Back Issues

Is Bill Gates good for Africa?

2008-04-10

Mukoma Wa Ngugi

In late November of 2007, in a small village in Selingue Mali, I joined over 100 small-scale farmer, pastoralist, organic and civil society organizations from 25 African and 10 non-African countries at a conference that questioned the relevance of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation initiative, the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA).

Together with the Rockefeller Foundation, the Gates Foundation has pledged a total of $150 million "to help millions of small-scale farmers and their families lift themselves out of poverty and hunger" in Africa. AGRA has promised do this by overhauling Africa's agricultural industry, from planting seeds to restructuring local and national markets.

What struck me during that conference taking place with much of the world unaware was the audacity and courage of these organizations. Abandoned by African governments hungry for the $150 million-purse, it was brave of them to question AGRA – a gift boasting the support of arguably the most powerful philanthropic machinery in world history.

Here was a side of Africa that the rest of the world does not see – Africans gathered not to ask for help from the West, but to discuss alternatives to that help in very serious, informed and fraternal ways, with their own knowledge, science and experiences as a key part of the solution.

AGRA's chairman is former UN General Secretary, Kofi Annan, hence AGRA's claim that it is an African initiative. But we tend to forget that Africa is huge – the continent can fit the United States three times and leave room for China, and houses over 680 million people! A truly African initiative needs to have the mandate of those whom it will affect the most.

AGRA with its super scientists is missing the point. Hunger in Africa is mostly a political and economic disparity problem. To end hunger, political stability, proper distribution of food and land within nations, and less emphasis on cash-crop farming and more on food- crop farming will be more effective, friendlier to the environment and less costly than the super-seeds that will require tons of pesticides - and eventually, cost a lot of money.

Also take the example of US farm subsidies that result in African farmers losing millions of dollars each year. Oxfam reports that in 2001 Malian cotton farmers lost $ 43 million dollars while US foreign aid was 37.7 million that same year. Why not lobby for fair competition and equal international trade rather than throw more aid and pesticides at the Malian farmers?

AGRA has not taken a definitive stand against genetically modified seeds. Instead it states that it does "not preclude future support for genetic engineering as an approach to crop variety improvement" leading many to understand it as Trojan horse for GM seeds.

It is important that AGRA takes a definite stand against GM seeds, which if introduced will create mass dependency on corporate engineered seeds, and at the same time make farming more expensive. This in turns means that poor farmers will be perpetually in debt. A similar tightening cycle of dependency on the one hand, and expensive seeds and pesticides on the other has recently led to thousands of farmer suicides in India.

The conclusion here is one that might seem like a paradox of a beggar having choice - AGRA will do more harm than good. Understanding this, the participants committed themselves to, amongst other things, demanding "transparency, and accountability from all Green Revolution institutions and seed, chemical and fertilizer companies."

In this Pambazuka News special issue on AGRA, in addition to our regular features, we are pleased to bring you an article by Galés Gabirondo - a development scholar and food sovereignty activist who looks at the Bill Gates philosophy of philanthro-capitalism. That is philanthropy that is also profit driven. We also interview Mariam Mayet, the director of African Center for Biosafety and Dr. Regassa Feyissa, the co-founder and Director of the Ethio-Organic Seed Action (EOSA).

In the next few issues, we shall be bringing you more interviews with food sovereignty and agra-ecology activists – all conducted at the Selingue conference.

Finally, over the years Pambazuka News has carried quite a number of articles on the Green Revolutions, climate change, agri-ecology and food sovereignty. For you easy referencing we have compiled some of them here below:

Africa: Food sovereignty declaration
http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/rights/40141

Will Bill Gates’ Millions Save Us?
Jacqueline Tanaka
http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/comment/37900

Environmental impact: More of the same?
Michelle Chan-Fishel
http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/comment/38851

Sacrificing the right to food on the altar of free trade
Jagjit Plahe
http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/features/39046

Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa – a blunt philanthropic arrow
Nnimmo Bassey
http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/comment/43486

African food sovereignty or AGRA
Mukoma wa Ngugi
http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/comment/44955

The UNDP's wrong turn on water rights
Patrick Bond and Greg Ruiters
http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/comment/38529

African Agriculture and the World Bank: Development or impoverishment?
Kjell Havnevik, Deborah Bryceson, Lars-Erik Birgegård, Prosper Matondi & Atakilte Beyene
http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/features/46564

Conned with Corn
Nnimmo Bassey
http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/comment/28103

GM technology: a new panacea or another false dawn?
http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/features/2199

*Mukoma Wa Ngugi is co-editor of Pambazuka News and author of Hurling Words at Consciousness.

**Please send comments to editor@pambazuka.org or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

A new Philanthro-Capitalist Alliance in Africa?

AGRA—The Return of the Green Revolution

2008-03-31

Galés Gabirondo

Bill Gates has called for "creative capitalism" - that is a philanthropy spurred on by profit. But Galés Gabirondo unmasks creative capitalism to reveal it as philanthro-capitalism. She uses the Bill Gates/Rockeffeler initiative, the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa, to show just how devastating it can be when good-will meets a corporate driven and market hungry capitalism

In September 2006, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation teamed up to launch “AGRA” a $150 million Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa. Echoing the claim that Africa’s last Green Revolution (originally promoted by Rockefeller) had “bypassed” the continent, Gates and Rockefeller promised that AGRA will improve the lives of the continent’s impoverished farmers by investing in appropriate technology, efficient farm practices, and a network of small shopkeepers to sell mini-packets of improved seeds and fertilizers.

Elegantly simple in its proposal and presentation, AGRA is the global face of a renewed international effort to revive Africa’s sagging agricultural research institutions and introduce new Green Revolution products across the sub-Sahara. The complex array of institutional and financial interests lining up behind Gates and Rockefeller include multilateral and bilateral aid organizations, national and international research institutes, and the handful of powerful multinational seed, chemical, and fertilizer monopolies upon which the entire financial future of the new Green Revolution ultimately rests. Gates and Rockefeller foundations are betting that AGRA can entice industry, governments and other philanthropies to invest in African agriculture. AGRA is the Green Revolution’s new philanthropic flagship leading a global campaign to attract talent, investment and resources for another go at Africa’s beleaguered food systems.

The new Green Revolution differs fundamentally from the first one introduced in the 1970-90s in that this time the private sector, rather than government, is taking the lead. This Green Revolution is concentrating on Africa’s food crops like tubers and plantains, rather than global commodities like corn, rice and wheat. This time around, the conventional crop breeding programs being built in Africa will lay the genetic and industrial groundwork for the expansion of genetically modified crops. And more importantly, the seed and chemical companies that stand to gain from the Green Revolution are fewer, and because of biotechnology, much bigger and vertically integrated, selling both seed and inputs. In fact, only two companies—Monsanto and Syngenta—control 30% of the global market in seeds.

These monopolies and others are entering Africa markets with the help of CGIAR—the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research, USAID, and Britain’s DFID, even Jeffery Sacks’ Millennium Villages. But these same institutions—along with a host of national-level agricultural institutes—failed for three decades to establish the first Green Revolution in Africa. Indeed, with AGRA, Gates is picking up where lesser philanthropists (Rockefeller, Sarakawa 2000) and politicians (Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton) ran out of steam.

The explanations given by northern institutions for the failure of the first Green Revolution have been many: Africa’s soils are too poor, its terrain is too broken, the infrastructure is lacking, its research institutions are weak, its farmers are too traditional… Nowhere, of course do any of the Green Revolution champions question the assumptions, premises or technologies of the Green Revolution itself. Nor do they admit to any social, economic or environmental failures in Asia, Latin America, and—yes, parts of Africa—where the Green Revolution was “successfully” implemented. There is extensive documentation demonstrating that the first Green Revolution deepened the divide between rich and poor farmers and degraded tropical agro-ecosystems, exposing already vulnerable farmers to increased environmental risk. It led to loss of seed/plant varieties and agro-biodiversity, the basis for smallholder livelihood security and regional environmental sustainability.

But putting these considerations aside for the moment, how does AGRA propose succeeding where others have failed?

NEW ALLIANCE FOR CREATIVE CAPITALISM

At his special appearance at this year’s World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Bill Gates gave us his answer: creative capitalism. This, he explained to the world’s financial masters, was “[An] approach where governments, businesses, and nonprofits work together to stretch the reach of market forces so that more people can make a profit, or gain recognition, doing work that eases the world’s inequities.”

Gates acknowledged that capitalism does not work well for the poor. His explanation is that this is because there are no international market incentives to fight poverty or hunger. (This reasoning, of course, ignores the ways that international markets have actually produced hunger and poverty, but we will set this consideration aside for the moment also…) Gates takes a fairly standard neoliberal approach to solving the market incentive problem by insisting that the market is still the primary engine for social transformation. The difficulty is in persuading those who do have market power that eradicating hunger is in their own best interest. To address this challenge, Gates invites his fellow capitalists to consider the benefits of social recognition—as well as eventual profits—as the missing market-based incentive in order to make capitalism work well for everybody.

“Recognition,” said Bill Gates, “enhances a company’s reputation and appeals to customers; above all, it attracts good people to the organization. As such, recognition triggers a market-based reward for good behavior. In markets where profits are not possible, recognition is a proxy; where profits are possible, recognition is an added incentive.” Recognition of the good deeds done by capitalists will build the markets necessary to bring the poor the benefits of capitalism, thus ushering in a new system Gates calls “creative capitalism.”

