Month: September 2018

Genetically modified crops can work for Africa, but only if Africa owns it.

“Sixty per cent of the world’s arable land available today is in Africa. All efforts to feed the world — not just to feed Africa, but to feed the world — in the next decade or more are going to focus on Africa. Which means Africa has to do it right and have the scientific basis not to mess it up.” – Calestous Juma

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) are a topic that provokes spirited debate between its detractors and proponents. One side insists that GM crops offer a second green revolution to a continent with persistent food security problems, and governments and people should just get over their reservations and embrace them. The other side warns of dire ecological, economic, health and neo-colonial consequences if Africa allows its crops to come under the control of the corporate mono-culturalists for whom profit is their sole goal with the apparent concern around the health and well-being of Africans and their environment being PR at best.

This is not a black and white issue. Both sides have valid viewpoints. GM crops do have the potential to be highly beneficial to African farmers and enhance the food security and health of millions around the continent. However, the practices of the corporations that make, distribute and are lobbying for GM crops are disturbing. Furthermore, the concerns for people’s health and ecological sustainability should not be dismissed but addressed with data and testing.

Like the debate around GM crops, Africa does not face a black and white choice of refusal or submission GM crops and the companies that make them. Africa can chart a different path, with a policy that puts African farmers, food security and innovation at its heart. Africa can tap into the potential benefits of GM crops, driven by the needs of its farmers and innovations of scientists without having to give our agricultural future to the profit motives of foreign multinational Agri-corps. For that to happen, GM policy in Africa would have to be based around the ideals of public ownership, accountability and collaboration.

 

Potential and pitfalls

When dealing with the topic it is crucial that a proper definition of GMO’s be used. With that in mind I will use the WHO definition of “Organisms (i.e. plants, animals or microorganisms) in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination… It allows selected individual genes to be transferred from one organism into another, also between nonrelated species.” [1]. People have been altering crops and animals for millennia, through techniques such as selective breeding. What makes GM different is that we are altering the blueprints of the organism, its DNA, to add or remove characteristics that we may like or dislike. This is a potentially powerful technology and it is unsurprising that it provokes such strong feelings.

The Potential – Higher, healthier yields with less inputs

By inserting desirable traits into the genes of plants, there are a number of advantageous properties that could be given to plants.

First are the yields farmers get, which genetic modification can significantly increase through several avenues. Plants can be modified to be resistant to bacterial, viral or fungal diseases as well as pests, reducing the number of crops farmers loose to these scourges. In addition, plants can be given genes that allow them to withstand environmental stresses. For instance, as rains become less consistent it would be a great benefit to have crops that can withstand periods of drought or heavy rains. With climate change causing shifting weather patterns resilient crops will be critical.

The second great benefit is health, and this come about in two forms. GM crops that can be made naturally resistant to pests and infections require less pesticide, herbicide, fungicide etc. This is healthy for the farmers who would handle less chemicals, healthier for consumers as less chemical use means less of these substances being ingested, and its better for the environment as there are fewer of these chemicals getting into the wider environment and having adverse effects (e.g. water run off into rivers and lakes that causes fish deaths and algal blooms). The second possible health benefit of GM is nutritional. Through genetic modification the nutritional value of the plant can be enhanced. An example of this is yellow rice which has been modified to produce Vitamin A in order to prevent Vitamin A deficiency in children which can cause blindness.

The third broad benefit is an offshoot of the other two. By modifying plants to require less pesticide, herbicide, fungicides and fertiliser, you reduce the inputs necessary for farming. In a continent where, expensive farm inputs such as fertiliser and pesticides are a constant burden for farmers, reducing the amount of inputs required while sustaining or improving yields would give farmers a leg up without having to resort to expensive subsidies or government programs as we do now.

The Pitfalls

However, GMO’s are not all rosy. First, is the reality that “life finds a way”. Try as we may eventually GM crops will mix with and reproduce with indigenous crops. What effect will this have on the farmers who have chosen not to grow GM crops, what characteristics will these crops have, and if the GM crops are patented will they be forced to pay royalties.

