Connect with us

Politics

Jubinomics in an Era of Austerity: Will the New VAT on Fuel Lead to an Economic Crisis?

11 min read.

The increased taxation of fuel is making life harder for Kenyans and is neither good politics nor wise leadership. By DAUTI KAHURA

Published

on

JUBINOMICS IN AN ERA OF AUSTERITY: Will the new VAT on fuel lead to an economic crisis?
Download PDFPrint Article

Three weeks ago, at the Karen bus stop opposite the Karen Police Station, there was a face-off that pitted passengers against matatu crews and their surrogates, the freelance touts that hang around such stops soliciting for passengers. The 33-seater matatus headed to Ngong town, 10km from Karen, were charging Sh80. Just a couple of weeks ago, the standard fare was Sh30. Occasionally, if the demand outstripped supply, which happens from time to time in the matatu industry, the fare would go up by Sh10. Any increase in fare exceeding Sh40 for the 10km ride, whatever the circumstance, would be considered exorbitant. The passengers won this round, but the lingering problem of arbitrary and surreptitious increases in transport fare had not been solved.

The Nairobi-Karen-Ngong route is a microcosm of the looming confrontation between passengers and matatus. And Karen town could be the flashpoint. The route is a very lucrative one, especially during peak hours. Most of the matatu passengers on this route work in the many church institutions, mega malls, restaurants, schools and universities and a big hospital that are located in Karen. Some work for the wealthy Kenyans who have homes there. There are also a lot of casual labourers working in Karen for whom every penny counts.

The tension that had been building between the passengers and the matatu crews had been palpable: “Hawa wathii siku moja watachoma hizi matatu, hii hasira yao ni mbaya sana,” (“These passengers will torch these matatus one of these days, their anger is real”) said a matatu driver. Wary of the people’s wrath, the matatu crews wait for the people to board the matatu, then ambush and cajole them with the ridiculous fare increase. But a fortnight ago, the people refused to enter the matatus, until the crew members publicly announced the fare they were charging. After a 30-minute stalemate, the matatu crew eventually lowered the fare to Sh100. “Lakini bado hawa wathii wananung’unika, sasa sijui wanataka tufanye nini.” (“Even after giving them a fairer price, the people are still grumbling, I don’t know what they expect us to do.”)

Since September 1, 2018, when the new 16 per cent VAT (value added tax) on fuel took effect, there has been a commotion in the public transport industry. The Karen-Ngong town driver who said that angry passengers may one of these days burn down matatus to protest against what they consider to be unfair matatu fares, was voicing a concern that has in the past few weeks put matatu crews on edge. “Wathii wanateta sana, wengine wanataka tu guoko na sisi…si kupoa,” said a matatu driver operating on the Nairobi-Limuru town route. (“Passengers are really complaining, some are picking fights with us…it is not a good sign.”)

Since September 1, 2018, when the new 16 per cent VAT (value added tax) on fuel took effect, there has been a commotion in the public transport industry. The Karen-Ngong town driver who said that angry passengers may one of these days burn down matatus to protest against what they consider to be unfair matatu fares, was voicing a concern that has in the past few weeks put matatu crews on edge.

The Karen-Ngong driver who was edgy about passengers’ uneasiness with the hiked fares said that he was struggling to remit the Sh8,000 his boss demands at the end of each day. “On several instances, we’ve had to forego our own pay. At Sh115 a litre, the diesel has become way too expensive. We asked the matatu owner to stabilize his profit to Sh7,000, with the hope of balancing the books, at the end of every day but it is not working. I think some people have cut their reliance on matatus. This has a direct relation with frequency of the roundtrips we make – the fewer the roundtrips, the lesser the money we make.”

The matatu cooperatives (Saccos) in Nairobi are in a quandary: they have been mulling (even before the fuel tax increase) over how to “rationalise their increasing costs of operations without being seen as gleeful and uncaring,” said a top brass at the Matatu Owners Association (MOA). “The business is really hurting, but so are our customers, yet, somebody has to carry the load and feel the pain. Unfortunately, it has always to be the consumer.”

But the Saccos have been hesitant: They are afraid of pushing too hard lest their customers rebel and spark off a wave of street demonstrations. Conversely, the industry is undergoing one of its most trying times in recent times – dwindling fortunes occasioned by a gloomy economic outlook. “How long can they hold on like this? That is the Saccos’ bosses’ question,” said the MOA official.

In a bizarre incident on September 16, a matatu stopped at Corporation stage (that is before Uthiru on the Nairobi-Nakuru highway) to pick passengers to Nairobi. Before the driver could know what was going on, a chap grabbed the matatu keys, scaled the dividing wall of the dual carriageway and ran off with keys. The people milling around the stage seemed unperturbed by the incident and the passengers inside and outside the matatu did not seem to mind the ordeal. Afterwards, when I asked one of the freelance touts why the fellow (who is very well known around the area), was risking his life snatching keys from a matatu, his answer was: “Hizi mathree zinaumiza watu sana.” (“These matatus are squeezing people financially.”)

The matatus operating along long distances are not faring any better. My driver friend who operates a Nairobi-Nyahururu shuttle has been mourning since VAT on fuel was introduced. “I’m now spending Sh5,000 on fuel to and from Nyahururu, up from Sh3,200. Nyahururu is exactly 200km from Nairobi city centre. I used to charge my passengers Sh350 one way from Nairobi to Nyahururu before the fuel increase and I’d still take home between Sh3,200 and Sh3,500. It was reasonable.”

After September 1, he increased the fare to Sh400, but this has not helped. “Ndiraruta wira wa kuhura mai na ndiri.” (“I’ve resorted to pounding water in a mortar – in short, I’m doing zero work.”) Even after increasing the fare by Sh50 per person, the best he can take home at the end of the day, he told me, was Sh3,400, after deducting his expenses. As it is, his transport business was running on a Sh1,800 deficit every day – courtesy of the fuel tax. “I can’t dare push the fare more than Sh400: I know my customers, they are also suffering, we’ve to wait and hope President Uhuru will lower the prices,” said the driver nonchalantly.

The journey to Nyahururu is usually a one-way trip: A shuttle leaves Nairobi for Nyahururu in the morning at around 9.00am. The 200km trip usually takes about four hours. If the shuttle is lucky, it will make the return trip to Nairobi by between 5.00pm and 6.00pm, arriving in Nairobi at around 10.00pm. There are between 240 and 260 14-seater shuttles on the Nairobi-Nyahururu route. “If you make the round trip,” said my driver friend, “you count yourself lucky.”

His prayer about President Uhuru rescinding the implementation of VAT on the fuel sounded half-hearted and without conviction – like a person who already knows it is impossible but hopes for the unexpected to happen. “The truth of the matter,” he opined, “is that even if the fuel levy was dropped entirely, there certainly would be some relief, but life as it is, is already tough. Too much money had been stolen under President Uhuru’s watch and that is the price we’ve to pay for the profligacy.” But it has become increasingly difficult to hold a discussion on President Uhuru Kenyatta’s performance, especially with Jubilee supporters, like my driver friend. “Nitutigane na uhoro ucio.” (“Let’s just leave that topic alone.”)

