|
The
global politics of food production has again intruded into the provision of
emergency food aid in
Africa
, this time for the displaced and impoverished populations of
Sudan
and
Angola
.
As
wars of attrition between the government in the north and rebels in the south
continue to ravage southern
Sudan
with the latest outbreak of atrocities in
Darfur
, over 1 million people remain directly dependent on food aid supplied by the
World Food Programme (WFP). Similar numbers of people are dependent on WFP aid
in
Angola
, where up to 1.5 million people remain displaced 2 years after the end of the
long running civil war in the country.
An
increasing number of African countries have opted to reject food aid that is
genetically modified (GM) and
Sudan
and
Angola
are the latest countries to do so. Yet, with events that all too predictably
echo those that accompanied the food security crisis in southern
Africa
in 2002, both have encountered a range of obstacles from donor countries in
response.
US
Pressures
In
May 2003, the Sudanese government issued a memorandum requiring that all food
aid brought into the country must be certified as free from GM ingredients. In
so doing, the government was complying with WFP guidelines, by providing
adequate warning for implementation of such a memorandum.
The
Sudanese government then came under sustained pressure from USAID - the main
supplier of aid for the WFP – and subsequently extended a waiver on its GM
free certification requirement, first to the end of 2003, and then to July 2004.
Yet in March 2004, USAID announced that it would cut off food aid supplies to
Sudan
on the basis that USAID does not issue certificates confirming the GM status of
its food aid[1]. As a result, the Sudanese government was forced to relent for a
third time, and has now agreed to extend the waiver on its demands until January
2005.
The
Angolan government similarly announced in March 2004 that it would no longer
accept GM food aid – principally maize – from the WFP unless it is milled.
Again,
Angola
was following established guidelines, this time those of the Southern Africa
Development Community (SADC), which state that all grain-based food aid should
be milled prior to distribution; as well as the actions of a number of other
southern African countries such as
Zimbabwe
and
Zambia
who refused GM cereals for food aid in 2002. The WFP responded with concerns
that this would present major difficulties in supplying food aid to needy
populations in
Angola
. It has subsequently halved the food rations it provides to
Angola
, citing the GM ban as one of the reasons for this decision[2].
Selfish
Aid
As
a recent report by African environmental organisations on the controversy over
GM food aid makes clear, these problems arise because donors, above all the
USA
, have consistently used the humanitarian principles of food aid to further
political objectives[3]. The
US
government is the principal donor to the WFP, and as such, imposes a series of
stark conditionalities on its donations. The
US
has long used the provision of food aid as a way of dumping agricultural
surpluses and capturing new markets; the use of GM food as aid merely represents
the continuation of this strategy in a new form.
The
use of food aid to promote the interests of American agriculture is openly
acknowledged by the
US
state. USAID recognises that food aid has helped to create major markets for
agricultural goods, new markets for American industrial exports and hundreds of
thousands of new jobs for Americans[4]. Oxfam
America
has estimated that up to 80% of funds channelled through US Food Aid Programme
Public Law 480 are spent, not in developing countries, but in the
US
[5]. Moreover, USAID openly declares that a major objective is to integrate
biotechnology with local food systems and to spread agricultural technology, in
Africa
and elsewhere[6].
The
dominance of US domestic interests in
US
food aid policy is clearly illustrated by the fact that the majority of US
contributions to the WFP are in kind. This is despite international agreement
that best practice for emergency aid should be in the form of cash donations.
The Food Aid Convention, to which the
US
is a signatory, obliges members, not only to ensure that food aid provision is
not tied to domestic commercial interests, but that wherever possible donations
should be cash based, in order to allow countries to source food from – and
therefore support - their own local and regional agricultural economies. This
policy is followed by the EU,
Japan
and the Scandinavian countries, precisely in order that aid can be used to
stimulate local economies, thereby reducing the need for further aid in the
future.
In
contrast,
US
aid earmarked for food is primarily spent within the
US
agricultural sector, and the food surplus generated is then shipped directly as
food aid, thus boosting US agricultural markets rather than the local economies
where food aid is needed. In maintaining as tight a link as possible between
feeding the hungry and supporting its domestic agricultural sector, the
US
therefore creates an interest in the maintenance of aid dependent populations
in the developing world.