Which brings us to the second issue, and in my mind the most crucial. Corporate control. Currently GM crops are largely a corporate creation, patented and controlled by large agricultural biotech corporations whose prime motivation is profit and not the interests of African farmers and consumers. Companies like Monsanto develop crops to be compatible with their own herbicide so that you only get good yields when used in conjunction with their other products. In addition, such crops tend to have terminator seeds. The seeds produced by the plants are sterile and thus farmers must purchase new seeds every year guaranteeing the company a revenue stream. Furthermore, the patents that these corporations have on these crops blocks innovation, evolution and adaption forcing farmers into farming in a specific way.

The third question is one of safety. Do we know enough about GM crops and their impacts on the environment and human health to be confident enough to allow them into the market? Do we have the systems regulations and facilities to test these crops to ensure their safety?

GMO’s with an African (policy) flavour

The answer to the issues presented by GMO’s both their potential and pitfalls, is not to completely ban them or allow agro-chemical industry free reign in the continent. What is needed is good policy. Good policy on GMO’s in Africa would consist of three elements. The first is public ownership and accountability. A major problem with GM crops is their corporate nature. The only way to ensure that GMO’s would be beneficial to Africa is to strip the profit motive from their research, design, testing and regulation. And the only way to do that is public ownership. This brings us to the second element, accountability. There is a lot of mistrust around GMO’s, the motives behind them, their ecological and health impacts and their use. The only way to assuage these concerns is transparency. No for-profit corporation will be transparent about commercially sensitive information such as its own GMO’s, but public institutions can be transparent and can be designed to be so, by incorporating stakeholders and their concerns into their design and decision-making structures to ensure that those concerns are met. The third element is collaboration. If GMO’s are truly going to be beneficial to Africa it will require collaboration on two levels. First between stakeholders within the agricultural industry, research scientists, farmers, environmentalists, doctors, consumers will all need to come together to guide the development of GM crops for the African context. A context in which small farmers are the vast majority of farmers, where climate change and changing weather patterns are making farming harder and where growing populations require more agricultural productivity to feed them. The second level is internationally. No single African country has the ability to set up and sustainably fund institutions that can design, develop, test and disseminate GM crops over the long term. However, together they could do so. The ability to pool funding, expertise, and facilities only makes sense, especially as many African countries face similar agricultural challenges and most staple and commercial crops are grown across multiple countries.

African GMO’s

GMO’s need not be a threat to Africa, they could be an opportunity. However, in their current corporate dominated form they do pose a threat. They threaten to yoke African agriculture to the profit motives of multinational Agri-biotech companies, who are not accountable to the African public or governments.

As Calestous Juma urged, Africa must do agriculture right, and to do that we have to embrace and own the science. Since Fritz Haber and Carl Bosch invented the Haber-Bosch Process in the early 20th century that allowed the production of fertiliser on an industrial scale, to Norman Borlaug and short stalk wheat in the 60s and 70s that saved millions from famine, science in agriculture is how we have fed the world. If we are to feed and develop Africa we must embrace science as part of the solution, and GMO’s as part of that. Smart policy, that is public, transparent, accountable and collaborative, would help ensure that Africa owns its GMO’s and its own agricultural destiny.

[1] http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/

Focus on FOCAC: what was missing.

Last week the triennial Forum On China Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) took place Beijing. The summit came in the midst of growing questions (particularly from the western media, academia and governments) about China’s ‘debt diplomacy’ and pushback from China that the west is simply trying to paint a growing and beneficial relationship in a bad light. Debt diplomacy, simply put is the perception that China is using debt as a strategic tool to get strategic assets or trap developing nations desperate for investment (such as African states) in debt laden subservience to China (you can read this if you are interested in further exploring this line of thought). The summit also showed the growing disparity between the West’s diminishing clout in Africa and the growing influence and importance of China. While Angela Merkel, Theresa May who visited Africa, and Donald Trump (who was visited by President Kenyatta) made optimistic statements about being committed to investing in Africa, China pledged cold hard cash, 60 billion dollars to be exact, as the proof of its commitment.

