|
Farmers' Juries and Citizens' Juries are an excellent model of participatory decision making that allows the voices of the most marginalised, and yet most affected by development policies to speak out. This model may have much to offer GM campaigners in Africa.
A farmers' jury held in Mali brought together 43 cotton farmers in a country where the government is thought to be considering approval of Bt cotton. A variety of experts from both the pro- and anti- sides of the debate spoke to the farmers as witnesses and answered their questions, to assist the farmers in understanding the full picture and implications of this agricultural technology. These included GM scientists, the FAO, and farmers from South Africa and India with experience of growing GM crops.
While those witnesses who favoured GM technology were given every opportunity to put their arguments across, the jury panel nonetheless voted against allowing GM crops into the country, after hearing the full story about the implications of the technology and its effects on farmers and seed. No doubt the stories emerging from India where farmers are committing suicide after incurring spiralling debts from Bt cotton made an impression. A strengthening of traditional farming practices and support for local farmers were instead identified as solutions for the problems facing Mali's farmers.
While the findings of the farmers' jury are not legally binding, they may yet prove influential towards Mali's policy development.
Another citizen's jury, held in Andhra Pradesh, India in 2002, on Bt cotton, was also designed by the same organisation that facilitated the Mali process, the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED). The findings by the farmers were much the same as those in Mali - a rejection of GM Bt cotton and the plan to modernise agriculture, known as "Vision 2020", which was being funded by the UK's Department for International Development. The findings of the Andhra Pradesh citizen's jury, known as "Prajateerpu", raised a storm of controversy and DFID came under much criticism for their plan. "Vision 2020" would have pushed 20 million farmers off the land in AP, with no plans to provide an alternative means of livelihood. A questionable benefit of "modernisation" indeed.
These instances show the value in helping the marginalised to make decisions about policies that will impact their lives, from a fully informed point of view. To be truly valuable, citizens' juries must be carefully set up with painstaking efforts to ensure inclusivity, integrity and credibility at all stages, and not used as a mere front for a public relations exercise. (I am thinking here of a so-called "citizen's jury" held on GM by the UK Food Standards Agency, which was designed with a heavy bias and misreported the jurors' findings.)
Please visit www.iied.org for more information on citizens' juries, or ask me for more info.
**************************************
1. Mali Farmers Reject GM Crops as Attack on Their Way of Life
Article from the Independent, UK. Date: 31 January 2006
Meera Selva
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/article342135.ece
2. African Farmers Say GM Crops are not the Way Forward
Press Release from the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED)
Date: 29 January 2006
http://www.iied.org/mediaroom/releases/290106.html
3. Mali's David v Goliath GM struggle
Article from BBC online. Date: 7 December 2005
Joan Baxter
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4445824.stm
4. The Locals Know What Aid They Need
Article from the Independent, UK. Date: 21 March 2002
Natasha Walter
http://www.prajateerpuindia.org/media01.htm
5. Farmers Hit by Failed Bt Cotton Crop in AP
Article from NDTV, India. Date: 24 January 2006
*************************************
1. Mali Farmers Reject GM Crops as Attack on their Way of Life
Article from the Independent, UK. Date: 31 January 2006
Meera Selva
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/article342135.ece
Farmers in Mali, the fourth poorest country in the world, have told their government they do not want to see genetically modified crops being grown on their land, after Africa's first "farmers' jury" debated the issue.
Their verdict comes as the Mali government decides whether to allow trials of genetically modified crops to begin in the country.
During the five-day meeting in Sikasso, in the south of Mali, where two thirds of the country's cotton is produced, farmers heard arguments for and against the introduction of GM technology.
Biotechnology scientists claim to be able to produce an insect-repellent cotton crop that would survive attacks by bollworm, a pest that has destroyed large swaths of the country's crop in recent years.
But environmentalists argue that the benefits of genetically modified crops are outweighed by the harm done to local farmers. "GM technology gives seed companies power over the entire agricultural sector," said Dr Michel Pimbert, director of the London-based International Institute for Environment and Development, which organised the meeting. He added: "Crops are protected by patents, so farmers are unable to keep the seeds from the harvest and re-sow them the next year as they do at the moment. The idea that the first link in the agricultural link is controlled by a company is deeply disturbing to small farmers."
Farmers at the meeting said they needed help to continue their existing farming practices, and worried that new GM technology would damage their way of life. Birama Kone, a smallholder on the jury, said: "GM crops are associated with the kind of farming that marginalises the mutual help and co-operation among farmers and our social and cultural life."