President Kenyatta’s recent fulmination against matatu owners increasing fares, lest their licenses are revoked by National Transport and Safety Authority (NTSA) was rebutted by MOA, which argued the threat had no basis in law. “The President,” said a Jubilee Party MP, “will soon realise that nobody will be taking his threats any more seriously. He is a lame duck president who is doing his final term and holds no sway whatsoever on the politics of the future.”

The imposition of VAT on fuel has had an inflationary effect on practically every commodity that must be transported from point A to point B. In effect, this means that soon almost every household item will become more expensive.

On 20 September, the controversial Finance Bill, 2018 was passed by MPs. And without wasting any time, the President assented to the Bill the following day. The Bill’s vote in Parliament had been preceded by a little-nested game between the MPs and the President. The Parliamentarians had already threatened to shoot down Uhuru’s proposal to halve the VAT to 8 per cent, maintaining that there should be none placed on fuel and defying party chief whips.

The imposition of VAT on fuel has had an inflationary effect on practically every commodity that must be transported from point A to point B. In effect, this means that soon almost every household item will become more expensive.

“I’m afraid to tell you that even with that seeming reprieve, nothing much will move immediately,” said an oilman who imports oil products and runs several petrol stations in Kenya, Rwanda and Uganda. “These are the reasons: VAT is charged at the point of sale and is calculated as 16 per cent on all other costs of the product, over and above the other taxes and levies other than VAT. No importer will agree to sell at a loss simply because politics have been at play. So, even if the Finance Bill 2018 becomes law, with the President’s incorporation of the eight per cent VAT proposal, oil importers will not agree to lower their prices. We must first empty all the fuel bought within the time the VAT on fuel was imposed till we bring in new consignments. And this will take some time. If the people are thinking they are going to enjoy the VAT reprieve immediately, they are deluded.”

The oil tycoon told me that such a situation presents a perfect scenario for the industry to play market games. “If, for example, some oil importers, for whatever reason (most obviously, it would be for a quick super profit), choose to create an artificial oil shortage by hoarding their product, the price must necessarily shoot upwards, momentarily disrupting the official levy on fuel products.”

Apart from the matatu price jolts, the effects of the VAT on fuel has been heavily felt by the long-distance transport trucks that move all manner of goods from source to different markets. Businessmen who transport goats and sheep from Isiolo, Laisamis, Loiyangalani, Mandera, Maralal, Marsabit, Moyale, Turbi, Sololo and southern Ethiopia to Kiamaiko abattoirs in Huruma, Nairobi, told me that their fuel costs had gone by up by between Sh10,000 and Sh12,000 per trip. These animals are carried for up to 14 hours by 10-wheel Mitsubishi Fuso trucks on some of the roughest roads and in the most bandit-prone territories. “Already the wear and tear of the trucks has been staring down at us, but with this new tax on fuel, it has complicated our business,” said one of the transporters.

“The increase in the fuel costs means that they have to also pass down the burden to us butcher-men,” said Francis Kimani, a butcher, who goes to Kiamaiko every day to buy meat products, including goats’ heads, offal for making mutura (sausage-like delicacies) and hoofs for boiling soup. Until recently. Kimani was buying up to 100 goat heads every day at Kiamaiko to sell to his staunchly loyal customers at his outlet at the central bus station in Nairobi. “I arrive at Kiamaiko by 6.00am, pick my stuff and quickly head back to my base, because my customers want to find me ready by latest 11.00am.”

Kimani hires a boda-boda (motorcycle taxi) to transport his meat products in a box-like container. “I was paying the driver Sh250 per trip to the bus station, but after the VAT increase, he doubled the amount,” he said. But that is not the only burden he has to bear: already the prices of his meat products have gone up by more than 30 per cent. “I’ll confess I was doing a roaring business until this VAT thing came. My customers have dwindled, partly because I am buying less goat heads and partly because they are also feeling the pinch.” From selling 100 heads by the end of the day, Kimani is now barely selling 30. He said that if nothing improves, he will consider relocating to either Isiolo or Rumuruti in Laikipia County. The business was proving too difficult to sustain. “I was born in Rumuruti, I know there isn’t much there, but home is home.” “Nairobi tuokire gwetha ido na muturiri.” (“Nairobi’s not home, we just came here to look for money and a living.”) He said that in Isiolo he could look for work as a truck driver.

The VAT on petroleum products was first mooted in 2013, just after President Uhuru Kenyatta and his deputy, William Ruto, formed the Jubilee coalition government. The VAT Act 2013, as it came to be known, was not implemented immediately; it was shelved for three years till 2016. When it came for review in September 2016, Treasury mandarins, through the drafting of the Financial Act 2016, postponed its introduction. But in March 2018, the Treasury Principal Secretary, Kamau Thugge, finally signalled the fact that beginning this September, the 16 per cent VAT on fuel would certainly be effected. This would mean that for every litre of fuel sold at a petrol station, Sh18 would be added on top of the original cost: a 14 per cent increase per litre.

Thugge was candid: The government had no option but to swallow the International Monetary Fund (IMF)’s bitter pill. Since 2016, the IMF has wanted the government to levy VAT on fuel as a way for it to collect extra revenue domestically. However, it is important to note that although petroleum products were previously exempt from VAT, they are still one of the most taxed commodities in Kenya.

This time last year, the Jubilee government was reeling from two shambolic elections – both conducted within two-and-half-months. The government was broke and was looking for credit facilities, so it turned to the IMF. The VAT on fuel, therefore, is part of the stringent conditions that the IMF has imposed on the Jubilee government in exchange for access to a standby credit facility – a fallback plan for Kenya’s Exchequer in case the economy finds itself in the ICU and needs quick resuscitation.

“Playing good politics,” and presumably exhibiting “poor leadership”, President Uhuru seemingly chastised MPs for initially rejecting his proposal halve the VAT on fuel to 8 per cent. The truth of the matter is that the President himself, in regard to the “problematic” taxation issues, is neither playing good politics nor exhibiting wise leadership.

This time last year, the Jubilee government was reeling from two shambolic elections – both conducted within two-and-half-months. The government was broke and was looking for credit facilities, so it turned to the IMF. The VAT on fuel, therefore, is part of the stringent conditions that the IMF has imposed on the Jubilee government in exchange for access to a standby credit facility – a fallback plan for the Kenya’s Exchequer in case the economy finds itself in the ICU and needs quick resuscitation.

