Vikram singh
SPNer
- Feb 24, 2005
- 454
- 412
Both will profit at expense of small-scale African farmers [/FONT]
[/FONT]Seattle, WA - Farmers and civil society organizations around the world
are outraged by the recent discovery of further connections between the
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and agribusiness titan Monsanto. Last
week, a financial website published the Gates Foundation's investment
portfolio, including 500,000 shares of Monsanto stock with an estimated
worth of $23.1 million purchased in the second quarter of 2010 (see the
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission). This marks a
substantial increase from its previous holdings, valued at just over
$360,000 (see the Foundation's 2008 990 Form).
"The Foundation's direct investment in Monsanto is problematic on two
primary levels," said Dr. Phil Bereano, University of Washington
Professor Emeritus and recognized expert on genetic engineering. "First,
Monsanto has a history of blatant disregard for the interests and well-
being of small farmers around the world, as well as an appalling
environmental track record. The strong connections to Monsanto cast
serious doubt on the Foundation's heavy funding of agricultural
development in Africa and purported goal of alleviating poverty and
hunger among small-scale farmers. Second, this investment represents an
enormous conflict of interests."
Monsanto has already negatively impacted agriculture in African
countries. For example, in South Africa in 2009, Monsanto's genetically
modified maize failed to produce kernels and hundreds of farmers were
devastated. According to Mariam Mayet, environmental attorney and
director of the Africa Centre for Biosafety in Johannesburg, some
farmers suffered up to an 80% crop failure. While Monsanto compensated
the large-scale farmers to whom it directly sold the faulty product, it
gave nothing to the small-scale farmers to whom it had handed out free
sachets of seeds. "When the economic power of Gates is coupled with the
irresponsibility of Monsanto, the outlook for African smallholders is
not very promising," said Mayet. Monsanto's aggressive patenting
practices have also monopolized control over seed in ways that deny
farmers control over their own harvest, going so far as to sue--and
bankrupt--farmers for "patent infringement."
News of the Foundation's recent Monsanto investment has confirmed the
misgivings of many farmers and sustainable agriculture advocates in
Africa, among them the Kenya Biodiversity Coalition, who commented, "We
have long suspected that the founders of AGRA--the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation--had a long and more intimate affair with Monsanto." Indeed,
according to Travis English, researcher with AGRA Watch, "The
Foundation's ownership of Monsanto stock is emblematic of a deeper, more
long-standing involvement with the corporation, particularly in Africa."
In 2008, AGRA Watch, a project of the Seattle-based organization
Community Alliance for Global Justice, uncovered many linkages between
the Foundation's grantees and Monsanto. For example, some grantees (in
particular about 70% of grantees in Kenya) of the Alliance for a Green
Revolution in Africa (AGRA)--considered by the Foundation to be its
"African face"--work directly with Monsanto on agricultural development
projects. Other prominent links include high-level Foundation staff
members who were once senior officials for Monsanto, such as Rob Horsch,
formerly Monsanto Vice President of International Development
Partnerships and current Senior Program Officer of the Gates
Agricultural Development Program.
Transnational corporations like Monsanto have been key collaborators
with the Foundation and AGRA's grantees in promoting the spread of
industrial agriculture on the continent. This model of production relies
on expensive inputs such as chemical fertilizers, genetically modified
seeds, and herbicides. Though this package represents enticing market
development opportunities for the private sector, many civil society
organizations contend it will lead to further displacement of farmers
from the land, an actual increase in hunger, and migration to already
swollen cities unable to provide employment opportunities. In the words
of a representative from the Kenya Biodiversity Coalition, "AGRA is
poison for our farming systems and livelihoods. Under the philanthropic
banner of greening agriculture, AGRA will eventually eat away what
little is left of sustainable small-scale farming in Africa."
A 2008 report initiated by the World Bank and the UN, the International
Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for
Development (IAASTD), promotes alternative solutions to the problems of
hunger and poverty that emphasize their social and economic roots. The
IAASTD concluded that small-scale agroecological farming is more
suitable for the third world than the industrial agricultural model
favored by Gates and Monsanto. In a summary of the key findings of
IAASTD, the Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) emphasizes
the report's warning that "continued reliance on simplistic
technological fixes--including transgenic crops--will not reduce
persistent hunger and poverty and could exacerbate environmental
problems and worsen social inequity." Furthermore, PANNA explains, "The
Assessment's 21 key findings suggest that small-scale agroecological
farming may offer one of the best means to feed the hungry while
protecting the planet."