The development of GM technology in west Africa is backed by USAid, the American development agency, but activists point out that Mali's cotton industry would thrive if the United States stopped subsidising its own 25,000 cotton farmers by $3bn (£1.7bn) a year. West African countries were hit hard by falling world cotton prices in the 1990s, and have complained that the American cotton subsidies are driving them out of business. A report by Oxfam argues that the US cotton subsidies cost most west African cotton-producing countries the same amount in lost export earnings that they receive in American aid each year.
The farmers' rejection of GM technology at the Sikasso meeting is not legally binding, but the farmers hope the government will take their views into account when making a decision about the future of GM crops in the country.
African countries have been wary of accepting GM technology, despite assurances from the US government and biotech companies that the products are safe. In 2002, Zambia refused to accept genetically modified relief food despite the threat of famine. Zimbabwe, Malawi, Mozambique, Lesotho and Angola later said they would only accept maize if the seeds were milled into flour, to prevent cross-pollination with local maize crops.
Only a handful of countries, including South Africa and Burkina Faso, have allowed GM crops into their farming sector. In Mali, the cotton industry accounts for half of export earnings.
Mourad Abdennadher, west Africa regulatory manager for Monsanto, one of the main biotech companies, said Mali did not have the legal framework to cope with GM technology. "We cannot go into a country unless there are clear biotech regulations, covering matters of bio safety, and of how trials should be conducted and presented. Mali has none of these," he said.
?
********************************
2. African Farmers Say GM Crops are not the Way Forward
Press Release from the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED)
Date: 29 January 2006
http://www.iied.org/mediaroom/releases/290106.html
Ordinary cotton-growers and other farmers have voted against introducing genetically-modified crops in a "citizens jury" in Mali, which is the world's fourth poorest country. Instead, the jurors proposed a package of recommendations to strengthen traditional agricultural practice and support local farmers.
The five day event (25-29 January) took place in Sikasso in the south of the West African country, where two-thirds of the country's cotton is produced. Mali is the largest producer of cotton in sub-Saharan Africa, largely grown by smallholder farmers whose livelihoods depend on it.
Birama Kone, a small farmer on the 43-strong jury, said: "GM crops are associated with the kind of farming that marginalises the mutual help and co-operation among farmers and our social and cultural life."
Basri Lidigoita, a woman farmer on the jury, said: "We do not ever ever want GM seeds. Never."
Brahim Sidebe, a medium-size farmer on the jury, said: "Farmers do not want GM crops and do not want public research to work on GM technology in Mali."
The jurors cross-examined 14 international witnesses representing a broad range of views on this controversial issue. These included biotech scientists, agencies such as the Food and Agriculture Organisation and farmers from South Africa and India with first-hand experience of growing GM crops.
African countries are under increasing pressure from agribusiness to open their markets to GM crops and industrialise their farming sector, but the continent remains divided in its response. South Africa and Mali's neighbour Burkina Faso have allowed the introduction of GM, but Benin has said no.
Though the jurors' decision is not binding, it is expected to influence the future direction of agricultural policy in Mali and across the region where most people rely on subsistence farming.
The citizens jury was hosted by the regional government (Assemblee Regionale de Sikasso) and, to ensure a fair process, it was designed and facilitated by the London-based International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) and RIBios, the University of Geneva's Biosafety Interdisciplinary Network, together with a wide range of local partners in Mali.
IIED's Dr Michel Pimbert said: "This initiative is about making the agriculture agenda more directly responsive to African people's priorities and choices. It is vital that we redress the current democratic deficit in which governments and big agri-food corporations have far more say than farmers and other citizens about how land is used, and what crops are grown. We must all recognise that local people have the right to decide the food and farming policies they want. This citizens jury has provided a safe space for farmers to reach an informed, evidence-based view on this complicated and often controversial issue, which can then be amplified to policy-makers."
Kokozie Traore, President, Assemblee Regionale Sikasso, said: "This citizen space for democratic deliberation has allowed farmers to learn about the potential risks and benefits of GM in the context of Malian farming. As a learning process it has created many synergies between all actors in our province, from the very local to the regional level. The citizens jury has been an eye-opening process and has made possible a cross-fertilisation of local, regional and international opinions on GM and the future of farming."
One of the local organisers, Dr Togola, Research Director of the Sikasso Agricultural Research Station, said: "I am very satisfied. I know that during the last five days our farmers have been sufficiently informed and empowered to make the choices that best suit them on GM and farming options."
