By Nour Makarem | Staff Writer
When help becomes counterproductive
For years, the media has presented Africa almost like a helpless child that cannot fend for itself without the support of mother West. Though it is no secret that the Third World requires sustenance from time to time to a certain degree, it seems that this help does not always serve its purpose. As is the case with the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), an organization founded in 2006 with the goal of increasing agricultural yield by introducing genetically-modified seeds and promoting soil health, achieving this through the incorporation of industrial agricultural practices.
AGRA aimed to halve food insecurity in 20 countries and double the income of 20 million farming households by 2020. With access to millions of dollars through funding – including cumulative donations of over $661 million from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation – and a spending rate of $1 billion per year, the goal seemed somewhat plausible. By 2009, AGRA had 116 ongoing grants across 14 countries totaling $83 million. However, fifteen years later, a study led by Tufts University researchers revealed that the hunger situation in 13 countries has worsened since AGRA’s launch, while the number of hungry people has surged by 30%. Additionally, staple crop yields have not seen any significant increases. The researchers gathered these findings by reviewing yield and land data as well as country-level production.
AFSA, the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa known for supporting local and organic agricultural efforts, put out a press release in which they criticize AGRA for pushing farmers towards monoculture farming, and promoting industrial practices that involve the use of environmentally harmful chemicals and cause the farmers to be dependant on supply chains, taking away much of their independence and sovereignty in addition to increasing their risk of debt in the face of climate change. Last summer, AFSA released a report titled “False Promises,” documenting the extent of AGRA’s failure to fulfill its promise of increased productivity which would raise rural families’ incomes and cut hunger. According to the False Promises report, an overreliance on industrial seeds could lead to the extinction of local, more climate-resilient crops like millet, almonds, sorghum, and tubers, which in turn can cause a significant decrease in yield.
This September, AFSA issued a letter that expressed the need for communal solutions in farming practices that can increase climate resilience. That is not to say that African farmers should not have access to genetically altered seeds or industrial farming methods, but rather combine practices as seen fit by the farmers themselves and that would altogether further advance production in all aspects.
AFSA is made up of more than 500 faith-based organizations and represents over 200 million farmers, pastoralists, and fishers. One of them, the Southern African Faith Communities Environment Institute or SAFCEI, released an open letter to the Gates Foundation (the most generous donor to AGRA) asking for a change of policy, as the industrial practices seemed to worsen conditions for all involved amd undermine the rights of farmers by pushing government policies. Though AGRA was founded on a vision of a “green revolution,” it does not take the input of the farmers in question into account, considering their invaluable generational knowledge of local seed and food systems and biodiversity. AGRA designs industrial agricultural models without consulting them, treating them as mere consumers of their seeds and services. Francesca de Gasparis, who is the executive director at SAFCEI, shared her thoughts on the matter – “what African farmers need is support to find communal solutions that increase climate resilience, rather than top-down, profit-driven, industrial-scale farming systems. You need to start listening to the smallholder farmers of Africa, you need to start listening to those of us that are directly in connection with them.”
Critics of AGRA claim that though the agriculture giant holds positive intentions, its approach towards bettering Africa’s agriculture should further involve the farmers themselves, and aim to support them as natives of the land in a manner that is both democratic, responsive and does not undermine their value.
One might ask, “if they dislike AGRA so much, why not go back to old policies?” The answer lies in finances. AGRA pours over one billion US dollars in subsidies into certain African countries and uses its financial power to influence African governments into adopting short-sighted agricultural solutions involving increasing crop yield. The long-term effects are quickly becoming more apparent: the abandoning of cultural practices coupled with the rising insecurity of nutritious crops (due to a dependency on crops such as maize) are actively leading to an increase in hunger.
This information begs the question of how such a large-scale philanthropic project could lack qualified management to a degree that allows such deterioration of the agricultural sector in multiple African countries. If the apparent long-term goal of the project has not been achieved, in fact, the opposite has occurred, then why is the project still up and running with the same initial plan of action and strategizing? What benefits could the project managers find in such apparently horrible outcomes?
It appears that the main repercussion of introducing GMO crops to the agricultural sectors of these countries has been increasing the monopolization of African agriculture by making it dependent on Western seeds. Therefore, while the project’s goal is to eradicate food insecurity, it attempts to do this by creating a market of African countries for GMO crops, as a ‘return of investment’ for a supposedly philanthropic project. Simultaneously, due to the incompatibility of such crops with some areas’ soil and climate, there is a detrimental effect on African countries’ long-term food security.
As this project continues to harm many African countries, we must ask ourselves why we allow Western media to paint said African countries as naturally helpless. The West appears to actively contribute to this stereotype for profit