Farmers In Africa & India Reject Monsanto's Gene-Altered Cotton

Posted 2/2/06

>From <gaia@gaia.net>

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

Farmers' Juries and Citizens' Juries are an excellent model of
participatory decision making that allows the voices of the most
marginalised, and yet most affected by development policies to speak out.
This model may have much to offer GM campaigners in Africa.

A farmers' jury held in Mali brought together 43 cotton farmers in a country
where the government is thought to be considering approval of Bt cotton. A
variety of experts from both the pro- and anti- sides of the debate spoke to
the farmers as witnesses and answered their questions, to assist the farmers
in understanding the full picture and implications of this agricultural
technology. These included GM scientists, the FAO, and farmers from South
Africa and India with experience of growing GM crops.

While those witnesses who favoured GM technology were given every
opportunity to put their arguments across, the jury panel nonetheless voted
against allowing GM crops into the country, after hearing the full story
about the implications of the technology and its effects on farmers and
seed. No doubt the stories emerging from India where farmers are committing
suicide after incurring spiralling debts from Bt cotton made an impression.
A strengthening of traditional farming practices and support for local
farmers were instead identified as solutions for the problems facing Mali's
farmers.

While the findings of the farmers' jury are not legally binding, they may
yet prove influential towards Mali's policy development.

Another citizen's jury, held in Andhra Pradesh, India in 2002, on Bt cotton,
was also designed by the same organisation that facilitated the Mali
process, the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).
The findings by the farmers were much the same as those in Mali - a
rejection of GM Bt cotton and the plan to modernise agriculture, known as
"Vision 2020", which was being funded by the UK's Department for
International Development. The findings of the Andhra Pradesh citizen's
jury, known as "Prajateerpu", raised a storm of controversy and DFID came
under much criticism for their plan. "Vision 2020" would have pushed 20
million farmers off the land in AP, with no plans to provide an alternative
means of livelihood. A questionable benefit of "modernisation" indeed.

These instances show the value in helping the marginalised to make decisions
about policies that will impact their lives, from a fully informed point of
view. To be truly valuable, citizens' juries must be carefully set up with
painstaking efforts to ensure inclusivity, integrity and credibility at all
stages, and not used as a mere front for a public relations exercise. (I am
thinking here of a so-called "citizen's jury" held on GM by the UK Food
Standards Agency, which was designed with a heavy bias and misreported the
jurors' findings.)

Please visit www.iied.org for more information on citizens' juries, or ask
me for more info.

Best wishes,

Teresa

**************************************
1. Mali Farmers Reject GM Crops as Attack on Their Way of Life
Article from the Independent, UK. Date: 31 January 2006
Meera Selva
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/article342135.ece

2. African Farmers Say GM Crops are not the Way Forward
Press Release from the International Institute for Environment and
Development (IIED)
Date: 29 January 2006
http://www.iied.org/mediaroom/releases/290106.html

3. Mali's David v Goliath GM struggle
Article from BBC online. Date: 7 December 2005
Joan Baxter
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4445824.stm

4. The Locals Know What Aid They Need
Article from the Independent, UK. Date: 21 March 2002
Natasha Walter
http://www.prajateerpuindia.org/media01.htm

5. Farmers Hit by Failed Bt Cotton Crop in AP
Article from NDTV, India. Date: 24 January 2006
*************************************

1. Mali Farmers Reject GM Crops as Attack on their Way of Life

Article from the Independent, UK. Date: 31 January 2006
Meera Selva
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/article342135.ece

Farmers in Mali, the fourth poorest country in the world, have told their
government they do not want to see genetically modified crops being grown on
their land, after Africa's first "farmers' jury" debated the issue.

Their verdict comes as the Mali government decides whether to allow trials
of genetically modified crops to begin in the country.

During the five-day meeting in Sikasso, in the south of Mali, where two
thirds of the country's cotton is produced, farmers heard arguments for and
against the introduction of GM technology.