If
countries who receive food rather than cash donations from the US are deprived
of using aid as a way of stimulating their own agricultural economy, and thus of
the chance to lift local populations out of impoverishment, the provision of GM
food aid incurs a range of other risks for recipients. These include a current
lack of data that can guarantee GM food is safe to eat, and specific problems
that may be associated with the consumption of GM foods by populations unused to
them.
 |
|
Zambian
scientists have argued that GM foods are highly processed and are not staple
foods in the
US
, whereas in southern
Africa
, GM maize food aid will be used as a staple – and will often be the only form
of carbohydrate available. No studies have yet demonstrated the risks and
benefits associated with the consumption of GM food as staples, or its
consumption by malnourished children - the major beneficiaries of food aid
in
Africa
. Such a situation has led
UK
Chief Scientific Advisor David King to argue that forcing GM food onto
vulnerable populations represents “a massive human experiment”[7].
In
addition, the shipment of whole kernels and grains as food aid presents a real
risk of genetic contamination, since such grains can be planted and hence
cross-pollinate in countries where the capacity to coordinate and enforce
biosafety regulations remains minimal. In such circumstances, African farmers
would be unable to guarantee that their own produce was GM free, with highly
damaging effects on both their domestic and export agricultural markets.
The
World Food Programme has denied accusations that
US
policy means
Sudan
and
Angola
are essentially faced with the choice of accepting GM food aid or letting their
populations go hungry, and have stated that every country has a civil right to
reject GM foods if they wish[8]. Yet, despite these assurances, in the harsh
political environment of international food aid policy, the WFP remains
dependent on
US
largesse, and in this respect, he who pays the piper still calls the tune. As
Angolans now know to their cost, the only real alternative to accepting US
derived GM food aid does in fact mean going hungry.
In
global trade terms,
US
agriculture is suffering from its decision to promote GM food. European markets
remain closed to GM products, and big corporate players such as Monsanto are now
pulling out of
UK
and European agricultural ventures as it has become increasingly clear that the
hostility of European consumers to GM products is unlikely to abate.
But
if the
US
has been hit by the rejection of GM foods in
Europe
, they have failed to recognise the deep unpopularity such food technology
engenders. Instead, they have simply displaced the surplus – and the problem -
onto populations who, because they are not commercial consumers, are denied
equivalent rights to choose what they eat.
The
use of GM food aid as an extension of US agricultural interests is especially
alarming given that recipient countries and regions should not only be
encouraged to provide food aid from local sources, but usually have enough local
non GM food to do so. Sudan for example has generated food surpluses for 2004,
and in Angola, staples such as cassava are grown in the north and could be drawn
on to feed hungry populations in the more arid southern regions. The major
constraints to such activities include poor transport and logistical
infrastructure, and lack of financial support for countries to move domestically
produced food within their borders and regions.
Growing
Independent
Southern
African countries such as
Zambia
who faced severe droughts in 2002 managed to cope with the food crisis they
faced without drawing on GM food aid. Although
Zambia
still relies on some inputs from the WFP, by 2003 it was able to generate a
surplus of non-GM maize – food that is now being bought by the WFP for
distribution in
Zimbabwe
,
Angola
, the Democratic Republic of Congo and
Namibia
. With GM agriculture in the
US
facing a commercial crisis in European markets, it remains to be seen whether
it will continue to pursue conditionalities over food aid as a way of propping
up its GM sector. If so, it further highlights the need for countries such as
Sudan
and
Angola
to act with rigour in defending their rights to reject GM food aid. Perhaps
more importantly, it also highlights the need for these governments to refrain
from using food aid as a political weapon, and to encourage locally sustainable
agricultural economies, if desperate populations are not to be kept in desperate
circumstances in order to further the interests of players infinitely more
powerful than themselves.
References:
[1]
U.S.
stopped food aid to
Sudan
- Government insisted on GE free supply: http://www.gene.ch/genet/2004/Mar/msg00056.html
2
Food rations to be halved in
Angola
amid funding crisis and GM ban:
http://www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/0/a22a1f944a7b947dc1256e6e00355789?OpenDocument
3
Africa Centre for Biosafety et al, 2004, GM Food Aid.
Africa
Denied Choice Once Again?
4
Greenpeace 2002, USAID and GM Food Aid: http://www.Greenpeace.org.uk
5
Africa Centre for Biosafety et al, 2004, GM Food Aid.
Africa
Denied Choice Once Again?
6
USAID: Biotechnology: http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/agriculture/biotechnology/
7
Africa Centre for Biosafety et al, 2004, GM Food Aid.
Africa
Denied Choice Once Again?
8
WFP says
Africa
can refuse GM food:
http://www.bday.co.za/bday/content/direct/1,3523,1608279-6080-0,00.html
*
Kate Prendergast is a British freelance researcher and journalist with a
particular interest in African politics and development. Your emails will be
forwarded to her by contacting the editor at: ScienceTech@islam-online.net
|
