On the fertile slopes of Ethiopia’s Rift Valley and around Kenya’s Lake Naivasha, thousands of workers tend rows of roses destined for European florists and supermarkets. These flowers—cultivated on some of Africa’s most productive land—will arrive in Amsterdam, London, and Berlin within days, adorning Valentine’s bouquets and Mother’s Day arrangements. But back home, millions face food insecurity on a continent that paradoxically possesses 60 percent of the world’s uncultivated arable land yet imports a third of its cereals.
This jarring contrast lies at the heart of a heated debate: Is Africa’s booming flower industry a development success story or a modern manifestation of colonial exploitation?
The Scale of the Flower Economy
Kenya and Ethiopia dominate Africa’s floriculture sector, collectively producing billions of stems annually for export markets primarily in Europe. Ethiopia’s floriculture sector generates approximately $250-600 million annually from cut flower exports, making it Africa’s second-largest flower exporter. Kenya’s flower industry generates over $1 billion annually and accounts for nearly 1.5% of the country’s GDP, with the nation supplying roughly 30-35% of flowers sold at European auctions.
The industry emerged rapidly in the 1990s and 2000s, driven by favorable policies designed to attract foreign investment. Ethiopia attracted foreign investors through supportive policies including a five-year tax holiday, duty-free import of machinery, easy access to bank loans and the availability of easy-to-train labor. Many of the farms are owned or operated by Dutch, Israeli, and other European companies that bring capital, technology, and direct market access to European buyers.
In Kenya, farms like Beauty Line Ltd. are wholly owned and operated by Israeli interests, while Maridadi Flowers operates 42 hectares owned by European investors. Black Tulip Group from the UAE owns multiple farms across both countries. This foreign ownership pattern echoes throughout the sector, with Dutch, Israeli, and European companies controlling a significant portion of production.
The Land Conflict: Flowers vs. Food
The central tension is stark: floriculture produces non-edible products for wealthy foreign consumers while occupying land that could grow food for local populations struggling with malnutrition.
The expansion of the floriculture industry has significantly impacted smallholder farmers’ access to arable and grazing lands, with large-scale acquisitions for high-value flower cultivation leading to loss of agricultural land, disruption of grazing spaces, social and economic displacement, and threats to food security.
In Ethiopia’s Sululta district, researchers found that flower farms have controlled lands in various ways that restrict smallholder farmers’ access to both land and water resources. Smallholder farmers, who typically cultivate edible crops and ensure national food security, face increased pressure from large-scale agribusinesses.
The statistics are troubling. In Ethiopia, only 1,600-3,400 hectares are dedicated to flowers, yet this sector generates hundreds of millions in export revenue—more than coffee farming, which uses 871,000 hectares. In Kenya, over 2,500 hectares are devoted to floriculture. Flower farms now compete with food crops for arable land, raising concerns over food security and resource prioritization.
The practice of dedicating extensive tracts of land to flower cultivation—a single type of crop that does not contribute to the food supply—is particularly problematic in the context of Ethiopia’s acute need for agricultural diversification and enhancement of food security. Ethiopia faces chronic food insecurity, with smallholder farmers typically managing plots of just 0.9 hectares while foreign-owned flower farms control tens or even hundreds of hectares of prime agricultural land.
Water scarcity compounds the problem. Around Lake Naivasha in Kenya, conflicts have erupted between commercial flower farms and local communities dependent on the same sources for drinking water and irrigation. The flower industry’s heavy water consumption for greenhouse operations directly competes with food crop irrigation needs.
The Neo-Colonial Argument
Critics argue that Africa’s flower industry bears unmistakable hallmarks of what Ghanaian independence leader Kwame Nkrumah termed “neo-colonialism”—where nominally independent nations remain economically directed from outside.
Nkrumah defined the essence of neo-colonialism as a situation where a state, while theoretically independent with all outward trappings of international sovereignty, has its economic system and political policy directed from outside. This economic control, exercised through indirect means rather than direct political rule, perpetuates colonial-era patterns of exploitation.
