Town Hall Forum on Food Security and Climate Change

On Oct. 24th, 2009 – UN Day and the International Day of Action on Climate Change – speakers from Puget Sound Millennium Goals, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and the UW Dept. of Atmospheric Sciences participated in a public Town Hall forum called “Food Security and Climate Change: The Agenda at Copenhagen.” The promotional materials for the event touted the  “investments in adaptation, innovations to improve the heat resistance of crops and agricultural productivity, and the political challenges confronting a new climate change agreement to be negotiated at Copenhagen in December that includes technical and financial aid to developing nations.” Thus, AGRA Watch was concerned that the framing of this event would exclude the role of sustainable, agroecological agricultural systems in mitigating climate change, and a few of us attended the event, criticisms and questions in hand.

The following is our impression of the disappointingly vague and boring forum:

The first speaker, from UW Atmospheric Sciences, was interesting and informative.  He had a lot of data about the dual roles of precipitation and temperature changes in severely impacting agricultural performance, in Europe and the US as well as in Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America,  and Asia. His data was sobering, and he presented several different scenarios for where we’d like to be, carbon emissions wise: from “utopia” to where we’re headed now, and an in-between option, which is what he thinks is possible. But even that would require taking some very serious measures to cut back our emissions. One of the most depressing things he mentioned was that in the Sahel, the odds in 2100 of having an average temperature higher than ever recorded in that region are 100%. Overall, the prognosis seems pretty dire, and we wanted to ask what the chances are of getting the amount of CO2 back down to 350 ppm.

The second speaker, the expert from the Gates Foundation was contradictory, not clear or definite about anything. She mostly talked about her experience with the IPCC and FAO, and hardly mentioned anything about the Gates Foundation, their funding, or their priorities. She talked about how to respond to global climate change but not much about agriculture. She said a number of things that seemed ridiculous:  She used hurricane Katrina and how people were wiped out in New Orleans to give an example of how the poor had no resources to deal with climate change!   No history, no politics or economics. One of the other idiotic things she said is that in the past couple centuries, people have increasingly moved to the coastal regions in the Global South, thereby increasing pressure on already fragile ecosystems. “Look at Lagos,” she said. Oh. My. Gosh. Does she really not understand how the slave trade, colonialism, and export reliance totally created those geographies? Does she really think that indigenous peoples and other marginalized peoples just decide to move up on a mountain, rather than being pushed there by settler societies or seeking some refuge from persecution?

She said that in Africa, farmers grow over 7 crop staples and many are more drought tolerant than wheat, rice and corn but that research was going on to make these more drought resistant. She listed several things that had to be happening to get ready for the changes in temperature and rainfall: Adapting and mitgating the effects of climate change, Infrastructure improvements, getting climate and weather information out to people broadly, risk insurance, and coming up with livelihood strategies.  Well, this list is both obvious and in part silly – risk insurance?  Are they in cahoots with the insurance company bigwigs?  What is meant by livelyhood strategies?

She called for “More Global public goods,” under which she listed the need to improve global data collection, dissemination, and analysis, and expansion of international agricultural research. She talked a lot about the role of the Global North–sorry, “developed countries”–to provide agricultural aid and increase emergency food response time. And also, needing to complete the Doha Round, and needing to reinvigorate national agricultural research in Sub-Saharan Africa. Wait, anyone asking why that funding fell by the wayside to begin with? Of course she didn’t mention structural adjustment…

The charts and graphs she presented as she talked were sophomoric. It is difficult to believe that this expert from the Gates Fnd. is so “fluffy”. It seemed like they just presented what they throught the audience would accept.  There were things to object to and to question but it was so cloudy that there was not much to grab hold of.

Dick Nelson’s presentation was rambling and the main point was that rich countries do not give what they should to support less developed countries to reach the Millenium Development Goals. No argument there, but he didn’t make this very forceful or challenging. He talked about adaptation vs. mitigation and the variable costs associated with these strategies. He also stated that people need electricity, lights, machines, and fans if they are to develop, and how are we to help that happen while also trying to reduce emissions? Because the point is, we are responsible for helping them reduce their emissions, and helping them adapt their agricultural systems. We have a “moral imperative,” because we created the problem. And I quote, “The poor need help, and the rich have resources.” So we have to help them “move up the ladder” by providing the “technology that people need to develop ‘green.'” And if anyone needs an example of how we can help poor countries like, say, Bangladesh, Nelson has one suggestion of something Bangladeshis have asked for that we have the know-how to provide: food banks. Because we are so excellent at creating a highly commdified food system, at overproducing food and still managing to have alarming rates of hunger and food insecurity in our country, and at creating a emergency food system to act as a band-aid. And now we can share this vast knowledge with other countries.

