EXTRACT: ...in the words of the Gates funded Africa Harvest, "less truth and more emotion" [are] the keys to getting farmers and consumers to adopt GM foods.
---
---
Dysfunctional Philanthropy: African Responses to the Gates Foundations' "Green Revolution in Africa"
MOP 5 Side Event
Nagoya, Japan
12 October 2010
Speakers: Daniel Maingi, Kenyan Biodiversity Coalition; Mariam Mayet, African Centre for Biosafety; Travis English, AGRA Watch
Moderator: Phil Bereano, AGRA Watch
On October 12 2010, representatives from Seattle based group AGRA Watch joined colleagues from South Africa and Kenya to present on the dysfunctional philanthropy of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) and their initiative, the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa, AGRA. Professor Phil Bereano moderated the event, held at the 5th Meeting of the Parties of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, hosted in Nagoya Japan. The event was sponsored by the Washington Biotechnology Action Council and African Centre for Biosafety.
Nearly 40 people attended the event to listen to an instructive talk on the Gates Foundation’s collusion with industry to pressure African countries into adopting biosafety legislation to allow for the legalization of GMOs. Present at the talk were many representatives of the Kenyan Government, AGRA, ISAAA, CropLife International, WEMA, US State Department, and several others with close ties to industry.
Bereano framed the discussion, describing AGRA Watch and its relationship to African NGOs and farmers explaining why the activities of the Gates Foundation has raised concerns and led to critiques of its activities. He made a point of insisting on decorum in the discussion of these issues and also that discussion would be reserved until after the presentations and structured so that a point raised by a questioner would be followed by discussion involving the audience and panel before going on to another question’s topic. He also noted that there was disruption at a side event at Bonn 2 years ago and insisted that he would not tolerate any such conduct.
English began by first providing evidence showing that there is no reason to believe AGRA is an African led organization as stated by the Gates Foundation. He followed this by illustrating the funding patterns of Gates/AGRA, making strong connections to Monsanto both within the Foundation itself and among their grantees. The tie with Monsanto was also illustrated by presenting the recent purchase of its stock by the Foundation; other ways in which Gates is promoting corporate incursions into Africa include TechnoServe's fruit project with Coca-, and the African Harvest "Golden Sorghum" work. He also discussed highlights from a conference in Uganda in which presenters urged African governments to harmonize and fast track biosafety legislation that provides industry with the least amount of barriers, and in the words of Gates funded Africa Harvest, "less truth and more emotion" as the keys to getting farmers and consumers to adopt GM foods.
Maingi noted that there are 67 groups in KBioC, and briefly presented the distortions of the Kenyan government in the recent story touting its (non-existent) role in achieving the Liability and Redress Sub-Protocol. He covered the Golden Sorghum concerns and presented the maize importation scandal of last summer where South Africa followed its laws (and the Cartagena Protocol) providing notification of the export but Kenya did not provide any import notification, no less do a risk assessment or issue an Advance Informed Agreement. Indeed, many GMOs appear to have been brought into Kenya, without approval.
Mayet highlighted three projects to illustrate the problems caused by the Foundation’s involvement in African agriculture. Two of these involved GMOs””Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA) and Golden Sorghum.
*WEMA””$47 million from Gates, in several countries. The mantra used to be concern for the starving Africans, now it is drought/climate change (i.e., they use whatever appealing tagline will promote their product). It will be patented, and thus not easily available to farmers, etc. Anyway, scientists tell us that drought tolerance involves a great many genes and would take 10-20 years to develop - so it won’t solve current climate problems. Monsanto admits yields are low. What is going on here, she asks? How can we understand risk assessment documents on this project with so many contradictions?
*GE Sorghum””Gates Foundation funded, this will supposedly will increase Vitamin A, etc . The application to produce in contained facilities has been thrown out twice by the pro-GE South African government. There has been a list of industry institutions involved in this project but no farmer involvement. The real interest may be using agricultural land not to produce food but to produce fuel. Sorghum is an African heritage crop””countries under the Protocol have extra responsibilities to protect these.