Biotechnology scientists claim to be able to produce an insect-repellent
cotton crop that would survive attacks by bollworm, a pest that has
destroyed large swaths of the country's crop in recent years.

But environmentalists argue that the benefits of genetically modified crops
are outweighed by the harm done to local farmers. "GM technology gives seed
companies power over the entire agricultural sector," said Dr Michel
Pimbert, director of the London-based International Institute for
Environment and Development, which organised the meeting. He added: "Crops
are protected by patents, so farmers are unable to keep the seeds from the
harvest and re-sow them the next year as they do at the moment. The idea
that the first link in the agricultural link is controlled by a company is
deeply disturbing to small farmers."

Farmers at the meeting said they needed help to continue their existing
farming practices, and worried that new GM technology would damage their way
of life. Birama Kone, a smallholder on the jury, said: "GM crops are
associated with the kind of farming that marginalises the mutual help and
co-operation among farmers and our social and cultural life."

The development of GM technology in west Africa is backed by USAid, the
American development agency, but activists point out that Mali's cotton
industry would thrive if the United States stopped subsidising its own
25,000 cotton farmers by $3bn (£1.7bn) a year. West African countries were
hit hard by falling world cotton prices in the 1990s, and have complained
that the American cotton subsidies are driving them out of business. A
report by Oxfam argues that the US cotton subsidies cost most west African
cotton-producing countries the same amount in lost export earnings that they
receive in American aid each year.

The farmers' rejection of GM technology at the Sikasso meeting is not
legally binding, but the farmers hope the government will take their views
into account when making a decision about the future of GM crops in the
country.

African countries have been wary of accepting GM technology, despite
assurances from the US government and biotech companies that the products
are safe. In 2002, Zambia refused to accept genetically modified relief food
despite the threat of famine. Zimbabwe, Malawi, Mozambique, Lesotho and
Angola later said they would only accept maize if the seeds were milled into
flour, to prevent cross-pollination with local maize crops.

Only a handful of countries, including South Africa and Burkina Faso, have
allowed GM crops into their farming sector. In Mali, the cotton industry
accounts for half of export earnings.

Mourad Abdennadher, west Africa regulatory manager for Monsanto, one of the
main biotech companies, said Mali did not have the legal framework to cope
with GM technology. "We cannot go into a country unless there are clear
biotech regulations, covering matters of bio safety, and of how trials
should be conducted and presented. Mali has none of these," he said.

********************************

2. African Farmers Say GM Crops are not the Way Forward

Press Release from the International Institute for Environment and
Development (IIED)
Date: 29 January 2006
http://www.iied.org/mediaroom/releases/290106.html

Ordinary cotton-growers and other farmers have voted against introducing
genetically-modified crops in a "citizens jury" in Mali, which is the
world's fourth poorest country. Instead, the jurors proposed a package of
recommendations to strengthen traditional agricultural practice and support
local farmers.

The five day event (25-29 January) took place in Sikasso in the south of the
West African country, where two-thirds of the country's cotton is produced.
Mali is the largest producer of cotton in sub-Saharan Africa, largely grown
by smallholder farmers whose livelihoods depend on it.

Birama Kone, a small farmer on the 43-strong jury, said: "GM crops are
associated with the kind of farming that marginalises the mutual help and
co-operation among farmers and our social and cultural life."

Basri Lidigoita, a woman farmer on the jury, said: "We do not ever ever want
GM seeds. Never."

Brahim Sidebe, a medium-size farmer on the jury, said: "Farmers do not want
GM crops and do not want public research to work on GM technology in Mali."

The jurors cross-examined 14 international witnesses representing a broad
range of views on this controversial issue. These included biotech
scientists, agencies such as the Food and Agriculture Organisation and
farmers from South Africa and India with first-hand experience of growing GM
crops.