Ends.
For further information, to arrange interviews or attend the event, contact:
Tony Samphier on +44 208 671 2911
Liz Carlile on +44 207 388 2117
Notes to editors
The International Institute for Environment & Development (IIED) is a London-based think tank working for global policy solutions rooted in the reality of local people at the frontline of sustainable development. www.iied.org
*****************************************
3. Mali's David v Goliath GM struggle
Article from BBC online. Date: 7 December 2005
Joan Baxter
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4445824.stm
Bamako, Mali. The debate on genetically modified (GM) crops has erupted again in Africa, three years after Zambia refused genetically modified food aid.
Mali - sub-Saharan Africa's largest cotton producer - has begun a controversial five-year project to introduce GM crops such as BT cotton to the country.
"We have been given some figures that show that generally BT cotton is more productive than conventional cotton because of the natural protection of this plant so there is no need for treatments," says Siaka Dembele, at Mali's agricultural research institute, IER
The institute along with the US development agency, USAid, and the transnationals Monsanto and Syngenta are leading the project which started last year.
Mr Dembele says production is not just up in the United States, but other developing countries too.
Pesticides
But his belief that the use of less pesticide would have both economic and environmental benefits is not shared by some.
"That's an absurd proposition," says Asseto Samake, a professor of genetics and biology at the University of Mali.
"The claims they are making for this cotton are absolutely false."
Ms Samake explains that BT cotton has been modified with the introduction of genes of the bacteria Bacillus thuringiensi so it can secrete toxins to resist two or three major cotton pests.
She says that in Mali there are thousands of cotton pests and that when a few are removed from the natural equation, others will flourish and farmers will still need pesticides.
"If BT cotton is so profitable, why do they have to subsidise their cotton farmers with billions of dollars in the United States?" Ms Samake asks.
"Our farmers in West Africa achieve record production using just their digging sticks and regular seeds and they have great difficulty selling what they produce, because subsidies in America and Europe have made the world price for cotton fall.
"So why do they come now with their GMOs and technology to solve a problem that they created? It's a big farce!" adds Ms Samake, who is a member of the Coalition to Protect Mali's Genetic Heritage that formed when word leaked from IER about the USAid-funded project on BT crops.
'Buying people'
Coalition member Mamadou Goïta says the organisation has over 100 member associations of farmers, women, academics and NGOs.
A similar regional coalition has formed for West Africa, where governments are currently developing bio-safety legislation.
But he worries about genetic pollution of and eventual disappearance of local seed varieties if GM seeds are introduced.
According to Goïta: "Mali is a kind of door they need to open to reach some European countries", where there is still widespread public opposition to GM crops.
He alleges USAid and the multinationals are encouraging Africa's researchers and government officials to accept biotechnology with lavish gifts of new computers and printers, office equipment, vehicles, and scholarships for study of biotechnology in the US.
"This is buying people," he says.
Phone calls to USAid in Mali were not returned.
Corruption
Mali's Minister of Agriculture Seydou Traore dismisses suggestions of corruption.
"I know of no bribes in Mali that have anything to do with biotechnology and GMOs," says Traore.
"If there are cases of corruption elsewhere around the debate on biotechnology and GMOs, in Mali, at least for the moment, we don't know them."
In July 2005, Monsanto paid a $1.5 million fine for having bribed an Indonesian official $50,000 to try avoid an environmental impact study on its genetically engineered cotton in that country.
Mr Traore says that Mali needs to improve the quality and productivity of its cotton, and BT cotton could help do that.
To reject biotechnology, he says, is "neither tenable nor reasonable".
Debt and dependence
The debate over GMOs is not limited to the capital city, Bamako.
In the mud and thatch villages of Mali's cotton belt, many farmers express concern that BT cotton would increase debt and dependence.
"Our problem is the low price and not cotton production," says 37-year-old Ladji Kone, in the community of Bohi in southern Mali.
"GM crops would re-colonise us," says Sereba Kone, president of the cotton growers in Bohi.
In the village of Petaka, 800km northeast of Bamako, farmers express similar concerns.
Here, they work on a project funded by the small Canadian NGO, USC, to develop and preserve their own seed varieties in community gene and seed banks.
"I think GM crops are not a good principle for us," says project leader, Tienen Sylla. "These seeds we have here we inherited from our ancestors over generations and they fit our difficult climate. GM seeds would be a trap."
