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?

Mining, Biofuels and Other Forms of Abuse

I'd like to follow on from yesterday's theme about developing countries being used to provide wealthy countries with cheap raw materials and labour. These developing countries are never helped to or even allowed to produce their own higher value goods so that they can improve their economies. On the contrary, wealthy countries go out of their way to ensure that poor countries stay that way. Several recent articles discuss other ways in which developing countries are held back from developing.

The European Community (EC) has set a target to source 10% of its energy from renewable sources. Rather than look for genuinely renewable source, the EC has latched on to biofuels as a means of achieving this target. Warnings were raised about the dangers of biofuels as long ago as 2004 but no one was listening then and few are listening now. Biofuel prospecting has gone on, as predicted, to destroy vast tracts of land, increase the prices of fuel, dispossess people of their land and livelihood and cause numerous other social and economic problems.

Like the US, the EC preaches against the use of subsidies. Yet they subsidize biofuel production (and anything else that suits them). Growing biofuels cannot be sustainable, there just isn't enough land, even if everyone in Tanzania and other developing countries are thrown off their land to grow the crops. Growing, processing, transporting and using biofuels does not reduce carbon emissions, they increase it. So even the rich countries are not gaining much by their quest for biofuels. Somebody must be making money out of it but Tanzanians and people in other poor countries will suffer increased poverty and hunger as a result. And there will be global level losses too.

In addition to having a lot of land, which rich countries are busy grabbing right now, Tanzania also has a lot of minerals, especially gold. But various murky deals mean that the country makes very little money out of these resources. Most of the money is made by foreign owned companies, especially companies from Canada, South Africa and the UK. The royalties Tanzania gets are tiny whereas the profits the foreign companies make are huge and are amply enhanced by the privileges and tax incentives they receive at the expense of poor Tanzanians and even indigenous Tanzanian companies, who are unable to compete with the foreigners.

Despite mining companies having a deplorable human rights and corporate responsibility record, laws, neither Tanzanian nor international, do not adequately protect those who have to work for the industry. In particular, laws do not protect those who lose their land, those whose environment and water supply are contaminated and those who formerly made a living as artisanal miners. Tanzania has enough valuable resources to improve the living conditions for all Tanzanians but the revenue from these resources always seems to leave the country. All that ordinary Tanzanians get is the pollution, the industrial problems and the social problems, the majority remaining very poor.

In Kenya, similar things are happening. Land is being grabbed to be used to produce food and biofuels for rich countries. This viable land is currently occupied by Kenyans but is being sold as 'unoccupied' and 'marginal'. Whole ecologies are being destroyed to produce unsustainable crops for the benefit of non Kenyans, but at the expense of Kenyans. The Kenyan government appears to be doing little to protect its citizens and seems to be keen to promote the interests of this land grabbing. As if things were not bad enough in the worst affected area, the Tana River basin, Tiomin are going to do some kind of mining there, a Canadian company with a disgraceful record of wanton destruction.

The only good news is that a few hundred families in the Tana River basin have been awarded 2.55 million Kenyan shillings each as compensation for their land. Unfortunately, the people involved were displaced for environmental protection reasons. It seems unlikely that there will be any compensation for people displaced to make way for the miners and land grabbers. WTO rules tend to defend such land grabbing and resource exploitation, protecting only the interests of the very rich. Condemning vast populations to generations of poverty, disease, dependency and degradation is all in a day's work. It's been going on for a long time and it's not going to stop now, not as long as there is money to be made.

Aid is But a Tiny Fig Leaf

While the Icelandic volcanic cloud means that people in Europe are having to cancel or postpone trips or find alternative ways of returning from trips, Kenyans are worrying about what is going to happen to their perishable produce, such as flowers, fruit and vegetables. Europe is their biggest market. Although owners of these industries make huge profits when things are going well, the employees, who make a pittance, make nothing at all when something prevents produce from getting to market.

At the same time, the BBC comments on a report that finds that the UK imports a lot of its water from other countries in the form of produce such as flowers, fruit, vegetables and other goods. Much of this imported water comes from developing countries, such as Kenya, where clean water and sanitation problems are responsible for high rates of avoidable mortality, especially among infants and children, and numerous treatable and curable illnesses. The report estimates that two thirds of the UK's water use is imported.