As you will likely notice about both these narratives (debt diplomacy and China vs the West in Africa) is that they are driven by foreign (Chinese or western) concerns and interests. Africa is (worryingly like in the days of the cold war) a battleground for the interests and ambitions of two increasingly competitive power blocs. There is little concern given to the needs and aspirations of African’s, nor how the actions of China or the West can tie into development policy. I blame this on Africa’s leaders who have failed to properly articulate the concerns of African’s in the broader China-Africa relationship, and to strategically think about how to integrate and utilise Chinese investment and geopolitical policy into our own development policy. Secondly, in response to the renewed optimism at the money pledged by China, the devil is in the detail and we got very little of it, beyond speeches and headlines. Third, FOCAC did nothing about the image problem, of both African’s in China and the Chinese in Africa. While our leaders may talk about each other in glowing terms, how their respective peoples view each other and interact will define the relationship going into the future. Fourth, Africa’s debt is a problem and both Africa and China, if they are indeed sincere, need to come up with viable policies to ensure that Africa does not find itself in a debt trap again.

The recent FOCAC summit was notable just as much for what was missing as for what was said. The China-Africa relationship will be a defining feature of Africa in the 21st century, whether its positive will need African policy makers and political leaders to be more thoughtful about that relationship and the policies that actualise it.

1.  Speak up Mr President

49 African heads of state made their way to Beijing for FOCAC, more than went to the last US-Africa summit or TICAD (Japans equivalent of FOCAC) symbolically this just how important China is to Africa. This is not surprising; China has invested and is committing to invest vast sums of money in Africa. In addition, China is offering cooperation and assistance in several areas such as security and combating poaching. While it is not surprising it is also worrying. Worrying because there is no clear articulation of the African position from individual African nations or from regional or continental bodies. What are African countries looking to get out of China, what are Africa’s nations visions of development, and what do we see China’s role in it being, and what we see as a mutually beneficial relationship. African presidents in various forms gave the usual platitudes about the importance of investment and infrastructure, the value of Chinese partnership and their commitment to economic development. There was no clear articulation of the African perspective and this is a problem, because it means that Chinese interests and concerns are driving the relationship and even if there is no malice involved, a one-sided relationship is still detrimental. Even if Africa is the junior partner, a sufficiently articulate, determined and smart junior partner can play a large role in defining a relationship. That is what was missing at FOCAC from Africa’s leaders, a clear conception of a balanced Africa-China relationship, not just an acceptance of a lopsided China-Africa dynamic. What that looks like is up for debate, (I gave my ideas In a previous post), but without a vision we are lost and ripe for exploitation.

2.  The devil is in the details

60 billion dollars. That, amount slightly larger than the GDP of Kenya, will be the figure that defines FOCAC. That China has pledged 60 billion dollars of aid, concessional loans, credit lines, debt relief and grants to the African continent over the next 3 years, and that there will be no vanity projects paid for by that money. Beyond the, 60 billion there were also commitments around security assistance, climate change resilience, anti-poaching among others. However, as with any great promise the devil is in the details.

On the 60 billion dollars what’s needed is specifics of what China considers a concessional loan, what the conditions are for debt relief, the conditions for access to a credit line and the interest payment terms and periods for that credit and what, in the eyes of Beijing, constitutes a vanity project.

On the issue of security assistance. Is it training? More Chinese bases on the continent? Is it domestic surveillance and tracking technology or internet suppression tools (which should scare any African concerned with human rights).

Such, questions abound on a number of areas announced and committed to at FOCAC, unfortunately there are few policy papers, bi-lateral and multi-lateral agreements available to the public or being debated in parliaments around the continent. The devil is in the details and the devil cannot be seen. We have no idea what African leaders have committed in Beijing, thus there is no way for African’s to fully assess and appreciate the relationship with China.

3.  The image problem – race, rhinos and chopsticks

How do the Chinese (the people not the government) view African’s? Judging by the depictions of African’s and black people in Chinese popular media such as the widely watched lunar new year’s show, or the art show which compared black people to animals. It is clear that race is an issue. It is an issue that doesn’t just manifest itself in China but in Africa as well. Around the continent there are numerous instances of African workers on Chinese projects being treated unfairly and even cruelly (as recently came to light in Kenya), building a perception among many African’s that the Chinese are exploitative and disrespectful, and at times this has boiled over into protest .