That same week in Davos, the soon-to-retire president of Microsoft put his money where his mouth was by giving another $306 million to AGRA. That’s a lot of recognition, by anyone’s standards. Clearly, the “halo effect” created by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundations’ altruism will benefit everyone associated with AGRA—from the CGIAR to Monsanto, DuPont and Syngenta. This “added incentive” is calculated to make the sub-Sahara an attractive market to high power global corporations accustomed to 25% and 40% profit increases per year. The poor may not have much to spend (according to Rockefeller Foundation, half the sub-Saharan population earns less than $0.65 a day), but the purchases of small amounts of seed and inputs by180 million poor farmers add up. The new Green Revolution is banking on a small but steady increase in their enormous collective purchasing power.

To understand AGRA—and Gates’ creative capitalism—it is helpful to distinguish AGRA’s mission from its job. AGRA’s mission is “To [work in partnership] across the African continent to help millions of small-scale farmers and their families lift themselves out of poverty and hunger.” AGRA’s job—as so eloquently stated by Bill Gates in Davos—is to bring Africa’s poor into the international market. Here, they will consume both hybrid and genetically-modified seeds, fertilizers and agrochemicals. They will also consume the products of these seeds, making their diet dependent on the companies driving the Green Revolution. Whoever can establish these seed markets in Africa will control not only the markets, but the food, and ultimately the ground of the vast continent.

But while these corporations and institutions are the driving market forces behind AGRA, they are not in and of themselves the reason behind Bill Gates’ call for creative capitalism, or his decision to address hunger and poverty in Africa. Gates’ remarkable bequest still begs the question of his own making: as a creative capitalist, what—or for whom—is AGRA’s market-based reward? Recognition for Microsoft? Undeniable, but not significant or necessary for a company who already has all the recognition it wants. Gates’ financial interests in genetic engineering? These investments pale behind AGRA itself.

The answer is; there is no market-based reward. Rather, the prize is political. AGRA, backed by Gates’ enormous philanthropic power, bolstered by the best world-renown diplomats and CEOs money can buy, and driven by the sheer financial and institutional momentum of the industrial players within the Green Revolution, is a political machine of immense proportions. AGRA allows the Gates foundation unprecedented influence not only in setting the national food and agricultural policies of many African governments, but in the agenda-setting of continental agreements (like NEPAD), multilateral development institutions (e.g. FAO), the strategies of agricultural research centers (e.g. WARDA), and the political economic re-structuring of Africa’s food systems in general. The Alliance for a Green Revolution for Africa is the Gates’ Foundations bold foray into big philanthropy’s latest incarnation: philanthro-capitalism.

Philanthro-capitalist Development In Michael Edwards new book “Just Another Emperor,” philanthro-capitalism is the term given to the movement taking hold that “promises to save the world by revolutionizing philanthropy, making non-profit organizations operate like business, and creating new markets for goods and services that benefit society.” This neo-liberal brand of philanthropy distinguishes itself from charity and progressive philanthropy by insisting not only on market-based results, but on business-based procedures for grant giving. Philanthro-capitalists seek business efficiencies and a financial “bottom line” from their “investments” and concentrate on making global markets work better. A logical extension of current of neo-liberal hegemony, philanthro-capitalism sees unregulated markets not only as engines for creating wealth, but as the ultimate drivers of social change. In this view, governments are too bureaucratic and corrupt, and social movements too unruly and inefficient. Only the market can save us from… well, the market.

However, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is taking philanthro-capitalism into the realm of superpowers. Because the Foundation holds 10% of all U.S. philanthropy funds, AGRA is not just a philanthropy acting like businesses, but an Über-philanthropy so large and powerful it can influence governments and supra-national institutions.

This is not to say that Gates or AGRA acts independently of Warren Buffet, Jeffrey Sachs, the FAO, USAID, CGIAR, Monsanto, Syngenta, DuPont or the fertilizer companies cheering it on. On the contrary, there is a general consensus in enthusiastically in favor of the AGRA campaign. The reasons are both global and regional. First, despite the hype regarding financial globalization, industrial capitalism has been suffering from falling rates of return and stagnant economic growth (1-2%) for almost three decades. This is due to cyclical crises of overproduction: i.e. to much money and goods with too few borrowers and buyers. It is essential for the large monopolies to create new markets (witness the global biofuels craze), or overrun existing markets in order to find buyers for their goods. Seed and chemical giants like Monsanto and Syngenta look to AGRA and Africa’s food systems to solve their problems. They must replace local seeds and agroecological practices with their own commercial seeds and agrochemicals. Second, while western capital is falling over itself to sell products to China, they are extremely nervous about China’s entry into global markets as a competitive seller—particularly in Africa. It is important for western seed and chemical corporations, and all of the research institutions that produce new materials for these companies, to “sew up” the African market. Even though the marginal returns to their investments are small, the Green Revolution does not want to lose 180 million consumers to the Chinese.

BUT, CAN AGRA SUCCEED?

Whether or not AGRA can successfully bring the new Green Revolution to Africa, and whether or not the Green Revolution will benefit the poor as much as it benefits the capitalists being courted by the Gates Foundation are two different questions that should be open to public debate. Unfortunately, there was never a public debate on AGRA.

There are many productive agroecological farming systems in Africa that do not depend on GMOs or other Green Revolution technologies, but these alternatives were never considered. Whether or not AGRA can re-start the Green Revolution in Africa is yet to be seen. What is clear thus far is that it has been successful in eliminating competition for the control of African food systems.

AGRA’s philanthro-capitalism draws the world’s attention away from local alternatives and towards global market-based “solutions” that ultimately favor those with more international market power, i.e., the seed and chemical monopolies. Though it strengthens corporate opportunities and power, it does nothing to address the weakened ministerial and regulatory capacity of the state, ignores the need to protect local markets or ensure a greater market share of the value chain for farmers. It elides land issues and does not address the eroding economic and environmental resiliency of African food systems. Worse, it diverts attention away from the role that the global markets play in creating hunger and poverty in Africa in the first place. Can AGRA actually solve these problems? Not without addressing their causes.

*Gala Gabirondo is a development scholar and food sovereignty activist.

**Please send comments to editor@pambazuka.org or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

AGRA, bio-piracy and food as social justice

Mariam Mayet speaks to Pambazuka News

2008-04-10

Mariam Mayet

In this wide ranging Pambazuka News interview, Mariam Mayet, the director of the African Center Biosafety speaks about biopiracy, which she calls "the last frontier", the Alliance for a Green Revolution and its impact on Africa, and food and agriculture as social justice justice.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: I am here with Mariam Mayet, the director of the African Center for Biosafety (www.biosafetyafrica.net). Can you tell us about your organization?

MARIAM MAYET: We are based in Jo’burg and we have four main programs. We campaign against genetic engineering in food and agriculture. We campaign against bio-piracy particularly the theft of indigenous knowledge in the context of medicinal plants and new areas around marine bio prospecting.

We also work on the green revolution in Africa – and Agro-fuels. Basically we do a lot of cutting edge research, exposes of what multi-national companies are doing in Africa, and on the bio-tech industry. We look at the seed industry and where the GM-Agro fuels push is coming from. We work with a large network of other groups and communities.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: Can you talk a little more about bio-piracy – and patenting systems?

MARIAM MAYET: Pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies want to bring in new products to the market. They have to find the active ingredient to be able to produce a particular medicine (sometimes they stumble into things accidentally). But the way to get to the plant and the use of the plant is through local people. And when they come into our countries and they appropriate our knowledge and resources, without people’s consent, we call it theft or bio-piracy.

The last frontier of resources base is really our people’s knowledge in regards to medicinal plants and agriculture. And these are highly sought after. When a company finds a particular plant, and the useful properties in the plant they make a product from it, and then register a patent in regards to the use of that plant. And where they duplicate existing uses, we are able to challenge those patents.

For example, we found a company in Germany trying to patent two endemic species in South Africa and Lesotho but they are duplicating local uses. We were able to challenge this. So even in a European patenting system which is very neo-liberal and capitalist, it does not allow to register a patent over the use of something, if a community anywhere in the world has the same use. So we use the small margins to challenge bio-piracy. This was one case, but there are there are thousands of cases like this in Africa.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: Can you give Pambazuka readers other examples of bio-piracy?

MARIAM MAYET: Yes. Last year we published a booklet called “Out of Africa: Mysteries of Benefit Sharing.” We published 36 cases of dubious acquisitions in Africa, such as theft of the people’s knowledge to produce skin whitening cosmetic by the cosmetic industry.

The hoodia gordonii, a hunger suppressing plant gives us the quintessential case of bio-piracy. This is where the knowledge of the San to stave off hunger when trekking through the Kalahari was appropriated by Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) in South Africa and passed onto Phytopharm. Phytopharm registered a patent claiming that there were no indigenous people in South Africa, that the San had died off. Stealing knowledge is extremely rife in Africa.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: Let’s change gears a little and turn our attention to philanthropy, which Cecil Rhodes once called, philanthropy plus five-percent - which is to say that philanthropy paves way for profit making, or what others call the philanthropy-industrial complex. Can you talk a little about the role of Western philanthropy in Africa?

