What Has Gates Learned About Development Since Last Year?

Bill Gates' 'Annual Letter' always makes depressing reading. That someone so single minded about making money and controlling as much as possible [good article in the English Guardian on this issue] should understand so little about development is not as surprising  as the fact that, for all his money, he doesn't appear to be able to find advisors who have the balls to stand up to him and get him to at least fake an understanding.

Yet again, to Gates and his cronies, 'innovation' in agriculture in developing countries means wresting the little control left to small farmers out of their hands and putting it in the hands of multinationals, who can squeeze whatever blood is left in the farmers that hasn't already been squeezed out by other means. Technology, as Gates knows, is the preserve of the rich; the rich benefit from it, the poor pay for it. Genetically modified organisms (GMO) and various other technologies that impress Gates so much, and I don't believe he is unaware of this, are not designed to benefit small farmers in developing countries, nor will they ever do so.

In health, also, Gates obsesses about technologies, such as vaccines, single, headline-grabbing diseases such as polio and HIV and issues such as family planning. Yet, over and over again, research shows that it is not just technologies that allow substantial reductions in transmission of common preventable diseases, it is also things like sanitation, water and living conditions. There is no mention in his speech of sanitation and the only mention of water is in relation to GMOs. Polio, which Gates hopes to get credit for 'eradicating', is an example of a disease that will not go away just because everyone is immunized; people need access to clean water and good sanitation. That will help eradicate a whole host of diseases, not just the fashionable ones.

Gates, like a large chunk of the development industry as a whole, thinks that reducing birth rates in developing countries will magically mean that everyone has enough money and enough food. But people need a decent standard of living, gainful employment and food sovereignty. His policies of flying in technologies, whether in health or agriculture, actually increase dependency, poverty and insecurity. If lower birth rates are to occur at all, they will occur as a result of better health, a better economy, better education and the like, not the other way around. And talking of education, Gates is silent on the matter, except for education in the US.

As for HIV, the connection between this disease and enormous profits for Big Pharma is pretty obvious, even to Gates. His foundation has been instrumental in setting up a parallel health infrastructure for this, instead of trying to comprehend how existing conditions in health facilities in high prevalence countries, which are appalling, may have a lot of influence on how the virus spreads. Much of the foundation's money has gone into facilitating the sale of drugs and other technologies and much of the money has never left the US, except to go to US institutions, purpose built in high prevalence countries. Sometimes, the foundation sticks some of the few well qualified health professionals to be found in African countries into a Gates funded institution, just to make the whole thing more African. (For a good example, check out AGRA, the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa).

Against the above technocentricity, it's difficult to see why the man should share the HIV industry's obsession with male circumcision. But Gates does mention things like PrePex and the Shang Ring, which will make fat profits for a couple of medical device companies. He seems to think that male circumcision reduces HIV transmission by 'up to 70%', but I think even the most rabid circumcision enthusiasts wouldn't claim that; most would even concede that the up to 60% figure  claimed by the HIV industry is from carefully controlled trial conditions with carefully massaged results (though they might not use the word 'massage').

In addition to advocating male circumcision in countries where conditions in health facilities are dreadful and where there are many far higher priorities, Gates goes on to advocate technologies such as injectible hormonal contraceptives, which have also been associated with increased HIV transmission (male circumcision has been associated with higher HIV transmission in as many countries as it has with lower). Unsurprisingly, genuine improvements in health facilities are not part of the Gates Final Solution. And just to demonstrate his fragile grasp on public health, on the subject of antiretroviral drugs to reduce HIV transmission, he says "In studies where the patients used the tool as they were supposed to, the results were quite good." If people don't 'use the tool as they are supposed to', maybe the problem is with the tool.

And the letter goes on and on, with Gates demonstrating his global imperialist ambitions in every sentence, as well as his ignorance of the lives of the people who will suffer as a result. It seems like every year that passes other institutions with imperialist ambitions, such as the UN, World Bank and WTO, also align themselves with this man. Don't expect too many changes over the next year.

Would You Buy a Second Hand Story From These People?

For some reason, the British TV station 'Channel 4' appears to see itself as a kind of defender of the rich, powerful multinationals who would do anything it takes to impose genetically modified organisms (GMO) on the world. I wonder how much it was worth to the channel and the stooges who contributed, unwittingly or otherwise.

I haven't been able to see the documentary. People in Africa are no more considered to have anything worth saying about their future now than they ever have been. Nor do mainstream media feel the need to let them know what decisions others are making on their behalf. But one thing is for sure, it is people in African and other highly impoverished countries that have the most to lose if GMOs take over.