African countries are under increasing pressure from agribusiness to open
their markets to GM crops and industrialise their farming sector, but the
continent remains divided in its response. South Africa and Mali's neighbour
Burkina Faso have allowed the introduction of GM, but Benin has said no.

Though the jurors' decision is not binding, it is expected to influence the
future direction of agricultural policy in Mali and across the region where
most people rely on subsistence farming.

The citizens jury was hosted by the regional government (Assemblee Regionale
de Sikasso) and, to ensure a fair process, it was designed and facilitated
by the London-based International Institute for Environment and Development
(IIED) and RIBios, the University of Geneva's Biosafety Interdisciplinary
Network, together with a wide range of local partners in Mali.

IIED's Dr Michel Pimbert said: "This initiative is about making the
agriculture agenda more directly responsive to African people's priorities
and choices. It is vital that we redress the current democratic deficit in
which governments and big agri-food corporations have far more say than
farmers and other citizens about how land is used, and what crops are grown.
We must all recognise that local people have the right to decide the food
and farming policies they want. This citizens jury has provided a safe space
for farmers to reach an informed, evidence-based view on this complicated
and often controversial issue, which can then be amplified to
policy-makers."

Kokozie Traore, President, Assemblee Regionale Sikasso, said: "This citizen
space for democratic deliberation has allowed farmers to learn about the
potential risks and benefits of GM in the context of Malian farming. As a
learning process it has created many synergies between all actors in our
province, from the very local to the regional level. The citizens jury has
been an eye-opening process and has made possible a cross-fertilisation of
local, regional and international opinions on GM and the future of farming."

One of the local organisers, Dr Togola, Research Director of the Sikasso
Agricultural Research Station, said: "I am very satisfied. I know that
during the last five days our farmers have been sufficiently informed and
empowered to make the choices that best suit them on GM and farming
options."

Ends.

For further information, to arrange interviews or attend the event, contact:

Tony Samphier on +44 208 671 2911

Liz Carlile on +44 207 388 2117

Notes to editors

The International Institute for Environment & Development (IIED) is a
London-based think tank working for global policy solutions rooted in the
reality of local people at the frontline of sustainable development.
www.iied.org

*****************************************

3. Mali's David v Goliath GM struggle

Article from BBC online. Date: 7 December 2005
Joan Baxter
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4445824.stm

Bamako, Mali. The debate on genetically modified (GM) crops has erupted
again in Africa, three years after Zambia refused genetically modified food
aid.

Mali - sub-Saharan Africa's largest cotton producer - has begun a
controversial five-year project to introduce GM crops such as BT cotton to
the country.

"We have been given some figures that show that generally BT cotton is more
productive than conventional cotton because of the natural protection of
this plant so there is no need for treatments," says Siaka Dembele, at
Mali's agricultural research institute, IER

The institute along with the US development agency, USAid, and the
transnationals Monsanto and Syngenta are leading the project which started
last year.

Mr Dembele says production is not just up in the United States, but other
developing countries too.

Pesticides

But his belief that the use of less pesticide would have both economic and
environmental benefits is not shared by some.
"That's an absurd proposition," says Asseto Samake, a professor of genetics
and biology at the University of Mali.

"The claims they are making for this cotton are absolutely false."

Ms Samake explains that BT cotton has been modified with the introduction of
genes of the bacteria Bacillus thuringiensi so it can secrete toxins to
resist two or three major cotton pests.

She says that in Mali there are thousands of cotton pests and that when a
few are removed from the natural equation, others will flourish and farmers
will still need pesticides.

"If BT cotton is so profitable, why do they have to subsidise their cotton
farmers with billions of dollars in the United States?" Ms Samake asks.

"Our farmers in West Africa achieve record production using just their
digging sticks and regular seeds and they have great difficulty selling what
they produce, because subsidies in America and Europe have made the world
price for cotton fall.