“The Bill according to the Budget highlights by the Cabinet Secretary for the National Treasury and Planning is intended is to raise an additional KSh27.5billion to finance 2018/19 fiscal budget year,” observes the Department Committee on Finance and National Planning: Report on the Consideration of the Finance Bill 2018. The report says, “total projected expenditure and net lending for 2018/19 estimates amounted to KSh2.533 trillion to be financed through ordinary revenue (KSh1.743 trillion) and AIA (Annual-in-Advance) (KSh179.95 billion). Expected external grants will amount to KSh47.037 billion, bringing the revenue to KSh1.970 trillion. This leaves a fiscal deficit of KSh562.748 billion to be financed through debt. The proportion of revenue estimates to GDP for 2018/19 is 19.6 percent which is equivalent to that of the 2017/18 budget.”

The Kenya Association of Manufacturers (KAM), one of the lobby groups that presented its resolutions to the committee, argues in the report that, “(the) local manufacturer was losing competition vs major foreign player. The local industries are manufacturing basic products with low gross margin compared to most foreign players, who can support the duty costs. Local players had to increase their prices around (five percent) and it’s the final consumer that will pay for the final bill. This, in turn, was jeopardising local employment.”

A Kenyan industrialist who had intended to contract some local companies to manufacture carton boxes for packaging consumer goods, such as milk, in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), told me he took his business to Uganda after he was hit with a prohibitive tax levy. “The Kenyan companies were charging me $0.7 per carton box – that is exclusive of transport logistics and documentation charges,” said the entrepreneur. “Yet in Kampala, I was being charged $0.42 – inclusive of transport and documentation costs, what they refer to as free on board (FOB).”

On September 18, 2018, President Uhuru Kenyatta rejected the Bill passed by MPs a fortnight before, citing his reasons in a memorandum that sought to overturn some of the proposals shot down by the MPs – chief among them, the 16 per cent VAT on petroleum products and the National Housing Fund, a new tax where the government hopes to impose a tax of 1.5 per cent of income on employees and their employers, ostensibly to fund a home ownership and social housing programme. According to the memorandum, the 16 per cent VAT on fuel has been scaled down to 8 percent in order to raise Sh17.5 billion in the current financial year.

A Kenyan industrialist who had intended to contract some local companies to manufacture carton boxes for packaging consumer goods, such as milk, in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), told me he took his business to Uganda after he was hit with a prohibitive tax levy.

Another proposal contained in the President’s memorandum was to tax betting companies 15 per cent, down from 35 per cent as the case is now. This proposal, instead, hopes to raid the lottery winners’ cash by taxing it 20 per cent. The President is looking to raise between Sh25 and Sh30 billion accrued from the sports gaming taxes. The total computation of President Uhuru’s memorandum proposal was collecting Sh100 billion in this financial year.

Gitau Githongo, writing in the E Review, succinctly observed that “over the past five years, several tax measures have been introduced, including: 12 per cent Rental Income Tax on landlords from 2015, successive excise duty and fuel levy increases in 2015, 2016 and 2018; VAT on bottled water and juices, VAT on food served by restaurants, as well as, piped water; successive increases in excise duties on spirits, cigarettes and mobile telephony; and 50 per cent Gaming Tax on lotteries and bookmakers in 2017, among a host of others.”

Gitau’s article touched on the real reasons why President Kenyatta returned Kenya into the arms of hard-nosed IMF economists: “The parlous state of Kenya’s national accounts – most notably the KSh 5 trillion stock of public debt and ballooning budget deficit…suggests that the slew of tax measures proposed in Budget 2018 was purely about desperately seeking to finance reckless government spending and not about providing incentives for private sector economic growth.”

Support The Elephant.

The Elephant is helping to build a truly public platform, while producing consistent, quality investigations, opinions and analysis. The Elephant cannot survive and grow without your participation. Now, more than ever, it is vital for The Elephant to reach as many people as possible.

Your support helps protect The Elephant's independence and it means we can continue keeping the democratic space free, open and robust. Every contribution, however big or small, is so valuable for our collective future.

Avatar
By

Mr Kahura is a senior writer for The Elephant.

Politics

East or West? What Africans Think of China and America

A majority of Africans favour democracy over other forms of governance but an authoritarian system with a capacity to deliver public goods rapidly on a vast scale cannot be dismissed off-hand.

Published

on

What Africans Think of China and America
Download PDFPrint Article

That a major contest has kicked off between the US and China over their influence in Africa is now abundantly clear, an integral part of the monumental spat between the two superpowers that blew out into the open under President Trump — partly articulated in America’s 2017 National Security Strategy — but whose essentials are clearly being retained by the Biden administration. China is now considered America’s most significant geopolitical competitor and threat, a posture that is reciprocated by Beijing.

Still, it is also obvious that the US is racing to catch up with a China that has dramatically deepened and expanded its relations with Africa since the early 2000s. Ironically, just as the US was checking out of Africa in terms of trade and development and focussing instead on security — and in particular on the so-called “war on terror” — China shifted gear, especially through its giant Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). According to the conservative American Enterprise Institute’s China Global Investment Tracker, China has made a total value of US$303.24 billion in investments and construction in Sub-Saharan Africa since 2005. Indeed, by 2019 one in five major infrastructure projects in Africa was financed by China and one in three was being constructed by Chinese companies. China is now Africa’s biggest trading partner and, under President Xi Jinping, the country has rapidly expanded its cultural, social, military and other relations with African countries. In typical Chinese style, this scale-up has been both huge, efficient and rapid.

In East Africa, it is estimated that 55 per cent of all large-scale construction projects are undertaken by the Chinese who also finance a quarter of them. There has been considerable controversy about the extent to which these projects have contributed to a deepening debt crisis on the continent. The opacity and alleged corruption that surround the accumulation of this debt have also been the cause of deepening concern for policymakers and citizens alike. That said, the infrastructure projects align most closely with the African Continental Free Trade Agreement (AfCFTA) — currently our biggest “existential project” as Africans. The relationship between Africa and China is complicated. Indeed, relations with all great powers are complex and difficult for developing countries.

The Chinese model

A majority of African countries are aspiring democracies in one form or another. This democratisation stated after the 1989 fall of the Berlin Wall and by 1995, multiparty democratic constitutions had been promulgated across the continent. The US was a prominent driver of this process and at that point, the West’s push converged with the will of a majority of Africans exhausted by the single-party regimes and dictatorships that had ruled since independence. Today we can agree that the quality of this democracy varies considerably from country to country.

What is increasingly referred to as the “China model” is most obviously not a liberal democracy. All serious polling done by respected organisations such as Afrobarometer confirms that a majority of Africans continue to favour democracy — despite its messiness — over other forms of governance. I should think that this is in part because between independence and the early 1990s, Africa tried a wild assortment of authoritarian models of governance. These were stifling at best and disastrous at worst, especially when led by military cabals who had taken power through violent coups.

By 2019, one in five major infrastructure projects in Africa was financed by China and one in three was being constructed by Chinese companies.

