Grabbing Africa's Seeds: USAID, EU and Gates Foundation Back Agribusiness Seed Takeover

The latest salvo in the battle over Africa's seed systems has been fired with the Gates Foundation and USAID playing puppet-masters to Africa's governments - now meeting in Addis Ababa - as they drive forward corporation-friendly seed regulations that exclude and marginalize the small farmers whose seeds and labour feed the continent.


A battle is currently being waged over Africa's seed systems. After decades of neglect and weak investment in African agriculture, there is renewed interest in funding African agriculture.

These new investments take the form of philanthropic and international development aid as well as private investment funds. They are based on the potentially huge profitability of African agriculture - and seed systems are a key target.

Right now ministers are co-ordinating their next steps at the 34th COMESA (Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa) Intergovernmental Committee meeting that kicked off March 22, in preparation for the main Summit that started yesterday and ends today.

COMESA's key aim is to pave the way for a "Continental Free Trade Area (CFTA) in 2017 under the auspices of the African Union" with uniform regulations, including on agricultural products, seeds and GMOs.

A recent meeting on biotechnology and biosafety was held to establish a "COMESA biotechnology and biosafety policy implementation plan" (COMBIP) to roll out from 2015-2019, "leading to increased biotechnology applications and agricultural commodity trade in the region."

But read between the lines and its real purpose was to facilitate the planting and commercialization of GMO crops in Africa all at one go, instead of country by country. USAID Regional representatives for East Africa, based in Nairobi, were present to monitor the process and ensure the desired outcome.

And on the agenda for the main COMESA Summit is the approval of a 'Master Plan' for the implementation of the COMESA Harmonised Seed Trade Regulations agreed last year in Kinshasa.

The regulations, according to the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa, "will greatly facilitate agricultural transformation in the COMESA member states towards industrialization of farming systems based on the logic of the highly controversial, failed and hopelessly doomed Green Revolution model of agriculture."

They "promote only one type of seed breeding, namely industrial seed breeding involving the use of advanced breeding technologies. The entire orientation of the seed Regulations is towards genetically uniform, commercially bred varieties in terms of seed quality control and variety registration."

No place for small farmers!

"What is very clear is that small farmers in Africa, seeking to develop or maintain varieties, create local seed enterprises or cultivate locally adapted varieties are excluded from the proposed COMESA Seed Certification System and Variety Release System, because these varieties willnot fulfill the requirements for distinctness, uniformity and stability (DUS).

"Landraces or farmers' varieties usually display a high degree of genetic heterogeneity and are adapted to the local environment under which they were developed. In addition, such varieties are not necessarily distinct from each other."

COMESA's key agricultural objectives are to raise production by 6% per year, "integrate farmers into the market economy", make Africa a "strategic player in agricultural science and technology development".

To this end USAID is funding COMESA programmes for 'Coordinated Agricultural Research and Technology Interventions' and 'A Regional Approach Towards Biotechnology' - in other words, to create uniform corporation-friendly regulations for seeds, agro-chemicals and GMOs across the region.

More than 80% of Africa's seed supply currently comes from millions of small-scale farmers recycling and exchanging seed from year to year. This seed meets very diverse needs in very diverse conditions.

Farmers know the quality of 'recycled' seed, selected and saved from their own crops. It is cheap and readily available. New varieties can be introduced through informal trade within villages and beyond. This system may not be perfect, but it has been broadly functional for generations.

The so-called 'formal' seed sector is a relatively new addition in Africa and has a narrow focus on commercial crops, especially hybrid maize. This commercial seed may offer yield advantages, but only in the right conditions, e.g. when coupled with continuous use of synthetic fertilizer, irrigation, larger pieces of land and mono-cropping - the Green Revolution package.

Seed production in the formal sector goes through a number of stages, starting with breeders' and pre-basic seed which has high varietal purity; then foundation / basic seed, which is a bulking up of the breeders' seed; then larger quantities of certified seed are produced for retail sale to farmers.

In most countries in Africa, the public sector was responsible for certified seed production and distribution. Lack of resources, especially following structural adjustment imposed by the World Bank and IMF in the 1980s and 1990s, reduced the effectiveness of this system.

As a result, availability of certified seed was sometimes limited and farmers often found it difficult to access this seed. Farmers continued relying on the tried and trusted seed saved on their farms and exchanged with one another.

The new commercialisation agenda

The new commercialisation agenda is based on the premise that the public sector is inherently incapable of meeting farmer requirements for quality seed.

This agenda is led by USAID and other G8 countries especially through the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition, and philanthropic institutions like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) working hand in hand with multinational corporations (MNCs) including Monsanto, Syngenta, Yara and others.

The EU also funded a key programme, now concluded, the 'COMESA Regional Agro-Inputs Programme' (COMRAP), to the tune of €20 million, which aims to "reach farmers in each country to improve their sustainable access to agro-inputs and services", "strengthen the capacity for the improvement of seed quality" and "harmonise seed trade regulations throughout the COMESA region".

