Most Gates Foundation dollars to "feed the hungry" go on high-tech seeds and chemicals sold by US agribiz

The majority of the $3 billion spent by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation on improving agricultural yields to benefit the world's poorest and hungry people has been spent in the US, Britain, and other rich developed nations, shows a new report by GRAIN.

The report these articles are based on is available here:
http://www.grain.org/article/entries/5064-how-does-the-gates-foundation-spend-its-money-to-feed-the-world

EXCERPT (item 1): "We found that the The Gates Foundation fights hunger in the South by giving money to the North. Roughly half of the foundation's grants for agriculture went to four big groupings: the CGIAR's global agriculture research network, international organisations (World Bank, UN agencies), AGRA (set up by Gates itself), and the African Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF). The other half ended up with hundreds of different research, development, and policy organizations across the world. Of this last group, over 80% of the grants were given to organizations in the US and Europe, 10% went to groups in Africa, and the remainder elsewhere. By far the main recipient country is Gates's own home country, the US, followed by the UK, Germany, and the Netherlands.”

1. 80% of grants for finding solutions to improve agricultural yield spent in US, UK, Europe
2. Gates foundation spends bulk of agriculture grants in rich countries

1. 80% of grants for finding solutions to improve agricultural yield spent in US, UK, Europe

Kounteya Sinha
The Times of India, Nov 4, 2014
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/uk/80-of-grants-for-finding-solutions-to-improve-agricultural-yield-spent-in-US-UK-Europe/articleshow/45035680.cms

Majority of the $3 billion spent by the world's leading philanthropic organization - the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation on finding solutions around improved agricultural yield to benefit the world's poorest and hungry people, has been spent in the US, Britain, and other rich developed nations.

GRAIN, a research group based in Barcelona, said on Tuesday that over 80% of the grants were given to organizations in the US and Europe, and only 10% to groups in Africa.

"By far the main recipient country is the US, followed by the UK, Germany, and the Netherlands," it says in a report published on Tuesday.

Of the $678 million given to universities and national research centres, 79% went to the US and Europe, and only 12% to Africa.

America was the biggest recipient of Gates agricultural grants meant to benefit farmers in poor countries: $880 million dished out in 254 grants. Recipients include US universities and research institutions to produce for crop varieties and biotechnology research for farmers in Africa (like Cornell University, $90m in 12 grants).

UK was the second biggest recipient, total of 25 grants with a focus on academic research amounting to over $ 150 million - such as for the University of Greenwich to work on cassava value chains in several African countries (16.6 m), the University of Cambridge to work on epidemiological modelling on wheat and cassava diseases ($4.2m), and the John Innes Centre to test the feasibility cereal crops capable of fixing nitrogen ($9.8m).

India received around $41 million worth of grants - total of ten grants including two grants to PRADAN ($30.8m for women farmers training) and to BAIF ($6.3 m. for establishment of cattle development centres).

Interestingly, one of the findings is that the Gates Foundation buys political influence.

GRAIN said, "Does the Gates Foundation use its money to tell African governments what to do? Not directly. The Gates Foundation set up the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa in 2006 and has supported it with $414 million since then. It holds two seats on the Alliance's board and describes it as the 'African face and voice for our work'. AGRA, like the Gates Foundation, provides grants to research programmes. It also funds initiatives and agribusiness companies operating in Africa to develop private markets for seeds and fertilizers through support to 'agro-dealers'. An important component of its work, however, is shaping policy.

"AGRA intervenes directly in the formulation and revision of agricultural policies and regulations in Africa on such issues as land and seeds. It does so through national policy action nodes of experts, selected by AGRA, that work to advance particular policy changes.

"In a similar vein, the Gates Foundation provides Harvard University with funds to promote discussion of biotechnology in Africa, Michigan University with a grant to set up a centre to help African policymakers decide on how best to use biotechnology, and Cornell University with funds to create a global 'agricultural communications platform' so that people better understand science-based agricultural technologies.

In June this year, the total amount given as grants to food and agriculture projects by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation surpassed the $3 billion mark. It marked quite a milestone. From nowhere on the agricultural scene less than a decade ago, the Gates Foundation has emerged as one of the world's major donors to agricultural research and development."