The mass production of non-seasonal food and non-food crops by developing countries results in much of the starvation that the UK and other rich countries seem to see as 'natural disasters', to be remedied by a sticky plaster, some handout or even a 'deal' of some kind that is calculated to do more harm than good (it benefits the donor, of course). Yet the industries that claim to be such a great source of foreign currency, fruit, vegetable and flower industries, are mostly foreign owned, British owned, in fact. They pay little or no tax in Kenya and, being offshored, little in Britain either.

When a country like Kenya starts to realise that their 'cash crops', such as tea, sugar or coffee don't make them much money, they seem to reach for another cash crop. The Kenyan cotton industry (along with that of many other developing countries) was wrecked many years ago by the US cotton industry successfully lobbying for subsidies to support them so that no developing country could compete. Subsidies are bad, according to the US, except when they are US subsidies. Sadly, Kenyans are calling for their government to help them return to cotton production. But this is unlikely to fly because US cotton is still subsidised to such an extent that no developing country can produce it as cheaply. And this is despite Kenya having pay and working conditions that would make Bill Gates proud.

But cash crops have always made very little money. Many of them here are grown as part of a kind of agreement that was formed with British land 'owners' after independence. They were allowed to keep their land and those Kenyans producing their (the colonial's) crop, tea, for example, were bound to go on producing tea. The law is slowly changing so that people may be allowed to stop producing tea and produce some food instead (God forbid!). But with sugar, the factories are demanding that even more land be given up to it so they can produce biofuel. Never mind that those whose land the sugar cane is planted on make little or no money from it.

It may well be wondered why farmers produce a non-food crop when they are starving and these crops don't make any profit for them. Well, aside from the promise to keep producing crops that only profit foreign companies, such as Unilever, farmers can't afford the inputs to grow food. They could make a lot of money from growing food and feed themselves at the same time. But as the government does little to support subsistence farmers, only being able to help the rich industrialists with tax breaks and other preferential conditions, farmers have to accept the generous offers from the likes of sugar companies to meet some of the costs involved. In the end, the farmer does all the work and gets little remuneration, if any. And they and their families starve.

Biofuels, like all the other luxury and non-food crops produced in developing countries, effectively export unthinkable amounts of water, along with vast tracts of land. The 'natural' disasters of flooding, drought, famine and the rest, are not as natural as they are painted. Rather, they result from explicit policies and agreements that keep things cheap for people in rich countries, profitable for foreign companies, and if any of those people in developing countries start complaining we can always point to the aid money we send them, whatever aid money even reaches the majority of people.

It's no secret that rich countries steal water from developing countries, preferring to feed ourselves luxuries and run our cars than allow undernourished and starving people to eat. But we steal a lot more than that. The majority of people in Kenya are subsistence farmers or workers. Even those who have jobs usually work for very little so that those in rich countries can afford cheap raw materials and goods. Many people have next to nothing, and that seems to be the way we in the West like it. And in return for extracting what we can, we send a little money every now and again and think of ourselves as very philanthropic indeed.

There is an alternative to rich countries sending ever increasing sums of money to developing countries. That is to identify some of the ways they extract even larger and faster increasing sums of money. That way, Kenya could be assisted to develop its own flower businesses. They could produce and process fruit and vegetables, thereby making more money from them. They could choose what crops to grow and in what quantities, especially crops that could be used to produce high value goods. In fact, the list of things that constitute extraction of wealth by rich countries from countries like Kenya is very long. Then Kenyans will be in a position to tell us what to do with our aid.

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.

Genetically Modified Cotton Has Failed, Says Monsanto

Thanks for telling us after so many people have wasted their time and money and many people have even lost their lives as a result of this failure. Scientists who have not been bought off by the biotech industry have been warning against the use of these crops for years. They have been calling for proper research into what their true consequences are before imposing them on an unprepared world. But now it's too late.

What about all the people who have destroyed their land because of the industry's lies? What about the farmers who have run into such huge debts that they have found no way out but to commit suicide? If anyone knew that these crops were designed to fail, it was Monsanto and the rest of the industry. In some cases they have failed to do proper research, in other cases they have supressed the results of their research. Instead of doing the groundwork necessary, they have simply paid off powerful people to do their dirty work. Who needs salespeople when 'democratically elected' leaders will do the work at a far lower cost?