And they will take over, if the multinationals succeed. GM is a case of either/or. Not only is it impossible for GMO and non-GMO crops to co-exist without the non-GMO crops becoming contaminated but the biggest seed companies in the world want to reduce supplies of non-GMO seeds until GMO becomes completely dominant. There will be no way to reverse this once it has been achieved.

The documentary, apparently, accepted the multinational's accusations of the green movement 'causing starvation' by opposing GMOs. Which GMOs would have been made available to Africans over the last ten years or so during which the seeds would have been available? There are no GMO foods available that produce higher yields or grow in sub-optimal conditions, except in the publicity of various interested parties.

On the contrary, to date, the only known crops with such traits are conventionally bred ones. Not only are conventionally bred and organic crops and methods safer and cheaper, they are also very successful. And this is exactly the problem for the multinationals. They don't want people in poor countries buying something without a patent, something that is not their 'intellectual property'. Such things are far too affordable.

So far, GMOs have only sold well in a few countries, all of which are regretting it now. The US has bought into GM more than any country and they are reaping the 'benefits' of dwindling yields, increased use of pesticides, contaminated land and superweeds. These are all things the multinationals have denied exist but you only need to read up on what's happening in what used to be the most productive places in the US.

The documentary was discussed online for some time before it was aired and one (former) environmentalist defended his stance by saying he was in favour of the work the Gates Foundation was doing in relation to the 'Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa' (AGRA). Perhaps the poor fool thinks that Gates and his stacks of money is in some way different from the bunch of multinationals in question. But he is behind their work and always has been. Intellectual property is his specialty.

So the green movement, far from being behind mass starvation, has always, as far as I know, been opposed to the further impoverishment of Africa. Hopefully they have also been opposed to the antics of the great pseudo-philanthropist as well. But perhaps channel 4 wanted to pay the green movement a back-handed compliment by suggesting that they could prevent some of the most powerful and most ruthless institutions in the world from achieving the global monopoly on food production that they crave. Sadly, I don't believe the green movement is quite that powerful!

It's interesting what big, monopolistic technologies have got wrong over the years. Norman Borlaug, one of the architects of the first Green Revolution, probably thought that increasing technology, bigger farms, factory farming practices, massive reductions in labor, etc, would be all fine and dandy, that there would be no poverty or starvation any more. But it has long been clear that any benefits that might have come from the revolution are now a distant memory, that there is still an awful lot of poverty and starvation, even in India, where it was said to have been a success.

It's also interesting that articles about GMO, especially when they deal with opposition to the technology, always feel the need to use the term 'frankenstein foods'. This has never been anything other than a tabloid term, a straw man argument. Most environmentalists would not use the term and their objections are more based on the lack of evidence for the safety of GMOs and the lack of evidence that they will have any of the advantages claimed for them.

On the other hand, proponents of GMOs have been using the same claims about increased yields and numerous other 'advantages', even though none of them have materialized yet. It reminds me of the overused claim one used to hear about nuclear power, that it was 'too cheap to meter'. We know that was a lie, but many are now trying to increase dependence on nuclear power on the back of the claim that it is 'green'. Next they'll be telling us that it is clean, cheap, safe and whatever else.

If people are concerned to separate the claims and counterclaims reported by what is a heavily biased media, they need to do a very small bit of research while at the same time bearing in mind that many sources will lie. They need to ask why a person or institution would make certain claims, what the evidence supporting those claims are and what they think might be right or wrong from the point of view of those likely to be most affected, and perhaps most vulnerable, to the effects of something like GMOs.

I recommend a perusal of La Via Campesina's website and Wikipedia's article on food sovereignty as a good summary. The majority of working people in the world are either rural peasants or dependent on the work of rural peasants. Does a technology entirely controlled by a few rich multinationals really sound like something that contributes to food sovereignty?

Rambling in Kenya

Yesterday, I made the fairly familiar journey from Nakuru in Rift Valley province to Mumias in Western Province. There are many beautiful sights on the way and the weather was good for travelling, sunny but not too hot. The roads for some of the journey have been improved, some are sill in the process of being improved and others are disintegrating and in a very dangerous condition.

Infrastructure conditions in Kenya have a lot to do with structural adjustment policies imposed by the IMF (International Monetary Fund) and the World Bank. These were first imposed in the early 1980s and they are still used, but they go under different names sometimes. Whereas, the road and other infrastructure improvements have a lot to do with Chinese development, which is carried out without the same level of conditionality.