"So why do they come now with their GMOs and technology to solve a problem
that they created? It's a big farce!" adds Ms Samake, who is a member of the
Coalition to Protect Mali's Genetic Heritage that formed when word leaked
from IER about the USAid-funded project on BT crops.

'Buying people'

Coalition member Mamadou Goïta says the organisation has over 100 member
associations of farmers, women, academics and NGOs.

A similar regional coalition has formed for West Africa, where governments
are currently developing bio-safety legislation.

But he worries about genetic pollution of and eventual disappearance of
local seed varieties if GM seeds are introduced.

According to Goïta: "Mali is a kind of door they need to open to reach some
European countries", where there is still widespread public opposition to GM
crops.

He alleges USAid and the multinationals are encouraging Africa's researchers
and government officials to accept biotechnology with lavish gifts of new
computers and printers, office equipment, vehicles, and scholarships for
study of biotechnology in the US.

"This is buying people," he says.

Phone calls to USAid in Mali were not returned.

Corruption

Mali's Minister of Agriculture Seydou Traore dismisses suggestions of
corruption.

"I know of no bribes in Mali that have anything to do with biotechnology
and GMOs," says Traore.

"If there are cases of corruption elsewhere around the debate on
biotechnology and GMOs, in Mali, at least for the moment, we don't know
them."

In July 2005, Monsanto paid a $1.5 million fine for having bribed an
Indonesian official $50,000 to try avoid an environmental impact study on
its genetically engineered cotton in that country.

Mr Traore says that Mali needs to improve the quality and productivity of
its cotton, and BT cotton could help do that.

To reject biotechnology, he says, is "neither tenable nor reasonable".

Debt and dependence

The debate over GMOs is not limited to the capital city, Bamako.

In the mud and thatch villages of Mali's cotton belt, many farmers express
concern that BT cotton would increase debt and dependence.

"Our problem is the low price and not cotton production," says 37-year-old
Ladji Kone, in the community of Bohi in southern Mali.

"GM crops would re-colonise us," says Sereba Kone, president of the cotton
growers in Bohi.

In the village of Petaka, 800km northeast of Bamako, farmers express similar
concerns.

Here, they work on a project funded by the small Canadian NGO, USC, to
develop and preserve their own seed varieties in community gene and seed
banks.

"I think GM crops are not a good principle for us," says project leader,
Tienen Sylla. "These seeds we have here we inherited from our ancestors over
generations and they fit our difficult climate. GM seeds would be a trap."

Paying for seeds

Mana Diakite, who heads USC in Mali, says that the West believes technology
is the solution to development, but in areas of food security this is not
true.

"Once they introduce GM crops to Africa, farmers will only access the seed
if they pay," he says

"You know that when the rain fails, farmers here can seed and re-seed at
least three times. And if they have to buy seeds three times a year to
produce, I don't think that's a good policy for this country, or any country
in West Africa."

Some coalition members admit that theirs is a "David and Goliath" struggle,
which they are not likely to win.

"I think there is pressure coming from outside which they probably can't
divert," says Mr Diakite.

"It's very difficult for an African government to fight something being
imposed by a super giant like United States or all these seed companies."

The third West African ministerial meeting on biotechnology, supported by
USAid, is set for Accra, Ghana, in June 2006.

*************************************************

4. The Locals Know What Aid They Need

Article from the Independent, UK. Date: 21 March 2002
Natasha Walter
http://www.prajateerpuindia.org/media01.htm

'In the West, leaving the land might sound like liberation, but to Anjamma
it spells only destitution'

This week ministers from rich and poor countries have gathered in Monterrey,
Mexico, for the United Nations conference on development finance. Although
we hear so much talk about "winning the peace" and the "new
internationalism", the conference isn't yet packing in the media. War is a
lot sexier than peace, and commandos make for much better photo
opportunities than aid workers.