Some of the questions made very clear how intentionally vague the panelists were being. One person asked about migration. Dick Nelson responded in a way that was actually more offensive once you realized he was actually trying to give an answer. He cited the necessity of adaptation, once again. So the answer to migration and climate refugees is… we need to help them adapt better. (How exactly is completing Doha going to help with that?) And then once the audience member asked, “Are you going to answer the question?,” the BMGF speaker said that the EU and US both have very tight immigration restrictions, and we’re already seeing people drowning on boats for Europe, and that’s something we are facing because policies aren’t going to change. “We”? How many of her family members have had to make that decision? Honestly this remark, and her certainty that all we can do is just provide assistance and aid, was the most devastating, depressing thing I heard all evening.

What about the World Bank’s ill-informed water projects that threaten environment and agriculture? Answer: The World Bank could be better informed by science, but “a lot has changed.”

Why can’t we reach the “utopia” level? Is it really out of reach? The BMGF speaker said that it’s really not, and we have the technical abilities, it’s just that political will is lacking to do what we need to do. She didn’t specify what these things might be… legalize GMOs in every country? or make radical changes in how we consume, and how we do business?

And finally, someone addressed the gigantic elephant in the room: Do you think that we can accomplish all these goals without challenging corporate power? Uh-oh. Corporate power? Ummm… The best we can do is support community-based development, provide some “helping hands from the North, and push for the completion of the Doha Round because the WTO provides opportunities for everyone to come to the table and negotiate. (I’m assuming this is keeping agriculture under free trade rules, not addressing IPRs, and keeping US and EU ag subsidies in place, while enforcing free trade on the Global South… otherwise the US will throw a fit and refuse to negotiate at all.) Moving along…

Then questions were cut off, and the host ran in to conclude but mentioned that he noticed one of the things he wanted to address was population. Groan… Fortunately there was no time left, so he just concluded with a spiel about the UN and their organization in Puget Sound, and left us to look at the 3 books at the tabling area: Jeffrey Sachs, Jeffrey Sachs + Bono, and Paul Collier.

Overall, the talk was very vague, very frustrating, very depressing without any real solutions, and sort of boring at times. However, Sarah (moderator, from Yes! Magazine) made one comment that stuck with me, and I conclude with it: If there was an asteroid heading toward Earth right now, what wouldn’t we do to stop it? We would mobilize to do anything to stop it from destroying us. We have control over climate change, we have choices, so why can’t we mobilize around climate change in that same way?

Community Conference, Biotechnology Summit

Heather, Travis, and I recently attended the Community Food Security Coalition conference in Des Moines, Iowa. We spent several days strategizing, networking, and learning about food policy councils, sustainable agriculture, and the amazing work our allies are doing in various states and countries. We listened to Vilsack ramble on about providing technical assistance to struggling small farmers in Afghanistan (huh?), state his support for GMOs, and dodge other questions about why he kept stressing the need to help small AND large farms. (Some of us hissed…) We listened to a spokesperson from Sodexo try to appease us by expressing his appreciation of the the demands and needs of farmworkers, specifically the Coalition of Immokalee Workers, who have been advocating for a 1 cent raise and a Code of Conduct. But more inspiring, we met with folks from Food First and Via Campesina, received an Honorable Mention Food Sovereignty Prize, attended a strategy session of the US Working Group on the Food Crisis, and received tons of support and new ideas for AGRA Watch’s work.

Across the street, the “suits” were planning the Iowa Hunger Summit, complete with World Food Prize banners, tabling opportunities for a range of corporations, philanthropies, and biotechnology advocates. Sustainability, anyone?

Bill Gates, in advance excerpts published in the Seattle Times, was set to “argue that the ‘ideological wedge’ between groups who disregard environmental concerns and groups who discount productivity gains could thwart major breakthroughs that are within reach.” He said himself,  “The fact is, we need both productivity and sustainability — and there is no reason we can’t have both.” Read the whole article here:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010066431_webgatesag15.html

But, if we can and should have both, why is the Hunger Summit dominated by biotechnology solutions? Why did Bill Gates’s speech tout biotechnology as the solution to global hunger? Because people, corporations, foundations often find answers where they are willing to look, and for the Gates Foundation–built on profits from technological advances–the answer has to lie in technology. And of course, those setting out to “end hunger” can’t be implicated in its causes–we can’t talk about how unsustainable our consumption is, how our systems are built on slavery, colonialism, and unfair trade relationships. Those of us that do, according to Bill Gates, are keeping necessary technologies away from the poor because of our “ideology.”