The first line of attack was to argue for the privatisation of certified seed production and distribution, ostensibly to generate competition. This was identified as a profitable niche in a sector otherwise characterised by low demand, partly because farmers did not have the resources to pay for commercial seed, and partly because their seed needs were already being met through existing systems of production and distribution managed by farmers themselves.

Over the past two decades, a long and slow process of seed law reviews, sponsored by USAID and the G8, BMGF and others has secured this space for private companies to profit from seed production.

This opened the door to MNC involvement in seed production, including the acquisition of every sizeable seed enterprise on the continent. The focus remained on hybrid maize and a few other commercial crops with high demand at national level, or niche on demand.

It now appears that phase two of the commercialisation agenda is being launched. This begins the process of privatising the production of early generation seed (EGS), the breeder and foundation seed.

Already plant variety protection laws are being enacted to allow for private ownership of germplasm previously in the public domain. Now Green Revolution pundits are looking for opportunities to remove public control of potentially profitable processes in EGS production.

Gates, USAID and Deloitte study ways to commercialise early generation seed production

To this end, BMGF and USAID commissioned US strategy consulting firm Monitor-Deloitte to identify private business opportunities in EGS production. The study was conducted in Ethiopia, Ghana, Nigeria, Tanzania and Zambia on maize, rice, sorghum, cowpea, common beans, cassava and sweet potato.

BMGF and USAID have handpicked an elite group to meet behind closed doors in London in March 2015 to discuss the consultant's report and to strategise on how to open up another front in the battle to turn African seed into a profit-making venture for MNCs.

What is remarkable about this meeting is that there are very few Africans present. Those who are there mostly represent private sector interests, including seed companies and traders' associations. There are no farmer representatives.

This raises serious concerns about the transparency and accountability of these processes. The image of colonial robber barons meeting in secret to carve up the African continent arises unbidden in the mind.

Private sector cherry picking with public subsidy

The Deloitte report exposes a typical approach of private sector 'cherry picking', where private companies identify profitable activities for their own involvement.

While complaining incessantly about "heavy state involvement" they still insist on selected heavy state involvement to cover unprofitable interventions so that the private sector can take the profitable activities.

These include establishing systems, developing institutions, and even engaging in some productive activities where profits are unlikely but which are needed to allow the profit-making scheme to function.

The report uses cowpea production in Ghana as an example of where the public sector should carry the extremely expensive breeder seed costs to allow the private sector to profit in seed multiplication and distribution.

Breeder seed is prohibitively costly because of low multiplication rates and low demand. But the demand that exists is nonetheless lucrative, so the private sector wants to be involved in those parts of the production process identified as profitable.

Where the whole chain is profitable, Deloitte proposes the public sector be locked out of the production process. Examples are hybrid maize or closed value chains where there is strong but limited demand and early production processes are also potentially profitable, for example hybrid sorghum for brewing.

Deloitte's proposal to "channel government and donor financing into supporting mechanisms for private investment in seed production" is a route to effectively subsidising MNCs at the expense of building farmer capacity and resilience to produce quality seed to meet their own context-specific needs.

Active role for farmers disregarded

A potential role for farmers in production or distribution of seed is not even considered in the study, from conception to results. Indeed farmers are viewed only as passive consumers of seed produced by others for a profit.

While we can acknowledge that farmer-managed systems are not perfect, these systems have survived through extremely adverse conditions. They undoubtedly form a base for seed production and distribution that can be built on. But they require support, especially from public R& and extension services.

There is a growing movement in Africa to reassert the enduring importance of farmer-managed seed systems. Even under ideal circumstances, MNCs will not venture into the production of many small crops where demand is fragmented nationally but is very strong in local pockets.

The MNC business model of economies of scale and standardised products cannot respond to the diverse needs of asset-poor but dynamic African farmers.

Rather than engaging in partnerships with MNCs with dubious long-term benefits for farmers, it will be far better for the public sector to orient the capacity and resources at its disposal to work directly with farmers to build on existing seed production and distribution activities.

..

Well... Guess what.? Africa continues to birth leaders who evidently do not see her progress as important in the global scheme of things. Take a long hard historical look at Nigeria for example and you will understand that Africans will rather be useful tools for the East and West rather than picking herself up by the bootstrap and becoming that dream continent instead of a dark continent. Asia understands the game at play that is why they have grown steadily and also have clawed into Africa just like the West. All we blacks are. Interested in is social networks, swaggar knickers, Phones and gossip

Agreed. This is incredibly questionable.

All over the world, its known that GMO seeds or food causes cancer. In as much as the grant funds to support the farmers, the real deal behind this is to ensure complete control of food in Africa the big companies makes the profits, while we pay for foods cos the seeds from seeds don't grow/germinate again after first planting season. Their intention is not always good at the end in as much they appear friendly on the outside

This is indeed very disturbing. Just what are our "leaders" doing about it?