MARIAM MAYET: Philanthropy in Africa has some history especially in relation to the Rockefeller family. The Rockefeller foundation has a much longer history than the Gates Foundation for example. Gordon Conway who became one of the presidents of the Rockefeller Foundation published a book called the New Green Revolution in 1999. The Green Revolution push we are seeing in Africa is really his brainchild. Their philanthropy has come in the context of pushing a very distinct corporate agenda – to open markets for US corporations. For example in Kenya the Rockefeller Foundation has been involved in sponsoring Florence Wambugu’s sweet potato project because they want to open Africa up to GMOs. So if you give the impression that a genetically modified sweet potato can work because it is the poor person’s crop, there will be more willingness to accept GMO’s. So it is not philanthropy. It’s a form of investment, a corporatized agenda for resource extraction from Africa.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: There was an expose in the LA Times [http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gatesx07jan07,0,6827615.story[ on the Bill Gates Foundation where it was found that the foundation invests money in companies and corporations that cause the very same problems it is trying to solve, companies such as Shell. So the philanthropy arm is trying to save the environment, while the investment arm is making profit from its destruction…

MARIAM MAYET: Exactly, the Rockefellers made their money from Exon, which later became Chevron – so they have old oil money - this wrecked a whole lot of havoc environmentally and in terms of human rights.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: And also the idea of telescopic philanthropy, a telescopic philanthropy that sees far but not what is under its feet – for example there are a lot problems in the United States amongst minority communities…

MARIAM MAYET: Yes, why didn’t they give money to Hurricane Katrina victims? Why do they feel they have to come and rescue Africa? We say that the Green Revolution is a white man’s dream for a black continent. And this dream… this savior mentality is very missionary, very colonial, and imperialistic – and yes they should leave us alone. If they take away all the developmental aid, if they take all the food aid, and the military aid – we would be like Cuba. We would struggle for a while but eventually we would find our way. We would build our own local economies and vibrancy because all these development aid is also an industry unto itself, and it feeds off itself.

Who are the world’s biggest agri-business players? Take Cargil, which owns shares in seed companies, buys the harvest from farmers and transports it all over the world – they are more powerful than some governments because they are in charge of the international prices of grains and trade in grains. You have to really understand this whole capitalist agri-business system in order to understand the logic of the green revolution.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: AGRA, according to its website, is and “African-led partnership working across the African continent to help millions of small-scale farmers and their families lift themselves out of poverty and hunger. AGRA programs develop practical solutions to significantly boost farm productivity and incomes for the poor while safeguarding the environment. AGRA advocates for policies that support its work across all key aspects of the African agricultural “value chain”—from seeds, soil health, and water to markets and agricultural education. AGRA is chaired by Kofi A. Annan, the former Secretary-General of the United Nations”. They say that they are African led and now they have Kofi Annan who is serving as the chairman of AGRA – your response?

MARIAM MAYET: I think they are African followed because the vision was put in place by Gordon Conway from the Rockefeller Foundation. The Rockefeller Foundation brought in the Bill-Melinda Gates foundation, then started to recruit willing and compliant Africans – the coup de grace was Kofi Annan.

If it was African led we would not be asking for consultation and transparency. It would be coming from our farmers, coming from the ground-up. What is African led, are the local struggles, where people are clearly saying this is what we want. Go to speak to the people affected and they will tell you what they want – that would be African led.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: Can you talk a little bit about the packaging of AGRA? You have Kofi Annan, who has UN credentials, gentle spoken yet charismatic and Bill Gates who appears harmless. There is a lot of star power and money…

MARIAM MAYET: The things is the Green Revolution is a very a violent package because it puts powerful toxic chemicals into Africa. It displaces and destroys local knowledge and seeds. It favors those farmers who will be able to access the system, the more powerful farmers. This will divide the African peasantry.

AGRA also creates a lot of dependency and debt. It is violent. But the geeky sexy richest man who brought us wonderful technology, and gentle Kofi Annan – this is the savior face, our last hope. It is a very strategic move to push a very agri-business, corporatized market driven package – but it will fail in Africa because they do not understand Africa.

We are a very diverse people, we need local solutions that are multi-dimensional and multi-faceted – built on local knowledge and local seeds. You need to speak to people about how they adapt to harsh climates. To have a one-size fit all solution for Africa will be disastrous for us. Even in one country we have different eco-systems, different farming communities, different cultures, different eating habits.

We do not need to grow more foods for exports. We need to build on food sovereignty principles and give people equitable access to land, allocate the water fairly, support traditional farming methods, and create local vibrant economies, before we start exporting coffee, cocoa, and grow maize for export.

We are not saying that everyone must live on the land, or farm – we are talking about a local economy that is also integrated into the national economies. You cannot have two economies. We are talking about a vibrant whole.

I have to say that we are also unhappy with the agricultural systems in Africa and this is why we are saying – that we have to stop talking about food security because this perpetuates the existing paradigms. We have to tell our governments - what the hell are you doing? You have messed up badly, and left a vacuum for the philanthropist to walk in - and take over our countries, in a way.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: So there are ways in which the African governments have been absent in the debate completely…

MARIAM MAYET: None of our governments are going to say no to resources because they are corrupt, and despotic – we have had very few democracies but have huge class differences.

In terms of Agri-ecology we can do a lot of work with peasant movements but we have to always bear in mind that our struggle is a social justice struggle – and we need to hold our governments accountable.

We have to keep demanding from our governments the same things - We want justice in rural areas, equality for women, access to lands, support of traditional farming, we want you to protect our seeds, we do not want GMO’s, we want you to listen to farmers, we want you to build agricultural schools for them, and put money in research and development. I mean look at Nigeria. Once the oil industry took off, it mortgaged its oil to international oil companies, but it stopped developing its own agriculture.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: What is at stake? Food systems?

MARIAM MAYAT: Food systems, social systems, our culture - the dynamics in the rural areas will change, there will be more debt, more dependency, and there will be a small commercial class of farmers.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: Can we talk a little bit more about food as social justice? What has the ANC government been doing in this regard?

MARIAM MAYAT: The ANC started off by giving up its many demands articulated in the Freedom charter and through the liberation struggle for nationalization of our mineral and energy companies. They made a deal with the industries, big business and the old government that we will not take the whole cake and nationalize it. What we will do is ask for a small slice of it, and we will call it Black Economic Empowerment (BEE). So it has been pre-occupied with BEE.

Yes we have a lot of political freedoms, we have a democracy - but it has a very neo-liberal agenda and very pro-industry orientation to all its policies. So for example, it is now allowing huge smelters to draw excessive amounts of electricity thereby increasing our carbon-emissions. We are building more coal-fired industries at the cost of 80 billion rands, but we are also going into nuclear technology. It is as if we are taking a big step back.

And along they way they failed to redistribute land back to the landless people, they failed miserably in terms of service delivery to the poor and that has seen a lot of violent protests. And it has failed dismally on its AIDS and HIV policy.

There is a lot of struggle fatigue, it is very hard to get the people mobilized beyond AIDS/HIV and service delivery but I think the time will come when we shall see a resurgence of social movements in Africa.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: Would it be fair to say that we need to redefine what democracy means to us and inject a component of social justice?

MARIAM MAYET: As I said, we are never going to achieve social justice within a neo-liberal paradigm because it is always going to be favoring certain classes. So we really need to think beyond political rights, we have to think about our social economic rights. We can only be free once we achieve social justice.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: One last question: Your thoughts on the 2010 South Africa world cup?

MARIAM MAYET: The world cup is going to be a drain of our resources – and we cannot justify the enormous carbon footprint we shall leave behind - where all these people from all over the world take flights to come to watch a soccer match – we will need 2 billion litters of water for all these visitors – we shouldn’t be hosting such an event. We have other priorities.

It is not that I do not care for soccer, I do – but really Africa should not be hosting mega-events like this, for only two sectors will gain – airlines and people who already have a lot of money. The money that is coming in will not filter down to the people. How is the world cup going to benefit the poor people? I do wish African countries all the best in the world cup but we also need to take care of our people and our resources.


**Please send comments to editor@pambazuka.org or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

AGRA and African knowledge systems

Regassa Feyissa speaks to Pambazuka News

2008-04-10

Regassa Feyissa

Regassa Feyissa in this interview talks about the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), the fallacy of food aid, knowledge systems in relation to traditional versus scientific and the need to create alternatives to AGRA

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: Dr. Regassa Feyissa is the co-founder and Director of the Ethio-Organic Seed Action (EOSA) and expert delegate to various international negotiations (International Undertaking, Global Plan of Action and the Convention on Biological Diversity). EOSA is leading a program on Agro-bio diversity in Ethiopia - with the goal of restoring and preserving genetic diversity.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: Lets jump straight into the Rockefeller-Bill Gates initiative – the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA). What impact will it have on the continent?

REGASSA FEYISSA: First of all, Africa is a very rich continent in terms of ecological systems, farming systems, and production systems. Culture and preferences also vary across the continent. It is not a continent to which you can apply a standardized application as has been done in Asia and even Europe.

I was surprised to read that AGRA has over 200 crop varieties ready to be used in Africa. But what varieties of crops are they going to bring to Africa? As Mexico provided maize to the world, Africa provided sorghum. Sorghum resisted destruction from the first green revolution because it is such an energetic crop. It adapts itself anywhere from 400 meters to 6,000 meters. The first green revolution and its standardized systems could not match sorghum. Sorghum is distributed across various ecological requirements. We have been talking for the last 50 or so years about rice, maize and to some extent wheat. Africa has had maize for 500 years introduced from Mexico. We have rice for more than 1,000 years, which is still more stable.

We have different root crops, and different cereals which are forgotten because of the colonial system of forcing its own wills and wishes – thereby destroying and pushing out African resources. But still some of the crops resisted and Africans are still living on them.

So what crops will AGRA bring in is what interests me and I am surprised about the 200 varieties. Why were African farmers not consulted? One has to consult the stakeholders who will be affected.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: Proponents of the Green revolution (in the 1960’s) always talk about successes in Latin America and Asia – Have they been as successful as they say? Are the farmer suicides in India an anomaly in an otherwise good system?

REGASSA FEYISSA: At the early stages production doubled and tripled. But that production level was merely for demonstration and could not to be reproduced over time. Up and till now farmers in India are still committing suicide. We have seen the South East Asia and Asian soils salinized, and farmers left without any options.

We can see the end-results of the first the green revolution in Latin America, Asia and even to some extent Africa where the colonial systems until recently dominated.

So this is the package that AGRA is promoting – and I am surprised that after all these experiences and information we have at the global level, that one can still come up with such crazy ideas. Is Africa short of food? Africa has plenty food. Why is there no concern for facilitating the flow of food in Africa?

