Unnatural Disasters: GM and Biofuels

In an article about the highly suspect arrival of 40,000 tonnes of genetically modified (GM) maize in Kenya's Mombasa port, the BBC concludes "Many African countries are under increasing pressure to grow GM crops to tackle hunger and malnutrition, and drought in recent years has caused food shortages in Kenya."

This is very misleading, in several ways. Multinationals like Monsanto, which are having a lot of trouble persuading most countries to trust their attempts to take over world food production, want people to think that GM crops provide a solution to hunger and malnutrition. They want people to believe that their crops are resistant to drought, flooding, pests and whatever else. But none of these things are true. They have not developed crops that have any of these qualities.

Further, it has taken more than just drought to cause Kenya's food shortages. Much of Kenya's productive land is taken up with non-food or non-staple crops, such as sisal, flowers, tea, coffee, sugar and luxury fruit and vegetables. Most of these crops are for the export market. People cannot afford to buy food because they are poor. Because they lack empowerment, they do not have much choice as to what crops the country grows. And most people don't own large amounts of land, producing just enough to get by, if they are lucky. On the other hand, most of the industrial scale farms are owned by very few, well connected people, many of them foreigners.

The BBC article seems to take it as given that GM crops could play any part in reducing hunger and malnutrition. This couldn't be further from the truth. Most Kenyan farmers are subsistence farmers. GM crops were developed for rich farmers, mainly in the US. Some South Africans have fallen into the trap of accepting 'free' GM seeds and other inputs from the likes of Monsanto. Now they are stuck with contaminated land, crops they can't sell, rising input costs, shrinking profits and increased poverty and dependency levels. That's great if you're Monsanto but not so good if you're a small farmer.

This is probably the reason that the unwanted GM maize has ended up in Mombasa in the first place, but many Kenyans are wondering what it is doing there. Well, unless South Africans and some of the other poor fools who have been duped can now dupe others to take GM crops off their hands, they will have trouble shifting it. They have a surplus of maize in South Africa, which is bad enough, but a surplus of contaminated maize could prove to be a very hard sell.

High food prices, which are the real cause of hunger and malnutrition in Kenya and other countries, have a lot more to do with international speculation in staple food commodities. This speculation has recently been spurred by attempts by biofuel producers to buy up land cheaply in developing countries to produce yet more non-food crops or food crops that are destined for the petrol tanks of rich people. [Reuters have an interesting article about potential dangers of biofuels that the EU commissioned but subsequently 'forgot' to publish.]

Drought, flooding, pests and other phenomena can destroy crops and cause widespread poverty and starvation. But rich countries treating developing countries as mere inputs for the production of cheap raw materials, using cheap labour, is the real culprit in many of the famines and food shortages that are labeled 'natural' disasters. The real disasters are far from natural. They are artificially created for the benefit of the world's multinationals, the rich, the powerful and even those who just happen to live in the more fortunate countries.

Orphanages Versus Community Based Care

Given the numbers of orphaned, abandoned and otherwise needy children in developing countries such as Kenya, the issue of whether institutional or community based care is preferable is a difficult one. There are badly run institutions and well run ones. But there are also children who face their greatest dangers in their own homes, from their parents or from their carers. From what I can see in Kenya, social services often don't get involved in cases where things go wrong, either in institutions or in community care settings.

A study with a large sample size published a couple of months ago looked at both types of care, comparing cognitive functioning, emotion, behavior, physical health, and growth. The conclusion was that community care is not better and that, for some indicators, institutions are better. The authors of the study advise against aiming to transfer as many children as possible to some kind of community care setting. This is good advice if the children are in a well run institution or if an adequate level of community care can not be guaranteed.

However, the organisation I am working with, Ribbon of Hope, does not advocate merely keeping a child in their community. We advocate for children to be cared for with the support of other people in the community, in addition to their carer or carers. We would like to see children receive any state support to which they are entitled. And we would like to help provide their carer with the means to provide for the child.

Many children in institutions have one living parent and many more have close relatives who are living. But there are also children who may not have any close relatives or whose relatives are unknown and untraceable. So I wouldn't argue that there is no need for institutions to care for children.

But there are institutions that have been set up with the express aim of making money. I don't know how many of these bogus orphanages there are compared to legitimate orphanages. I just know that several bogus orphanages have been set up in the immediate area around Nakuru. There are also institutions that cannot cope with the number of children they are trying to provide for and conditions for the children, and even the staff, are terrible.

The only well run orphanages I have seen receive very large sums of money from benefactors. It's right that institutions providing for children receive large amounts of money, of course, but most institutions are not able to attract enough money and the children can suffer as a result. Keeping children in an institution usually costs a lot more than providing assistance for them to live in a family setting. Therefore, there may be a good case for more children being raised in a family setting when that is feasible.

In addition, many of these well run orphanages are funded by private donations and are at least partly administrated by foreigners. This is not a bad thing in itself but it does suggest a lack of sustainability and a high degree of dependency. It can be difficult enough for local people to confirm that children presented to them are really orphans but for non-local people it can be impossible. Some people see orphanages as an opportunity to cut their own costs by sending one or more of their children there and claiming the children belong to a deceased relative.

So the stark dichotomy between institutions and community care for orphans is not helpful. Both settings have their advantages and disadvantages. It is quite true that institutions should not aim to transfer as many children as possible to community care. But I think there should be fewer orphanages and far more children should be cared for in a well supported environment. Some of the money available, both state, donor and private, could better be used to provide families with everything they need to give a good home to children who have been orphaned, abandoned or are otherwise in need of care. The study in question is a good one, with a sound methodology, but I don't think it took into account the scenario where the carer is actively supported in providing care.

Incidentally, people often ask about how you can tell whether an orphanage is legitimate or not. They even ask the same question about charities, philanthropic organisations, philanthropists, NGOs, CBOs and the like. I don't have a list of things but the Information in Context blog gives advice on this and other matters. The only rule of thumb I have at the moment is that when people or organisations seem to obsess about numbers, size and quantities, to the exclusion of all other criteria, this can indicate that they are more interested in raising money than in changing things for the better. That always makes me suspicious.