The president of the European Parliament, Jerzy Buzek, may have been bought off by Monsanto or the industry as a whole. Or maybe he's just brain dead. He has said that he is against GMO (Genetically Modified Organisms) but that they are inevitable. What could he mean by this? That the GM industry is going to do what it wants, regardless of what we insignificant members of the electorate want? That all the people who could possibly prevent GMO from being imposed on us have been bought off?

We can only speculate. Buzek goes on to say that because we can't win the battle, he is not going to fight it. He also said that Europe would lose out on 'competitivity' if we don't accept GMOs. There's a bit of overdetermination here; does he feel that we shouldn't fight something that is advantageous to us or does he feel that we shouldn't fight a battle we cannot win? He only needs to argue for one of these, not both. They could both be true but we don't know which one sways this foolish man. If you object to my calling Buzek foolish, just read the rubbish he comes out with about only genetically modified rice being able to grow in Bangladesh.

Given the evidence for Buzek's small brain, he probably has a short memory and a limited capacity for research and comprehension. But GM cotton was released in India because it had already been passed around unofficially and had already contaminated a large proportion of the cotton sector. It wasn't released after careful consideration and proper consultation (don't be silly!). I'm sure this was not as a result of anything the GM industry did, no doubt it was just an accident. But that is no reason for Europe or any other continent to make the same mistakes.

And just in case Buzek is worried about the silly rumour that the Vatican was pro-GM, that was just bunkum. The GM obsessed cardinal who was so keen on compromising the health and welfare of so many people has been replaced with what must be one of the few Catholic leaders who has a grain of sense. Cardinal Peter Turkson realises that GM crops could be used as "weapons of hunger and poverty". Not only does he realise this, but he actually considers this to be an undesirable outcome. He realises that GM will lead to the greater dependence of the weak and poor on the strong and rich, environmental degradation, higher costs and an increase in the number of food insecure and starving people in the world. Already, the number of starving people has increased steadily as the percentage of GM crops has increased.

Some commentators have wondered about why Monsanto might want to claim publicly that GM cotton has failed. They have pointed out that Monsanto has now produced a new generation of GM cotton. Monsanto knew long ago that the first generation had failed and they now want people to change to the new generation, which employs a second modified gene and requires an enlarged set of inputs in terms of pesticides and artificial fertilizers. It also requires greater expenditure on those wonderful pieces of intellectual property we used to call seeds, those things we used to be able to collect for free at the end of the growing season.

No, you don't have to back out of GM cotton just because the whole live experiment has failed, and you probably can't, anyhow. You just have to buy more expensive seeds and invest in more expensive pesticides and fertilizer. After all, you are part of this experiment. If it goes down the pan, so do you.

Predicting the Predictable

Often in natural disasters, it's not the disaster itself that causes widespread injury, loss of life and damage to property. Where people are well off enough to protect themselves and their property against whatever disasters may occur, far fewer people suffer. Therefore, the magnitude of natural disasters in developing countries is often measured in people killed, injured or displaced. But in developed countries, the magnitude is usually measured by insurance claims for damage to property.

There are exceptions, of course, but generally where people are vulnerable, natural disasters have a high human cost. Where people are less vulnerable, property is more likely to be the main loss. Developed countries, such as Japan and the US, experience natural disasters without anything like the human costs experienced by developing countries, such as Haiti. The hurricane that devastated New Orleans is not an exception just because it happened in the US. A lot of the people most affected were poor, vulnerable and marginalised.

When a natural disaster hits a vulnerable country, the disaster itself may not have been entirely predictable, at least, not by people in that country who were able to do anything about it. But it is pretty predictable that, when a country has little infrastructure (especially water and sanitation), minimal health services, low levels of food security and the rest, most disasters will have a huge human cost. Insurance claims may well be negligible for people who have very little to insure and no money to insure with.