Paying for seeds
Mana Diakite, who heads USC in Mali, says that the West believes technology is the solution to development, but in areas of food security this is not true.
"Once they introduce GM crops to Africa, farmers will only access the seed if they pay," he says
"You know that when the rain fails, farmers here can seed and re-seed at least three times. And if they have to buy seeds three times a year to produce, I don't think that's a good policy for this country, or any country in West Africa."
Some coalition members admit that theirs is a "David and Goliath" struggle, which they are not likely to win.
"I think there is pressure coming from outside which they probably can't divert," says Mr Diakite.
"It's very difficult for an African government to fight something being imposed by a super giant like United States or all these seed companies."
The third West African ministerial meeting on biotechnology, supported by USAid, is set for Accra, Ghana, in June 2006.
*************************************************
4. The Locals Know What Aid They Need
Article from the Independent, UK. Date: 21 March 2002
Natasha Walter
http://www.prajateerpuindia.org/media01.htm
'In the West, leaving the land might sound like liberation, but to Anjamma it spells only destitution'
This week ministers from rich and poor countries have gathered in Monterrey, Mexico, for the United Nations conference on development finance. Although we hear so much talk about "winning the peace" and the "new internationalism", the conference isn't yet packing in the media. War is a lot sexier than peace, and commandos make for much better photo opportunities than aid workers.
If you're being optimistic, you could say that something is beginning to change – that there is a growing desire, voiced by politicians and ordinary people all over the world, that the war on terrorism should be accompanied by a new assault on global inequality. Indeed, those recent pledges of increased aid, $5bn from the US and $7bn from the European Union over the next few years, have received plaudits from all sides.
If you're being pessimistic, however, you'd say that these great new pledges are rather dwarfed by, say, the $400bn that the US will spend on defence in 2003. And you'd wonder if the fact that EU countries donate only 0.3 per cent of their gross domestic product to aid means that Europeans can blamelessly castigate Americans for being isolationist. You'd also say that this debate isn't just about the amounts of money that are being pledged. Because sceptics have long argued that, although development projects always sound as though they will lead only to happy-ever-after endings, aid money too often gets diverted into the pockets of politicians and corporations, while the poorest lose out.
Indeed, even as she left for Monterrey, Clare Short was caught up in a struggle to stop British aid money being pulled away from the poorest people in Tanzania. She has bravely defied her own government's line by suspending aid to Dar es Salaam while an international review takes place of whether the Tanzanian government should be spending money on a British-made, British-financed military air-traffic control system.
Good for Clare. But love her as we might, that doesn't mean we can't hold her department's actions up to scrutiny. For all its many praiseworthy goals and delivered objectives, there are times when it's still hard to see through the dreams to the realities. For instance, one development project to which her own department has chosen to pledge money is running into increasingly vocal protests over its potential effects on the very poorest of the poor in India. A planned development project in Andhra Pradesh, called Vision 2020, has been promised £65m in British aid.
At first sight, this project looks as if it's got the happy-ever-after thing completely sussed. It's a vision that aims to bring millions of poor farmers straight into the 21st century with massive consolidation of farms, mechanisation of agriculture, irrigation projects, new roads and the introduction of genetically modified crops such as vitamin A-enriched rice. The state government says the programme will "eradicate poverty".
But earlier this week some farmers from the region turned up in Westminster to bring their scepticism to the British Government. In an airless conference room, a woman called Anjamma was asked, through an interpreter: "If this project goes ahead, what does she think she will do?" "There will be nothing for us to do," Anjamma replied, "other than to drink pesticide and die."
This woman is exactly the kind of person that we in the West dream of seeing lifted out of poverty by our government's aid cheques. She is a farmer who works four acres of land with her seven children and her two bullocks and her eight buffalos, and no machines. She had never travelled from her village before she came to Britain for this protest.
The planned development project for her region would – in the eyes of the state government and the corporations and management consultancies that have planned it – liberate millions of people from the endless toil that Anjamma has experienced all her life. No wonder the World Bank and the British Government feel that by pouring tens of millions of pounds of scarce aid money into the pot, they will be helping some of the poorest people in India. Why, then, is Anjamma so vociferous in her opposition?
If the project goes ahead according to plan, the number of people who make their living on the land will fall from 70 per cent of the population to 40 per cent. This drop of agricultural workers means that an estimated 20 million people will have to find alternative sources of income – as if a third of Great Britain were to lose their jobs in one massive restructuring and redundancy package.