The freedoms that have come with our democracies have in turn become embedded in our broader governance DNA, with our young population unable to conceive of a time when their basic freedoms of thought, speech, association, movement, etc., could be dramatically curtailed. And yet, the “China model” of an authoritarian system that combines a high level of state capacity to deliver public goods such as health, education, etc., to the majority of its people rapidly and on a vast scale cannot be dismissed off-hand.

On the African continent, the Rwandan and Ethiopian models have been compared to the Chinese model. The engagement with China, including its controversial debt-related aspects, has been transformative, especially in regard to the development of critical infrastructure. This cannot be argued with. And this transformation has taken place with unprecedented speed, changing skylines across a continent which has some of the world’s fastest growing cities and the world’s youngest, most rapidly growing population.

Still, the opacity and corruption that sometimes seems to typify the accumulation of commercial debt has been particularly troublesome in a range of developing countries around the world. This is still playing out and African countries are in the middle of a delicate diplomatic balancing act between a risen China, a giant and often thin-skinned partner, and a West that is now in aggressive competition with China. We are caught in between. Western nations are also increasingly vociferous in their complaints about human rights abuses in China. The human rights situation vis-à-vis minorities such as the Uyghurs of Xinjiang Province and the peoples of Tibet has for decades been the source of intense advocacy among human rights activists. The recent governance overhaul backwards in Hong Kong and apparently upcoming one in Taiwan have caused similar distress. Understandably, African policymakers have been profoundly circumspect about joining in these calls. This is despite the fact that African states have over the last 30 years gradually become less tolerant of gross human rights abuses on the continent. Coups are generally a no-no in this day and age, and a state that deliberately seeks to destroy an ethnic group would cause even the usually politically judicious African Union to voice strong opposition. This is in part because orchestrated mass violence against particular groups in one country inevitably spills across our fake borders. The 1994 Rwandan genocide was, and remains, profoundly chilling.

China has been steadfast in its policy of non-interference in the governance of other nations, a stance which is deeply appreciated by an Africa that is finding its voice. Supporters of democracy point out that this approach can sometimes end up propping up some of the most incompetent and dictatorial regimes on the continent. The West has its list of similar clients too though. Suffice it to say that China also retains currency among African elites because it has never been a colonial power on the continent despite China’s Admiral Zheng He (Cheng Ho) and his fleets visiting the East African coast several times between 1405 and 1433. China’s engagement with Africa back then contrasts starkly with Portuguese navigator Vasco da Gama’s blood-soaked expeditions in the region from 1497 as he sought a plunder route to India. From the 1950s onwards, China also contributed significantly to African liberation struggles, often in direct opposition to the US and its allies.

*********

From the language and tone over the last few years, one would be forgiven for believing that the US is ready to adopt a Cold War posture with China. There is nothing that causes greater nervousness among African policymakers than the continent finding itself forced into the kind of stark polarity President George W. Bush encapsulated on the 20th of September 2001 when he told the world, “Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists”. This time around however, the relationship between China and Africa is very different from the one Africa had with the Communist bloc in the period after independence. Whereas ideology and the practicalities of the struggle for independence were at the heart of the Cold War relationship, for African elites in particular, China today is first and foremost a development partner. Besides, the Cold War posture was also generally bad for basic freedoms.

From the language and tone over the last few years, one would be forgiven for believing that the US is ready to adopt a Cold War posture with China.

Part of the challenge the US faces as it ramps up the contest with China is one of perceptions: the “shithole” countries, as President Trump called them, aren’t that shitty to other countries that have travelled the difficult development road we are on. For urbanised African youth with access to the internet, the America they view and read about today isn’t necessarily the one America’s unrivalled soft power juggernaut, Hollywood, portrays. A significant amount of bandwidth is instead taken up watching black people being murdered by a clearly systemically racist police force and the ensuing consequences. However, it is also part of the fundamental dynamism of US democracy that President Biden and his team have made so many progressive policy U-turns since taking office 100 days ago. Since he took office Biden’s administration has overseen the vaccination of over 130 million Americans – half the population!

Africans still overwhelmingly support the democratic model but feel the relationship with China is a win-win for Africa.

Other critical rising powers

While there has been considerable focus on China, India, Russia, Turkey and other rising nations have raised their profiles in Africa as well.  They have done so without much fanfare but in a manner that has afforded local elites policy choices that were unthinkable as recently as the 2010s. The Russia-Africa Sochi Summit in late 2019, for example, was part of an accelerated engagement by Russia with Africa over the past decade especially in the extractive sector and military trade. Today Russia is by far the continent’s largest arms supplier, accounting for almost half of all military sales to Africa. In 2019, 12 African ministers of foreign affairs visited Russia, and that country’s long serving minister of foreign affairs, Sergei Lavrov, and his deputy Mikhail Bogdanov, held talks with nearly 100 top African politicians between January and September 2019 alone. Bogdanov is said to maintain sustained intensive interactions with African Ambassadors in Moscow. While Russian policymakers emphasise a deepening of “political cooperation” with Africa, they have indicated heightened interest in economic relations — especially in the extractive sector, agriculture, health and education. The speed with which Russia developed its Sputnik V vaccine was startling and its “vaccine diplomacy” in Africa has been more aggressive and successful than that of any other region. Welcome to our new multi-polar world.

What Africans think of China

As I said, Africans still overwhelmingly support the democratic model but feel the relationship with China is a win-win for Africa — with China winning more of course — being  qualitatively different from the relationship with the West.

Source: Source: What Africans think about China: Findings from Afrobarometer, E. Gyimah-Boadi, CEO, Afrobarometer, February 2021

Source: Source: What Africans think about China: Findings from Afrobarometer, E. Gyimah-Boadi, CEO, Afrobarometer, February 2021

Afrobarometer recently polled African attitudes towards China in 22 countries including Ethiopia, Kenya, Senegal, Ghana, Guinea, Uganda, Nigeria, Angola, Namibia, Zambia among others. In the 22 countries, an average of 33 per cent of those polled thought the US was the best model for development. Twenty-three per cent felt China was the best model of development followed by former colonial powers at 11 per cent and South Africa at 10 per cent. China is emphatically  the preferred model for development in Benin, Burkina Faso and Mali. In Liberia, Angola, Sierra Leone and Cape Verde the US is by far the preferred model. In Kenya 43 per cent of respondents prefer the US model compared to 23 per cent who prefer the Chinese model.

Source: What Africans think about China: Findings from Afrobarometer, E. Gyimah-Boadi, CEO, Afrobarometer, February 2021

Source: What Africans think about China: Findings from Afrobarometer, E. Gyimah-Boadi, CEO, Afrobarometer, February 2021

Importantly, 62 per cent of all those polled across Africa felt China has a largely positive economic and political influence on their countries while 60 per cent felt the same for the US.