If you're being optimistic, you could say that something is beginning to
change ­ that there is a growing desire, voiced by politicians and ordinary
people all over the world, that the war on terrorism should be accompanied
by a new assault on global inequality. Indeed, those recent pledges of
increased aid, $5bn from the US and $7bn from the European Union over the
next few years, have received plaudits from all sides.

If you're being pessimistic, however, you'd say that these great new pledges
are rather dwarfed by, say, the $400bn that the US will spend on defence in
2003. And you'd wonder if the fact that EU countries donate only 0.3 per
cent of their gross domestic product to aid means that Europeans can
blamelessly castigate Americans for being isolationist. You'd also say that
this debate isn't just about the amounts of money that are being pledged.
Because sceptics have long argued that, although development projects always
sound as though they will lead only to happy-ever-after endings, aid money
too often gets diverted into the pockets of politicians and corporations,
while the poorest lose out.

Indeed, even as she left for Monterrey, Clare Short was caught up in a
struggle to stop British aid money being pulled away from the poorest people
in Tanzania. She has bravely defied her own government's line by suspending
aid to Dar es Salaam while an international review takes place of whether
the Tanzanian government should be spending money on a British-made,
British-financed military air-traffic control system.

Good for Clare. But love her as we might, that doesn't mean we can't hold
her department's actions up to scrutiny. For all its many praiseworthy goals
and delivered objectives, there are times when it's still hard to see
through the dreams to the realities. For instance, one development project
to which her own department has chosen to pledge money is running into
increasingly vocal protests over its potential effects on the very poorest
of the poor in India. A planned development project in Andhra Pradesh,
called Vision 2020, has been promised £65m in British aid.

At first sight, this project looks as if it's got the happy-ever-after thing
completely sussed. It's a vision that aims to bring millions of poor farmers
straight into the 21st century with massive consolidation of farms,
mechanisation of agriculture, irrigation projects, new roads and the
introduction of genetically modified crops such as vitamin A-enriched rice.
The state government says the programme will "eradicate poverty".

But earlier this week some farmers from the region turned up in Westminster
to bring their scepticism to the British Government. In an airless
conference room, a woman called Anjamma was asked, through an interpreter:
"If this project goes ahead, what does she think she will do?" "There will
be nothing for us to do," Anjamma replied, "other than to drink pesticide
and die."

This woman is exactly the kind of person that we in the West dream of seeing
lifted out of poverty by our government's aid cheques. She is a farmer who
works four acres of land with her seven children and her two bullocks and
her eight buffalos, and no machines. She had never travelled from her
village before she came to Britain for this protest.

The planned development project for her region would ­ in the eyes of the
state government and the corporations and management consultancies that have
planned it ­ liberate millions of people from the endless toil that Anjamma
has experienced all her life. No wonder the World Bank and the British
Government feel that by pouring tens of millions of pounds of scarce aid
money into the pot, they will be helping some of the poorest people in
India. Why, then, is Anjamma so vociferous in her opposition?

If the project goes ahead according to plan, the number of people who make
their living on the land will fall from 70 per cent of the population to 40
per cent. This drop of agricultural workers means that an estimated 20
million people will have to find alternative sources of income ­ as if a
third of Great Britain were to lose their jobs in one massive restructuring
and redundancy package.

In the West, leaving the land might sound like liberation, but to Anjamma it
spells only destitution. As an illiterate woman whose knowledge and whose
power is vested in her ability to grow her own crops on her own soil, she
believes that if she loses her farm, she loses everything.

And Anjamma isn't speaking out of ignorance. She was one of 12 farmers who
were chosen to be part of a citizens' jury set up by a couple of
non-governmental organisations to scrutinise the development plans. That
meant that she has sat through days of evidence from GM-seed company
executives, from politicians, from academics, from aid donors. That was why
her certainty was all the more impressive. She doesn't want aid money to be
spent the way that foreign governments and the World Bank and her own state
government want it to be spent. She wants something quite different ­ true
empowerment.