Kenya and most other Sub-Saharan African countries are like Haiti in many ways. They have been treated as pawns in the political and commercial games of various Western countries; they have few social services of any kind and little or no resilience to any kind of disaster; they have huge debts and widespread poverty, poor health and malnutrition. We don't know what disasters await them, we just know that there will be disasters and that the consequences will be severe. Perhaps when some disaster strikes, there will be massive press attention, pledges of money, influxes of aid agencies driving white four wheel drives and resolutions to cancel debts.

But all these pledges and other post disaster phenomena won't reduce the immediate impact of the disaster. The human cost will be high. The press will bemoan the fact that the country is so poor and infrastructure is so bad and debts are so high and politicians are so corrupt and whatever else they tend to bemoan in developing countries when it's too late. The amounts of money that are pledged, and even the amounts that actually reach the country, may be far higher than the amounts that were previously needed to strengthen the country's capacity. But that doesn't result in money being spent on increasing the capacity of developing countries to increase their resilience.

Kenya has what could turn out to be a pathological attachment to maize, a non-indigenous crop introduced by the colonials because it's cheap and it's easy to grow large amounts on small areas of land, it fills you up, although it has little nutritional value. This pathological attachment could be compared to Ireland's staple food in the decades before the Great Famine, though I suspect the potato may be a bit more nourishing (or perhaps I'm biased). The potato is not indigenous to Ireland and eventually the inevitable happened. The ideal conditions came together for potato blight that wiped out most of the country's crop.

Much of the currently used agricultural land in Kenya is covered with crops that can not be used for sustenance, such as tea, sugar or coffee. Much is used for non-food crops, such as sisal or flowers. And much of the food that is grown is maize. For many years, maize crops have been threatened or have even failed because of the dependence on rain fed crop growing. But the country still plants mostly maize and it's still mainly rain fed.

The question is not whether disaster will strike in Kenya, it is when and how bad it will be. If the crops just fail in places where there is not much rain, several million people will be affected. If places that usually get a lot of rain have problems, several million more will be affected. Some countries around Kenya, even many areas in Kenya, have recently seen army worms attack, and they can obliterate entire fields. And there are other pests and factors that can take a large area by surprise. Maybe this year most people will survive, maybe not.

But one thing is certain: millions of people are vulnerable. And they are vulnerable in more than one way. If a crop fails, they risk starvation. If the aid agencies come in, the food may not get to people in time because of the infrastructure problems or because of widespread corruption. Or people may die of whatever diseases start spreading, unchecked because of the terrible health service. There's a hair's breadth between Haiti's circumstances and Kenya's circumstances.

It's now that the press should be clamoring for education, health, infrastructure and other social services to be improved, now that pressure needs to be put on the government to deal with corruption, now that individual people need to stop depending on rain fed agriculture, now that they should grow (and consume) things other than maize. And now is the best time to cancel the huge debts that developing countries have been arm-twisted into amassing for decades. Recognition that these circumstances make people vulnerable to inevitable disasters doesn't need to wait until it's too late.

Athenai and the Plague of Monoculture

Like Rhonda, mentioned a couple of days ago, it's not an accident that Athenai sounds like Athens. This huge area is 'owned' by a Greek who lives somewhere in Nairobi. There is little to see but sisal. Sisal is one of the disastrous monocultures that dominates parts of Kenya. The crop was introduced by the colonials before petrochemical products made plastics much cheaper than sisal based ropes, string, matting, etc.

The sisal estate dates back to the 1950s, when labour was dirt cheap. Luckily for the owner, labour is still dirt cheap, but it's hard to make much money from the product now. But it's an enormous holding and there is little else for people to do there but work for a pittance in the fields or in the factory. It's as if the colonial days never ended, really.

The factory is quite a museum piece, all in working order. The sisal is crushed, dried, brushed and turned by machines from the fifties, still in working order. They are not working today because of power rationing. There is a shortage of the oil that generates so much of Kenya's electricity. Never mind the long hours of sunshine or even the ample winds that blow through this area.

HIV rates are high in this area, as they are in all the hubs of monocultures. Rates are high around the sugar factory in Mumias, the tea plantations in Kericho and the flower producing units in Naivasha. Many people in Athenai are too sick to work and are unable to afford medical care, let alone food, education or other social services.

I'm unsure what would be a long term option: do people continue to work with sisal, as they have done for decades, or do they diversify? If they diversify, what would be the best things for this relatively isolated area to get involved in?