The Gates Foundation has been challenged in the past for its
questionable investments; in 2007, the L.A. Times exposed the Foundation
for investing in its own grantees and for its "holdings in many
companies that have failed tests of social responsibility because of
environmental lapses, employment discrimination, disregard for worker
rights, or unethical practices." The Times chastised the Foundation for
what it called "blind-eye investing," with at least 41% of its assets
invested in "companies that countered the foundation's charitable goals
or socially-concerned philosophy."
Although the Foundation announced it would reassess its practices, it
decided to retain them. As reported by the L.A. Times, chief executive
of the Foundation Patty Stonesifer defended their investments, stating,
"It would be naïve...to think that changing the foundation's investment
policy could stop the human suffering blamed on the practices of
companies in which it invests billions of dollars." This decision is in
direct contradiction to the Foundation's official "Investment
Philosophy", which, according to its website, "defined areas in which
the endowment will not invest, such as companies whose profit model is
centrally tied to corporate activity that [Bill and Melinda] find
egregious. This is why the endowment does not invest in tobacco stocks."
More recently, the Foundation has come under fire in its own hometown.
This week, 250 Seattle residents sent postcards expressing their concern
that the Foundation's approach to agricultural development, rather than
reducing hunger as pledged, would instead "increase farmer debt, enrich
agribusiness corporations like Monsanto and Syngenta, degrade the
environment, and dispossess small farmers." In addition to demanding
that the Foundation instead fund "socially and ecologically appropriate
practices determined locally by African farmers and scientists" and
support African food sovereignty, they urged the Foundation to cut all
ties to Monsanto and the biotechnology industry.
AGRA Watch, a program of Seattle-based Community Alliance for Global
Justice, supports African initiatives and programs that foster farmers'
self-determination and food sovereignty. AGRA Watch also supports public
engagement in fighting genetic engineering and exploitative agricultural
policies, and demands transparency and accountability on the part of the
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and AGRA.
[/FONT]
--
GENET-forum
[/FONT]
[/FONT]Seattle, WA - Farmers and civil society organizations around the world
are outraged by the recent discovery of further connections between the
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and agribusiness titan Monsanto. Last
week, a financial website published the Gates Foundation's investment
portfolio, including 500,000 shares of Monsanto stock with an estimated
worth of $23.1 million purchased in the second quarter of 2010 (see the
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission). This marks a
substantial increase from its previous holdings, valued at just over
$360,000 (see the Foundation's 2008 990 Form).
"The Foundation's direct investment in Monsanto is problematic on two
primary levels," said Dr. Phil Bereano, University of Washington
Professor Emeritus and recognized expert on genetic engineering. "First,
Monsanto has a history of blatant disregard for the interests and well-
being of small farmers around the world, as well as an appalling
environmental track record. The strong connections to Monsanto cast
serious doubt on the Foundation's heavy funding of agricultural
development in Africa and purported goal of alleviating poverty and
hunger among small-scale farmers. Second, this investment represents an
enormous conflict of interests."
Monsanto has already negatively impacted agriculture in African
countries. For example, in South Africa in 2009, Monsanto's genetically
modified maize failed to produce kernels and hundreds of farmers were
devastated. According to Mariam Mayet, environmental attorney and
director of the Africa Centre for Biosafety in Johannesburg, some
farmers suffered up to an 80% crop failure. While Monsanto compensated
the large-scale farmers to whom it directly sold the faulty product, it
gave nothing to the small-scale farmers to whom it had handed out free
sachets of seeds. "When the economic power of Gates is coupled with the
irresponsibility of Monsanto, the outlook for African smallholders is
not very promising," said Mayet. Monsanto's aggressive patenting
practices have also monopolized control over seed in ways that deny
farmers control over their own harvest, going so far as to sue--and
bankrupt--farmers for "patent infringement."