"If money comes to us," she said, "to our own associations and unions, we
can spend it in the way that we know will work for our land. We know how to
increase the fertility of our land. We could be completely self-sufficient.
But this is going to be denied to us in the name of modernisation."

What I heard from Anjamma was not a plea to be left alone ­ she was clearly
eager for the West to share its knowledge and its resources with farmers
like herself ­ but a plea to allow her and her peers real control over how
these resources should be spent. She had come to London to protest against
the Government's plan to help to refashion her society according to the
projects of corporations and politicians rather than women like herself. She
had a vision of progress, but it differed fundamentally from the vision that
she had heard about from the development professionals.

Anjamma may be right, or she may be wrong, about what constitutes progress.
But surely she has a right to decide which kind of progress the money spent
in her name should be used for. This may still be a tough idea for us to
swallow ­ that the rich could choose not just to share resources with the
poor, but also power. But unless that happens, development may remain a
fairytale for too many people.

********************************

5. Farmers Hit by Failed Bt Cotton Crop in AP

Article from NDTV, India. Date: 24 January 2006

(Warangal): In the 1980s, when cotton farmer suicides were reported in
Guntur district of Andhra Pradesh, synthetic pyrethroids were brought in as
the solution.

In 1997, when Warangal cotton farmers committed suicide, genetically
modified Bt cotton was touted as a solution.

Four years after Bt cotton was introduced in Andhra Pradesh, the solution
seems to have become part of the problem.

Failed crop

Chandraiah, a farmer in Gopanapally village in Warangal district committed
suicide after his crop failed.

His wife Swarnakka does not even know if he drank pesticide, because she had
no money to take him to hospital. Even his last rites were performed with
money villagers contributed.

"We have huge loans. My son-in-law abandoned our only daughter because we
could not pay dowry. The debt must be Rs 40,000 already. The crop loss broke
my husband. I don't even know what he did to himself," said Swarnakka,
farmer's widow.

Chandraiah's last hope had been the Bt cotton he grew on land that he took
on rent.

Everyone in his native village opted for Bt cotton this year even though the
seeds were almost four times the usual cost, because they were told there
would be no pests.

Expenses mount

But pests destroyed the crop and no one got beyond five quintals against the
promised 10-15 quintals an acre, and that too, only after spraying
pesticides.

"They said there is no need to spray pesticides on Bt cotton. But these
pests came. The rain also spoilt the crop. Now all is gone," said Yelliah, a
farmer.

"Non-Bt seeds cost Rs 400. This costs Rs 2,700. And we still had to spray
pesticides. We could not even recover our investment, or even the cost of
seed," said Sai Malli, another farmer.

Other farmers say the problem is also partly due to spurious seeds in the
market. They say that non-Bt seeds are being packed in old Bt seed boxes and
sold in the market.

Out of the 4,00,000 acres under cotton in Warangal district this season, an
estimated 40-50 per cent was Bt cotton.

And according to an independent study, of the 57 farmers who have committed
suicide in the same period, 50 grew Bt cotton.

It's an ironic situation, considering Bt was brought in as a solution to
cotton farmer suicides due to heavy expenditure on pesticide.

Questions raised

Observers point out that the reasons for agrarian crisis in Andhra Pradesh
have not changed.

There is no significant increase in institutional credit and dealers selling
seed, fertilizer and pesticides double up as private lenders.

Extension services are weak, so there is no timely, reliable advice and
marketing remains a problem. Bt has become the icing on the cake.

When YSR Rajasekhara Reddy took charge in May 2004 as the Chief Minister of
Andhra Pradesh, he had said not even one farmer would commit suicide from
now on.

Twenty months later, farmer suicides have come down, but only in government
statistics than on the killing fields of Andhra Pradesh.

With Rs 1 lakh compensation also to be paid to widows of farmers, the
pressure is very much on the government to point to reasons other than the
agrarian crisis as the reason for the farmer's ultimate step of desperation.