Source: Afrobarometer

Source: What Africans think about China: Findings from Afrobarometer, E. Gyimah-Boadi, CEO, Afrobarometer, February 2021

Indeed, the main takeaways of the Afrobarometer report released in February 2021 include the fact that Africans feel generally positive about China. Significantly, according to the researchers,

“Though new on the block, the attractiveness of China’s development model is second only to the US (especially among older adults). Perceived Chinese influence is on a par with that of the US and well above that of the former colonial powers. Chinese economic and political influence is seen in largely positive terms. Respondents who feel positively about the influence of China also tend to have positive views of U.S. influence as well – suggesting that for many Africans, U.S.-China “competition” may not be an “either-or” but a “win-win” proposition. Popular awareness of China as a lender/giver of development aid to African respective countries is unmatched by the common place talk of Chinese “debt trap” diplomacy in Africa…
Be that as it may, a plurality of Chinese loan aware Africans perceive fewer strings attached to those loans/development compared to other donors. 
Awareness of repayment obligations to Chinese loans/aid is however high among those who know about Chinese loans/aid to their country – suggesting the need for more information sharing about Chinese aid. 
Indeed, awareness of Chinese loans to the country generally goes hand in hand with expression of concern about the entailed indebtedness…”

*********

The former top Singaporean diplomat, academic and author of Has China Won?, Kishore Mahbubani, argues that the COVID-19 pandemic has confirmed the shift of global power from West to East. He points out that from 1AD until 1820 the world’s largest economies were India and China and that the last 200 years of Western domination are a historical aberration. All aberrations ultimately end. We are living through these tectonic changes. Exciting times. Nothing expresses the contradictions that this means in our daily lives than the way our urban youth use their mobile phones and American platforms such as Twitter and Facebook as instruments of accountability in a complex age.

It is ironic too that the murder of George Floyd by a white policeman that caused such powerful global outrage last year was filmed by 17-year-old Darnella Frazier using her iPhone made in China and uploaded onto American social media platforms not allowed in China, provoking a powerful reaction that continues to reverberate around the world.

Continue Reading

Politics

Do You Know What Is on Your Plate?

You may not know it but you’ve probably been ingesting carcinogenic, mutagenic and neurotoxic chemicals along with your ugali, sukuma wiki and kachumbari.

Published

on

Do You Know What Is on Your Plate?
Download PDFPrint Article

I had never really given much thought to what I ate and how it was produced. That is until, in the early 90s, an outbreak of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy – BSE, more commonly known as mad cow disease – led to the slaughter of 4.4 million head of cattle in the United Kingdom in an effort to contain the disease, and to a decade-long ban of British beef exports that ruined that country’s beef industry. The BSE outbreak is thought to have been caused by the practice of supplementing cattle feed with meat-and-bone-meal (MBM) rendered from the remains of other animals. The disease soon crossed over to humans through the consumption of BSE-contaminated beef, a new version of the neurological Creutzveld-Jakob Disease (vCJD) that took its first victim in May 1995 and has killed 177 people to date. In 2013 researchers reported that one in 2,000 people in the UK are carrying the human form of mad cow disease.

That same year, in February, a government livestock inspector was assassinated outside his home in the Belgian Flanders; Karel Van Noppen had been investigating the illegal trade in synthetic growth hormones that unscrupulous beef farmers were using to speed up the fattening of beef cattle and turn a quick profit. The use of synthetic growth hormones in cattle rearing has been found to have adverse effects on human health. I was living in Belgium at the time and I started asking myself what I had been eating. I wasn’t the only one; by the end of the decade, astute beef farmers were turning a tidy profit from the sale of organic beef to consumers like me who had become wary of the factory methods of production that had led to the BSE crisis.

With the appearance of organic beef on Belgian supermarket shelves, other organic produce soon followed and the shelf space dedicated to organic foods steadily grew. IFOAM-Organics International defines organic agriculture as “a production system that sustains the health of soils, ecosystems, and people. It relies on ecological processes, biodiversity and cycles adapted to local conditions, rather than the use of inputs with adverse effects. Organic Agriculture combines tradition, innovation, and science to benefit the shared environment and promote fair relationships and good quality of life for all involved.”

Today, in the West at least, it is perfectly possible to eat, drink and even dress only organic; but you must have deep pockets because organic produce is more expensive than conventionally grown produce.

The right to adequate food is recognised in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is enshrined in the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of which Kenya is a signatory. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights of the United Nations clarifies that the right to adequate food implies that food must be available, accessible and it must also be adequate, meaning that “the food must satisfy dietary needs . . . be safe for human consumption and free from adverse substances, such as contaminants from industrial or agricultural processes, including residues from pesticides, hormones or veterinary drugs . . . .” The irony is that even though produce that is certified organic meets all of these requirements, it is not produced in sufficient quantities and where it can be found, it is beyond the reach of most consumers, whether they are in the West or here in Kenya.

Having jumped on the organic consumers’ bandwagon back in Brussels after the 1998 dioxin- contaminated chicken crisis finally convinced me to abandon conventionally-grown produce, I was keen to maintain the lifestyle once back in Kenya, only to find the limited choice of produce that is certified organic prohibitively expensive. I did the next best thing and decided to grow organic fruits and vegetables, both for my own consumption and for sale to the end consumer, and thus did I come into close contact with the world of farming.

City girl born and bred, and never having grown so much as a blade of grass, I needed all the help I could get and turned to Mr John Wanjau Njoroge, founder and director of the Kenya Institute of Organic Farming and a pioneer of the organic movement in Kenya. Mr Njoroge sent me a recently graduated young couple who set me on the road to organic farming. It has been a steep learning curve; after a first successful crop of greenhouse tomatoes, bacterial wilt decimated the second one.

Kenyan smallholder farmers produce 80 per cent of the 400,000 tonnes of tomatoes produced annually — representing 7 per cent of all horticultural produce grown every year — but commercial production of the fruit is fraught with difficulties; if it isn’t tuta absoluta, it is fusariam wilt, or if you’re really unlucky, it is both. And so, to control these and other pests and diseases, farmers reach for chemical pesticides and fungicides.

The trade in pesticides in Kenya is largely in the control of private sector distributors and retailers who import and distribute the products to the Kenyan end-user, but there appears to be a training deficit in the safe use of these chemicals. Farmers rely on agrovets and agricultural extension officers for information on pesticides, yet the Kenya Organic Agriculture Network (KOAN) has reported that “they are recommending pesticide products that are toxic to human health, bees and fish”.

An analysis of pesticide residues in tomatoes and french beans from Murang’a and Kiambu counties found the presence of omethoate in tomatoes, an active ingredient whose use in vegetables is banned in Kenya, suggesting “poor pesticide handling practices by some tomato farmers in the two counties”.

And the situation is not much better in Laikipia County where a 2019 study of pesticide application and pesticide residue levels in kales and tomatoes in the Ewaso Narok wetland found that the majority of farmers had no training in the use of pesticides. The study also found chlorpyrifos and diazinon residues in the tomatoes sampled; both these active ingredients are banned in the European Union.