The scramble for Africa continues

The article mentioned only a 'few' africans are present at these meetings but the fact that any african would be present at such a meeting is beyond baffling to me. How do you trust a foundation linked to mass sterilization with something as integral to survival as food? What possibly could be gained that couldn't easily be taken back with such a control on your food supply? It's nothing more than a methodical attempt on our livelihood and a catalyst for the total recolonization of africa.

barwaaqo:

The article mentioned only a 'few' africans are present at these meetings but the fact that any african would be present at such a meeting is beyond baffling to me. How do you trust a foundation linked to mass sterilization with something as integral to survival as food? What possibly could be gained that couldn't easily be taken back with such a control on your food supply? It's nothing more than a methodical attempt on our livelihood and a catalyst for the total recolonization of africa.

Too bad this is not front page all we care about is money, celebrities, and sports. We don't want to understand how the world works and our place on it. We don't want to critic the world and societies. We are very naive people doomed for extermination.

Why African Farmers Do Not Want GMOs

Corporate voices and their allies are calling for the promotion of genetically modified seeds - and changes to African laws to enable their spread - as a solution to low food production and hunger in Africa. In October, the World Food Prize was awarded to three scientists, including two from agribusiness giants Monsanto and Syngenta, for their breakthroughs in developing GMOs. The editors of The Washington Post recently appealed to "give genetically modified crops a chance" in Africa and called for an open debate. The Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa, a network of small holder farmers, pastoralists, hunter-gatherers, indigenous peoples, citizens and environmentalists from Africa, is pleased to include the voices of African farmers in that debate.

The promotion of GMOs as solution is too often disrespectful to African culture and intelligence and based on a shallow understanding of African agriculture. It is based on the image that is held by many Westerners who see Africa as poor, destitute, starving, disease-ridden, hopeless, helpless that needs to be saved by a white angel from the West. That image allowed colonialists to rationalize their scramble for Africa, and that image is being used by neo-colonialists to rationalize their scramble for African land and natural resources.

Those promoting the false solution of GMOs are recommending that African farmers develop a long-term, perhaps irreversible, cycle of dependence on the interests of a small handful of corporate decision-makers to determine what seeds, with what genetic characteristics, and requiring what chemical inputs, will be produced and made available to Africa's people. This is a pathway toward profound vulnerability and centralized decision-making that flies in the face of the best agricultural evidence-based practices and sound policy making. The evidence and our experience with farmers clearly points to a more rational and appropriate path: investing in a transition toward more sustainable and agro-ecological farming systems that trust in the wisdom and capacity of tens of millions of African farmers to control, adapt and make decisions about their genetic resources, as the pathway toward greater well-being and resilience for Africa.

What is the story after 20 years of GMO cultivation in the United States? Farmers who took on herbicide-tolerant GMO crops are now struggling with the cost of combating herbicide-resistant super weeds. Some 49 percent of US farms suffer from Roundup-resistant super weeds, a 50 percent increase from the year before. As a result, since 1996 there has been a disproportionate increase in the use of weed killers - more than 225 million kilograms in the United States. Meanwhile, farmers who took on pest-resistant GMO crops are struggling with the cost of secondary pests unaffected by the built-in toxins. In China and India, initial savings from reduced insecticide use with Bt cotton have been eroded as secondary pests emerged.

According to the African Centre for Biosafety, in South Africa, single-trait Bt maize (meant to produce toxins to kill pests) has developed such complete insect resistance that it has been withdrawn from the market. In past seasons, extensive product failure meant that farmers were compensated for spraying insecticides on their crops to avoid economic loss. This failed technology will now be introduced to other African countries under the auspices of the Water Efficient Maize for Africa project being promoted by Monsanto and the Gates Foundation.

India has just placed a 10-year moratorium on planting its first genetically modified (GM) food crop. Mexico has banned the planting of GM maize, Peru has placed a 10-year moratorium on the import and cultivation of GM seeds, and Bolivia has committed to giving up growing all GM crops by 2015. Last year, China announced a move away from widespread adoption of GM crops for at least the next five years, in favor of developing more sustainable high-yield non-GM crops. Consumers more or less everywhere have been consistently hostile.

In the UN Conference on Trade and Development's 2013 Trade and Environment Report, titled "Wake-up before it is too late: make agriculture truly sustainable now for food security in a changing climate," the authors recommend that to meet future challenges, a "rapid and significant shift from conventional, monoculture-based and high-external-input-dependent industrial production towards mosaics of sustainable, regenerative production systems that also considerably improve[d] the productivity of small-scale farmers" is needed.

Genetically engineered crops have nothing to do with ending world hunger, no matter how much GMO spokespeople like to expound on this topic. African farmers should be supported in developing and spreading a proven, sustainable farming pathway to feed our people and achieve food sovereignty. Their voices should be given precedence in the debate above the propaganda of corporations, whose goal is to sell more GMOs and chemical inputs.