The parallels to colonial-era agriculture are striking. During colonialism, European powers transformed African agriculture to serve metropolitan needs, introducing plantation systems for cash crops like cotton, cocoa, and coffee for export while undermining food production. Colonial powers pursued this goal by encouraging the development of a commodity-based trading system, a cash crop agriculture system, and by building a trade network linking the total economic output of a region to the demands of the colonizing state.
The social system in colonies like Côte d’Ivoire was shaped by the requirement for cocoa and coffee, products that required lax land laws. Political power became inseparable from economic power, with ruling elites often acting more as agents of foreign business interests than as leaders of sovereign states.
Today’s flower industry reproduces these patterns. Like colonial cash crops, flowers are non-food commodities grown exclusively for export to wealthy nations. The land used—prime arable soil with good water access—mirrors the colonial selection of the best agricultural land for export crops rather than food security. The foreign ownership structure, with European and Middle Eastern companies controlling major farms, echoes the plantation ownership of the colonial era.
The profit structure reinforces dependency. While Ethiopia’s flower exports generate impressive revenue figures, the actual value captured domestically is limited. Foreign companies repatriate profits, and the industry depends entirely on European market demand and logistics. Ethiopian Airlines’ cargo capacity and connections to over 100 destinations make the industry viable, but this also means Ethiopia’s flower farmers are completely dependent on external market access.
Africa continues the colonial tradition of cash cropping, with cash crops for export taking more and more of the best land from local food production, forcing peasants to bring additional marginal land under cultivation. The World Bank and IMF, through structural adjustment programs, have promoted export crops and cash crops over food crops, denying African governments policy tools that richer nations regularly use to support their farmers.
The Employment Paradox
Defenders of the flower industry point to job creation. In Kenya, over 500,000 people, including over 100,000 flower farm employees, depend on the floriculture industry for their livelihoods. In Ethiopia, approximately 180,000 jobs have been created, with 85 percent of those employed being women.
Yet the quality of these jobs raises questions. Workers face hazardous conditions including pesticide exposure, extreme heat, and poor ventilation. Evidence shows that hazardous chemicals used in growing cut flowers have produced adverse health effects, with specific abuses including spraying of pesticides in greenhouses while workers labor inside, fumigation of cold storage facilities as workers work within them, and maintenance of working conditions in extreme heat with few or no breaks.
Sexual harassment is persistent, with a 2011 report finding that a majority of women surveyed believed sexual harassment is not adequately reported or investigated. Poor housing conditions and security around flower farms have contributed to increased risk of rape. Female workers tend to be low-skilled, lacking education and literacy, with few other employment options. Casual or short-term work is prevalent despite international standards requiring stronger worker protections.
The wage structure further illustrates the neo-colonial dynamic: African workers receive minimal compensation to produce luxury goods for European consumers. The value addition—sleeving, labelling, bouquet production—often happens in Europe rather than at the source, limiting the economic benefits that remain in Africa.
The Infrastructure Trap
The industry’s defenders note that flower farms have driven infrastructure development, with roads, cold storage facilities, and greenhouse technology. Research shows that path dependence due to colonial infrastructure investments is more important than continued agricultural productivity advantages in explaining why certain areas develop.
But this infrastructure serves export needs, not domestic development. The roads connect flower farms to airports, not rural food markets to cities. The cold chain preserves roses for Amsterdam, not vegetables for Addis Ababa. The positive local effects of colonial cash crop extraction came at the expense of surrounding areas, entrenching deep spatial inequalities.
During colonial times, European powers built infrastructure primarily to aid immediate extraction of valuable resources, with little to no investment in growing local business. Competitive local industries would have reduced colonies’ trade dependence on central economies in Europe. This pattern persists: flower industry infrastructure facilitates export dependence rather than domestic economic diversification.