Much of the fertile land in Nakuru is owned by a handful of very rich people, many of whom are members of political families, the Mois and the Kenyattas, for example. And like a lot of rich landowners, they don't feel the need to grow food crops or, at least, not food crops for Kenyans. You might think that wheat, sorghum and millet are food but the large scale producers, apparently, grow these crops to sell to breweries.

A few hours from Nakuru, the next big non-food product is tea, which dominates Kericho. Most of the industry is foreign owned or run and Kenyans make very little from this monoculture. It may be a world renowned product, but employees are paid very little, live in bad conditions and have few labour rights. That applies to those who have real jobs, rather than the far larger number, who have to take whatever bit of work that crops up, however rarely and however badly paid.

One of the big employers there is Unilever. You can read up on their level of corporate social responsibility on the Corporate Watch website. Suffice to say, they tick all the boxes that you'd expect of a multinational; monopolistic practices, unsustainable agriculture, exploiting cheap resources and labour, environmental degradation, appalling health conditions and a whole lot of other things. It's a long and depressing read.

Long before you reach Mumias you begin to see the sugar cane fields, sugar being another of Kenya's handful of monocultures that have played a big part in keeping Kenya poor for many decades. While sugar cane has long been grown in Mumias to be used as sugar, now there are plans to grow even more sugar cane destined for the biofuel market. Yet more land that could be used for food is being sacrificed for the blessed export market. The profits will go to a handful of rich people. Mumias Sugar Company does pay its employees well but the majority of people who work for the Sugar Company are not considered to be employees. They are casuals, contractors, outgrowers, etc. The majority of them make bugger all.

It probably sounds like I have a thoroughly miserable time travelling through Kenya, thinking about how much of the country is dedicated to exploitation. Well, there are still a lot of beautiful sights, if you are in a position to enjoy them. There's a good reason why tourists come to places like Kenya and even the trip to Kakamega Rainforest, Mount Elgon and Lake Turkana can be a great way of seeing the country. But even the tourist industry is another case in point; very few people make most of the money. The majority eke out a living somehow, but much of the tourist revenue doesn't even stay in the country.

Such conditions in developing countries may be, to some extent, influenced by their own governments. There are, indeed, many corrupt politicians and other parties and they have made themselves very rich. But governments, multinationals and other parties in rich countries have also made themselves rich by grabbing much of the wealth to be made in developing countries. And institutions like the IMF and the World Bank (and the World Trade Organisation) are simply some of the tools by which the rich and powerful extract huge amounts of wealth from the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world.

Poverty and underdevelopment are not remote phenomena, far from Western style homes and living conditions. The forces that create and exacerbate poverty also bring to those living in comfortable conditions many of the cheap products that make their lifestyle possible. Tea, chocolate, coffee and other things that come, primarily, from developing countries, are only affordable because of policies created by undemocratic institutions (who, ironically, constantly talk about improving democracy in developing countries). Even Ipods, Iphones and Macs, made by a company that likes to boast about how responsible they are, depend on (high value) materials extracted cheaply from countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Much of Western democracy itself, and much Western wealth, depend on the terrible conditions that are created and maintained by undemocratic international financial institutions, multinationals and powerful governments in developing countres. It doesn't seem possible for every country in the world to end up with the same kind of democracy enjoyed by a handful of the world's people. I don't want to argue that democracy is impossible or that it is wrong. Perhaps, as Amartya Sen has argued, there is not enough democracy. Perhaps it is not widely enough distributed.

But if Sen is right and there were more democracy in the world, I think it would look a lot different. The small number of countries that have enough, too much in fact, use more resources per head of population than the world can provide. The level of choice that some people enjoy, the range of goods and services, necessary and unnecessary, the opportunities to overconsume with impunity, could not be offered to all peoples, equally. But I haven't gone deeply enough into political philosophy yet to figure out what sort of democracy would be sustainable democracy. Perhaps I'm just rambling.

I'm in Mumias to visit a very fine NGO called SAIPEH (Support Activities in Poverty Eradication and Health). Like the community based organisation I work for, Ribbon of Hope, Nakuru, they work with HIV positive people and their families, people suffering from hardship, orphans and vulnerable children. (Except that SAIPEH has been going for about 14 years, Ribbon of Hope is still small and young, not much over a year old.) Anyhow, they run all kinds of income generation schemes, such as growing food crops and livestock, teaching people trades, such as tailoring and computing and various other initiatives.

