the crucial connection between immigration status and precarious labour.

Through temporary labour migration programs, workers’ labour power is first captured by the border and this pliable labour is then exploited by the employer. Denying migrant workers permanent immigration status ensures a steady supply of cheapened labour. Borders are not intended to exclude all people, but to create conditions of ‘deportability’, which increases social and labour precarity. These workers are labelled as ‘foreign’ workers, furthering racist xenophobia against them, including by other workers. While migrant workers are temporary, temporary migration is becoming the permanent neoliberal, state-led model of migration.

Reparations include No Borders

“It’s immoral for the rich to talk about their future children and grandchildren when the children of the Global South are dying now.” – Asad Rehman

Discussions about building fairer and more sustainable political-economic systems have coalesced around a Green New Deal. Most public policy proposals for a Green New Deal in the US, Canada, UK and the EU articulate the need to simultaneously tackle economic inequality, social injustice, and the climate crisis by transforming our extractive and exploitative system towards a low-carbon, feminist, worker and community-controlled care-based society. While a Green New Deal necessarily understands the climate crisis and the crisis of capitalism as interconnected — and not a dichotomy of ‘the environment versus the economy’ — one of its main shortcomings is its bordered scope. As Harpreet Kaur Paul and Dalia Gebrial write: “the Green New Deal has largely been trapped in national imaginations.”

Any Green New Deal that is not internationalist runs the risk of perpetuating climate apartheid and imperialist domination in our warming world. Rich countries must redress the global and asymmetrical dimensions of climate debtunfair trade and financial agreements, military subjugation, vaccine apartheidlabour exploitation, and border securitisation.

It is impossible to think about borders outside the modern nation-state and its entanglements with empire, capitalism, race, caste, gender, sexuality, and ability. Borders are not even fixed lines demarcating territory. Bordering regimes are increasingly layered with drone surveillance, interception of migrant boats, and security controls far beyond states’ territorial limits. From Australia offshoring migrant detention around Oceania to Fortress Europe outsourcing surveillance and interdiction to the Sahel and Middle East, shifting cartographies demarcate our colonial present.

Perhaps most offensively, when colonial countries panic about ‘border crises’ they position themselves as victims. But the genocide, displacement, and movement of millions of people were unequally structured by colonialism for three centuries, with European settlers in the Americas and Oceania, the transatlantic slave trade from Africa, and imported indentured labourers from Asia. Empire, enslavement, and indentureship are the bedrock of global apartheid today, determining who can live where and under what conditions. Borders are structured to uphold this apartheid.

The freedom to stay and the freedom to move, which is to say no borders, is decolonial reparations and redistribution long due.

Continue Reading

Trending