GRAIN said, "The Gates Foundation is arguably the biggest philanthropic venture ever. It currently holds a $40 billion endowment, made up mostly of contributions from Gates and his billionaire friend Warren Buffet. The foundation has over 1,200 staff and has given over $30 billion in grants since its inception in 2000, $3.6 billion in 2013 alone. Most of the grants go to global health programmes and educational work in the US, traditionally the foundation's priority areas. But in 2006-2007, the foundation massively expanded its funding for agriculture, with the launch of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) and a series of large grants to the international agricultural research system (CGIAR). In 2007, it spent over half a billion dollars on agricultural projects and has maintained funding at around this level. The vast majority of the foundation's agricultural grants focus on Africa. Spending so much money gives the foundation significant influence over agricultural research and development agendas."

GRAIN looked through the foundation's publicly available financial records to see if the actual flows of money support these critiques.

"We combed through all the grants for agriculture that the Gates Foundation gave between 2003 and September 2014. We found that The Gates Foundation fights hunger in the South by giving money to the North. Roughly half of the foundation's grants for agriculture went to four big groupings: the CGIAR's global agriculture research network, international organisations (World Bank, UN agencies), AGRA (set up by Gates itself), and the African Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF). The other half ended up with hundreds of different research, development, and policy organizations across the world. Of this last group, over 80% of the grants were given to organizations in the US and Europe, 10% went to groups in Africa, and the remainder elsewhere. By far the main recipient country is Gates's own home country, the US, followed by the UK, Germany, and the Netherlands.

"When it comes to agricultural grants by the foundation to universities and national research centres across the world, 79% went to grantees in the US and Europe, and a meagre 12% to recipients in Africa. The North-South divide is most shocking, however, when we look at the NGOs that the Gates Foundation supports. One would assume that a significant portion of the frontline work that the foundation funds in Africa would be carried out by organizations based there. But of the $669 million that the Gates Foundation has granted to non-governmental organizations for agricultural work, over three quarters has gone to organizations based in the US. Africa-based NGOs get a meagre 4% of the overall agriculture-related grants to NGOs."

The single biggest recipient of grants from the Gates Foundation is the CGIAR, a consortium of 15 international agricultural research centres. In the 1960s and 70s, these centres were responsible for the development and spread of a controversial Green Revolution model of agriculture in parts of Asia and Latin America which focused on the mass distribution of a few varieties of seeds that could produce high yields - with the generous application of chemical fertilizers and pesticides.

GRAIN said, "The CGIAR centres have received over $720 million from Gates since 2003. During the same period, another $678 million went to universities and national research centres across the world - over three-quarters of them in the US and Europe - for research and development of specific technologies, such as crop varieties and breeding techniques. We could find no evidence of any support from the Gates Foundation for programmes of research or technology development carried out by farmers or based on farmers' knowledge, despite the multitude of such initiatives that exist across the continent".

2. Gates foundation spends bulk of agriculture grants in rich countries

John Vidal
The Guardian, 4 Nov 2014
http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/nov/04/bill-melinda-gates-foundation-grants-usa-uk-africa

* African NGOs received just 4% of Bill Gates’s money for agriculture work, with 75% for US organisations, report says.

Most of the $3bn (£1.8bn) that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has given to benefit hungry people in the world’s poorest countries has been spent in the US, Britain, and other rich countries, with only around 10% spent in Africa, new research suggests.

Analysis of grants made by the foundation shows that nearly half the money awarded over the past decade went to global agriculture research networks, as well as organisations including the World Bank and UN agencies, and groups that work in Africa to promote hi-tech farming.

The other $1.5bn went to hundreds of research and development organisations across the world, according to GRAIN, a research group based in Barcelona. “Here, over 80% of the grants were given to organisations in the US and Europe, and only 10% to groups in Africa. By far the main recipient country is the US, followed by the UK, Germany, and the Netherlands,” it says in a report published on Tuesday.

Of the $678m given to universities and national research centres, 79% went to the US and Europe, and only 12% to Africa.

“The north-south divide is most shocking, however, when we look at the $669m given to non-government groups for agriculture work. Africa-based groups received just 4%. Over 75% went to organisations based in the US,” says the report.

“When we examined the foundation’s grants database, we were amazed that they seem to want to fight hunger in the south by giving money to organisations in the north. The bulk of its grants for agriculture are given to organisations in the US and Europe,” said agronomist Henk Hobbelink, a co-founder of GRAIN.

“It also appeared that they’re not listening to farmers, despite their claims. The overwhelming majority of its funding goes to hi-tech scientific outfits, not to supporting the solutions that the farmers themselves are developing on the ground. Africa’s farmers are cast as recipients, mere consumers of knowledge and technology from others.”