News of the Foundation's recent Monsanto investment has confirmed the
misgivings of many farmers and sustainable agriculture advocates in
Africa, among them the Kenya Biodiversity Coalition, who commented, "We
have long suspected that the founders of AGRA--the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation--had a long and more intimate affair with Monsanto." Indeed,
according to Travis English, researcher with AGRA Watch, "The
Foundation's ownership of Monsanto stock is emblematic of a deeper, more
long-standing involvement with the corporation, particularly in Africa."
In 2008, AGRA Watch, a project of the Seattle-based organization
Community Alliance for Global Justice, uncovered many linkages between
the Foundation's grantees and Monsanto. For example, some grantees (in
particular about 70% of grantees in Kenya) of the Alliance for a Green
Revolution in Africa (AGRA)--considered by the Foundation to be its
"African face"--work directly with Monsanto on agricultural development
projects. Other prominent links include high-level Foundation staff
members who were once senior officials for Monsanto, such as Rob Horsch,
formerly Monsanto Vice President of International Development
Partnerships and current Senior Program Officer of the Gates
Agricultural Development Program.
Transnational corporations like Monsanto have been key collaborators
with the Foundation and AGRA's grantees in promoting the spread of
industrial agriculture on the continent. This model of production relies
on expensive inputs such as chemical fertilizers, genetically modified
seeds, and herbicides. Though this package represents enticing market
development opportunities for the private sector, many civil society
organizations contend it will lead to further displacement of farmers
from the land, an actual increase in hunger, and migration to already
swollen cities unable to provide employment opportunities. In the words
of a representative from the Kenya Biodiversity Coalition, "AGRA is
poison for our farming systems and livelihoods. Under the philanthropic
banner of greening agriculture, AGRA will eventually eat away what
little is left of sustainable small-scale farming in Africa."
A 2008 report initiated by the World Bank and the UN, the International
Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for
Development (IAASTD), promotes alternative solutions to the problems of
hunger and poverty that emphasize their social and economic roots. The
IAASTD concluded that small-scale agroecological farming is more
suitable for the third world than the industrial agricultural model
favored by Gates and Monsanto. In a summary of the key findings of
IAASTD, the Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) emphasizes
the report's warning that "continued reliance on simplistic
technological fixes--including transgenic crops--will not reduce
persistent hunger and poverty and could exacerbate environmental
problems and worsen social inequity." Furthermore, PANNA explains, "The
Assessment's 21 key findings suggest that small-scale agroecological
farming may offer one of the best means to feed the hungry while
protecting the planet."
The Gates Foundation has been challenged in the past for its
questionable investments; in 2007, the L.A. Times exposed the Foundation
for investing in its own grantees and for its "holdings in many
companies that have failed tests of social responsibility because of
environmental lapses, employment discrimination, disregard for worker
rights, or unethical practices." The Times chastised the Foundation for
what it called "blind-eye investing," with at least 41% of its assets
invested in "companies that countered the foundation's charitable goals
or socially-concerned philosophy."
Although the Foundation announced it would reassess its practices, it
decided to retain them. As reported by the L.A. Times, chief executive
of the Foundation Patty Stonesifer defended their investments, stating,
"It would be naïve...to think that changing the foundation's investment
policy could stop the human suffering blamed on the practices of
companies in which it invests billions of dollars." This decision is in
direct contradiction to the Foundation's official "Investment
Philosophy", which, according to its website, "defined areas in which
the endowment will not invest, such as companies whose profit model is
centrally tied to corporate activity that [Bill and Melinda] find
egregious. This is why the endowment does not invest in tobacco stocks."
More recently, the Foundation has come under fire in its own hometown.
This week, 250 Seattle residents sent postcards expressing their concern
that the Foundation's approach to agricultural development, rather than
reducing hunger as pledged, would instead "increase farmer debt, enrich
agribusiness corporations like Monsanto and Syngenta, degrade the
environment, and dispossess small farmers." In addition to demanding
that the Foundation instead fund "socially and ecologically appropriate
practices determined locally by African farmers and scientists" and
support African food sovereignty, they urged the Foundation to cut all
ties to Monsanto and the biotechnology industry.
AGRA Watch, a program of Seattle-based Community Alliance for Global
Justice, supports African initiatives and programs that foster farmers'
self-determination and food sovereignty. AGRA Watch also supports public
engagement in fighting genetic engineering and exploitative agricultural
policies, and demands transparency and accountability on the part of the
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and AGRA.
[/FONT]
--
GENET-forum
[/FONT]