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: In one your presentations you spoke about how during the 1980’s famine the Southern part of Ethiopia had lots of food while the North starved – yet food and aid were seen as the answer as opposed to finding ways of distributing food that was already in the country.

REGASSA FEYISSA: When the famine in Ethiopia happened, in the Southern and Southern West parts of Ethiopia, food was being dumped. There were no mechanisms and infrastructure to bring food from the South to the North.

This is similar in African countries- there is no effort, there is no investment to try and improve Africa’s resource base to such an extent that it is of use to the people. This is unless it is market and profit, driven.

There is so much emphasis on tea, on coffee and cocoa –whereas major food-crops such as root-crops, and cereals of different types were not even considered by the architects of the first green revolution.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: What role does food aid play in Western imagination? On the one hand you have philanthropists coming to aid Africa – but in practice you have harmful practices such as giving western farmers subsidies, which depress the world market for the African farmer.

REGASSA FEYISSA: I think as an Ethiopian, we have a lot of experience in food aid. There were a lot of people who came to help – and we still owe them gratitude.

But with that said some of the volunteers who came to help had never seen wheat, barley or sorghum growing and they made a mess of things. For example, we ended up planting winter wheat. Most of the aid workers were [supposedly] coming as experts, but I know one bus driver who was the head of a medical center.

The aid was to stop people from dying. The country’s policy back then was to hide food in the Southern parts while millions died in the North…

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: Was this punitive?

REGASSA FEYISSA: I really cannot say that it was for punishing because when the moment this phenomenon occurred, the politicians claimed that all was under control – at the expense of millions. But after the famine, aid became a tradition to such an extent that it destroyed the psychology of the people in the rural areas. As the population increased, this indiscriminate flow of aid really destroyed the psychology of society.

What aid leaves behind, is it not so much lesser than what Africa gives to the world?

Structural Adjustments Programs are still affecting African governments. We were not allowed to have market boards. Market boards only exist in powerful countries. African countries were asked not subsidize agriculture, public services and so on.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: Can we talk about some African centered solutions? Using African traditions, and African grains such as sorghum etc.

REGASSA FEYISSA: I am very concerned about the term traditional…

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: Because it juxtaposes tradition and science?

REGASSA FEYISSA: What is scientific and what is not scientific? The scientist observes knowledge that has already been created. There are those who created that knowledge - but the scientist who observes claims his understanding is scientific, and that the other traditional. Tradition is used to mean backwards. This is absolutely wrong.

There is nothing static in nature – everything is passing through a process. There is no static knowledge. Knowledge is the interaction of humans and their environment that is changing. This is how knowledge expands and develops. The views and perceptions of the so-called scientific are based on the existing practical and pragmatic knowledge.

But no one can deny that there is a need, as long as time and opportunities allow for us to enhance knowledge and the practices referenced to as traditional. What makes so-called traditional knowledge different is that it is wide-based, whereas scientific knowledge is narrow. It is a child of practical knowledge. It is denying its parents – that is the danger – it remains hanging in the air.

And this is the disaster that the first green revolution was built upon. The first green revolution killed itself, it committed suicide –we shall see about the second one - by denying its parents.

Both traditional and modern knowledge are integrated, and support one another. Knowledge is not static. Anything that is static is dead.

Particularly for Africans, we have to enlarge our world outlook, practices and knowledge, but not by neglecting the modern one because time is subsistence itself. You have to qualify information and practices so that they match your livelihood and environment into the future.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: Are there Pan-African solutions?

REGASSA FEYISSA: The perception that AGRA is coming to swallow you is a kind of… for me… I have never surrendered this way. Many surrendered, just gave up, in the first green revolution. Right now from the very beginning many are surrendering in the name of farmers; but we cannot do this on their behalf.

We have to think about alternatives. It is not about polarizing, it is about the capacity to come up with better alternatives to AGRA that counts – to show and teach those who for good or bad are coming up with these things. There are better ways.

In Africa, there is a lot of experience, expertise, and information but they are not compiled or documented. This is I think is why it is very easy for us to be divided, or have conflicts created amongst us. We have to organize ourselves and open up our doors to those who are here to genuinely help.

There is the perception that Africa should switch to agra-ecology. This is the wrong approach. Africa is already practicing agra-ecology. This is why we are trying to stop AGRA. It is disrupting our agra-ecological approaches and practices. It is actually us who are recommending agra-ecological approaches to North America and Europe.


*Please send comments to editor@pambazuka.org or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

How healthy is AGRA for Africa?

2008-04-10

Carol B. Thompson

Carol B. Thompson argues that the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa will undermine nutrition, destroy indigenous seed varieties and knowledge systems and create dependency on patented seeds. She calls for a debate so that all the stakeholders can be involved in the future of food production in Africa

The Gates and Rockefeller Foundations propose to increase food production on the African continent, “eliminating hunger for 30-40 million people and sustainably moving 15-20 million people out of poverty,” through their initiative of an Alliance for a Green Revolution for Africa (www.agra.com).

We all share in the goal of eliminating hunger on the African continent. However, we are also aware of the risks to health and nutrition posed by the previous green revolution in Asia and Latin America. As farmers dedicated more and more land to growing new varieties of wheat, rice, and maize, less land was available to women to grow vegetables (vitamins, minerals), and the commercial production of pulses (protein) stagnated. How will this proposed “green revolution” affect production, food security and human health in Africa?

Similar to the green revolution of the 1960-70s, increasing yields of a few crops to provide food for the hungry remains the central justification for this proposed African green revolution. The 1960s varieties of seed required fertilisers, pesticides, and water at very specific times or the yield was worse than traditional varieties. Indian farmers, for example, did increase production of wheat ten-fold and of rice three-fold. Learning from this experience, the current AGRA initiative also includes training African scientists, setting up marketing networks of small seed companies, and credit schemes. Other major differences are that the seeds will be genetically modified (GMOs) and patented, in the 1960s in India, they remained in the public domain.

The benefit of increased yields, however, came with many environmental, economic and social costs in the green revolution on the 1960-70’s.. The massive increases in the use of fertilisers and pesticides contaminated the water and soil. Small-scale farmers could not sustain the purchase of all the inputs and had to sell their land. Studies in India show that only farmers with at least 6-8 hectares of land could afford the high-tech agricultural production. Inequality within villages increased, with many moving to the cities. As Secretary General U Thant summarised in 1970, “There is already a growing a body of relevant literature on the experience in various regions and localities which strongly suggests that the prosperity resulting from the Green Revolution is shared by a relatively few.”

The economic and social dangers of a “green revolution” for Africa are similar to those related to the commercialisation of health care: 1) piracy of both indigenous knowledge and plants (used for medicine and/or food); 2) privatisation of bioresources necessary for human health through patenting of plants; 3) privatisation of research which directs priorities and agendas. Rather than reducing hunger, these adverse outcomes could in fact reduce the food security of Africans, increase undernutrition and thus reduce immunity against disease.

Increased yields of one or two strains of one or two crops (“monoculture within monoculture,” as stated by a Tanzanian botanist) will not provide the basis for food security to support nutritional needs. The key to ending hunger is sustaining Africa’s food biodiversity, not reducing it to industrial monoculture. Currently, food for African consumption comes from about 2,000 different plants; in contrast, the US food base derives mainly from 12 plants. Narrowing plant diversity of food increases vulnerability for all because it a) reduces the variety of nutrients needed for human health, b) increases crop susceptibility to pathogens, and c) minimises the parent genetic material available for future breeding.

Manufacturing plants for food is very similar to manufacturing them for medicine. Indigenous knowledge designates a plant as important for nutrition or for medicinal purposes. But often, corporations simply take both the plants and the knowledge with no recognition, monetary or otherwise, to the original breeders of new medicine and foods. This biopiracy of food and medicinal plants is made legal by the patenting of living organisms, through international trade agreements.

Because African farmers will have to buy the new seeds, and the pesticides and fertilisers they require for increased yields, this green revolution initiative becomes a privatisation offensive against small-scale farmers who still retain control over their seeds. Of the seeds used for food crops in Africa, 80 percent is seed saved by the farmer herself or locally exchanged with family and neighbours. Farmers do not have to buy seed every season, with cash they do not have, for they possess a greater wealth in their indigenous seeds, freely shared and developed over centuries. The very best food seed breeders in Africa, the “keepers of seed,” are women who often farm less than one hectare of land. Across Africa, women are also the food producers, tending “gardens” full of diverse crops for local consumption, while the men concentrate on cash crop production. Even when the cash crop fails, food will most likely be available for the family, for those plots are intensively farmed and carefully watered.

The proposed green revolution would shift the food base away from this treasure of seed. Instead, African farmers would have to purchase patented seeds each season, thus putting cash into the hands of the corporations providing the seed, much as already has happened with plants used in medicinal compounds. Loss of control over seed reduces the control women farmers have over production, with risks to food security and nutrition. For AGRA, the seeds will not only be patented, but new varieties will undoubtedly be genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The perils of GMOs to environmental sustainability are well documented. Most African governments have ratified the biosafety protocol which allows them to deter research and production of GM food crops until sufficient data is available about its impact on human health and the environment, but AGRA is lobbying for governments to “fast track” approval for new varieties to be planted.

Research on African food crops certainly needs financing. The US National Research Council concluded in 19996 that a major African food crop, sorghum “is a relatively undeveloped crop with a truly remarkable array of grain types, plant types, and adaptability….most of its genetic wealth is so far untapped and even unsorted. Indeed, sorghum probably has more undeveloped genetic potential than any other major food crop in the world.”