I'm hoping that SAIPEH will be interested in schemes that reduce spending too, such as solar cookers, cooking baskets and fuel briquettes made from organic waste materials. For lack of a convincing political philosophy, I'll stick to a more Aristotelian form of home economics in the hope that, although people will not end up rich, they may end up with a bit more cash than they had before. After all, for Aristotle, all economics was home economics.

Deliberate GM Contamination of Kenya's Maize?

India's notorious genetically modified (GM) cotton plantations, which even Monsanto now admits are a failure, were not established after consultation or adequate research. The GM seed was introduced surreptitiously and spread far and wide and was eventually accepted on the grounds that it was too late to avoid it. Monsanto have profited considerably from this 'accident', having upped the prices for their seeds and other inputs many times over the years. One of the many failures of these GM seeds is that fertilizers and pesticides need to be used in ever increasing quantities.

Now, the pests have developed resistance, no amount of pesticide will control the problem. Yet Monsanto's solution to this is to roll out a new version of their GM cotton seed, with a new set of inputs and even higher prices. The seed has contaminated much of India's cotton growing areas and much of the country's arable land. But no amount of destruction is enough for Monsanto. They want to control what India does with its cotton and, eventually, all its other agricultural products.

I have argued elsewhere that what happened to India could also happen to other countries and whole continents. Well, it seems like someone is already trying to contaminate Kenya's staple crop, maize, with GM maize. 40,000 tonnes of GM maize was imported from South Africa earlier this year, at a time when the country had a surplus of the crop. A Kenyan company called Louis Dreyfus Ltd imported the stuff. It is sitting in Mombasa Port right now.

Questions are being raised about how this could happen and worries are being expressed about some of the possible effects of GM contamination. It is possible that some Kenyans are confused about the dangers that GM contamination poses. If this consignment were distributed and used as seed, farms directly affected would also contaminate farms around them. Maize is the most commonly grown crop here and it's grown for Kenyan consumption.

But other crops, grown for export, could also become contaminated. One of Kenya's top exports is fruit and vegetables and much of it goes to Europe. Europe has fairly strict laws about allowing the importation of GM contaminated foods. Kenya could end up exporting very little. Tea and coffee are also among its top exports but they too could end up being compromised by GM contamination. Anyone who thinks that opposition to GM foods is just anti-scientific, luddite or in any way mistaken should do some reading up on the subject.

One wonders who is behind allowing GM products to enter the country, who could profit from such a move? Has it happened before and is Kenya's maize already contaminated? And will this consignment of contaminated maize be allowed to be distributed or will it be sent back to South Africa, who have already fallen for the GM trick? I don't feel very confident about the future for some of Kenya's most important exports.

The Gates/GM Progeny

Some of the most deceitful and unscrupulous people in the business world want to exploit Africa and one of the richest people in the world is spending huge amounts of money trying to help them. This person, Bill Gates, considers himself to be a philanthropist. Yet he is party to efforts to tie farmers into agreements that will commit them to expensive farm inputs, such as seeds, fertilizers and pesticides, will probably reduce yields, will have significant health consequences, will increase dependence and food insecurity and will generally make things worse than they already are.

Someone who really wanted to benefit people in developing countries with a lot of money at their disposal could do many things. In agriculture, they could develop indigenous crops that are selectively bred to resist drought, flooding, increased salinity and other adverse conditions. In infrastructure, they could provide people with clean water and give them access to better and more sustainable forms of energy and fuel. This would also confer great health benefits. There are numerous things that could be done to improve people's economic conditions, their education and their skills.

But Gates prefers technical solutions, mostly ones that will make his foundation, along with some people connected with it, rich. Never mind that these 'solutions' will worsen the situation in developing countries, that doesn't seem to be a worry for this 'philantrocapitalist'. Perhaps he's just an old style capitalist in disguise. Genetically modified (GM) crops have been a disaster in developed and developing countries alike. His efforts to tackle a handful of diseases while ignoring the conditions that allow those diseases to spread will have few long term benefits. Just because he is rich, he shouldn't have the right to interfere with the welfare of so many vulnerable people, especially at the same time as claiming to be doing good.

Another article sees Gates as propping up a form of neo-colonialism. GM crops are an inappropriate, imported technology, designed for large scale industrial farming like that predominant in the US. Most African farmers are small farmers and they are the ones likely to suffer if they are pushed out of farming by GM. It's not the big farmers and landowners who can afford industrial scale farming that are suffering from food shortages. And those who are suffering from food shortages will quickly find that GM will not feed them, either. They are short of food because they are poor, GM foods will only increase the prices and reduce access further.