*Gates is also involved in non-GE work that presents problems. "Increasing the value-chain" - the promotion of soy crop in Mozambique (which directly undercuts the business of small farmers in South Africa who sell soy to Mozambique) in conjunction with Cargill. What is this all about?
The discussion period began with Dr Maria Rocker a plant pathologist in Honduras, wondering what she could tell her students on this subject - just what are the concerns about GE? Suggestions for student learning were the Precautionary Principle in the Protocol and the contradictions principles enunciated on the Gates Foundation webpage and its practice.
Gemedo Dalle: Ethiopian delegate - Director of the Genetic Resources Transfer and Regulation Directorate of the Institute of Biodiversity Conservation within the Ministry of Agriculture, noted there is a problem of losing local landraces; GE is not the only option.
Julian Japhta: South African GE regulator, Dept of Agriculture, complained that we gave the impression that the South African export was illegal. In fact we had said the opposite.
Francis Nang'ayo: African Agriculture Technology Foundation, regulatory affairs manager of Water Efficient Maize for Africa. He challenged us on distorting the facts, saying WEMA and Golden Sorghum (GMO projects) are Gates projects not AGRA projects. Nang'ayo also stated that AGRA does not fund GM research. Bereano responded: Indeed we had been very clear that both projects were funded by the Gates Foundation. English responded: First he affirmed Bereano’s statement and add that AGRA likely has said if the political environment in African countries is right for GMOs, AGRA would most likely pursue the technology. He also added that the Gates Foundation is working hard to create the right political environment for such a move.
Margret Karembu: Director for ISAAA Africenter in Kenya posed 3 questions:
1. 80% of the farming population is small scale and they want choices, what can we offer them?
2. How can we engage in meaningful development?
3. Much more money is going into conventional breeding research than GE; the issues are distorted and our presentation is one-sided.
Maingi responded: that we have no desire to keep people impoverished; sustainable programs could be supported. Bereano: specified that, as the organizer of the event, he did not put together a balanced panel - this panel is presenting a point of view; many other panels are imbalanced in other ways.
Mayet emphasized that a concern with the convergence of a number of factors (interest by Western foundations, institutional pushes for industrial ag model, promotion of GE, etc) is not advocating for perpetuation of poverty. English noted that we advocate for choices also. The issue is that there is an imbalance in funding that advocates for industrial agriculture and GMOs. Less than 1% of the Gates funding for agriculture goes toward agroecological agriculture. Gates is not providing choices. Example - Joshua Machinga training over 100,000 farmers in Kenya on agroecological approaches.
Jack Heinemann: University of Canterbury, NZ; Genøk faculty; member of Protocol’s Risk Assessment Ad Hoc Technical Experts Group, and researcher on IAASTD, replied that IAASTD was the largest research effort ever undertaken regarding ag in developing countries””over 400 researchers and 900 reviewers; there was no evidence uncovered that GE is the solution for Africa. He also noted that a comparison study had found that the yield for agroecological methods was 179% greater - and social measures (eg, kids in school) were all higher. Sometimes tech is not the answer.
Kurt Miller: Business consultant on food security (WFP) claimed to have put in many hours worrying about starving Africans and chastised us for standing in the way of solutions. Bereano responded: We have already given several examples of solutions that have proven more viable than the use of GMOs and industrial agriculture.
Deb Carstiou: CropLife International, made some remarks that Mayet, based on prior interactions, took as a personal attack, responding that it is about issues not personalities.
Gemedo Dalle: Director of the Genetic Resources Transfer and Regulation Directorate of the Institute of Biodiversity Conservation within Ethiopia's Ministry of Agriculture again took the floor asking "are GMOs the best solution"? They don't increase employment; in fact they take away jobs. Is this another form of economic colonialism?
In addition to persons named above, attendees included:
Miriam Kinyua: Director General Kenyan National Biosafety Authority
Harrison Macharia: Secretary to Kenyan National Biosafety Authority
A PRRI woman from India (Public Research Initiative--industry-funded scientists)
Judy ? : AGRA Legal Representative
Anne ?: DFID ((UK development fund, funds AGRA)
Daniel K. Wood: Trade Division of US State Dept.