As nutritious as maize is for carbohydrates, vitamin B6, and food energy, sorghum is even more nutritious in a range of essential nutrients for health. One of the most versatile foods in the world, sorghum can be boiled like rice, cracked like oats for porridge, baked like wheat into flatbreads, popped like popcorn for snacks, or brewed for nutritious beer. Because sorghum can tolerate dry areas and poor soil better than maize, it can provide nutritious food security in semi-arid regions and therefore, should become even more important under conditions of global warming.

Engaging African scientists to discover the potential genetic wealth of sorghum would assist African food security. In a first glimpse of foundation expenditures, however, we see funds directed to the Wambugu Consortium (founded by Pioneer Hi-Breed, part of DuPont) for experiments in genetically modified sorghum. By adding a gene, rather than mining the genetic wealth already there, the consortium can patent and sell the “new” sorghum at a premium price for DuPont.

Private expenditure on research and marketing of a few crops directs attention to crops that are profitable. Similar to health care, International Monetary Fund requirements for structural adjustment programs, supported by all donor governments, the World Bank, and the African Development Bank, have been removing African government expenditures on agricultural research and extension. Governments had to spend less on agriculture in order to repay their debts. Now, more two decades later, the private foundations step in to “save” food-deficit Africa.

High-tech answers to Africa’s food crises are no answers at all if they undermine human nutrition, privatise both indigenous knowledge and bioresources through patenting of plants, and transform the genetic wealth of the continent into cash profits for a few corporations. Public policy choices around the AGRA proposals have not yet been made within Africa. There is thus still an opportunity to call for assessment and debate on the health and nutrition impacts of these proposals, including by civil society working in health, and by parliaments, and by UN agencies. We need to openly challenge its goals, motives and methodologies before Africa’s political leaders accept them, and before universities and research centres divert their agendas away from other applied research that may offer a more sustainable and nutritious future for African food production. The future of African health depends on it.


*Professor Carol B.Thompson teaches Political Economy at Northern Arizona University. This article first appeared at http://www.equinetafrica.org

**Please send comments to editor@pambazuka.org or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

*** For references used in this editorial and a more detailed analysis of how Africa’s food biodiversity provides alternatives to chemical industrial agriculture, follow this link:
Andrew Mushita and Carol B. Thompson, Biopiracy of Biodiversity (Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press, 2007), carol.thompson@nau.edu Further information on nutrition and health issues can be found on the EQUINET website at www.equinetafrica.org or contact admin@equinetafrica.org

More...

The Gates and Buffet Foundation Shell Game

2008-04-10

Sheldon Drobny

Sheldon Drobny looks at the close relationship between Bill Gates' philanthropy and tax-exemption and argues that the "great problems of the world today are a direct result of the wide disparity between the rich and poor."

My background is finance and accounting. As a socially conscious venture capitalist and philanthropist, I have a very good understanding of wealth management and philanthropy. I started my career in 1967 with the IRS as a specialist in taxation covering many areas of the tax law including the so-called legal loopholes to charitable giving. I have known for years that a smart wealthy person could keep control of all his assets without estate or income taxes through cleverly structured charitable foundations. These foundations are perfectly legal and allow the donors to keep absolute control of all their money and power and accumulate enormous appreciation free of taxation. In 1967, the loopholes were outrageous and the law has tightened some of these tactics for the rich. However, the Gates Buffet foundation grant is nothing more than a shell game in which control of assets for both Gates and Buffet remain the same.

The only difference is that the accumulation of wealth by these two will be much more massive because they will no longer have to pay any taxes.

The Gates Foundation now has about $60 Billion under the control of the wealthiest people in America. They do not have to sell any of their positions in the stocks that they put under the tax-exempt umbrella. Furthermore, they can vote their stock holdings the same as if they did before and they can make the same investment decisions about their considerable corporate holdings. Both Buffet and Gates exhibited the most predatory capitalistic practices as corporate executives and investors. Microsoft and Berkshire Hathaway are not models of socially responsible capitalism. That being said, this foundation will be in the long run richer than the Catholic Church, which has accumulated wealth and power for over 1500 years. However, the results will be exactly the same. They will never liquidate enough of their assets to do any real good for the most onerous problem we have as humans; the worldwide poverty that is caused by the great disparity between the haves and the have-nots.

The Gates Foundation and the Catholic Church have the same goals. They are to keep the legacies for which they were created. For Bill Gates and Warren Buffet it is the control and legacy of family wealth as in the ancient days of the Pharos of Egypt. And by not paying any taxes, Gates will be more powerful than the Pope. I realize that this foundation has done more for disease research and education than any single government institution. But, that is just a condemnation of how little rich countries do for the less fortunate. And the United States is one of the worst examples of how little it does for its own people.

The great problems of the world today are a direct result of the wide disparity between the rich and poor. But, it is hard for the wealthiest to even look at this as an issue of most importance. Catholic Charities do a lot for the poor and I am sure that the Gates Foundation will do a lot for diseases of the poor. But, that is merely a band-aid for one of the symptoms of poverty. The real issue today is poverty.

The governments that keep their people in abject poverty while their leaders are obscenely rich from oil revenues cause many of the problems in the Middle East. But, even the poorest of their people now have access to satellite TV and Internet information that shows these people how much they are being exploited. The simple answer that they hate us for our freedom is absurd. They hate us because they see the wealthy and powerful as the cause of their suffering. As was the case in Germany in the 1920s, even a cultured society can succumb to irrationally violent leaders if they are hungry and poor. It is a human problem that we saw occur in a 1st world country. The 1968 movie, The Shoes of the Fisherman {1} was a fictional account of a new Pope who had the conscience to solve world poverty by giving away all the Church's assets. Below is a summary of the plot from www.imdb.com

“After twenty years in a Siberian labor camp, Kiril Lakota, the Metropolitan Archbishop of Lvov, is set free. The Catholic Archbishop is released and sent to Rome, where the ailing Pope makes him a Cardinal. The world is in a state of crisis - a famine in China is exacerbated by United States restrictions on Chinese trade and the ongoing Chinese-Soviet feud. When the Pontiff dies, Lakota finds himself elected Pope. But the new Pope Kiril I is plagued by self-doubt, by his years in prison, and by the strange world he knows so little about. This movie contains extensive information about Catholic faith & practice, as a television news reporter steps in from time-to-time to explain the procedures involved in selecting a new Pope.”

The movie was not great but it did emphasize the point I am making in this piece. Unless wealthy people and governments around the world recognize the threat that poverty has on humanity, our chances of survival are markedly decreased. And unless the major wealth of the world is used to help feed its people, the diseases caused by poverty will never be cured. The prevention of diseases, both physical and mental, caused by hunger and poverty are the real dangers we face. And with all the concentrated wealth, we have the capacity to give everyone enough to survive and still leave the wealthy with plenty of luxuries. If Bill Gates gave $29 Billion away and kept only $1 Billion he would still have a wonderful life. If he gave it to Sally Struthers, she could probably feed the world.

*Sheldon Drobny was the co-founder of Air America Radio. He is also the Chairman and Managing Director of Paradigm Group II, a venture capital firm specializing in socially responsible businesses. This article first appeared in Common Dreams (www.commondreams.org) in August, 2006

**Please send comments to editor@pambazuka.org or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

China and India small players in Africa

2008-04-09

Frank Pei

Regarding the article on China and Africa - http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/features/46990 - compared with Europe and the US, both China and India are small players in Africa. But just as recent reports from the Economic Commmission for Africa said, cooperation with Asian countries, such as China and India, boosts Africa's economies.

Review: Biopiracy of Biodiversity

2008-04-01

Sifelani Tsiko

Andrew Mushita and Carol Thompson
Africa World Press, 2008

A new book co-written by veteran Zimbabwe agronomist Andrew Mushita and United States-based political economist Carol Thompson, titled Biopiracy of Biodiversity -- Global Exchange As Enclosure, is a path-breaking work on one of the most important issues in the near future.

The work by Mushita -- a director of the Community Technology Development Trust, and Thompson, a professor of political economy at Northern Arizona University in the US -- is a timely and critically important contribution that examines biopiracy in Africa, indigenous knowledge systems, biodiversity and international instruments on trade and intellectual property rights.

This book, published recently by Africa World Press, also focuses on sustainable farming, the limitations, successes and dangers of industrial agriculture, US trade relations in Africa, the land issue, food security and international instruments on seed and the need to preserve biodiversity as a policy for food security.

In many ways, the book, persistently works to advance public understanding of complex issues related to biopiracy, biotechnology, indigenous knowledge systems, World Trade Organisation instruments on patenting and strategies to deal with food insecurity and the rampant and unsustainable exploitation of natural resources.

Mushita and Thompson argue that the essence of seed exchange is sharing and not to profit as is happening in the world today. They say the current tendency to sell seed, pollute and put the dollar first can be damaging to the traditional important ways of life that seek to share seed to grow plants across the world and protect the environment.

"Yet the terrible other side of the story is that all this richness, beauty and wealth -- germinating from sharing is now threatened," the authors say in the opening chapter titled, The Ancient Future.

"It is being destroyed by refusal to share, by hoarding for a false, ephemeral prosperity. It is being destroyed in the name of science, of law and 'just reward' in the name of innovation, power and of profit."

The book is enjoying rave reviews worldwide.

"This book provides vital information to a cross-section of stakeholders for understanding challenges posed by international agencies and highlights the need for strategic policy alternatives to sustain biodiversity. I recommend it for reading by all those practitioners involved in economic development and food policy issues," said Godwin Mkamanga, director of the Sadc Plant Genetic Resources Centre in Lusaka, Zambia.

The authors also contribute to a vital dialogue about the effects of globalisation on traditional farming systems in Africa, the use of food aid as weapon of domination by powerful countries and the dwindling use of African grains.

They say the US government sent genetically modified (GM) maize kernels to Southern Africa in 2002 as food aid, without bothering to care about the high risk or uncertainty that the shipments would pollute the local genetic maize pool.