Policy Complicity
African governments have actively facilitated this system. Ethiopia’s five-year tax holidays, duty-free machinery imports, and subsidized electricity for flower companies represent significant foregone revenue that could fund food security programs. Kenya’s policies similarly prioritize floriculture through favorable land allocation and export support.
This government complicity mirrors the colonial pattern where African leaders with close ties to former colonial powers acted more as agents of foreign business and geopolitical interests than as national leaders of sovereign states. The 2005 agricultural commercialization strategy in Ethiopia introduced large-scale agribusinesses, diminishing the role of smallholders in favor of export-led industries.
Some scholars argue that African ruling elites rationally seek systems that guarantee existing economic structures against market crises, as these systems also guarantee their political power. By creating incentives that lock in export-oriented agriculture, these policies prevent the political conditions for change and promote continuity along a colonial path.
The Food Security Cost
The ultimate measure of the neo-colonial critique is food security. Africa spends a staggering $78 billion of scarce foreign currency on food imports each year, with some countries exceeding 100 percent of their annual foreign currency receipts on food purchases. More than 20 percent of Africans face hunger—twice as high as any other region.
Africa imports a third of the cereals it consumes, and 64 percent of the wheat. Ukraine, with just 14 percent of Africa’s arable land, was able to feed the continent before the current conflict. The continent possesses 24% of the world’s agricultural land and 17% of arable land, yet remains the hungriest region and a net food importer.
Meanwhile, flowers occupy thousands of hectares of the continent’s best farmland. The contrast is inescapable: land that could grow wheat, maize, or vegetables to feed hungry populations instead produces roses for European holidays.
Breaking the Pattern?
Whether the flower industry constitutes neo-colonialism depends partly on whether alternatives exist. Could Ethiopia and Kenya develop their agricultural sectors differently?
History suggests yes. During the colonial period and afterwards, many farmers resisted the imposition of cash crops. In Mali, farmers resisted French cotton cultivation, though ultimately systematic enforcement prevailed. Today, Mali and other former French colonies remain Africa’s largest cotton producers—a crop that severely depletes soil fertility, leaving land unable to switch to more profitable crops or even produce food.
Some African countries have pursued different paths. Despite external pressure, countries that prioritize food sovereignty and domestic agricultural development show it’s possible to resist the export-crop model. The question is whether African governments, often dependent on foreign aid and investment, can muster the political will to redirect prime agricultural land toward food security.
International institutions present obstacles. Development programs like the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition, backed by donors including UK DFID and USAID, have been criticized for facilitating land-grabbing amid creation of agricultural corridors, dispossessing subsistence farmers in favor of agribusiness needs of corporate partners including export crop sectors.
A Verdict Without Easy Answers
Is Africa’s flower industry neo-colonial? The evidence suggests the label fits in important ways. Foreign ownership dominates. The best land produces non-food luxuries for wealthy markets. Workers labor in difficult conditions for low wages. Governments prioritize foreign investment over food security. Infrastructure serves export needs. The pattern reproduces colonial-era cash crop dependency.
Yet the industry also provides employment, generates foreign exchange, and represents integration into global markets that African nations seek. Women workers, however poorly paid and treated, have income they might not otherwise have. The revenue, however unevenly distributed, contributes to GDP.
The more productive question may not be whether the flower industry is neo-colonial, but whether the trade-off it represents—prime farmland for export flowers instead of food crops—serves Africa’s long-term interests. As climate change intensifies, food insecurity worsens, and populations grow, the opportunity cost of devoting scarce arable land to European bouquets becomes harder to justify.
Flowers may bloom in Africa’s fields, but for millions going hungry, the real question is: who benefits from the harvest? Until that answer changes, the specter of neo-colonialism will continue to haunt the industry, a reminder that political independence without economic sovereignty remains an incomplete liberation.
0 responses to “Blooms and Hunger: Africa’s Flower Industry and the Neo-Colonial Question”