The private foundation – one of the world’s largest with an endowment of more than $38bn from Bill Gates, and which supports the Guardian’s Global development website – has emerged in under a decade as one of the major donors to agricultural research and development and the largest single funder of research into genetic engineering. In 2006-07, it spent $500m on agricultural projects and it has maintained funding at around this level since. The vast majority of the foundation’s grants focus on Africa.

It aims to enhance healthcare and reduce extreme poverty but its agriculture work has been criticised for being fixated on the work of scientists in centralised labs and ignoring the knowledge and biodiversity that Africa’s smallholder farmers have developed over generations.

The single biggest recipient of Gates foundation agricultural grants is the CGIAR consortium of 15 international agricultural research centres.

“In the 1960s and 70s, these centres were responsible for the development and spread of a controversial ‘green revolution’ model of agriculture in parts of Asia and Latin America which focused on the mass distribution of a few varieties of seeds that could produce high yields – with the generous application of chemical fertilisers and pesticides,” says the report.

“Efforts to implement the same model in Africa failed and, globally, CGIAR lost relevance as corporations like Syngenta and Monsanto have taken control over seed markets. Money from the Gates foundation is now providing CGIAR and its green revolution model with a new lease of life, this time in direct partnership with seed and pesticide companies.”

The centres have received more than $720m from Gates since 2003. During the same period, another $678m went to universities and national research centres – more than three-quarters of them in the US and Europe – for research and development of specific technologies, such as crop varieties and breeding techniques.

Britain has been the Gates foundation’s second largest recipient, receiving 25 grants worth $156m since 2003. In the US, where universities and research groups have been awarded $880m, Cornell University has received $90m – more than all other countries except the US, UK, and Germany.

“We could find no evidence of any support from the Gates foundation for programmes of research or technology development carried out by farmers or based on farmers’ knowledge, despite the multitude of such initiatives that exist across the continent and the fact that African farmers continue to supply an estimated 90% of the seed used on the continent,” says the report. “The foundation has elected consistently to put its money into top-down structures of knowledge generation and flow, where farmers are mere recipients of the technologies developed in labs and sold to them by companies.”

GRAIN suggests that the foundation uses its money to indirectly impose a policy agenda on African governments. “The Gates foundation set up the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) in 2006 and has supported it with $414m since then. It holds two seats on the alliance’s board and describes it as the African face and voice for our work,” it says.

“AGRA trains farmers on how to use the technologies, and even organises them into groups to better access the technologies, but it does not support farmers in building up their own seed systems or in doing their own research. It also funds initiatives and agribusiness companies operating in Africa to develop private markets for seeds and fertilisers through support to "agro-dealers".

“An important component of its work, however, is shaping policy. AGRA intervenes directly in the formulation and revision of agricultural policies and regulations in Africa on such issues as land and seeds. It does so through national ‘policy action nodes’ of experts, selected by AGRA that work to advance particular policy changes,” says the report.

The foundation, based in Seattle, responded to the report’s main points by saying they gave an incomplete picture of its work. “The needs of millions of smallholder farmers – most of whom are women – are very much at the centre of the Gates foundation’s agriculture strategy. Our grants are focused on connecting farmers with quality farming supplies and information, access to markets, and improving data so that government policies and resources are in line with their needs. Listening to farmers to understand their needs, and to developing country governments to understand their priorities, is crucially important,” said spokesman Chris Williams.

“We fundamentally believe that development should be led by developing countries themselves. We invest directly in the capacity of national governments to execute their own agricultural strategies and join with other donors to fund those strategies through multilateral mechanisms like the global agriculture and food security programme.

“Looking at the primary grantees in our database doesn’t provide a complete picture of where our funds end up and who they benefit. Many of our primary grantees sub grant funds to local institutions in African and south Asian countries, including farmer organisations.

“Many local NGOs in Africa and south Asia are small organisations without the capacity to absorb large grants and often choose to partner with larger organisations to get work done most efficiently. But at the same time, we are also engaged in direct capacity-building funding to ensure these organisations will be more able to administer grants of this size on their own in the future.”

The same is true for research funding, Williams said, adding: “We fund research on crops and livestock that are critically important to the poor, but have historically been neglected by donors. For example, with support from the British government, our foundation and others, researchers at Cornell and the US department of agriculture are now working on improved varieties of cassava, a staple crop in many tropical regions. Partners in Uganda and Nigeria are growing new plants, recording their traits, and sending genetic samples to Cornell for sequencing. This will help breeders in these countries develop new locally adapted varieties faster than ever.”