ZAMBIA, ZIMBABWE AND MALAWI REJECTED THE GMO MAIZE

"The view from the inside of the continent looking out is that aliens have responded to drought and famine with inappropriate technology, expensive (highly profitable to some) unsustainable inputs, trade barriers against African goods and more loans than grants for so-called food 'aid'," Mushita and Thompson point out.

The authors also argue vehemently for the protection of Africa's biodiversity which is now increasingly being poached by Western countries. They say indigenous knowledge is a key weapon for the survival of the people on the continent.

Mushita and Thompson say the demise of traditional medical knowledge was due to slavery, colonialism, neo-colonialism and globalisation. For long, they say, indigenous communities used their own traditional knowledge to treat successfully ulcers, asthma, diabetes and sickle cell anemia among a string of other ailments.

Bio-resources have been shared freely for centuries as people exchanged seed, plants and animals for breeding and the writers say, what is new and disturbing is the patenting of the seed "whether an offered gift or stolen cultural secret" into private property.

In many parts of the developing world agricultural diversity is an important part of people's culture. Researchers say this diversity helps to provide stability for farmers who grow a range of crops.

If one particular crop or variety fails, the others help make up the difference. But today, Africa's large and diverse biological diversity is now at risk with many plant and crop species under threat of extinction owing to pollution, unsustainable use practices, climate change, introduction of exotic species, civil conflict, intensified human activities and other factors.

Mushita and Thompson give an in-depth historical overview on biopiracy relating this colonial legacy to piracy in the 21st century.

A 2005 report by the US-based Edmonds Institute and the African Centre for Biosafety indicates 34 examples of Western laboratories developing drugs, cosmetics and industrial products using material from African plants, animals or microbes.

Researchers expressed concern that a lot of materials have been exploited from Africa without public accounting and any permission from the communities involved. The report detailing 36 cases of biopiracy in Africa titled "Out of Africa: Mysteries of Access and Benefit Sharing" generated heated debate at international meetings on negotiations of fair deals for developing countries to benefit from their genetic resources and traditional knowledge.

The report outlines 36 case studies of medicines, cosmetics and agricultural products that originate from biodiversity (including plants, marine life and microbes) in African countries and that have been patented by multinational companies without there being evidence of benefits accruing to the countries of origin.

The 2005 report's author, Jay McGown, says in the introduction: "It's a free for all out there, and until the parties to the CBD solve the problems of access and benefit sharing, the robbery will continue. They've got to declare a moratorium on access until a just protocol is finished and implemented."

The new book by Mushita and Thompson take the debate on biopiracy further, arguing that biological resources exploited for medicinal, agricultural, horticultural and cosmetics uses show no evidence or even information of benefit sharing agreements.

They also discuss the debate about intellectual property rights and analyse new and different laws under the WTO before moving on to propose that the extension of intellectual property rights over seeds and plants challenges scientific logic and threatens biodiversity.

The book speaks out in a simple and captivating way explaining how plants, roots and seeds define the community through healing.

"Most often, women are the keepers of the seeds, tucked away among the beams in the thatched roof, protected from pests by smoke from cooking fire. Others are stored in tins in another location. Villagers volunteer labour to build storage buildings for seed banks, protecting the treasure within the public trust," the authors wrote.

The same happens when African farmers choose seed from the best plants in the field using traditional farming "genetics" that takes into account seed yielding the most grain, preferred colour, pest resistance and drought resistance.

But when international aid agencies come in, the writers quote one Zimbabwean plant scientist, they come with advice and an agenda that focuses more on "yield, yield, yield" ignoring taste because the American industry manufactures taste with additives of sugar and citric acid.

"On the farms in Africa, the choices are complex and subtle and learned from the older generation. Farmers with the reputation for having good seed will be sought out and will harvest more seed, ready to exchange it," Mushita and Thompson say.

They say at one time, over 3 000 species were used as human food but now, the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation estimates that only 150 plant species are cultivated, 12 of which provide approximately 75 percent of food needed and four of which produce over half of the food people eat across the world.

The writers respond proactively to this challenge and say: "The future of the planet depends not so much on military power nor capital speculation but on each one becoming informed, debating and making choices about global exchange or enclosure of seed and plants -- our collective nourishment, our wealth."

This book refers both to the African continent and to the region of Southern Africa and captures the experiences of the people as it pertains to biodiversity, biopiracy and traditional knowledge systems.

The emotive land issue in Southern Africa is also discussed in detail showing its importance when it comes to food security and food self-sufficiency. There is a section which compares and contrasts international protocols for seed exchange from agencies trying to reconcile the demand for patenting, the respect for indigenous knowledge and the need to preserve biodiversity as a policy for food security.

The final chapter summarises policy recommendations relevant both to other developing countries and the US. In contrast to current international policies which have reduced the role of the state, the recommendations include the public sector as a vital player in preserving biodiversity and delimiting piracy.

Mushita and Thompson call for the fostering of new patterns of relationships through seed exchange and sharing of information. The Western world continues to infringe on human rights and the ecological balance of nature in Africa through the export of seed GM, seed hybrids, biopiracy and promotion of unsustainable technologies in agriculture.

And this book, which argues against the commercialisation of science and the commodification of nature, is a clarion call that should be widely read and discussed by everyone concerned with biodiversity. It advances public understanding on issues related to the environment and development which are happening in the world but are not getting reported in the mainstream media.

* Sifelani Tsiko is an award winning Zimbabwean journalist. This review first appeared in the Herald, Zimbabwe.

**Please send comments to editor@pambazuka.org or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

"Dambudzo Marechera: A Celebration"

2008-04-10

"Dambudzo Marechera: A Celebration" is intended as a multi-media festival to celebrate the avant-garde work of Dambudzo Marechera (1952-1987), to be staged in Oxford in the spring of 2009. Its additional aims are to promote world literatures in English, foster interest in the issues of postcoloniality, and encourage an inter- disciplinary approach to the study of literature. We are looking for actors, musicians, film-makers, fine artists, cartoon animationists, and others who would like to pay a tribute to Marechera through their art. Please direct all enquiries and project proposals to dobrota.pucherova@trinity.ox.ac.uk

The Betrayal of Africa

2008-04-09

Gerald Caplan

http://www.groundwoodbooks.com/gw_titles.cfm?pub_id=1270

There is a widespread assumption among rich countries that Africa is the problem and that we in the rich world are the solution. This book turns this complacent, conventional wisdom on its head. It argues that the policies of rich countries, though couched in benevolent terms, are in fact responsible for many of the ills in Africa... For Africa to move forward, the citizens of rich countries must be aware of the false premises on which their own leaders deal with Africa.

Clouds Move

Derrick Fine

2008-04-09

http://tinyurl.com/4gmy8d

Heart-warming, controversial and practical. Derrick Fine’s first book, Clouds Move, a memoir, published in 2007, intimately reveals his journey of living with HIV, detailing his experiences from his first coming out as a gay man to disclosing to close friends and family that he is living with HIV.

Development As Freedom

Amartya Sen

2008-04-09

http://tinyurl.com/4dbkfy

Compelling and thought-provoking, Amartya Sen’s latest offering, Development as Freedom, is Nobel Prize winner for Economic Science in 1998. Sen provides a comprehensive summary of his thoughts on a key issue that has in recent decades, become a global debate: development.

African Blog Review: Focus on Zimbabwe

2008-04-09

Dibussi Tande

This week, many African bloggers focused on the twin elections in Zimbabwe, analyzing and commenting on the competing claims of victory, the rumors and sometimes outlandish allegations that have been coming from that country.

Observations of Africa wonders whether the final election results will reflect the will of the Zimbabwean people:

“We now await the Zimbabwe election results to see if the election was fixed or fair -- or poorly fixed. Should the fix be in, will Zimbabweans accept the "result" as in past elections, or will Zimbabwe descend into the chaos Kenya faced?

Based upon the average Zimbabwean's aversion to more warfare, I doubt the Kenya chaos will result unless Mugabe loses and unleashes his thugs. But he does that after every election in order to secure the next one.

Will Zimbabweans be free? I don't know.”


Township Vibes shares the widespread impatience and suspicion at the snail’s pace in which the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) is releasing the results:

“Is there something going on that we haven't been told? The whole nation waits, very anxiously for the results of probably the most important election in the life of the long suffering Zimbabweans since independence.

Is the rigging machine at work? I don't know how you see it! How can one be a player and referee in the same game. Let's be serious, everyone knows the election results.

Why play with people's emotions? The Zimbabwe Electoral Commission should just give people the results. Morgan Tsvangirayi and MDC won the election period! People know the results, Zanu PF knows the results, MDC know the results, and nearly everyone knows the results. Some may want to argue, some are saying let's wait for the results being announced by the Zanu PF government! Give me a break!

Zanu PF lost and lost big time!”


This is Zimbabwe compares the results fro the ZEC with those of independent observers to conclude that the results are being tampered with:
“Parallel Voter Tabulation (PVT) results have been compared to the “official” Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) figures. The “official” results are emanating from the government controlled body at a snail pace and indicate massive discrepancies in certain constituencies, a clear sign Zanu PF is desperately attempting to inflate results in their favour. This is being done to reduce Morgan Tsvangirai’s presidential vote to below the 50% plus 1 result required for him to win the race in round one.
[…]
The delay in the announcement of the official results by ZEC is being strategically planned in order to give the Central Intelligence Organisation the much needed time to manipulate the results. This is blatant rigging at its most iniquitous.

The people of Zimbabwe have spoken and it is now time for Zanu PF, SADC, all other African bodies and the rest of the world to respect and support the will of the people.”


