By John Mbaria
It is a grand scheme touted by its sponsors as the locomotive that
will kick-start Africa?s green revolution. According to the proponents of
the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (Agra), the continent - which
missed the first green revolution in the 1960s and 1970s - will not miss the
revolution this time around.
But a new body of opinion is now emerging questioning whether a green
revolution miracle parachuted into Africa by billionaire foundations,
relying on techniques tested elsewhere and banking on the same international
research institutions and scientists is capable of making a significant
difference to the fight against poverty in Africa.

With funds coming primarily from the foundations, Agra will bring
together thousands of scientists who have been working in Africa for decades
and international and national research institutions and task them to
spearhead the revolution.

None other than Kofi Annan, a former secretary-general of the UN and
who presided over the world body during a turbulent decade in international
diplomacy heads Agra. His involvement in the project brings a high
international profile to the initiative.

He has demonstrated vigour in pushing for the attainment of Agra?s
goal, raising muted excitement about the feasibility of the project.

During Agra?s June 14 launch in Cape Town, Annan touted Agra as a
project that will lift tens of millions of Africans out of poverty and
hunger through development of new seeds. It is also expected to lead to
acceleration of expertise development, improvement of the health of African
soils; development of markets for the small farmer and initiation of water
management projects that will help Africa get the ?most crop for each drop.?

Listening to Annan, one gets the feeling that the intention of the
sponsors of the new initiative is to maintain its character as a home grown
initiative - a project by Africa, about Africa and for Africa.

Yet closer scrutiny shows that this is hardly the case. For one, it is
bankrolled by outsider bodies - Melinda & Bill Gates Foundation and
Rockefeller Foundation - who have already pumped $150 million since launch.

Secondly, the design is to make Agra apply technology developed
elsewhere to produce newer seed varieties and chemicals to raise
agricultural productivity to an unprecedented scale.

Says Annan, ?With respect to seeds, the Alliance is already in the
fields, working with African farmers and African agricultural scientists to
breed new varieties that will offer better resistance to disease and pests.?

The hype about work by ?African agricultural scientists? and projects
that are ?uniquely African? is misleading. Experience in Africa has shown
that research conducted in Africa by local scientists and institutions but
funded externally, end up being skewed to serve external interests.

It has been noted in Kenya, for instance, that much of the work going
on in institutions such as the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (Kari)
is funded externally under arrangements where the paymasters are the ones
who set the terms of reference for the research.

Kari?s ongoing experimentation on genetically modified seeds of sweet
potatoes, maize, cotton and sorghum comes to mind. Funded by foundations
associated with global biotechnology giants, Syngenta and Monsanto, much of
the work being done hardly qualify to be described as ?uniquely African.?

Since the push for Agra is largely external, one is bound to ask why
Annan and his team believe they will achieve what other decades-old
agricultural schemes could not.

Another example is the Consultative Group on International Agriculture
Research (CGIAR) that brings together national research organisations, big
money and talent-charged international research institutions.

Established in 1971, CGIAR is supported by the World Bank and donors
and for the past 25 years invested as much as $100 million per year in
Africa to promote Green Revolution-type projects. Its network of 15 centres
work on food security and poverty reduction in Africa and elsewhere in the
developing world. The centres pride themselves for having played a key role
in the first green revolution of the 1960s and 1970s.

In Africa, CGIAR counts on new rice varieties for Africa (Nerica),
which it says have been transforming agriculture in West Africa. It says
that in 2003, Africa put 23,000 hectares to the cultivation of such rice
species; 6,000 hectares were planted in Uganda alone.

CGIAR also says that it has progressively enabled African farmers to
access the international pigeon peas market besides enabling Kenyan dairy
farmers plant fodder shrubs from which they have raised annual incomes by
$166.

But though CGIAR is quick to recognise the immense difficulties in
reducing poverty and hunger in the continent, one can safely say that the
biggest proportion of its work in Africa has revolved around token projects.

Such projects are initiated at the whims of its scientists and
bureaucrats, and funded on the basis of goals that have little to do with a
genuine desire to fight poverty or improve food security.

For instance, in many parts of Western Kenya, Malawi and other African
countries, many of CGIAR?s projects are experimental in nature and have
budgets that have only gone as far as the pilot phases. Once the pilot phase
is ended, the projects are passed on to low-budget government departments
that do not have the capacity to implement them fully.

Another characteristic of such externally-pushed projects is that once
the initial project is on course, other offshoot micro projects are
initiated principally to give academics and students from donor countries an
opportunity to study in Africa. Indeed by the time a project has run through
its entire lifespan, it is normally not easy to know what challenges CGIAR
staff went out to address and their level of competence or success.

Of course, the way such projects are designed is that governments and
other players are expected to take them up (and ?scale up?), but this is
hardly done especially in situations where African governments have to
decide between feeding their people and using money on experiments.

Thus disturbing questions such as why proponents of Agra believe that
the twin challenges of food insecurity and poverty in Africa can be overcome
at the mercy of external players arise.

The history of humankind vindicates those who are now skeptical about
Agra. But those who hold these views say that unlike Africa, societies in
the West and elsewhere in the developed world were fortunate enough to
develop on own initiatives and without passive or aggressive assistance from
others.

For instance, about 500 representatives of fisher-folk, peasant
farmers, indigenous peoples, landless people, rural workers migrants and
consumers from more than 80 countries met in Selingue, Mali in early March
to reiterate their commitment to ?food sovereignty.? The group resolved to
fight against ?technologies and practices that undercut? their future food
producing capacities, damage the environment and put their health at risk.?

Others are not so skeptical. They argue that the Rockefeller
Foundation gave the first green revolution a much-needed shot in the arm.
They are also optimistic that Agra will not only be banking on Rockefeller?s
benevolence, but also on Melinda & Bill Gates Foundation?s experience in
fighting life-threatening malaria and HIV and Aids pandemic.

And there is optimism all round with some saying Africa could be on
its way to bloated bellies, obesity and newer diseases.


[www.nationmedia.com]