It is particularly worrying that chlorpyrifos — a pesticide that is harmful to the brains of foetuses and young children — can still be found on the Kenyan market. Chlorpyrifos was banned in the EU in February 2020 but it is also one of the seven active ingredients in the pesticides and fungicides that were found by KOAN to be in use in Kirinyaga and Murang’a counties.

KOAN reports that “The pesticides withdrawn in Europe are mostly used on tomatoes (15 active ingredients), followed by kale (14), maize (14), cabbage (10), coffee (10) and french beans (6). Since tomatoes, kale, maize and cabbage are part of the daily Kenyan diet, there is a real and significant threat to food safety.” The study found that tomatoes had the highest toxicity score, followed by kales and maize, all foods eaten by Kenyans daily.

It is particularly worrying that a pesticide that is harmful to the brains of foetuses and young children can still be found on the Kenyan market.

But even more worryingly, KOAN reports having found high residue levels of acephate and methamidophos in the tomatoes sampled. Acephate, which has been withdrawn in Europe, is registered by the Pest Control Products Board for use on roses and tobacco. Methamidophos is not registered for use in Kenya.

The reason why active ingredients which have been withdrawn in the EU (or whose use is restricted) find their way to Kenya is because of the so-called Double Standard; EU Regulation EC304/2003 allows EU companies to produce and export to other countries pesticides that are banned or restricted in the EU, effectively protecting EU citizens while exposing non-EU citizens to the ravages of dangerous chemicals and infringing on their right to food that is safe for human consumption. Indeed, the United Nations Special Rapporteurs on Toxic Wastes and the Right to Food have found that “widely divergent standards of production, use and protection from hazardous pesticides in different countries are creating double standards, which are having a serious impact on human rights.”

And while the Rotterdam Convention requires an exporter based in an EU member state to indicate their intention to export banned or severely restricted chemicals to a non-EU country so that the latter is alerted, this arrangement is hypocritical and merely serves to enable EU companies to continue manufacturing dangerous chemicals for sale in non-EU countries while providing them with the ready excuse that importing countries are aware of the nature of the chemicals they are bringing in.

Domesticating the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 43 (1) (c) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 states that, “Every person has the right to be free from hunger, and to have adequate food of acceptable quality.” In line with this last requirement, and in the face of the dangers presented by the poorly regulated trade in pesticides, the Route to Food Initiative (RTFI), Biodiversity and Biosafety Association of Kenya, Kenya Organic Agriculture Network and Resources Oriented Development Initiative petitioned the National Assembly in September 2019 to withdraw harmful pesticides from the Kenyan Market.

In their petition, they reported that there are products on the Kenyan market which are classified as carcinogenic (24), mutagenic (24), endocrine disrupter (35), neurotoxic (140) and many others which have been shown to have an effect on reproduction (262). The petitioners argued that, while the volume of imports of insecticides, herbicides and fungicides had grown 144 per cent between 2015 and 2018, there was no data available concerning pesticide use and its impact on food and the environment, and also noted that the increase in pesticide use had not been accompanied by the necessary safeguards to control their application.

The petitioners also said that by failing to publish information in its possession on the levels of pesticide residues in food samples collected, and to put in place a monitoring system, the Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Service (KEPHIS) was acting in contravention of Section 15 of the Pest Control Products Act. The petitioners also accused the Pests Control Products Board (PCBP) of failing to adhere to the international codes of conduct of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

In its report on the petition tabled a year later in October 2020, the National Assembly’s Departmental Committee on Health responded that a blanket ban “without due consideration or risk assessment will not help, especially in the tropical conditions and areas experiencing an invasion of pests and diseases throughout the year.” The committee also argued that “severe limitation of the number of products available . . . will make sustainable use of plant protection products difficult, particularly managing the development of resistant pest populations.” The committee claimed that such a ban would threaten food security, lead to expensive food and reduced farmer incomes due to insufficient production.

The committee did however recommend that the PCPB develop regulations to ensure that only licensed and registered persons run agrovet outlets, and that the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries undertake an analysis of the products on the Kenyan market in order to exclude those that are carcinogenic, mutagenic, neurotoxic and endocrine disruptors, and recommend the withdrawal from the Kenyan market of harmful and toxic pesticides. All this was to take place within 90 days.

Well, I visited two agrovets in our little township here in Nyandarua County who both told me that PCPB inspectors came calling last year to ensure that licence fees were paid and to ascertain that the products on their shelves had the PCPB logo indicating that they are authorised for sale in Kenya. Neither has been informed of any changes in the PCPB list of pest control products registered for use in Kenya and I could have bought pesticides and fungicides containing all but two of the active ingredients that KOAN found on produce in Kirinyaga and Murang’a counties: chlorpyrifos, which as I have mentioned above is harmful to the brains of foetuses and young children; diazinon, a neurotoxic organophosphate;  permethrin, a neurotoxin that is also highly toxic to animals, particularly fish and cats; bifenthrin, which has been classified as a possible carcinogenic; and carbendazim, a mutagenic fungicide that can cause birth defects and damage fertility. These active ingredients — all of which are banned in the EU — are among the top ten most harmful ingredients in terms of toxicity for humans and the environment.

Route to Food, which has done a study on pesticide use in Kenya, notes that, “Pesticides can persist in the environment for decades and pose a global threat to the entire ecological system upon which food production depends. Excessive use and misuse of pesticides results in contamination of surrounding soil and water sources, causing loss of biodiversity, destroying beneficial insect populations that act as natural enemies of pests and reducing the nutritional value of food.”

If we are agreed that access to safe food is a human right, then we must reject food production methods that endanger our health and put our lives in peril, that pollute our water and our environment and jeopardise our biodiversity, methods that put the profits of the shareholders of companies domiciled in foreign countries before the wellbeing of Kenyan consumers.

It is ironical that Kenya goes to great lengths to meet the phytosanitary conditions and Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) imposed by the EU – Kenya’s main market for horticultural exports – while at the same time exposing its own citizens to the dangers of toxic pesticides manufactured in the EU.

If we are agreed that access to safe food is a human right, then we must reject food production methods that endanger our health.

We are not condemned to remain on the path of industrial agriculture, which has proven to be so devastating to the environment and to human health. As Daniel Maingi notes, “Perhaps it is time we looked to nature and farmers’ know-how in using another branch of science called agroecology” which, as the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has recognised, is “holistic, balancing focus on people and the planet, the three dimensions of sustainable development – social, economic and environmental – while strengthening the livelihoods of smallholder food producers.”

We must therefore be vocal in our support of the endeavours of organisations such as the Route to Food Initiative, Biodiversity and Biosafety Association of Kenya, the Kenyan Organic Agriculture Network and Resources Oriented Development Initiative, in order to ensure that the recommendations of the National Assembly’s Departmental Committee on Health do not remain a dead letter but form the basis of a fundamental change in the way we produce the food we eat.