Kubatana the online forum for Zimbabwean activists argues that the MDC should mobilize its supporters to ensure that the MDC claim of victory becomes a reality:

“Sure there needs to be an election to expose - what is so clearly being exposed - the work of Rigger Mugabe. But it doesn’t end there. A stolen election needs to be backed up by strong civic resistance. And usually it’s a good idea to have civic resistance guided by strong leadership. This is where Plan B comes in - the elephant in the room as far as the political opposition and civil society is concerned…

There is absolutely no question that the MDC has worked hard and campaigned strongly, but this is not enough. The MDC must prepare their supporters for resistance and be willing to lead them. Clear leadership from the MDC will mitigate spontaneous and sporadic violence. Civil society organisations must ignite their memberships (if indeed they actually have them) and lead them in defense of their vote. The international community must be prepared to speak out and support democratic change in Zimbabwe.

We cannot continue to sub contract the response to electoral fraud in Zimbabwe to the international community. We cannot continue to shield the MDC from criticism for their lack of follow through.”


Yblog ZA describes how activists were able to inform the world of the possible MDC victory even before the Mugabe regime had the time to get its act together:

“In 2000, 2002 and 2005 we encouraged MDC members and supporters to go to the polls but we did not claim our victories. MDC made a mistake of not claiming their victory and ZEC doctored the figures to keep Mugabe in power. In 2008 a secretive group of compatriots may have gotten the jump on Mugabe they came prepared and knowing Zimbabwe's electoral law they knew results would be posted as bulletin outside every polling station. The group deployed trained polling agents, equipped with phones and cameras, throughout the country on election day Saturday, and they counted voters and took photographs of voting results pasted up at voting stations (a previously unobserved requirement of voting regulations). The information was sent via text messages or satellite phone to a call center in South Africa, where it was collated and posted at www.zimelectionresults.com for all to see. "These will be archived on this Web site later as forensic evidence," the site says. "A separate report on discrepancies will be filed on the site later."

Although official counts for Saturday's election have been delayed, the Independent Results Centre has already announced that the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) and its leader Morgan Tsvangirai have won in a landside. Given the country's history of electoral fraud, the clandestine group's findings are likely to be widely perceived as at least as plausible as the official ones.”

Andrew LaGrange insists that Mugabe will never step down gracefully and compares his beleaguered presidency to that of the Late Chairman Mao of China:

“In Mugabe I see a late 20th century Mao. A liberator of his people, his complete misunderstanding of the agricultural economy and social culture of his people ultimately led to a self-inflicted wound which will echo in his great country for decades. But unlike China, Zimbabwe will face even greater challenges in stepping back from the widespread breakdown of society and the economy which Mugabe and his allies have allowed to spread north of the Limpopo.

All I can hope and pray for now, as all should, is that any shift in power will not result in bloodshed, or any further suffering for the good people of Zimbabwe who have suffered enough”


Commenting on that possible power shift, Thinking Aloud wonders whether it is a good idea for opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai to step into Mugabe’s shoes if his victory is confirmed:

“… this man is a hero, he has managed to mobilise Zimbwabweans around a single cause of defeating Mugabe … he has fought a good fight, he has kept the faith till the end!

All emotion dictates that he finally ascends the throne and wear the crown of victory. But let us be a little critical and ask this question for the sake of a better Zimbwabwe from the head? Is Morgan the right guy for the job? Will he be able to handle the broken machinery of the Zim government? I will be the first one to say I don’t know Morgan very well, except his heroics against Mugabe… I believe Morgan should rather take a political father role of the new government. I believe he is more suited to be the unifier, and seek to sell MDC to the Mugabe rural constituencies. He can then make sure that the best brains that MDC has can then ascend to rule the country while he becomes the symbol of freedom. He stands to then be the real father of Zimbwabwe and avoid the tricky task of governance… liberators do not always make good governors. I also hope that the other faction stays as opposition and Zanu-PF remains as opposition, just to keep MDC on its toes. In SA we have learnt that in the absence of credible opposition, the liberators quickly loose their way!”

* Dibussi Tande, a writer and activist from Cameroon, produces the blog Scribbles from the Den

* Please send comments to editor@pambazuka.org or comment online at www.pambazuka.org/

Haki Yetu

2008-04-09

http://tinyurl.com/5wv8os

Following is a video that the Kenyan media has 'censored' It is an artistic response to the situation our BELOVED thieves have put us in the song was recorded on 3rd Jan 2008. Some of the excuses by some of the media houses were that it has been overtaken by events

Emergency meeting of SADC to be held Saturday 12th April

2008-04-11

http://www.sokwanele.com/thisiszimbabwe/archives/851

Zambian President Levy Mwanawasa has called an emergency meeting of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) to discuss the Zimbabwean presidential poll delay. This is the first move by Zimbabwe’s regional neighbours to intervene since the elections on 29th March 2008. President Mwanawasa is the current Chairman of the 14-nation South African Development Community.

WOZA Zimbabwe take to the streets of Bulawayo

2008-04-10

http://www.wozazimbabwe.org/

Having watched and waited to see if anyone would mobilise nonviolent action and having seen none to date, around 800 members of WOZA and MOZA began their rollout of peaceful actions in Bulawayo. The group started their protest at the provincial court on Herbert Chitepo and Leopold Takawira.

FHRI Appeal on Zimbabwe

2008-04-11

It is now eleven days since Zimbabwe held its disputed General Elections. It is very troubling that since 29th March 2008, the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission has not declared the Presidential election results and the people of Zimbabwe have not been given any credible explanation for the ordinate delay.
The holding of democratic elections is an important dimension in conflict prevention, management and resolution.
11th April 2008
URGENT APPEAL ON ZIMBABWE

It is now eleven days since Zimbabwe held its disputed General Elections. It is very troubling that since 29th March 2008, the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission has not declared the Presidential election results and the people of Zimbabwe have not been given any credible explanation for the ordinate delay.
The holding of democratic elections is an important dimension in conflict prevention, management and resolution. Democratic elections should be conducted freely and fairly, under a system that ensures in particular, an independent, impartial, all inclusive competent accountable electoral institution, and the independence of the Judiciary.
The High Court of Zimbabwe has taken on the matter, but the principles of free and fair elections as well as accountability which are pre-requisite in a democratic election have been manifestly compromised by both the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission and the incumbent Government of Zimbabwe.
Foundation for Human Rights Initiative (FHRI) appeals to the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission to urgently revisit the ideals of the Principles Governing Democratic Elections in Africa set by the Guidelines for African Union Electoral Observation and Monitoring Missions 2004. We, in particular call upon the Government of Zimbabwe and the Zimbabwe Election Commission to:
i. Take all necessary measures and precautions to prevent the perpetration of electoral fraud, rigging or any other illegal practices in order to maintain peace and security in Zimbabwe.
ii. Ensure that adequate security is provided to all parties that have participated in elections.
iii. Ensure the transparency and integrity of the entire electoral process by declaring the results of the Presidential elections at the earliest opportunity to prevent bloodshed as was the situation in Kenya We stand in solidarity with human rights defenders in Zimbabwe and salute them for their courage and resilience.
In defence of peace, democracy and human rights for all.

Foundation for Human Rights Initiative (FHRI)
Human Rights House
P. O. Box 11027,
Kampala, Uganda
Tel: 256-414-466880 / 256-414-510263 / 256-772-422278
E-mail: fhri@spacenet.co.ug

More...

AU Monitor Weekly Roundup

Issue 132, 2008

2008-04-09

The Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa has issued an open letter on behalf of “the many people within SADC [the Southern African Development Community] increasingly alarmed at unfolding events in Zimbabwe” to heads of state and government, members of parliament in the respective countries and senior leaders with the SADC and African Union Secretariats, asking them to take urgent action to ensure that the Zimbabwean people, who on the 29 March exercised their right to vote, now have the results of that vote recognised and respected. Although initiated by OSISA, signatures from individuals and organizations within the region and globally have been collected - the deadline for signing on is on Friday, 11 April. AU Monitor subscribers wishing to sign on should forward their name and contact details to zimelection@osisa.org

While the presidential election results are still pending in Zimbabwe, the SADC Electoral Observer Mission was the first to issue a preliminary statement on the day after the elections, stating that these were "peaceful and credible" and calling on all parties to accept the results. Legislators from East Africa joined other observers in praising the elections as democratic and fair. Clarkson Otieno Kalan, head of the observer mission from the East African Community (EAC) and a Kenyan member of the East African Legislative Assembly, said his country and region have much to learn from the conduct of the polls in Zimbabwe. However, concerns have mounted given the delay in issuing presidential results, prompting civil society observers to draw parallels between the contested election process in Kenya and Zimbabwe. Muthoni Wanyeki of the Kenya Human Rights Commission notes that “the unfolding of events in Zimbabwe for the last week, following polling the previous weekend, provoked an alarming sense of déjà vu. The familiarity of being forced to wait for official results to be released - for a week and counting. The out-of-sequence release of results, with presidential results being retained instead of being released first. The rise in public expectations of change as parliamentary results showed a majority of seats being won, finally, by the opposition Movement for Democratic Change. The claims of victory by the MDC. And then the signs of intimidation.”

Further, despite a high-profile campaign for election of women candidates, only 28 were elected to the lower house, representing 13 percent of the total, a decrease from the previous 15.8 percent. These figures fall short of the 1997 SADC Declaration on Gender and Development which “proposes that by 2005 at least 30 percent of positions in political and decision-making structures in the public and private sector should be held by women. At the 2005 SADC Summit in Gaborone, Heads of State and Government endorsed the African Union position which provides for 50 percent target of women in all political and decision-making positions by 2015.”

