Category: Policy

Posted on

Kofi’s time

In 2002, while UN secretary general, Kofi Annan asked, “How can a green revolution be achieved in Africa?” After more than a year of study, the appointed expert panel of scientists (from Brazil, China, Mexico, South Africa and elsewhere) replied that a green revolution would not provide food security because of the diverse types of farming systems across the continent. There is “no single magic technological bullet…for radically improving African agriculture,” the expert panel reported in its strategic recommendations. “African agriculture is more likely to experience numerous ‘rainbow evolutions’ that differ in nature and extent among the many systems, rather than one Green Revolution as in Asia.” Now Annan has agreed to head the kind of project his advisors told him would not work.

That extract is from a long and thoughtful piece on the web site of Foreign Policy in Focus, an American “think tank without walls”. It is a response, as you might have guessed, to the appointment of Kofi Annan as head of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa, the initiative funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation.

If you have any interest in the problems of poverty and agriculture in Africa, I urge you to read it. This is not shrill propaganda. This is carefully considered commentary. Carol B. Thompson, the author, makes several trenchant points that, to me, skewer the rationale behind the Gates/Rockefeller strategy. (Not that I was in favour before, as regular readers will know.)

They say that generals are always fighting the previous war. Alas, the same seems true of the war on poverty.

Posted on

A policy for pastoralism in Africa?

The African Union apparently launched a Pan-African Pastoral Policy Initiative at a conference at Isiolo in northern Kenya last week. There’s a little bit about the event on the website of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs’ Pastoralist Communication Initiative (one of the organizers), but not much. An article summarizing some of the results was released a few days ago by the UN’s Integrated Regional Information Networks and got picked up by various agencies. But that’s all I’ve been able to find. Which is a pity, because listen to what the IRIN article says:

The key issues that emerged from the discussions included: governance; land; education; markets and financial services; conflicts; and poverty risk and vulnerability. Another point was the ‘biological dimension’ – feed resources and animal genetic resources.

There’s nothing about biodiversity in the African Union pamphlet introducing the policy initiative, but it sounds as though that may have been rectified during the meeting itself.

The IRIN article is very good, full of pithy quotes and interesting information, like this:

A concept note prepared by the AU and OCHA-PCI on the continental policy framework quotes UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 2005 figures, which indicate that the continent has 235 million cattle, 472 million goats, 21 million pigs and 1.3 billion poultry, all valued at US$65 billion.

I did look for this concept note but sadly couldn’t find it online.

Posted on

Seed Regulation: How much is enough?

Earlier this year we posted about how EU Regulations destroy agricultural biodiversity and proposed rules to allow the marketing of European traditional varieties. Eliseu Bettencourt, a colleague with a close interest, said then that he didn’t have enough time to intervene in the discussion. Now, he says, he has a chance. Which would be kind of dull except that he’s seen the very latest drafts of the documents …

The post of 19th February 2007 refers to the “Draft Commission Directive establishing the specific conditions under which seed and propagating material of agricultural and vegetable species may be marketed in relation to the conservation in situ and the sustainable use of plant genetic resources through growing and marketing”, supposedly due to come into force on 1st April 2007. The Directive did indeed materialize as the writer of the post so rightly guessed then, though he even refrained from the obvious joke.

I guess the writer was referring to the draft document of May 2006, which bore that title. According to the drafts I have had access to later, in February 2007, that document was sub-divided intro three different documents, respectively: Continue reading “Seed Regulation: How much is enough?”

Posted on

CBD to listen to farmers

Interesting news for agricultural biodiversity from the margins of the latest SBSTTA meeting. That’s the Subsidiary Body on Scientific Technical and Technological Advice of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). The Meridian Institute’s Food Security and Ag-Biotech News service summarizes a press release by the CBD secretariat announcing that it has:

signed an agreement with the International Federation of Agricultural Producers (IFAP) aimed at strengthening communication and collaboration between the secretariat and farmers’ organizations, which have a “major role” to play in the management and conservation of biodiversity. IFAP represents 115 farmers’ organizations in over 80 countries, most of them developing, with a strong representation of small-scale farming interests. The federation’s mandate is to develop the capacities of farmers to influence the decisions that affect them at the domestic and international levels. Under the new agreement, IFAP will contribute to improving the effectiveness of the CBD’s program of work on agricultural biodiversity by representing farmers’ views at CBD processes and by raising awareness among its members of the importance of biodiversity in the context of sustainable agricultural development.

The next SBSTTA meeting (18-22 Feb. 2008) will review the CBD’s program of work on agricultural biodiversity. A couple of months later, “Biodiversity and agriculture” will be the theme for 2008’s International Day for Biological Diversity on May 22. Sounds like we’ll have to plan something special for that period here at the Agricultural Biodiversity Weblog.

Posted on

Small farms and diversity

IFPRI has an interesting paper out called The Future of Small Farms for Poverty Reduction and Growth. It makes the point that agricultural development must reach smallholders if it is to have any impact on poverty, and to reach them “the policy agenda … must change to meet the new challenges facing small farms: improv(ing) the workings of markets for outputs, inputs, and financial services to overcome market failures.”

Fair enough, I suppose, but the thing that got me was the almost complete failure to address agricultural biodiversity. Surely there are differences between small and large farms in the biodiversity they maintain. Surely there are differences between small and large farms in their reliance on diversity. Surely there are differences between small and large farms in the role that diversity can play in lifting the families that work on them out of poverty. Maybe, but you won’t hear about it here. Pity.