In the West, leaving the land might sound like liberation, but to Anjamma it spells only destitution. As an illiterate woman whose knowledge and whose power is vested in her ability to grow her own crops on her own soil, she believes that if she loses her farm, she loses everything.
And Anjamma isn't speaking out of ignorance. She was one of 12 farmers who were chosen to be part of a citizens' jury set up by a couple of non-governmental organisations to scrutinise the development plans. That meant that she has sat through days of evidence from GM-seed company executives, from politicians, from academics, from aid donors. That was why her certainty was all the more impressive. She doesn't want aid money to be spent the way that foreign governments and the World Bank and her own state government want it to be spent. She wants something quite different – true empowerment.
"If money comes to us," she said, "to our own associations and unions, we can spend it in the way that we know will work for our land. We know how to increase the fertility of our land. We could be completely self-sufficient. But this is going to be denied to us in the name of modernisation."
What I heard from Anjamma was not a plea to be left alone – she was clearly eager for the West to share its knowledge and its resources with farmers like herself – but a plea to allow her and her peers real control over how these resources should be spent. She had come to London to protest against the Government's plan to help to refashion her society according to the projects of corporations and politicians rather than women like herself. She had a vision of progress, but it differed fundamentally from the vision that she had heard about from the development professionals.
Anjamma may be right, or she may be wrong, about what constitutes progress. But surely she has a right to decide which kind of progress the money spent in her name should be used for. This may still be a tough idea for us to swallow – that the rich could choose not just to share resources with the poor, but also power. But unless that happens, development may remain a fairytale for too many people.
********************************
5. Farmers Hit by Failed Bt Cotton Crop in AP
Article from NDTV, India. Date: 24 January 2006
(Warangal): In the 1980s, when cotton farmer suicides were reported in Guntur district of Andhra Pradesh, synthetic pyrethroids were brought in as the solution.
In 1997, when Warangal cotton farmers committed suicide, genetically modified Bt cotton was touted as a solution.
Four years after Bt cotton was introduced in Andhra Pradesh, the solution seems to have become part of the problem.
Failed crop
Chandraiah, a farmer in Gopanapally village in Warangal district committed suicide after his crop failed.
His wife Swarnakka does not even know if he drank pesticide, because she had no money to take him to hospital. Even his last rites were performed with money villagers contributed.
"We have huge loans. My son-in-law abandoned our only daughter because we could not pay dowry. The debt must be Rs 40,000 already. The crop loss broke my husband. I don't even know what he did to himself," said Swarnakka, farmer's widow.
Chandraiah's last hope had been the Bt cotton he grew on land that he took on rent.
Everyone in his native village opted for Bt cotton this year even though the seeds were almost four times the usual cost, because they were told there would be no pests.
Expenses mount
But pests destroyed the crop and no one got beyond five quintals against the promised 10-15 quintals an acre, and that too, only after spraying pesticides.
"They said there is no need to spray pesticides on Bt cotton. But these pests came. The rain also spoilt the crop. Now all is gone," said Yelliah, a farmer.
"Non-Bt seeds cost Rs 400. This costs Rs 2,700. And we still had to spray pesticides. We could not even recover our investment, or even the cost of seed," said Sai Malli, another farmer.
Other farmers say the problem is also partly due to spurious seeds in the market. They say that non-Bt seeds are being packed in old Bt seed boxes and sold in the market.
Out of the 4,00,000 acres under cotton in Warangal district this season, an estimated 40-50 per cent was Bt cotton.
And according to an independent study, of the 57 farmers who have committed suicide in the same period, 50 grew Bt cotton.
It's an ironic situation, considering Bt was brought in as a solution to cotton farmer suicides due to heavy expenditure on pesticide.
Questions raised
Observers point out that the reasons for agrarian crisis in Andhra Pradesh have not changed.
There is no significant increase in institutional credit and dealers selling seed, fertilizer and pesticides double up as private lenders.
Extension services are weak, so there is no timely, reliable advice and marketing remains a problem. Bt has become the icing on the cake.
When YSR Rajasekhara Reddy took charge in May 2004 as the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, he had said not even one farmer would commit suicide from now on.
Twenty months later, farmer suicides have come down, but only in government statistics than on the killing fields of Andhra Pradesh.
With Rs 1 lakh compensation also to be paid to widows of farmers, the pressure is very much on the government to point to reasons other than the agrarian crisis as the reason for the farmer's ultimate step of desperation.
|