In economic news, the Indian Prime Minister, Dr. Manmahon Singh has announced, during the India-Africa summit, that India has established a duty free tariff preference scheme for Least Developed Countries (LDCs) under which India will provide preferential market access for exports from LDCs. Meanwhile, Alex Vines and Elizabeth Sidiropolous provide analysis of India’s policies and interests in Africa noting that “its Africa policy is driven by economic interests. But competition, particularly with China, is also pushing New Delhi to deepen its presence on the continent”. Considering India’s view of Africa merely as a source of natural resources, the authors underscore the need for investment in Africa’s human capital and capacity building, exemplified by India’s funding of the Pan-African e-Network Project in partnership with the AU. Also entrenching ties with the continent, Russia has pledged 500 million US dollars in development assistance to Africa. According to Ambassador M. Afanasiev, who was speaking at the first session of the joint annual meeting of the AU and the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA), Russia also plans to write off half a billion US dollars of African debt this year, having already forgiven US$ 16 billion.

Further, according to the Economic Report on Africa launched this week by UNECA and the AU, forecast growth for African economies will be an average 6.2 percent in 2008, however, the report “also notes that economic growth has not yet translated into meaningful social development and has not benefited vulnerable groups”. Indeed, the price of basic commodities has risen by as much as 30 percent in some countries, prompting strikes and protests. Hamadou Tidiane Sy reports that these “protests against high fuel and food prices have forced governments in West Africa to use repressive methods of yesteryears, hence reversing the gains made in the democratic arena over the past two decades”.

In peace and security news, the United Nations Security Council will hold an unprecedented meeting with the AU Peace and Security Council at which the proposal of UN Secretary General, Mr. Ban Ki-Moon, for the formation of an AU-UN panel to consider how to support peacekeeping operations undertaken by regional organisations will be discussed. African heads of state have been invited to attend the joint meeting and open debate which will be chaired by South African President Thabo Mbeki.

As the World Health Organisation marked the global day for health on April 7th, the African Development Bank’s (AfDB) Thomas Hurley talks of the “ever growing threats to global public health security” and the need “to place health at the centre of the global dialogue about climate change” pledging that the AfDB will strengthen key features of member countries’ “public health systems such as the control of neglected tropical diseases, primary health care (including clean water, environment and sanitation) and enhance women’s and vulnerable groups’ welfare”. It is under the theme of water and sanitation that the upcoming AU summit is expected to take place in June/July in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt. The Executive Council session of the summit will decide on the election of new members of the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, members of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights and members of the Advisory Board on Corruption. State parties are expected to submit their proposed candidates to the AU Commission before April 30.

Global: Women face bias worldwide - UN

2008-04-11

http://tinyurl.com/4zl5zu

Women are discriminated against in almost every country around the world, a UN-commissioned report says. It says that this is despite the fact that 185 UN member states pledged to outlaw laws favouring men by 2005. It adds that 70% of the world's poor are women and they own just 1% of the world's titled land. The report, which was prepared for UN Human Right Commissioner Louise Arbour, says rape within marriage has still not been made a crime in 53 nations.

Sudan: Five years on, sexual violence still rife in Darfur

2008-04-09

http://www.hrea.org/index.php?base_id=2&language_id=1&headline_id=7007

Five years into the Darfur conflict, women and girls need protection from rape and brutal attacks still being committed by government forces and armed groups throughout Darfur, Human Rights Watch said in a new report. Neither government security forces nor international peacekeepers have provided sufficient protection for women and girls, who remain extremely vulnerable to rape and other abuses during large-scale attacks and even in periods of relative calm, Human Rights Watch said.

Southern Africa: Women are changing the face of migration - new study

2008-04-10

http://topics.developmentgateway.org/microfinance/rc/ItemDetail.do?itemId=1141825

A new study "Gender Remittances and Development: Preliminary Findings from Selected SADC Countries " focuses on female migration from and between six SADC countries, namely Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Swaziland and Zimbabwe, principally to South Africa. “In the past, women in Southern Africa were often prohibited from migrating. Today, with an increasing number of African women migrants, traditionally male-dominated patterns of migration are changing. Overall, women now encompass 37.4% of regular migrants from the SADC region to South Africa,” stated Hilary Anderson, Information Officer at UN-INSTRAW.

DRC: Campaign says 'No' to sexual violence

2008-04-11

http://www.unfpa.org/news/news.cfm?ID=1113

In mid-March hundreds of Congolese women, men and girls raised banners that read, Together, let us say No to the silence, for the dignity of the Congolese and Enough sexual violence!. With faces of determination, the women, men and girls waved these slogans high above their heads. More than 1,000 Congolese authorities and civilians, UN leaders, NGOs and civil society groups’ were gathered in Kinkole, a suburb of Kinshasa, to kick off a nationwide public awareness campaign aimed to eradicate an epidemic of sexual violence.

Somalia: Raising awareness against FGM in Puntland

2008-04-11

http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=77642

Halima [not her real name], a mother of five girls, shudders whenever she remembers how she suffered after undergoing female genital mutilation (FGM/Cutting), a practice still widespread in Somalia. "I will not put my daughters through it," Halima told IRIN in Bosasso, the commercial capital of the self-declared autonomous region of Puntland, where an estimated 98 percent of girls still undergo the cut.

SOAWR campaign update

Popularization, Ratification, Domestication and Implementation of the Protocol on the rights of women in Africa

2008-04-11

Equality Now

This is the quarterly update on campaigns towards popularization, ratification, domestication and implementation of the Protocol on the Rights of Women in Africa. It reports on work done during January to March 2008 and includes information on the status of ratification and upcoming events that could offer opportunities for further action towards the objectives of the campaign.

SOAWR also takes this opportunity to extend a warm welcome to our two new members; Fórum Mulher (Mozambique) and Girl Child Network (Zimbabwe).
Country Level Actions

Burundi
Collectif des Associations et ONGs Féminines du Burundi (CAFOB) has been creating awareness on the rights of women amongst parliamentarians and government officials. CAFOB prepared a shadow report on CEDAW on behalf of civil society and presented the same in Geneva in January 2008.

During the International women’s day 8th March 2008, a discussion on the report was held in Bujumbura bringing together parliamentarians and members of civil society and government officials. They discussed the Protocol which Burundi is yet to ratify and made an appeal to the government to ratify it without further delay so as to afford women justice as denial of justice is considered as a form of violence against women.

During 4 to 8 March 2008, CAFOB organized a march to publicize the world charter on women for humanity. During this occasion women from the grassroots, and the Ministry of Gender and women’s organizations held discussions on the situation of women’s rights in Burundi. CAFOB reiterated that the ratification of the Protocol by Burundi could facilitate equitable access to succession for women and girls, reduce incidents of sexual violence and facilitate equitable access to justice and the resources in the country.

CAFOB has also been utilizing the radio to air a women’s program which highlights the situation of women’s rights in Burundi and discusses various international instruments including the Protocol.

Ethiopia
During a visit to the Head of the Legal Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 8th January 2007, Faiza Mohamed of Equality Now enquired about the status of the Protocol and when it was likely to be ratified by Ethiopia. Mr. Minelik Alemu informed her that the cabinet has approved it and that it was currently in front of the country’s parliament. It was not clear how long it would take for it to be endorsed by the house but the government is hopeful that it will be through fairly soon.

The Inter-African Committee on Traditional Practices (IAC) together with its National committees across Africa and affiliates outside Africa celebrated the International Day on Zero Tolerance to FGM on 6th February 2008. They held seminars, symposiums, rallies for women and youth, radio shows and dramas. IAC targeted the following countries for its activities: Central African Republic, Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Japan, Kenya, Liberia, Mali, The Netherlands, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Senegal, Sudan, Switzerland, and Tanzania,. The objective of these celebrations was to draw attention to FGM and its harmful consequences and demonstrate how it violates the rights of women; inform the public about the provisions in international human rights instrument with a focus on the Protocol; and to persuade the groups to abandon the practice. The target population out of Africa was sensitized on the Protocol as a tool to end FGM. In Gambia and Liberia women who had been sensitized on their rights denounced the practice publicly and general awareness was raised.

In Ethiopia a symposium was held on 6th February in three regions which involved government officials, non-governmental organizations and religious leaders. This event was organized to secure the commitment of the government to combat FGM using the provisions of Article 5 of the Protocol to guide their actions.

IAC also organized a training workshop in Bolgatang, Ghana to train the media professionals on FGM and early marriages and the provisions of the Protocol on the rights of Women. During the workshop, 75 media persons including 5 district government officials were trained on FGM and human rights instruments including the Protocol.

IAC on 6th February carried out press briefings to increase the media support on the campaign to end FGM and draw the attention of African governments to their commitments under the African Union Protocol on the Rights of Women. These conferences and press briefings were carried out on TV and radio as well as on print media and feature articles.

The Forum for Social Studies, an independent policy research centre based in Addis Ababa, in collaboration with the Heinrich Boell Foundation, has been organizing a series of lectures on the theme of "Good Governance and Democracy in Africa". The FSS invited Faiza Mohamed of Equality Now to present on the AU Protocol on Women's Rights at its February forum. Faiza started her presentation by responding to the question whether the African Women’s Rights Protocol fell within the theme of the series of lectures on good governance and democracy in Africa. She commented that if “good governance and democracy” mean ending oppression and promoting equal access to resources and empowerment of peoples’ to bring the best in all of us (men and women); then this Protocol contributes towards good governance and building democracy in Africa. She pointed out that the Protocol sets out standard norms for the continent to promote and provide protection to the human rights of women and girls. She then went on to share SOAWR’s experience is successfully campaigning for the Protocol to come into force in record time! For more information visit http://www.fssethiopia.org.et/


Kenya

The Coalition on Violence Against Women (COVAW) developed a simplified fact sheet on the Protocol on the Rights of Women to be used as an educational tool for the ratification of the Protocol. They are targeting this with the new members of Parliament.

Liberia
During January 10th to March 20