1.Africa YES! Flo NO!
2.Science & Africa: A message to the G8 summit
3.Africa Harvest consortium gets $16.9 million
4.GM & Africa resources
-*----

1.Africa YES! Flo NO!

Nothing could better symbolise the "GM to save the world" confidence trick than the rise and rise of Dr Florence Wambugu.

Item 1 below has the science journal Nature calling on G8 leaders to listen to Wambugu, among a number of other African scientists, so that they can learn the strategies that should shape the future of Africa.

In case you are in any doubt as to Flo's strategy for the future of the continent:

"We cannot develop Africa without biotechnology"

"genetically modified (GM) crops have a major role to play in Africa"

"biotechnology has huge potential"

But regardless of whatever the G8 decide to do, item 2 reports how the Gates Foundation is to pour $16.9 million into a consortium headed by Africa Harvest, of which Wambugu is the CEO. The consortium includes Pioneer Hi-Bred International, a subsidiary of DuPont.

In the press release Wambugu's Africa Harvest Biotech Foundation International (Africa Harvest) is described as "Africa's leading non-profit agricultural and scientific organization". If it is "leading" then its thanks to the likes of Croplife International which funds its "communication" activities. CropLife International is a global federation 'representing the plant science industry' and led by the following companies: BASF, Bayer, Dow, DuPont, Monsanto and Syngenta.

Wambugu was picked and trained by Monsanto and came to fame via Monsanto's virus-resistant sweet potato project. She built her reputation on this project, capturing massive positive publicity for GM in the process. But Wambugu's reputation is built on a lie. The project in question has been far from the success that Wambugu has repeatedly claimed.

3 years of field trials showed the project, which cost over $6 million, to be a complete failure, delivering lower yields than conventional crops and no virus resistance. In contrast, conventional sweet potato breeding in Uganda was able to develop with a small budget a well-liked virus-resistant variety with yield gains of nearly 100%!

As Aaron deGrassi of the Institute of Development Studies has noted, the tragedy is that this kind of "excitement over certain genetic engineering procedures can divert financial, human, and intellectual resources from focusing on productive research that meets the needs of poor farmers."

[Genetically Modified Crops and Sustainable Poverty Alleviation in Sub-Saharan Africa
http://www.twnafrica.org/docs/GMCropsAfrica.pdf ]

But the leaders of the industrialised nations are being told to listen to a voice from Africa that's been trained by Monsanto and which is being amplified by CropLife International.

The President of CropLife International, who is also the CEO of the world's biggest GM company, Syngenta, is on record as saying, "As we leverage the potential of our Crop Protection and Seeds capabilities in pursuit of market share gain, we are targeting steadily higher returns and value creation for our shareholders."

In other words, the real goal of GM seeds is to feed the corporations and their hungry shareholders. Now that's a message - relayed "from Africa" - that Bush and Blair may just be able to hear.
-*----

2.Science & Africa: A message to the G8 summit
Nature, 29 June 2005
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050627/full/4351146a.html

Africa's scientists tell industrialized nations what they need to hear.

When the G8 leaders meet in Scotland next week to discuss how to help Africa's poorest nations, they are unlikely to hear the chants of the protestors - an 8-kilometre fence around their luxury hotel will see to that. But the activists have, to some extent, already been listened to: a debt-relief package has been signed by the group of eight industrialized countries and a hike in aid is also on the cards. But when it comes to spending this extra money, one question is whether the voices of Africa's scientists will be heeded.

On the following three pages, Nature presents those voices. They need to be heard, as science and technology are more of a priority for aid agencies than ever before. African universities, for example, are the subject of a new focus by the World Bank. Africa's leaders have also singled out science and technology in their continent-wide political strategy - the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD).

The comments that follow make for challenging reading. Every area seems to require immediate attention, from disease and climate change to a lack of access to education and sanitation. But themes emerge nonetheless. Solutions must factor in the needs of local communities and environments. Projects should be run as far as possible by Africans, not the donors. And Africa needs long-term backing from rich nations, not an uncertain future in which aid waxes and wanes.

If science and technology projects are to help shape Africa, these are the strategies that should shape them.

Kenya: Florence Wambugu

CEO of A Harvest Biotech Foundation International, a Kenyan organization dedicated to promoting sustainable agriculture through the use of biotechnology.

We cannot develop Africa without biotechnology. Enormous numbers of people suffer from malnutrition in some regions, and this is where biotechnology has huge potential.

One example is NERICA (New Rice for Africa), a variety developed by the West Africa Rice Development Association in Bouake, Ivory Coast. The rice was created by conventional breeding and combines high-yield Asian strains with drought-resistant African ones. It is a good example of the research and development we can do when there is partnership between scientists in Africa and abroad.

But we have to take a holistic approach - we also need to address other issues such as soil fertility, water management, human infrastructure and capacity development.

The problem is that there is a disconnect between high-level international research and the perspectives and priorities of African leaders. Most research here is donor-funded. There is an urgent need for African countries to fund their own research so that they have a stake in the results. That way the results will be more relevant and can be linked to local communities.

Go to a Print friendly Page