This article is part of The Elephant Food Edition Series done in collaboration with Route to Food Initiative (RTFI). Views expressed in the article are not necessarily those of the RTFI.
Continue Reading

Politics

How Biotechnologies are Shaping Kenya’s Food Ecosystem

Kenya has severally taken the top spot in “enabling the business of agriculture” annual rankings, opening its doors to patent-protected biotechnologies that could lead to the effective loss of our food sovereignty.

Published

on

How Biotechnologies are Shaping Kenya’s Food Ecosystem
Download PDFPrint Article

It has been said that he who controls the food, controls the people. But others have added that he who controls the seed, controls the food system. The race by multinational corporations (MNCs) to own and register patent protection on seeds and genetic traits, including DNA sequences, has led to a hierarchy of big players who now dominate the global markets through national and international legal instruments.

We have reached the stage where only four corporations dominate the global seeds and genetic traits markets, as they roll out patent-protected biotechnologies to both large and smallholder farmers worldwide. This is seen as a critical step in shaping food ecosystems here in Kenya and elsewhere in the world.

Power relations and roles in the biotech industry

During the last three years the world has witnessed spectacular mergers and acquisitions amongst the biggest actors in the industry — DowDuPont now Corteva, Bayer-Monsanto now just Bayer, and Syngenta/ChemChina. Together with BASF, these merged MNCs now control over 70 per cent of the global seed and pesticides market.

Their far-reaching wealth and power has been enabled by states and government actors working with global organisations such as the WTO (World Trade Organization) and UPOV (Union for the Protection of New Plant Varieties). The consequences have been a concentration of market share and influence, capital accumulation, and unprecedented economies of scale which have led to the marginalisation and the disinheritance of our common seed and genetic resources. The process of agricultural investment in so-called biotech innovation has come to be known as “the Green Revolution” or, increasingly now, the “Gene Revolution”.

Green Revolution (GR) is best understood as the wide-scale adoption and use of disruptive agricultural research and various technologies, including biotech, that are intended to increase agricultural productivity. Green revolutions therefore effectively convert farming and agriculture into an industrial system, because of the extensive adoption and use of new high-yielding seed varieties that often must be accompanied by the intensive use of mechanisation, large volumes of water and expensive irrigation infrastructure, pesticides, and fertilisers. The seed is a critical piece of GR and is the first portal to creating large-scale bio-economies, and imposing and enforcing patent and breeders’ rights protection through national and binding international laws.

The larger GR endeavour was initiated by Norman Borlaug. With funding from the Rockefeller Foundation, Borlaug helped develop high-yielding dwarf varieties of rust-resistant wheat. The Green Revolution’s early success in India was led by the agricultural scientist M. S. Swaminathan. He is known as the “Father of Green Revolution in India” for his role in introducing Borlaug’s dwarf varieties of wheat and rice in India. One of the impacts of this green revolution was that the yields of wheat and rice doubled, but the production of other food crops such as indigenous rice varieties, sorghums, millets, and pulses declined. This led to the loss of distinct indigenous varieties from cultivation and also caused the extinction of others.

Seed biotechnologies have profoundly changed consumption patterns over the years; the dietary diversity of India’s population has decreased as Indians eat more wheat and rice devoid of nutritive value.  Studies have shown that traditional coarse cereals (complex carbohydrates, high protein) have been permanently replaced by more white wheat and polished rice diets (simple carbohydrate, low protein), with the accompanying effects of obesity and malnutrition. An overweight population (BMI>25) has emerged as a new public health challenge, and this is most evident in large-landholding households, especially in the high-input agriculture areas.

In Africa, the first green revolution was a failure and efforts have been underway for a relaunch. The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) was founded in 2006 to bring high-yield agricultural practices and biotechnologies to millions of smallholder farming households. Bill Gates has an absorbed relationship with the wonder of computers and technologies.  Fascinated by the possibilities of big data and biotechnologies as the centerpiece for a new disruptive revolution in Africa’s agriculture, Bill Gates, through the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, together with partners including the Rockefeller Foundation, have collectively pumped more than US$1 billion in funding to the Nairobi-based AGRA.

Indians now eat more wheat and white rice devoid of other nutrients that used to come from the inclusion of sorghum, millet and mung beans in traditional diets.

To the delight of agribusiness corporations, GR means an expansion in the use of new biotech seeds, fertilisers, pesticides and, of course, irrigation infrastructure and the related mechanisation. To ensure that new seed technologies are adopted and used on a larger scale, Bill Gates has also channeled significant funding to entities such as the African Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF), African Seed Trade Association, Kenya’s seed trader associations, and private companies. The goal is to influence and catalyse the transformation of agriculture policies and legislations and open up Kenya for commercial agriculture.

Together with the World Bank, the Gates Foundation has funded local stakeholders to lobby and advocate for reforms to remove “obstacles” in policies, laws, and regulations in agriculture, in what they term as “enabling the business of agriculture” (EBA). The annual ranking of countries is closely watched by investors and used by the World Bank, USAID, DfID, and other bilateral donors, to guide their funding. As a result, EBA drives the race to deregulate. Governments in poor countries compete with each other to “reform and change their agricultural laws” so that they can be ranked among the “Doing Business” best performers. Kenya’s performance in these rankings is also keenly followed by pro-biotech advocacy lobby groups.

The technology is the seed

Seeds carry the genetic traits or DNA sequences claimed as proprietary rights by the breeders or corporations that control them. The technology is in the seed and is the seed. Through stewardship agreements, farmers purchase seed, promise and sign on the dotted line that they are merely renters of the biotechnology and not owners. As such, they cannot multiply that seed for replanting; new seed must be purchased. They can also not store, give to others or even sell their harvested seed. Failure to adhere to these terms is a violation punishable by national and international laws. This means that MNCs are effectively controlling what food ecosystems emerge once a country decides to rely on biotech-gene seeds. It is an effective loss of food sovereignty and an abuse of farmers’ rights to seed, including the right to food at the household level.

Unfortunately, there have been many incidences where seed corporations systematically replace indigenous seeds with their proprietary hybrids through “generous donations”. After a few seasons, faced with a lack of alternative sources, the users must purchase patent-protected seeds.

Such is the case of the recently rolled-out Bt. cotton hybrids in Kenya. Dubbed first-generation biotech crops, Bt. traits focused on increasing market share and profits to patent holders by promising to eliminate the need for pesticide sprays against a limited range of insects. Another GM crop resistant to Round-up herbicide sprays caused enormous increases in Bayer’s sale of its herbicide, resulting in massive increases in market dominance. Once these crops become entrenched in the market and food ecosystem, farmers are often faced with a serious challenge as there are no alternative versions from other competing companies. In Kenya — as in India — Bayer-Mahyco has absolute power and market control, a situation enabled by the government with little public discourse.

Through stewardship agreements, farmers must purchase seeds and promise by signing on the dotted line that they are merely renters of the seed and not owners.