Hans Herren, who I heard speak at the CFSC Conference, responded in the following way: “What I think is wrong is to blame the people who question the utility now as the bad guys responsible for hunger… Look at the people who have quadrupled yield in perfectly good agriculturally sound systems. Why is this not taken as the example, not to multiply everywhere but as the basis to adapt to different systems?”

Read the Seattle Times article here:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/thebusinessofgiving/2010073311_get_sustainable_agriculture_ri.html

From the Hunger Summit tabling:

“Supporting seed entrepreneurship and increasing yields…”

“Would you like to work for a global corporation?”

Biotech for water, food and fuel…

Bt Eggplant was a very common theme.

Yikes… and on that note:

So much for these efforts centering on small-scale farmers. From this image, we’d assume their only role is to accept new seeds and guidance from white scientists.

I conclude with AGRA Watch’s response to Gates’s speech:

“Those of us questioning AGRA support both productivity and sustainability, however we also support democracy and thus cannot get behind a foundation whose sheer wealth can direct the future of agriculture toward what it sees as the virtues of (bio)technology. Yet Bill Gates continues framing the debate as one between productivity and sustainability, without mention of colonial history, international trade, and export-driven growth, which prioritize foreign markets over local food security. The first Green Revolution also neglected the social, economic, and political roots of hunger, and not surprisingly, hunger and inequality have persisted despite increased yields. The same results can be expected for AGRA.

AGRA’s focus on productivity is not surprising, given that this narrow framing of the problem opens numerous opportunities for corporations to profit from researching, creating and selling seeds and chemical inputs that claim to generate higher yields. Whether these seeds are genetically engineered or not, they are certainly patented and take control and security away from small-scale farmers.In contrast, social movements call for food sovereignty, which is defined by La Via Campesina as “the right of peoples, countries, and state unions to define their agricultural and food policy… [and to organize] food production and consumption according to the needs of local communities, giving priority to production for local consumption.”

Very rarely do agricultural development programs equally benefit corporations and small-scale farmers, which is why social movements and farmer networks in Africa, and our organization, support sustainable agricultural practices that promote food sovereignty AND maintain high productivity without heavy reliance on chemical fertilizers and global capital. Productivity and sustainability cannot be defined in corporate terms and rooted in technological solutions—they must be rooted in grassroots democracy, local resilience, and a more nuanced analysis of the causes of global hunger. The “ideological wedge” to which Bill Gates alludes is a healthy one—between the world’s small-scale agricultural producers and the world’s most powerful corporations. It is up to the Gates Foundation on which side of this gap their interests fall, but they cannot make large grants to institutions
looking for (bio)technology fixes and market-seeking opportunities, and still claim to be aligned with smallholders in Africa.

What is dangerous is not this rift, but what Gates attempts to do: invoke the urgency of poverty and hunger to push through undemocratic techno-fixes that repeat the same social and environmental failures of the first Green Revolution, and skim over the sustainable practices proven by African smallholders to work for their communities. Instead, Gates could help ensure that the knowledge of African small-scale farmers is protected, celebrated, and shared equitably, rather than appropriated by researchers using Intellectual Property Rights to privatize Africa’s genetic wealth and sell it back to African farmers.

Some AGRA Watch members were able to peek in at the Iowa Hunger Summit, and we assure you from the materials we saw and the people we spoke to, it is very clear that the message is less about solving hunger than it is about using hunger in Africa—the “final frontier” for biotechnology and industrial agriculture—to generate profits.

If Bill Gates wants to close the gap, it is his powerful foundation’s responsibility to think more critically about whose interests they are serving, and how they might be more socially, environmentally, and politically responsible. It is not on us to abandon our hopes for food sovereignty and a more just, democratic, and sustainable global food system.”

The struggle continues…

Welcome to AGRA Watch

Welcome to the AGRA Watch blog. AGRA Watch is designed as a semi-public forum for discussion about the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa, alternatives to global industrial agriculture, and related issues.

This blog is a work in progress–comments and suggestions for maintaining and moderating it are welcome. Thank you!