It's time that people realised that GM does not have any advantages for poor people, or even for relatively well off people. It is designed to make money for the handful of multinationals that develop the technology. And anyone who claims to be doing good by imposing GM on poor farmers in developing countries is a liar and an opportunist.

GMOs, the Antithesis of Sustainable Development

Yesterday I went to see a lovely farm in Ngubreti, just a few kilometres north of Mogotio, in Kenya's Rift Valley province. Of course, if you like farms, many of them are beautiful. But when the climate is hot and dry for most of the year with flash floods that can wash everything away, the odds could be stacked against the farm being beautiful. This farm is beautiful because the farmer has employed numerous techniques to get as much as he possibly can from a twenty acre plot.

This farm has 30 or 40 orange trees, 80 or 90 mango trees, vegetable crops, grain crops, animal fodder, 20 or 30 beehives, a tree nursery (which has already produced 2000 seedlings), cattle, sheep and, most importantly, water pans for collecting and storing as much as possible from those flash floods. It's hard to believe there is so much variety on this small farm but it's encouraging to see everything doing so well, given the amount of work that has been put in over the years.

One of the sickening things about institutions like the World Bank and the IMF (International Monetary Fund) is that they can (and do) produce research to show that the way forward for farmers in developing countries is to increase support for farm inputs, provide extension programmes, improve infrastructure and other somewhat obvious things.

Obvious, except that the same two institutions also give loans with conditions that include reducing public sector employment, cutting expenditure on extension programmes and banning anything that could be considered a subsidy, such as grants, loans or anything else to help farmers afford farm inputs, fertilizer, pesticides and the like. Never mind that these are allowed in rich countries, that's not the point. The point is that these institutions are run for the benefit of rich countries and what is good for them would never be allowed in developing countries.

Well, the new head of the UNDP (United Nations Development Program), Helen Clark, has now said that she thinks there should be more public funding for agriculture, for extension services and for research that improves productivity and yield. There should also be public funding to help farmers to reduce inputs. The last one is especially gratifying because 'modern' agriculture often involves a constantly increasing dependence on things like fertilizer and pesticide. So there would still be inputs but the financial costs would be significantly lower and the environmental costs incalculably so.

In the case of the farmer in Ngubreti, I said the water pans were the most important initiative on his farm. The failure to avail of cheap water harvesting techniques in the area is quite extraordinary. But this farmer has taken heed of what the local agricultural extension officers have taught him. He has two water pans, one that is just fed directly, the other which is fed by run-off water from the main road. These supplies ensure that the farm does not run out of water, even during prolonged dry periods.

I shouldn't leave out the point that the head of the UNDP was actually responding to a question about genetically modified organisms (GMO). Ms Clark said that world food security depends on getting "back to the basics" with agriculture, it does not depend on GMOs. She also said that crops for biofuel competed with crops for food, despite the lies to the contrary that we so often hear from those investing in biofuels. So congratulations to Helen Clark. She could really benefit farmers in developing countries.

The farm in Ngubreti was the scene of a number of agricultural extension programmes yesterday, including improved cooking stoves, cooking baskets, solar lighting and phone charging, beekeeping, water harvesting and various other ways of increasing the productivity of small farms. I'm hoping that Ribbon of Hope can try some of the things being done there, especially water harvesting and perhaps growing tree seedlings.

It is clear from visiting a farm like this that GMOs have nothing to offer, especially in the sort of dry areas that make up so much of Kenya's land. The farmers are almost all smallholders, whereas GMOs are designed for farmers with huge tracts of land (that they can afford to waste, presumably). The farmers are poor but GMO seeds cost several times more than conventional seeds. Inputs for GMOs are far higher than inputs for conventional crops and increase over time (and conventional crop farmers usually put by their own seed every year). Organic methods, which increase yields, improve resistance to pests and to bad growing conditions and therefore cost less, are inimical to GMO production.

GMOs are the antithesis of organic farming, indeed, the antithesis of sustainable agriculture. And there are many other problems with GMOs, as GMWatch.org make clear. It's good to know that much of Kenya's land is, as yet, unspoiled by modern agriculture. The same is true of much of the land in most developing countries. So it's time to ensure that it stays that way by resisting GMOs and anything else that compromises the future of the world's food security.