In the second-generation biotech crops, there was a focus on the traits desired by farmers, and much of the research was funded by public-private partnerships, as opposed to being funded only by the private sector, as was the case for first-generation GMOs. Virus-resistant cassava and sweet potato, together with GM banana in Uganda, are candidates in the former category, which is seen as an attempt by MNCs to repair their public image with the help of philanthro-capitalists like Bill Gates. These Biotech crops are vegetatively propagated (not grown from seed), and are not amenable to traditional plant breeding, creating an opening for a GM approach. Critically, vegetative propagation also means that farmers do not need to repurchase seed every year. What effect these second-generation feel-good biotech crops will have on the food ecosystems is yet to be ascertained. Second-generation GMOs in agriculture include “functional” plants designed to produce pharmaceuticals, fuels, and industrial compounds. It is doubtful that these new biotechnologies will have a role in Kenya’s food ecosystem.

The future of GR in Kenya’s food system

In India, GR technologies were rolled out in 1967 when dwarf and rust-resistant wheat varieties were released. The results were so fast and so significant that, just three years later, Norman Borlaug was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 in recognition of his contributions to world peace through increasing food supply. It is claimed that he saved a billion people from starvation.

In Africa, it has now been 15 long years since the new GR was launched. AGRA pledged in self-declared milestones that it would double the earnings of 20 million small farmers by 2020 while halving food shortages in 20 African countries. A Tuft University study found little evidence of significant increases in productivity, income, or food security for people in the 13 main AGRA target countries, but rather, demonstrated that AGRA’s Green Revolution model is failing. Between 2013 and 2015, AGRA and CIMMYT released at least 25 water-efficient drought-tolerant maize hybrids (WEMA) for farmers in Kenya. To date, there have not been any magical yield increases as was evident in India when the hybrid wheat and rice varieties were released. Despite the widespread use of these biotech varieties, the increased use of pesticides and fertilisers, and the extensive use of tractors, GR remains a dream in Kenya’s food economies.

There have been many incidences where MNCs systematically replace farmers’ own indigenous seeds with their proprietary hybrid seeds by providing “generous seed and fertiliser donations”.

Why is it so difficult to ignite a green revolution in Africa? AGRA has funded projects and lobbied African governments for the development of policies and market structures that promote the adoption of Green Revolution technology packages. Kenya has taken the top spot in enabling the business of agriculture, opening its doors to these biotechnologies. It has won praise and accolades from donors and partners. What else is there to be achieved? It is highly doubtful that affixing Bayer’s Bt. insect toxin gene to the drought-tolerant WEMA (now TELA) trait will be the launch of Kenya’s green (maize) revolution. It is also highly uncertain that Kenyans will suddenly change their modern dietary habits and start eating biotech cassava, engineered, not for high yields, but to resist viruses.

There is a wave of “new genetic modification techniques” touted to lead to the third generation of GMOs. These include genome editing using various tools such as special enzymes to cut, repair, or even bring new segments into the DNA of living food organisms. Such technics appear to be science visioning, with biotech supporters saying that one will be able to delete allergy traits from the DNA of peanuts and make lactose-free milk to the joy of lactose-intolerant populations.  These modification techniques have already been tested out in the current roll-out of mRNA-mediated covid-19 vaccines, and appear poised to make a thundering entrance into Kenya’s and Uganda’s food ecosystem through cassava that is protected against viruses. Noteworthy is that citizen resistance against this GMO technology will be met with a stern and stark reminder that it is the same GM technology that was used to protect us from the coronavirus and its associated mutations. The new GM technology skipped many important safety and risk assessments and the vaccines were released under public emergency orders worldwide.

In 1967, Norman Borlaug’s GR varieties undoubtedly averted food shortages albeit temporarily. But they were unable to deter poverty. In fact, GR technologies might have added to it. The high-yielding seeds demand expensive fertilisers and more water. In India, GR led to rural impoverishment, increased debt, social inequality, and the displacement of vast numbers of peasant farmers.

What then must we do to ensure a just and equitable food system in Kenya? What is the way forward for gene and green revolutions in Kenya? It appears that our experts and technologists have had every room and resource to make Kenya food-secure using all forms of modern biotechnologies yet there have been no significant results to phone home about. Perhaps it is time to cut our losses and shirk the industrial-agricultural model that is based on industrial principles. Climate change is not helping Kenyan farmers. Researchers have been unable to come up with solid biotechnologies that can sustainably overcome stresses from our unique harsh farming climates. Perhaps it is time we looked to nature and farmers’ know-how in using another branch of science called agroecology.

GR agriculture increased farmer debt, which resulted in increased social inequality, and the displacement of vast numbers of peasant farmers who had to make way for larger farms.

Agroecology encourages the building of resilience through crop and varietal biodiversity on the farm. Monocrops are to be avoided to reduce pests and diseases. Farmers and extensionists teach that planting mixed varieties of locally adapted maize on the same farm creates resilience against pests like stem borers and fall armyworms that GMO Bt. maize seeks to control. Farm-level diversity is the key to survival. Seeds with many traits – drought resistance, early ripening tendencies – make for greater ability to adapt to climate change. Relying on just a few varieties is dangerous and making unending royalty payments to the holders of those food varieties is worse as it undermines food sovereignty at the farm level.

Agroecology encourages the defense of farmers’ rights, the rights to nature, and demands the renegotiating of the contract between state and society as stipulated in our 2010 constitution. Farmers have a right to seed for food and livelihoods. They should be able to freely keep, further develop, sell or even gift their planting material as is culturally accepted. The government should be at the forefront of protecting their rights – and not creating skewed power relations between farmers and farm input providers.

Good agroecology practices further demand an accelerated shift towards local food production and short supply chains. The emphasis is on local food sufficiency that encourages ethical consumerism.

There is an urgent need to review, reform, and reconfigure the UN’s agri-food agencies to be more responsive to the poor and disadvantaged in the food system. The FAO (Food Agriculture Organization) and the CGIAR (Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research) have received funding from the World Bank and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, swaying research and policy priorities towards more biotechnologies in our food systems. Dr Agnes Kalibata, President of AGRA and board member of the International Fertilizer Development Center, has been appointed as the UN Secretary General’s special envoy to the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit to be held in September 2021. This signals that the summit will be yet another forum that advances the interests of MNCs and agribusiness at the expense of farmers.

It is time to put the seed back into the hands of the farmers. Remember, he who controls the seed controls the food system. If Kenya is to take back control of its food system and reassert its sovereignty over its agriculture, its citizens — free from corporate influences — must be at the forefront of any restructuring of the food system. This is the only path to a just and sustainable food bio-economy that is not subject to the whims and fancies of corporate controllers of biotechnologies.

This article is part of The Elephant Food Edition Series done in collaboration with Route to Food Initiative (RTFI). Views expressed in the article are not necessarily those of the RTFI.
Continue Reading

Trending