“Africa” has become more of a concept than a place in my mind, over the years of famine, civil war, and token coverage of brightly-coloured cultural events in the media. So when I decided to actually look over some of the details of the place, it was a real eye-opener. Geography was always my weak point at school - I think I remember loftily declaring when I was about 16 that “the internet means we don’t need to know where things are any more” - so forgive me if none of this is news to you.

First off, draw a little map of Africa. You can probably do that. Big bulge to the left, spikey bit to the right, spikey bit to the bottom. Now, draw a line where you think the equator is. No cheating!

Done it? I bet good money you’ve drawn it too far North. In fact, the equator runs right through the middle, under the spike to the east (also known as the Horn of Africa, or the Somali Peninsula), and the bulge to the west (also known as, um, West Africa). If you’ve got Google Earth, press ctrl+L and you’ll see a latitude & longitude grid, neatly illustrating this. If not, try this map.

Why the hell does this matter? Well, for one thing it’s interesting to see just how Northern our world’s main landmasses are. But for another, it matters because it means Africa is primarily a tropical continent. Those dark jungles you used to read about in Tintin in the Congo are really there, to this day (nowadays, though, they’re not called jungles, but the less evocative tag Tropical and subtropical moist broadleaf forests).

Now, think of an image of starving Africans. Go on, there are so many to choose from! What do you see? Parched, cracked soil? Failing crops? Brown huts, brown soil and brown, starving people, baking under a harsh, unrelenting sun? Yep. In other words, you see desert. Our images of African poverty are still defined by the Ethiopian famine of 1984-5, broadcast all over Britain by Michael Burke and Band Aid, all over the US by USA for Africa, and all over pretty much everywhere by Live Aid.

Well, brace yourself: those images don’t even begin to show the real problems. Northern Africa has its troubles, Ethiopia still has severe malnutrition problems (that’s development-speak for “people are still starving to death there”), and you probably have a clue about what’s going on in Sudan. But the real nasty stuff happens in an area called Sub-Saharan Africa. You’ve probably heard politicians mention it. I think I thought it meant the Sahara, as if “sub” gained some odd extra meaning. But no, it means “below,” and sub-Saharan Africa is that large, green bit below the desert. (If you’re one of those who, quite reasonably, objects to the meaningless use of “up” and “down,” “sub” and “super” to mean north and south, the alternative term is Tropical Africa.)

Sub-Saharan Africa is the poorest area in the world. The map here gives you an idea of its status in the African economy.

So why such crushing poverty here, on such fertile land? Malnutrition happens where not enough food is grown, right? Well, no. I’ll have to save the detailed explanation for another day - I haven’t even begun to understand it myself yet - but suffice to say, it’s increasingly accepted that feeding people isn’t about how much food you can grow, it’s about trading, transport and power relations. Those dense jungles don’t make moving goods around any easier. To use a nice example from the Africa Commission’s report, it costs only $1500 to ship a car from Japan to Abidjan on the south coast of Cote D’Ivoire, but $5000 to get it across Africa to Addis Ababa.

And if the idea of starving desert villages is still etched in your mind, consider one more fact. Twenty years from now, the majority of Africans will live in cities.

Revise your African geography

Tags: , , , ,