Stereotypes, unfortunate interactions and cultural misunderstanding are a rather prominent feature of China – Africa relations when you look beyond the high-level government get-togethers. Rather than avoid the issue, issue hasty apologies or outright deny or rationalise the issue of negative perceptions, racism, cultural misunderstandings etc. between ordinary Chinese and African’s, governments on both sides should be attempting to address it head on. This could involve to building contacts that go beyond high-level summits and infrastructure projects. Create spaces where people can interact (such as university exchange programs), where African’s and the Chinese can learn about each other, their diverse histories, cultures, their common experiences of western imperialism, and the different experiences of life across both Africa and China. FOCAC could be the start of a broader relationship between China and Africa that isn’t just about government to government bi-lateral agreements, but a broader relationship between two peoples which could go a long way to providing the basis for a long term mutually beneficial relationship that can go beyond sovereign debt.

4.  The debt dilemma

Despite the Chinese contention that the debt diplomacy narrative is a western fiction meant to paint a negative picture of China to audiences around the world. The truth is that it is a problem. African countries are finding themselves once again straining under increasing debt pressure, and Chinese debt plays a significant role in that (links/graphics). For African nations there is clearly a need to make Chinese financing more sustainable, and unless China is as utterly cynical as former secretary of state Rex Tillerson suggested, then they too have an interest in coming up with ways to make Chinese financing more sustainable for African nations.

This is not something that must or should come from China. The first realisation that must happen in the finance ministries of Africa, is that China is not a benevolent Santa Claus, handing out wads of cash. Debts must eventually be repaid. Second, is coming up with a viable, mutually acceptable framework for financing going forward. This could include a set a of criteria that projects must meet before getting funding or the Chinese Foreign Ministry and EXIM bank working with the African Development Bank, Afriexim bank or the regional development banks to help African governments assess and structure loans to ensure their sustainability. These are just two ideas, fundamentally the point is that China and Africa are not locked into a debt trap path, and with some innovative policy the debt problem could be defused.

Rebalancing China-Africa

I have recently taken my own advice and been reading up Chinese history to gain a greater understanding of a truly extraordinary people. In doing so it is hard not to draw parallels between the past and the present. Around 2,100 years ago Emperor Wu of the Han dynasty established many of the routes and relationships that would come to known as the silk road. He did so with a mixture of diplomacy and conquest. At its height, China under the Han dynasty was trading with the Rome and Parthia to the west and numerous vassal states paid homage to the emperor. Today its President Xi (emperor in all but name) is, through a canny mix of diplomacy, ‘conquest by debt’ and the almighty dollar building a new silk road (it is no coincidence that the Chinese government itself drew explicit comparisons between the ancient silk road and the belt and road initiative). And it was not hard to see the (number) of African presidents in Beijing for FOCAC there to pay homage to the emperor of the rejuvenated 21st century middle kingdom.

China’s ambitions may not be as imperial as its history, however by looking at what was missing from FOCAC, it is clear that not only is the narrative of China in Africa skewed, the reality of the relationship is lopsided as well. This is not due to evil machinations from China. Rather it is due to a failure from African leaders to try and define that relationship beyond the headline figure of how much money Beijing is pledging to invest in the continent. Rebalancing that relationship will require African leaders to develop a vision of what a mutually beneficial relationship between their countries and China looks like. Doing that will require African leaders to develop a coherent vision of what their development goals and aspirations are based on those of their people (something I have talked about at greater length in this post). Once there is a vision it can be articulated, negotiated and integrated into a mutual and more equal relationship between the Peoples Republic of China and the many republics of Africa.

I do not subscribe to the western view that what we are seeing is a cynical 21st century imperialism from China. Neither do I ascribe to the view that China is a completely benign partner for Africa and is not pursuing its own strategic interests. What I am is an African, who wants to see our continent develop a mutually beneficial relationship with a remarkable nation, that is a world power and will likely be a superpower. Doing so requires being realistic about Africa’s relatively weak bargaining position, but it also demands vision and strategic thinking, which will form the basis of policies that will ensure that Africa does not find itself holding the short end of the stick again. I sincerely hope that African leaders and policymakers are not thinking about what happened in Beijing last week, but rather are thinking about what could happen at the next FOCAC in 2021.